The Cross Section, Volume 6, Number 1, June 1959 Page: 3
This periodical is part of the collection entitled: Texas State Publications and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
- #r
from u n tr e
shown at left.
is from Jarr
chemically tre
ter was very cle
fairly large fl(
pension by the
That night t]
and very high
storm warnings
weather was st
samples were o
the wmnd was sl
hard so that th
was choppy ar
smooth, but Ja
sparkling clear.
very turbid an(
photograph tak
the difference i
the two sampl+
suspended solid
ples as determine
Jutine 1959eCLEARS AKE WATER Of WOST SUSPflDED Tf
- S
FaGURE 3-Cloudy water sample
from untreated Cooper Lake is
shown at left. Clear sample at right
is from Jarrott Lake which was
chemically treated.
ter was very clear but there were some
fairly large flocs being held in sus-
pension by the turbulence.
That night there were heavy rains
and very high winds with tornado
storm warnings. The following day the
weather was still windy and cold. No
samples were obtained. The third day
the wind was still blowing moderately
hard so that the surface of the water
was choppy and rough rather than
smooth, but Jarrott Lake was almost
sparkling clear. Cooper Lake was still
very turbid and brown. Figure 3 is a
photograph taken in the field to show
the difference in appearance between
the two samples. Table I shows the
suspended solids in each of the sam-
ples as determined by laboratory fil-
tration of the samples.
These data show that the chemicaltubing to the inlet of the 15 inch pipe
(pipe connecting lake with sump). A
dynamatic Adjusto-speede motor was
used for controlling the flow rate of
the Separan solution. The rate at
which the lake water enters the sump
was controllable with a large gate
valve, but there was no way to mea-
sure the rate. A flow meter exists be-
tween the sump and the recharge well
so that flow rates will be known only
when equilibrium c o n d it i o n s are
reached.
A sample of the untreated lake wa-
ter was obtained and then an estimat-
ed flow of 1000 gpm was started and
the Separan flow rate was adjusted to
400 cc per minute. This represents a
treatment level of 0.5 ppm. The sump
was permitted to fill to equilibrium
and a sample of the water in the sump
was taken for analysis. The suspend-
ed solids in each of these samples is
shown in Table II. Samples taken of
the sump water were very cloudy
even though the bulk of the material
was flocculated and did settle easily.
A sample of the lake water was treat-
ed with 0.5 ppm by adding Separan
AP30 with an eye dropper. It also
showed a very cloudy residual water.
At first it was thought that much of
this was due to organic material in sus-
pension. However, one of the men ob-
served that on the morning following
these initial tests, the heel of water
in the sump was remarkably clear. He
could see the bottom very clearly
through three feet of water. It was
also observed that all of the samples
which had Separan AP30 in them didTABLE I
Suspended Solids In Treated And Untreated Playa Lakes
Cooper Lake
Jarrott Lake (control)
Description of Sample ppm ppmIN
AM4= IL - -g
7
~ -, A
-.
-
. -
- .- . "-.
FIGURE 4-View of Sutton Lake and settling sump. Chemical in solution form
was mixed with lake water using equipment on trailer shown at left.ITTER
ditions. The weather was too cold and
windy to continue testing, but it was
decided that the High Plains District
would continue this study to deter-
mine if higher treatment levels or ad-
ditional agitation through the use of
baffles in the pipe would be benefi-
cial.
Although the application of the dry
Separan AP30 powder to a lake by
use of crop dusting planes appears
very promising, continued efforts will
be expended to improve the results
obtainable with solution feed. Besides
flowing the lake water into a sump it
was suggested that the water be treat-
ed and then flowed down a long chan-
nel (possibly one-half mile long) and
see if the water becomes clear. This
will necessitate lifting the water to
high ground and therefore may be of
only academic interest, but it would
show what clarity can be accomplish-
ed with extensive gentle agitation. In
addition to solution treatment of the
water as it flows to the well, the treat-
ment of the whole lake with Separan
solution dispersed from a motorboat
should be considered. It is believed
that the high viscosity of a 0.1 to 0.5%
solution would make it difficult to use
airplane sprays. Also, small aircraft
are limited to 800 pounds per trip and
the spraying of dilute Separan solu-
tions would entail too much volume to
be feasible.
The dusting of the dry powder will
be repeated on several more lakes.
Both the regular grade and the fine
grind material will be used. In addi-tion, some thought should be given to
blowing dust across the lake by use
of an electric blower from the upwind
shore of the lake. Another method
suggested was the use of a small hand
operated "cyclone" duster with which
the farmers are familiar. It is possible
that the excellent results obtained
with this one test are partially due to
the storm and the very high winds and
turbulence which continued for 24-36
hours after the chemical was added.
Therefore, the future testing program
should include crop dusting of more
lakes just before high winds are fore-
cast and also during periods of normal
winds.
Another suggestion considered was
the application of the powder over a
dry lake bed by the use of regular
spreaders. It probably would be nec-
essary to dilute the powder by first
mixing it with several tons of gypsum
or lime, but the farmer would not ob-
ject to this. It is possible that the first
rain that falls would dissolve the Sepa-
ran AP30 and it would all stick to the
soil. Then silt carried in with the run-
off water would be untreated. How-
ever, this may not be the case and
since the application would be so
simple and could be done by the farm-.
er himself, it is suggested that this
method be tested.
If we can be of any further assis-
tance feel free to call us.
Sincerely yours,
MELVIN F. KATZER
Research DepartmentPage 3
THE CROSS SECTION
These data sI
Suspe
Date
4/6/59 Sam
any
4/6/59 Sam
any
4/6/59 Jarr
1 PO
foot
4/7/59 Sam
men
4/9/59 Sam
treal
mod
treatment was~
fying the water.
come riled in 1
storm on April'
ran AP30 in Ja
flocculated it a
Solution trea
was attempted
erate success.
the lake and th
mounted tb
pumps and is
or settling bash
of the irrigation
tion also as a I
solution of Sep~
ed and fed thrs
Date 0
4/7/59 Laki
4/7/59 Wat
4/7/59 Wat
rechCooper Lake
Jarrott Lake (control)
Description of Sample ppm ppm
Date Description of Sample ppm ppm
4/6/59 Sample taken 30' out in lake before
any chemical treatment 32
4/6/59 Sample taken at shore line before
any chemical treatment 68, 63 76
4/6/59 Jarrott Lake was then treated with
1 pound Separan AP30 per acre
foot of water
4/7/59 Sample taken one day after treat-
ment (wind blowing very hard) 93 369
4/9/59 Sample taken three days after
treatment (wind blowing only
moderately hard) 36 340
treatment was very successful in clari- become clear by the time they were
fying the water. The silt must have be- filtered in the laboratory. The untreat-
come riled in both lakes during the ed samples were still somewhat turbid
storm on April 7-8, 1959, but the Sepa- when they were filtered. This was a
ran AP30 in Jarrott Lake successfully week after the samples had been tak-
flocculated it and redeposited it. en. In view of this it is believed that
Solution treatment at Sutton Lake the essential factor missing in the
was attempted and showed only mod- solution treatment test was sufficient
erate success. Figure 4 is a view of lapse of time to produce good clari-
the lake and the trailer on which was fication. Additional work was attempt-
m o u n t ed the solution tanks and ed at this installation on April 9, 1959
pumps and is a v i e w of the sump and one series of samples taken in
or settling basin. Figure 5 is a picture the lake, at the sump influent and at
of the irrigation well modified to func- the recharge well influent as shown
tion also as a recharge well. A 0.5% in Table II, above. Again the samples
solution of Separan AP30 was prepar- show that considerable material re-
ed and fed through 250 feet of saran mains in suspension under these con-
TABLE i
Samples Of Sutton Lake Water
Suspended Solids,
Date Description of Sample ppm
4/7/59 Lake water "as is" (Before treatment.) 1280
4/7/59 Water at inlet end of sump (Before treatment) 1690
4/7/59 Water at outlet of sump but before
recharge was started (After treatment) 157IG -.
r ~
FIGUE SSuton rchage ell s aso sed s nrma irrgaton ell8
r
P
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View four pages within this issue that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 (Tex.). The Cross Section, Volume 6, Number 1, June 1959, periodical, June 1959; Lubbock, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1532811/m1/3/?q=%22~1%22~1: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.