Cover photograph shows Parshall Flume and water-stage recorder on Mapleton 

Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah. The flume is located on the upper end of the 

canal near Spanish Fork Canyon, which can be seen in the background. 

Discharge in the canal was 17.3 cubic feet per second when the photograph was 

taken on June 27, 2003.
Seepage Study of Mapleton Lateral Canal 

near Mapleton, Utah, 2003

By C.D. Wilkowske and J.V. Phillips

Prepared in cooperation with the

CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

Scientific Investigations Report No. 2004-5210

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, Colorado 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, it contains copyrighted materials that are noted in the text. 

Permission to reproduce those items must be secured from the individual copyright owners.
 iii

CONTENTS

Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Evaluation of Seepage Gains and Losses for Mapleton Lateral Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing location of measurement sites on Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 2. Photograph showing measurement site ML1 and water-stage recorder at Parshall Flume on Mapleton Lateral

Canal near Mapleton, Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 3. Graphs showing gage height at water-stage recorder at site ML1 on Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah . . . . 9

Figure 4. Graphs showing gage height at water-stage recorder at site ML6 on Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah . . . . 10

Figure 5. Graphs showing measured and apparent average seepage gain or loss for reaches of Mapleton Lateral Canal 

near Mapleton, Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Tables

Table 1. Flow, specific-conductance, and water-temperature measurements made on Mapleton Lateral Canal near 

Mapleton, Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 2. Calculated seepage gains and losses for Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
iv 

CONVERSION FACTORS AND DATUMS

Water temperature is reported in degrees Celsius (oC), which can be converted to degrees 

Fahrenheit (o

F) by using the following equation:

oF = 9/5(o

C)+32.

Chemical concentration and water temperature are reported only in metric units. Chemical 

concentration is reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (μg/L). 

Milligrams per liter is a unit expressing the mass of solute per unit volume (liter) of water. 

For concentrations less than 7,000 milligrams per liter, the numerical value is about the 

same as for concentrations in parts per million. Specific conductance is reported in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm).

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 

1929 (NAVD 29). Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American 

Datum of 1927 (NAD 27).

Multiply By To obtain

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer
Seepage Study of Mapleton Lateral Canal 

near Mapleton, Utah, 2003

By C.D. Wilkowske and J.V. Phillips

Abstract

A study was conducted during the summer of 2003 

on Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah, to 

determine gain or loss of flow in the canal from seepage. 

Measurements were made in May, June, July, and 

September of 2003. The uppermost reach of the canal 

had an apparent average loss of 2.6 cubic feet per second. 

The next reach downstream showed an apparent average 

gain of 1.4 cubic feet per second. The next three 

downstream reaches had apparent average losses of 2.4, 

2.5, and 2.7 cubic feet per second. The apparent average 

net loss from the canal was 8.8 cubic feet per second, or a 

loss of 30 percent of the total discharge measured at the 

head of the canal. 

Introduction

Information on seepage gains and losses is needed 

by water managers at the Central Utah Water 

Conservancy District (CUWCD) to determine the total 

amount of water lost to the subsurface in an approximate 

6-mi stretch of the Mapleton Lateral Canal located 

between the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon and the city 

of Mapleton, Utah (fig. 1). The canal is approximately 

10 to 15 ft in width and is mostly of earthen construction 

except for a small section lined with concrete. Flow in 

the canal generally occurs during May through 

September, the primary irrigation season. This report 

describes the methods used to obtain flow measurements 

made along Mapleton Lateral Canal from May to 

September to determine the amount of seepage gains and 

losses and discusses the results of four sets of 

measurements. 

Methods

A reconnaissance of the canal was completed 

during the summer of 2002. The canal was examined for 

general conditions, location of control and turnout 

structures, and areas of natural and irrigation-return 

flows. Six measuring sites (ML1 to ML6) on the main 

canal were selected (fig. 1) with the information collected 

during the reconnaissance. During each set of flow 

measurements, water-stage recorders were operated at 

the upstream and downstream end of the canal to 

determine any change in stage. The upstream recorder 

was a float-driven electronic data recorder installed by 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and located in a 

Parshall Flume at station ML1 (fig. 1). A photograph of 

this station is shown in figure 2. The downstream 

recorder was an existing recorder in a flume that is 

operated by the Springville Canal Company and is 

located at site ML6 (fig. 1). 

Four sets of flow measurements were made during 

the summer of 2003. The measurements were made on 

May 30, June 27, July 30, and September 3, 2003. Each 

set consisted of flow measurements at selected sites 

along the main canal, and flow measurements into and 

out of the diversions that were in use. 

Flow measurements were made using standard 

methods of the USGS (Buchanan and Somers, 1969). 

For each set of flow measurements, the date, time, and 

amount from each measurement location are listed in 

table 1. Specific conductance and water temperature 

were measured on September 3 with a YSI 600QS multiparameter meter that was calibrated with certified 

specific-conductance standards. Seepage gains and 

losses along the reaches were calculated by subtracting 

the downstream flow measurement from the next 

upstream flow measurement and then adding in any 

turnouts (TO) and subtracting the return flows (R). An 

average value for the four sets of flow measurements was 

calculated for each reach. These averages are considered 
2 Seepage study of the Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah

apparent averages because of the uncertainty of changing 

seepage with changing flow conditions during the 

irrigation season. 

Water-stage records from the upstream recorder are 

shown in figure 3, and records from the downstream 

recorder are shown in figure 4. Flows in the canal and the 

diversions generally were held constant during the 

measurements, except on May 30, 2003, when the 

diversion at TO8, located between ML4 and ML5, was 

closed. Flow on May 30, 2003, at station ML5 was 

measured at 11:30 and at ML6 at 11:15. The diversion at 

TO8 was closed at 9:10. This allowed for sufficient time 

for flow at station ML5 to reach a steady-state condition. 

The seepage loss measured between stations ML4 and 

ML5 was therefore calculated by using no flow at the 

diversion at TO8. The flow measurement made at station 

ML6 was made as the stage in the canal was rising (fig. 

3); therefore, this measurement should be considered a 

minimum flow for the station. 

Evaluation of Seepage Gains and Losses for 

Mapleton Lateral Canal

All of the flow measurements made for each of the 

four measurement dates are shown in table 1. The 

computed gain or loss and distance for each of the five 

reaches is shown in figure 5. During the summer, the 

seepage varied within each individual reach. This 

variation is shown by the scatter of the plotted points in 

figure 5. A plot of the apparent average seepage gain or 

loss in relation to the measured seepage also is shown in 

figure 5. The calculated seepage gain or loss for each 

measurement, and the apparent average gain or loss for 

all the Mapleton Lateral Canal reaches is shown in table 

2. The total gain or loss is also shown as a percentage of 

the flow measured at station ML1. 

Reach ML1 to ML2 showed a consistent loss for 

all measurement dates (fig. 5). The seepage loss ranged 

from 0.2 ft3/s on June 27, 2003, to 5.5 ft3/s on July 30, 

2003. The apparent average seepage loss for the reach 

was 2.6 ft3

/s or about 2.0 ft3/s per mi (table 2).

Reach ML2 to ML3 showed a consistent net gain 

for all measurement dates (fig. 5). The greatest gains 

occurred during the first two dates in May and June. 

During this period, the apparent average gain to the reach 

was 2.5 ft3

/s. During the July and September 

measurements, the apparent average gain to the reach was 

only 0.4 ft3

/s. The apparent average gain throughout the 

summer was 1.4 ft3/s or 1.3 ft3/s per mi (table 2). A short 

section of the canal is lined with concrete in this reach; 

however, because of the scale of the measurements, no 

effect from the concrete could be determined.

Reach ML3 to ML4 showed a consistent seepage 

loss for all measurements. The greatest seepage loss 

occurred during the first two measurements in May and 

June. The apparent average loss during this period was 4 

ft3

/s. During July through September the loss was only 

0.8 ft3/s. This pattern is not seen in any other losing 

canal reach and may have been caused by entrapment of 

air or fine sediment along the canal bed that decreased 

the seepage rate during the latter part of the summer. The 

apparent average loss for this reach was 2.4 ft3

/s or 2.6 

ft3

/s per mi (table 2).

Reach ML4 to ML5 showed a consistent loss for 

all measurements. The seepage loss ranged from 1.0 ft3/s 

at the end of June to 5.3 ft3

/s at the end of July. The 

highest seepage loss coincided with the highest flow in 

the canal. The apparent average loss for this reach was 

2.5 ft3/s or 3.0 ft3

/s per mi (table 2).

Reach ML5 to ML6 showed a consistent loss for 

all measurements except that measured on June 27, 2003, 

which showed no net gain or loss. The highest seepage 

loss occurred on July 30, 2003, which coincided with the 

highest flow measured in the canal. Seepage loss 

measured on May 30, 2003, should be considered a 

maximum loss value because the flow at station ML6 was 

rising during the measurements. Assuming the 

diversions at TO10 and TO12 were not affected by the 

closure of TO8, a greater flow at this station would have 

resulted in a lower net loss along the reach. The apparent 

average loss for this reach was 2.7 ft3/s or 1.8 ft3/s per mi 

(table 2). 

Summary and Conclusions

A seepage study was done on Mapleton Lateral 

Canal to determine the total amount of water lost to the 

subsurface in the approximately 6-mi stretch between the 

mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon and the city of Mapleton, 

Utah. The canal showed a net loss of water during each 

set of four flow measurements. The apparent average net 

losses ranged from 1.4 ft3

/s measured on June 27, 2003, 

to 15.4 ft3/s measured July 30, 2003. The apparent 

average net loss from the canal was 8.8 ft3

/s (table 2). 

The loss percentage ranged from 8 percent of flow at 

station ML1 on June 27, 2003, to 43 percent loss on 

September 3, 2003. The apparent average loss 
References Cited 3

percentage was 30 percent. In general, the greatest 

seepage losses were recorded during the July 30, 2003, 

measurement when the flow in the canal was the greatest. 

The greatest percentage loss of 43 percent occurred 

during the September measurement. With the exception 

of the June 27, 2003, measurement, percentage losses 

appeared to generally increase throughout the summer. It 

is not clear why the lowest seepage losses were measured 

during the June 27, 2003, measurement. Reach ML2 to 

ML3 showed a consistent gain during each measurement. 

This section of the canal cuts across a hillslope that could 

be contributing shallow subsurface flow to the canal 

during the wetter periods of spring and early summer. 

During the latter part of July and during September, the 

seepage gain in this section was considerably less.

In general, the reaches displayed consistent gains 

and losses over the course of four sets of measurements 

during the summer. All of the canal reaches showed an 

apparent average net loss during the four measurement 

sets except for reach ML2 to ML3, which showed an 

apparent average net gain. Variations in the magnitude of 

the gains and losses were a result of changes of stage in 

the canal, different wetting conditions in the canal 

material, and changes in natural seepage gains to the 

canal.

References Cited

Buchanan, T.J., and Somers, W.P., 1969, Discharge mea-

surements at gaging stations: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, 

chap. A8, 66 p.
4 Seepage study of the Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah

Table 1. Flow, specific-conductance, and water-temperature measurements made on Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton,

Utah—Continued

Site

Flow 

(cubic feet 

per second)

Time

Specific conductance

(microsiemens 

per centimeter 

at 25 degrees 

Celsius)

Water

temperature

(degrees 

Celsius)

May 30, 2003

ML1 31.10 7:15

ML2 28.90 8:35

TO1 .00

TO2 .00

TO3 2.98 7:40

ML3 28.00 9:50

TO4 .00

TO5 6.56 8:10

ML4 16.50 10:40

TO6 .00

TO7 .00

R1 .20 8:25

TO8 5.10 108:30

R2 .00

ML5 14.60 11:30

R3 6.33 9:00

TO9 .00

TO10 7.88 9:40

R4 .00

TO11 .00

R5 4.95 10:20

TO12 7.13 10:40

ML6 6.59 11:15

June 27, 2003

ML1 17.30 7:50

ML2 17.10 9:00

TO1 .00

TO2 .00

TO3 .00

ML3 20.00 9:55

TO4 .00

TO5 .22 8:10

ML4 16.70 10:45

TO6 .00

TO7 .00

R1 .03e 8:15

TO8 .10e 8:20

R2 .00

ML5 15.60 11:20

R3 4.75 8:45

TO9 6.66 9:10

Table 1. Flow, specific-conductance, and water-temperature measurements made on Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton,

Utah

[Site: See figure 1 for location of site; ML, canal; TO, irrigation turnout; R, return flow; e, estimated]
Tables 5

June 27, 2003—Continued

TO10 .00

R4 .00

TO11 .00

R5 .00

TO12 7.87 9:50

ML6 5.85 10:25

July 30, 2003

ML1 50.50 8:15

ML2 45.00 9:38

TO1 .00

TO2 .00

TO3 .00

ML3 45.50 10:50

TO4 .00

TO5 .00

ML4 44.80 11:55

TO6 .00

TO7 .00

R1 .00

TO8 .00

R2 .00

ML5 39.50 12:50

R3 .00

TO9 6.80 9:05

TO10 5.80 9:50

R4 .00

TO11 .00

R5 .00

TO12 .00

ML6 22.50 10:40

September 3, 2003

ML1 15.40 8:15 440 12.8

ML2 13.10 9:10 438 13.3

TO1 .00

TO2 .00

TO3 .00

ML3 13.30 10:05 427 14.0

TO4 .00

TO5 .03 8:15

ML4 12.50 10:55 422 15.2

TO6 .00

TO7 .00

Table 1. Flow, specific-conductance, and water-temperature measurements made on Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton,

Utah—Continued

Site

Flow 

(cubic feet 

per second)

Time

Specific conductance

(microsiemens 

per centimeter 

at 25 degrees 

Celsius)

Water

temperature

(degrees 

Celsius)
6 Seepage study of the Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah

September 3, 2003—Continued

R1 .01e 8:45

TO8 .00

R2 .00

ML5 10.90 11:05 422 15.8

R3 .87 9:05

TO9 .00

TO10 .00

R4 .00

TO11 .00

R5 .00

TO12 .05e 9:40

ML6 9.54 9:45 425 17.2

1TO8 was shut off at 09:10.

Table 2. Calculated seepage gains and losses for Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah

Reach Length

(miles)

May 30, 2003 

gain (+) or

loss (-), 

in cubic feet 

per second

June 27, 2003 

gain (+) or 

loss (-), 

in cubic feet 

per second

July 30, 2003 

gain (+) or 

loss (-), 

in cubic feet 

per second

September 3, 2003 

gain (+) or 

loss (-), 

in cubic feet 

per second

Apparent 

average gain (+) 

or loss (-) of 

reach,

in cubic feet 

per second

Apparent 

average gain (+) 

or loss (-),

in cubic feet per 

second 

per mile

ML1-ML2 1.31 -2.2 -0.2 -5.5 -2.3 -2.6 -2.0

ML2-ML3 1.11 2.1 2.9 .5 .2 1.4 1.3

ML3-ML4 .91 -4.9 -3.1 -.7 -.8 -2.4 -2.6

ML4-ML5 .83 -2.1 -1.0 -5.3 -1.6 -2.5 -3.0

ML5-ML6 1.53 1-4.3 .0 -4.4 -2.2 -2.7 -1.8

TOTAL -11.4 -1.4 -15.4 -6.7 -8.8

Percent of ML1 -37 -8 -30 -43 -30

1

 TO8 was shut off during this measurement; this value should be considered a maximum loss value.

Table 1. Flow, specific-conductance, and water-temperature measurements made on Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton,

Utah—Continued

Site

Flow 

(cubic feet 

per second)

Time

Specific conductance

(microsiemens 

per centimeter 

at 25 degrees 

Celsius)

Water

temperature

(degrees 

Celsius)
Figures 7

Figure 1. Location of measurement sites on Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah.

R 5

R4

R3

R2

R1

ML 6

TO9

ML5

TO8

ML 3

TO 2

M TO 1 L 2

ML 1

TO12

TO 11

TO10

Ho bble

Creek

Map el ton La teral

Ho bble

Creek

Map el ton La teral

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

R 5

R4

R3

R2

R1

ML 6

TO9

ML5

TO8

TO7 TO6

ML4

TO5 TO4

ML 3

TO 3

TO 2

ML 2 TO 1

ML 1

TO12

TO 11

TO10

Mapleton

Springville

Measuring site with water-stage recorder

Measuring site without water-stage recorder

Return flow point

Diversion point

ML 1

ML 6

R4

TO 11

EXPLANATION

111°36' 111°34'

40°7'

40°9'

40°5'
8 Seepage study of the Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah

Figure 2. Measurement site ML1 and water-stage recorder at Parshall Flume on Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah. 
Figures 9

Figure 3. Gage height at water-stage recorder at site ML1 on Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah.

00:00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 24:00

00:00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 24:00

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

Measurement 1

May 30, 2003

HOUR

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Measurement 2

June 27, 2003

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

Measurement 3

July 30, 2003

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Measurement 4

September 3, 2003

GAGE HEIGHT, IN FEET
10 Seepage study of the Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah

Figure 4. Gage height at water-stage recorder at site ML6 on Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah.

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Measurement 1

May 30, 2003

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Measurement 2

June 27, 2003

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

Measurement 3

July 30, 2003

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Measurement 4

September 3, 2003

00:00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 24:00

00:00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 24:00

HOUR

GAGE HEIGHT, IN FEET
Figures 11

Figure 5. Measured and apparent average seepage gain or loss for reaches of Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah. 

EXPLANATION

 Point from which change was computed

 Seepage measurement of May 30, 2003

 Seepage measurement of June 27, 2003

 Seepage measurement of July 30, 2003

 Seepage measurement of September 3, 2003

 Apparent average seepage

SEEPAGE GAIN (+) OR LOSS (-) , IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

-1

0

+1

+2

+3

1.2 1.6 1. 1.4 8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6

Reach ML2 to ML3

2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

+1

Reach ML3 to ML4

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

+1

Reach ML1 to ML2

4.0 4.4 4.6 4. 4.2 8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8

-4

-5

-3

-2

-1

0

+1

Reach ML5 to ML6

 DISTANCE, IN MILES

3.2 3.6 3. 3.4 8 4.0 4.2

-5

-6

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

+1

Reach ML4 to ML5
12 Seepage study of the Mapleton Lateral Canal near Mapleton, Utah