The normal crew consists of eight men.

tional labor when necessary.

This is augmented by addi-

The table below lists the costs of the anchor chain and disc aquatic
weed control method for the period of this report.
of canals, 37 miles did not require any treatment during this period.

Physical operation
in canals

Removal and disposal
of aquatic weeds
after dislodgement
from grates

Field supervision

Office cost

*Machine shop and
transportation

Total cost

Total miles of
operation

Average cost per
mile of operation

Anchor Chain and Disc
Control Costs

Of the 138 miles

1964 1965 1966 Total
$25,957.75 $18,945.61 $22,525.54 $ 67,428.90
21, 004, 52 11,140.19 11, 958. 68 44, 103.39
463.50 136.80 70.20 670.50
169.65 91.80 37.35 298. 80
8, 564. 38 4, 872.60 6, 753. 32 20, 190. 30
$56,159.80 $35,187.00 $41,345.09 $132,691.89
257.9 218.0 203.2 679.1
$ 218.37 $ 161.40 $ 203.47 $ 195.39

When machine shop costs for maintenance of chain and disc assemblies
are considered, the average costs per mile for the 3 years are compar-

able.

There was a lesser infestation of rooted aquatic weeds in 1966 as

compared to 1965 and 1964 because of increased turbidity in the canals
due to heavy runoff upstream in 1966.
in the total miles of operation over the test period.

All-hydraulic Excavator

This contributed to the reduction

The all-hydraulic-type excavator shown in Figure 16 is a readily avail-
able tool for removing aquatic weeds and silt in congested waterways,

¥The Project machine shop repairs and maintains chain and disc

assemblies.

16


‘TWLOL

tpaxoeud
: ===5 SSS ESSE -
5 +: ourey
—--=—[ OT ete Reet Metered Meek Cekeeell Gentle sousoeg - L
‘seg SSS 06 Tr BOFURYD - 9
03 297s (9378 07
2318 ‘9978 07 asus x F-==l90 |---| | |---| OSS Teme ¢
autamny
°\9g7a| 90 | ———| 007 | FzZ0 | $a | — | £00 Setters = 7
uoatd @3sem 6°66 “
yoqta dumg gigg ++ al===-1 oe [>> ]>-~ [>> -1>>-|> OIL yueATog - €
4
afr or Pe rr Trepery - z
i}
[—- © J0S2/ 11990)" ==3 0 Sr zoyoea - 1
9L-€L] 2L-69[ 99-S9]a| 19-19 | 09-65] 95-95 ]SS-ES | 25-05 | 6y-Ln | 9-H En-Th | On-LE] 9E-nE] Cf ae Te
a
xz: 2s
® ap aie} ~ ~ a iss lor os laxzaleug] 2 2
a PESl"| cpaleseleny|eg legelPe? |ERI| EE GES iPeE | & | °
"0 g tye BR S| EB Be BR |Baslbee (5 Bol be Ba igea
gi) ai) 2), 5 B |e 4 pos|an BGR [ESR ESB] oa leg Bee ° °
ey SB] 23] [6 See lSu0/SR [ESF iva |S asl 2a [25% [Bo ® *
Seo BS) Selo] s olf SS [FBS es [eT o Bs? [AB Sfeg |RSS Se | wo Q 3
| os elC]& giBRo (set es jeee hse (wel Fe le 2A | @ 2 8
r is B KfalHe~ ar ~~ ~S td ot as BO gs AoOiIc<g 7 re) eo
e| =) ge f) ge] Be) ee | “Reels | 4
z| ZF a | ge] 8 whee | ERSE|E |s
ca man ft) g | Be] 2B ee] efor |4
Tesodstq | Suzssouaq » 8 1 = 4 o x=
me a Pox TTS
unyDoW = c Appnw ~ € ey 7 OFF7AA) vaya - € |@ son -
—— — AuaTT - T Apnoyg = TS - 2
o7|\|——o duo - 0 Testo 1 soy] - T
of 62 [ge Le 92 Se €@ 2 Te 0g - 9T St at
saynayy | seqnaw SSOW CELOOU avo1V sayouy IW (go Teacuay)
woLEa0 ama 0 0 NOILIGNOO wus vole HOLIG NOLLWEaO
Gin THOSTAREANS HLMOYS ‘OUAY | HILMOUD *OWAY SaLLVA JO Lda Broan dO Gah 40 HaML
€t et 1 OT ‘ON G g _L 9. _S te 2 T
OLE T wodu G 3K Z 7 hea 7 roy teved 6 if [erayey i Teuey :u0pyeooq

THOdwY NOLLVYAdO ONILTISHC CNV ONISSOWHC

++

39



pes
ar)

AQUATIC WEED CONTROL OPERATION SHEET
GRADALL

Date_/O-/9-6g Based at__V..S.C.

- of Men 2 __ClassificationsOreea roe Heavy Truck Drive
Preparation and Loading time, Begin 7.970 Finish 73S
Travel Time to Location, Lv.__ 7.95 Arrive 8.20
Locatin_5SE€ GF A/
Ditch: ,
Bottom Width_G “Depth of Water _/8” Gunite Slipform Unlined_+—
Type of Operation:
Moss Removal Silt Removal. Moss & Silt Removal +
Average Measure depth of Silt__ 6“ 7o /2”
Moss Growth:
Light. Medium Heavy.
Type of Moss:
Algae, Rooted, WM To
Condition of Water:
Clear. _— Cloudy Muddy.
Set-up time at location, From 8:20 To 2:30
Running time
Start Stop Reason to Stop
8:30 12:00 Lowew
12:30 15:00 Rerorw To Cane
When moving to a new location the same day, use another sheet starting at (2).
Amount completed
Sec.35 T2 RI? Sec. 23T @ RI Sec. T R Sec. tr R
Length__72 Mi. Length_Y2 Mi. Length. Mi. Length, Mi.
No. of Passes_/__ No. of Passes_/___——'No. of Passes____—-—No. of Passes,

35



EPLACERBLE ORIFICE
NOTE® CONSTANT 218
WeLOcirY WEERS EDGES

VET STREAM DIRECTED
Ke? YomaRo ROOT “SYSTEM

SECT. _A-A

Figure 8. Plow-type aquatic
weed control nozzle.

shown in Figure 9, the nozzle is
introduced into the downstream
cell near the bottom of the struc-
ture and the turbine is operated
until water flows freely through
the treated section.

The turbine compressor aquatic
weed control crew and equipment
consists of the turbine and truck
unit, a truck driver, a unit oper-
ator and occasionally a laborer
to remove dislodged aquatic weeds
from grates. The operator has
been trained in the operation and
preventive maintenance of the
turbine compressor by the man-
ufacturer. This operator, in
turn, has trained others.

Under normal circumstances,
the turbine operator makes the
preventive maintenance inspec-
tion of the channel system to
determine whether treatment is

Figure 9. Turbine compressor shown blowing a

pipeline clean.

10

Photo PX-D-60885.


Total miles of operation 2.6 3 2.9

Average cost per mile of
operation $132.89 $230.97 $143.03

Acrolein

Aquatic weed control with acrolein in canals was started in 1966. It
is applied in the Project waterways at a rate averaging .35 parts per
million for 48 to 90 hours, depending on water temperature and the
seriousness of the weed infestation. Acrolein at this rate provides
good control of algae and small plants and retards the growth of ma-
ture aquatic weeds.

At the rate mentioned above, good control of algae is obtained for 10 to
15 miles of canal per treatment, as well as an indeterminate number of
miles of laterals. Since the Federal label does not approve the use of
acrolein in domestic water supplies, it is used only downstream from
the three filter plants on the system.

The acrolein treated water is considered harmless to crops and warm
blooded animals at this low concentration. The treatment disintegrates
the algae and causes a varying percentage of the rooted aquatic plants to
break off in small pieces. These small pieces rarely interfere with ir-
rigation operations, but occasionally collect along with other trash on
canal structures and must be removed. This low application rate does
not require a reduction in water delivery schedules. The acrolein treat-
ment has no effect on the control of silt accumulation.

The acrolein used in the irrigation system was a commercially available
product. Limited experimentation with a derivative of endothall is also

being conducted. No significant costs have been accumulated and there-
fore are not included in this report.

The application of acrolein into the irrigation waterways is made from
heavy-walled cylindrical containers which are supplied by the distribu-
tor. They are delivered to the application points from the warehouses

by pickup truck. Dry nitrogen is used to maintain the desired pressure
in the acrolein cylinders. Pressure regulators, a metering orifice,

and plastic tubing complete the equipment requirements for the operation.

A 12-inch perforated pipe at the end of the plastic tubing serves to dis-
perse the acrolein under water, and has a weight to keep the end of the
tube on the bottom of the canal. It is desirable to make the acrolein
applications from inside the wellsite enclosures for security reasons
as shown in Figure 18. With the acrolein set in a wellsite, it needs

to be attended only during the normal 8-hour working day.

20



SOLVENT (CONTINUED)

Buttom-up time at location, From_/5 i /S To. 15 320
Leave location _/5:2O Arrive at Base /6 “OO Base LocationC¥/7_—.S.
Number of charges. f Number of recharges. Quantity of solvent used
Time Required to Prepare for next job, From To.

Time used to fill form 2oO minutes

Remarks Muooy Was7Té WaTER APPROX. 7.

Person in charge of operation. Bize Cook

Truck No. 9-922.
Charge No.7Z3-¢2-53/ # 773-9/-53/

Reason for selecting Solvent:

Remarks

Equipment, L.

Cost Rate Per Hour, Signed Fates eg

Hours charged Fred Corbus

Field Foreman Time.

Weed Control Foreman Time. Cost per gal. of solvent.

Sec.20 TENRIE Sec.2Q9 TZ2NR Le Sec.32 TENRIE Sec. § T/NRIE
Length__/ Mi. Length__/ Length, / Mi. Length Z Mi.
Sec. 6 TUN RI te Sec. 7 T/N RIE Sec. Tr R Sec. T R
Length. Z Length. vA Mi. Length. Mi. Length. Mi.

40



EVALUATION OF COST AND EFFECTIVENESS OF CANAL
AND LATERAL AQUATIC WEED CONTROL

GENERAL ANALYSIS
The Salt River Project

The Salt River Project in Arizona is one of the first constructed by
the Bureau of Reclamation. Started in 1903, the first water was made
available by the Federal Government in 1907. The project consists of
240,000 acres, 57 percent urbanized by the cities of Phoenix, Mesa,
Tempe, Glendale, Chandler, Peoria, Gilbert, Tolleson, and Scotts -
dale. The Project still serves much of this urban area with irriga-
tion water as well as supplying water to three city filtering plants
from its canals.

The Project's gravity water is produced from snowmelt and rainfall
on the 13,000 square miles of Salt and Verde River watersheds located
in central Arizona. The water is impounded by four dams on the Salt
River and two on the Verde River.

Water is released on demand into the irrigation system which consists
of 1,265 miles of canals, laterals and waste ditches. Water from 250
deep-well pumps is used to supplement the gravity supply. The rate
at which pump water is introduced into the system is a function of the
stored gravity water and, therefore, quite variable. The first 2 years
of this report, 1964 and 1965, approximately 40 percent was ground
water, and in the third year, 1966, 14 percent was ground water.

Improvement and rehabilitation of many original project facilities is
a continuing necessity to meet changing conditions, and a portion of
this work was financed by the Rehabilitation and Betterment Program
of Reclamation. This has resulted in the improvement of the system
with 202 miles of open concrete-lined waterways and 323 miles of
underground pipe, leaving 770 miles as open unlined waterways.

The map shown as Figure 1 on the following page, locates the system
with respect to the borders of Arizona. Figure 2, is a map of the
Project irrigation system.

The Study

Approximately 10 percent of the $746, 000 average annual maintenance
cost of the irrigation system is directed to the control of aquatic weeds
in the canals and laterals. In the fall, winter and spring, algae are
predominant; whereas in the summer months the rooted aquatic weeds
are most prevalent. The algae are almost entirely of filamentous green
type, of which Clapophora is the most common. The rooted aquatics
are predominantly Potamogeton pectinatus (sago pondweed) and Heter-
anthera dubia (waterstar grass). Potamogeton foliosus, Vallisneria
Americana and Zannichellia pallustris are also present in the system,

but to a lesser degree.



AQUATIC WEED CONTROL OPERATION SHEET

ANCHOR CHAIN AND DISC

One sheet to be filled out by each of the following:

A. Dragline, Demossing Foreman
B. Cats and chain hookers

C. Dump trucks and miscellaneous equipment

Equipment used and number of men

DATE.

Dragline. No. of Cats. No. of Trucks.
Miscellaneous

Number of Men Equipment based at.
Classifications,

Preparation and Loading time, Begin.

Finish,

Travel Time to Location, Lv.

Arrive

Location,

Ditch:
Bottom Width Depth of Water.

Gunite.

Slipform

Unlined.

Moss Growth:

Light, Medium,

Heavy.

Type of Moss:
Algae

Rooted.

Set-up time at location, From

Running time: (For cats and dragline only)

Start in Stop in
Canal Canal

Reason
for Stop

33



and is a good road vehicle. It is accessible to any area within the Proj-
ect boundaries on short notice and practically no setup time is necessary
at the site.

Figure 16. Aquatic weeds and silt being removed from an
unlined lateral by an all-hydraulic type.
Photo PX-D-60891.

Characteristically, about 95 percent of the aquatic weed growth in an
unlined ditch is on the bottom. The sides are relatively free of growth
up to the waterline, and weeds and bermuda grass grow on the bank
above the water level. A skilled operator can remove the bank vege-
tation with little or no damage to the low-growing bermuda grass,
thereby saving the bermuda root system which is desirable for stabili-
zation of the unlined channel banks.

The excavating machine scoops silt and aquatic weeds from a wet or
dry channel and piles them on the bank. When necessary, the piles

of spoil are removed by dump trucks. Most of the aquatic weed growth
is removed from the lateral; however, some of it floats downstream
before the bucket is raised above the water surface. This creates
moderate interruptions to irrigation deliveries.

The machine is used mainly in short stretches of heavy infestations,
especially when irrigation deliveries cannot be stopped in order to em-
ploy solvent. The cost of a solvent application in a short stretch could
equal the cost of using the machine method, without the benefit of any
silt removal.


The material is a xylene-type aromatic solvent, with an emulsifier,
added at a 1-percent-by-volume rate. Two-ton trucks with 1, 000-
or 1, 200-gallon tanks deliver the solvent to the channels. A 20-
gallon-per-minute pump powered by a 9-1/2-horsepower air-cooled
engine is used to apply the solvent through the orifices under water,
Figure 19. The trucks, tanks and pumps used in the solvent opera-
tion are the same as used in the ditch bank weed control operation.
Solvent aquatic weed control is a one-man operation, controlled by
a truck driver.

Figure 19. Solvent being introduced into a pump and
drainage channel, Photo PX-D-60894.

The table on the next page lists the cost of the solvent control method
for the period of this report.

The reduction in cost per mile for 1966 and 1965 over 1964 primarily

reflects the efficiency of xylene over the intermediate distillation
range solvent used in 1964.

23


Diesel-powered backhoes, modified for front and rear operation, are
used with special 5-foot perforated buckets.

trailers pulled by a pickup truck.

The units are hauled on

+

Figure 17. Backhoe removing aquatic weeds and silt from

an unlined waterway.

Photo PX-D-60892.

The table below lists the cost of the backhoe aquatic weed control for
the period of this report, and because of the few number of miles
completed, these costs are not considered significant.

Backhoe Control Costs

Aquatic weed control
operation in laterals

Removal and disposal of
spoil from lateral banks

Field supervision
Office cost

Total cost

1965 1966 Total
$323.13 $64. 46 $387.59
12.93 2.58 15.51
2.70 1.35 4.05
6.75 90 7.65
$345. 51 $69.29 $414. 80

19


ANCHOR CHAIN AND DISC

(CONTINUED)
Amount Completed
Sec. By R Sec. T. R Sec. Tt R Sec. Tt R
Length, Mi. Length, Mi. Length Mi. Length. Mi.
No. of Passes. No. of Passes. No. of Passes. No. of Passes____
Button-up time at location, From To.

Leave location. Arrive at Base Base Location,

Time used to fill form minutes.

Remarks,

Person in charge (Demossing foreman or lead cat driver)

Charge No.

Equipment cost per hour

$ Hours charged.

$ Hours charged.
Truck $ Hours charged.

§

$.

Hours charged.
Hours charged

Fred Corbus

Field Foreman Time.

Weed Control Foreman Time

34


ANNAN

Figure 13. Dragline shown placing grates in canal.
Photo PX-D-60889.

Figure 14. Removal of aquatic weeds from grates.
Photo PX-D-60890.

14


The power-operated crane has a boom which can be extended 28 feet

from the center of the truck bed and rotated 360°.

is a diesel-powered 2-ton model.

POUATIC WEED CONTROL

SECTION mae
SALT RIVER PROJECT

SeC_35__1 2N R_se

0, we
oe
OO

107P=--q---F——=

p—_s4s0___.

SRaDeeL
FoRBINE

Figure 4

to the flow.

ume over the 10-foot span, and (b) nonconfinement of water.

ae

The turbine truck

The power unit is of the
pneumatic power turbine
compressor type. The
efficiency of the engine is
dependent upon orifice
openings in the nozzle
totaling 2-1/2 to 3 square
inches. Larger openings
could cause overheating
of the turbine, and smaller
openings would reduce the
extreme turbulence neces-
sary to provide efficient
aquatic weed and silt con-
trol. For conditions at
the nozzle at 100° F am-
bient temperature (typical
Phoenix summer tempera-
ture) see the chart on the
following page.

The first nozzle was tried
in 1962 and showed promise
as a tool for aquatic weed
control in lined channels.
Several more nozzles were
then developed and tested.

A pipe nozzle, 10 feet long
with 5/16 holes on 3-inch
centers was made to drag
in the canals perpendicular

It proved to be inefficient due to (a) insufficient air vol-

The con-

finement or restriction of the flow of water in waterways being treated
is necessary to concentrate the extreme turbulence required to dislodge
aquatic weed growth and silt.

Several nozzles were tested in unlined laterals and were also found to
be ineffective due to nonconfinement of flowing water in waterways
where lengths of irregular widths and bottoms were encountered.


yee
ar)

AQUATIC WEED CONTROL OPERATION SHEET
TURBINE COMPRESSOR

Date. Based at.
. of Men. Classifications
Preparation and Loading Time, Begin Finish
Travel Time to Location, Lv. Arrive
Location,
Ditch:
Bottom Width Depth of Water Gunite Slipform Unlined.
Culvert:
Size. Depth of Water
Type of Operation:
Moss Removal Silt Removal, Moss & Silt Removal.
Average Measured Depth of Silt
Moss Growth:
Light, Medium. Heavy.

Type of Moss:
Algae. Rooted.

Condition of Water:

Clear. Cloudy. Muddy.
Set-up time at location, From To
Running time
Start Start Stop Stop
Engine Blower Blower Engine Reason for Stop

When moving to a new location the same day, use another sheet starting at (2).

Amount Completed

Sec. Tt R Sec. Tr R Sec. T R Sec. rT
Length Mi. Length Mi. Length Mi. Length Mi.
No. of Passes No. of Passes No. of Passes. No. of Passes.

31



Solvent

(Canal 5, Lateral 10, Lined and Unlined.
Normal channel flow rate--25 cfs.
Wetted perimeter --18 feet.)

Control method *No. of treatments Cost Flow rate, cfs

1965 solvent 5.33 $312.38 6

1965 turbine .17 27.03 25

1965 excavator -40 75.36 25

1966 solvent 2.11 207.63 6

1966 turbine 33 36.04 25
$658.44

In 1965 the turbine was used to control silt in a lined portion of the
channel and the all-hydraulic excavator was used to control silt in an
unlined portion. In 1966 no silt removal was required in the unlined
section but the turbine was used for silt control in the lined section.

CONCLUSION

The turbine compressor has been found by experimental use to be an
effective tool for aquatic weed control when scheduled in lined laterals
with a bottom width of 2 feet or less. No decrease in water delivery
is necessary.

The majority of canal aquatic weed control is most efficiently accom-
plished with the anchor chain and disc method. This method reduces
the silt problem by leveling of canal bottoms and dispersion of silt.

In the open lateral system, the use of aromatic solvent is the most
commonly used method of aquatic weed control and is the most econom-
ical. However, solvent has no effect on silt control. On the other hand,
the use of the turbine compressor, excavator and backhoe in aquatic weed
control removes or disperses some of the silt accumulation.

It is clear that no one method can be considered best in all circumstances.
The most adequate method to suit the condition and the number of treat-
ments per year must be left to the judgment of supervisory personnel,

Since each method is unique in its own ability to control aquatic weed
growth and the advantages and disadvantages of each must be considered
economically as well as physically, it is difficult to compare costs
directly.

¥Includes full-length treatment and partial treatments.

26


Association

MAP OF
IRRIGATION SYSTEM

Salt River

i.
2

Re
x

LEGEND

Figure 2



NELAGSTAFF
ASH FORK
z

\ PRESCOTT \®
moe NG

7
{ SALT RIVER VALLEY
Y WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION
IRRIGATION SYSTEM AREA

“s

'
SPRINGERVILLE !



Only moderate interruptions occur to irrigation operations. There are
some dislodged weeds that slip through the grates and collect on canal
and lateral gates, and in farmers' irrigation ditches, which must be
removed immediately to avoid flow reduction.

Silt accumulations are leveled as the equipment passes through the
system. A supplemental advantage to this operation is weed and brush
control resulting from the chains dragging on the canal banks, but urban-
ization with the resultant increase in traffic and road crossings is making
this method more difficult.

The aquatic weeds removed from the grates are usually loaded on trucks
and hauled to a dump area. The silt, which is agitated during the oper-
ation, moves downstream and settles at a rate dependent on the velocity
and the amount of water in the canal. It may travel a short distance or

several miles. A portion of the silt flows onto water users! property.

Specifically this method em-
ploys two tractors which are
used to pull 80 feet of 16" x 7"
anchor chain. Connected to
each end of the anchor chain
is a short length of 4" x 3" lead
chain which is fastened to the
drawbars of each tractor.
Eighteen-inch-diameter con-
cave discs, in gangs of 8, are
connected as needed to a 4" x
3" lead chain which is attached
at each end to the tractor draw-
bar and pulled in front of the an-
chor chain, as depicted in Fig-
ure 15. Normally two trucks
are required to haul the equip-
ment to and from the site.

CANAL
FLOW

TRACTOR: \

The equipment involved in re-
moving the material collected
on the grates consists of a
dragline and truck used to haul
dragline equipment. Trash
trucks are used when necessary
to haul material which has been
removed by hand labor or drag-
line. The dragline is also used
Figure 15. Anchor chain and disc to place and remove the port-

arrangement for aquatic able grates.

weed control in canals.

15



However, during this study, the field forms were revised for compati-
bility with an IBM 1401 computer. These revised field data sheets also
are shown in the Appendix. The compilation of some of the detail data
on the forms does not appear
in the report because of its
relative unimportance to the
final summation of data. Af-
BOURTIC UEEC CONTROL ter the forms were filled in
SALT RIVER PROJECT by field personnel, they were
checked at the field office for
errors. The forms were then
forwarded to the Civil Engi-
neering Department where
| labor and equipment charges
were entered. The Planning
and Statistical Division then
T prepared them for Data Proc-
essing where they were key
TO 4 punched for monthly, quar-
Hl terly and annual reports.

sec_e/ 1 /N RE

The Civil Engineering Depart-
ment platted each report on a
section map using a code for
each type of treatment and
ves, identified it with a report
number. From approximately
> 1, 200 field reports, some 750
maps were plotted showing the
number of times each channel

wir

“38
1138 : |

SOGYENT was treated during the year.
Figures 3 and 4 are examples.
Figure 3 These provide a means of es-

tablishing an annual cost for
aquatic weed control in any length of channel in the system and show at a
glance those channels requiring extensive maintenance.

SYSTEM AQUATIC WEED CONTROL STUDIES
Turbine Compressor

A turbine compressor has been adapted to aquatic weed control by the
Salt River Water Users’ Association. The cover photograph shows the
turbine compressor in operation in a lined wasteway. Its function is to
dislodge the aquatic weed growth in lined ditches and to disperse silt
with the use of high-volume, low-pressure air taken from the second
stage of the turbine compressor.

The work done during the period of this report demonstrated that the
turbine compressor method is most efficiently used on a preventive
maintenance basis. This was done in 1965 by setting up this method
on a scheduled program of inspection and treatment of channels before
silt and aquatic weed conditions became acute.



The control of aquatic weeds by acrolein is a one-man operation, ex-
cept that two men are needed to set up and remove the equipment.
Training in the principles of the operation and safety requirements
is necessary. The only specialized equipment which is required is

a gas mask for an emergency such as a faulty valve or cylinder. A
pickup truck is needed for the operator's transportation.

Figure 18. Introduction of acrolein into a Salt River
Valley Water Users' canal from pressure-
ized containers through a deep-well pump
discharge structure. Photo PX-D-60893.

The table on the next page presents the cost of aquatic weed control

by the acrolein method for the period of this report. The cost reflects
that for the canal system and the adjacent laterals in which comparable
control was attained.

21


“ United States
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

IRRIGATION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

BULLETIN NO. 64

April, May, June 1968

LAST COPY - DO NOT REMOVE

LAST COPY - DO NOT REMOVE

AST COPY - DO NOT RENICVE

|
LU

In This Issue:
Evaluation of Cost and Effectiveness of Canal and Lateral Aquatic
Weed Control



In lined channels some benefit accrued in dislodging algae from the
sides by the use of a contoured nozzle, Figure 5. However, there
was an insufficient force of air to tear the attachment cells from
the lining, so that only partial algae removal resulted. Since the
solvent and acrolein aquatic weed control methods are more eco-
nomical than the turbine compressor for algae control, and because
rapid algae regrowth occurs when the algae attachment cells are not
removed or destroyed, the use of this nozzle was discontinued.

Figure 5. Closeup view of a contoured nozzle used for dis-
lodging aquatic weed growth from sides and bottom
of channel. Photo PX-D-60883

In the spring of 1965 a plow-type nozzle was developed, Figure 6.
This nozzle combines the effectiveness of high-volume air and me-
chanical plowing. The combination of the plow and airstream dis-
lodges and breaks up all of the silt accumulation into fine particles,
including the denser portions. The dislodged aquatic weeds float
downstream.

The preventive maintenance schedule as described earlier is based

on a complete list of 1- and 2-foot bottom lined laterals totaling

80 miles compiled and arranged in geographical sequence. Nozzles
of the plow-type design were made to fit the bottoms of these channels.


u70 FT.

ALTITUDE

31220!)
f)

Thy

ca

20a

Mo —

|

——_!80—

120

100

i
| ft

ap
:

Titi

60
n

TEMPERATURE

AT] NOZZLE

l

40

AMBIENT | TEMPERATURE

CONDITIONS

tT it

20

400.

200

s_| 8

1SO.

120:

110

BOG

°
oO,

4-350.
300

| | |

140.
1-130:

+—100-

Ey

SYNSS3d

(NIN 3d

‘se

‘MO13 UT

tf <t— 110
t+ x=

[4 27-100

[TTI

TTI

LUI



APPENDIX

29



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgement is given to the following personnel of the Associa-
tion for their assistance in making this report possible:

Mr. Reid W. Teeples, Chief Engineer, Salt River Valley Water
Users' Association and coauthor.

Mr. W. L. "Bud" Simser, Superintendent of the Construction and
Maintenance Department and his staff for the basic data accumu-
lated in the field.

Mr. Don Womack, Supervisor of Civil Engineering, and his staff
for their contribution in taking the basic data and making it mean-
ingful for evaluating costs.

Mr. Fred G. Corbus, Weed Control Foreman, and Ray Pristo,
Construction Designer who coauthored the report.

The guidance and valued assistance of Mr. Henry Shipley,
Assistant General Manager,

All photographs taken by personnel of the Salt River Valley
Water Users' Association.

27



Problems on the Salt River Project are similar to those on other irri-
gation projects in the southwestern part of the United States and not too
disimilar from those in many areas. In recent years new and different
control methods have been introduced on Bureau-constructed projects,
with little information obtained on costs for the work. To obtain com-
parable costs of various means of control for planning purposes the Bu-
reau of Reclamation negotiated a contract with the Salt River Valley
Water Users’ Association on July 15, 1963. The contract required that
the Association (a) evaluate the effectiveness of removing silt and aquatic
weed growth by high-pressure jet water turbulence and other mechanical
methods, and (b) collect, compile and evaluate cost data on aquatic weed
control of all methods used.

This report presents the findings of the study with regard to the turbine
compressor and other aquatic weed control methods and evaluates the
costs collected for each method in response to the contract. The effects
on wildlife were not evaluated in the various chemical and mechanical
tests which were conducted in connection with this study.

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this report terms used are defined as:

Aquatic weeds--All submersed or floating vegetative growth in
the Project's canal and lateral system.

Canal--The main channels of the water transmission system feed-
ing the laterals. A typical canal is 30 feet wide, has a 4-foot water
depth, and an approximate flow range of 100 to 400 cfs.

Grates--Trashracks, consisting of portable or permanent grates
made of 1-inch pipe fixed on 5-1/2-inch centers.

Lateral--The channels of the water distribution system receiving
water from the canals and deep wells and delivering directly to
users. In this report all channels used to convey well water (pump
ditches) and waste water (waste ditches) are included as open later-
als. Typical lateral sizes are 5 feet wide with 2-foot water depths,
and have an approximate flow range of 15 to 25 cfs. .

Lined laterals--Waterways of which sides and bottom have been

Tined with concrete.

Open laterals--As differentiated from underground pipe laterals
see laterals).

Mechanical aquatic weed control--The use of the anchor chain and
disc, excavator, backhoe and turbine compressor.

Prior to compiling data, it was necessary to devise forms to log the
aquatic weed control daily operations. Samples of the Field data
sheets originally used for this purpose are included in the Appendix.



Multipurpose-type excavators are used. Each has a custom-built per-
forated bucket 6 feet wide (approximately 1/3-yard capacity) and each
has the outer-boom pipe-roller guides reworked to withstand wear.

The crew consists of an operator and a driver who moves the machine
forward as the task progresses.

The following table lists the cost of the aquatic weed control by this
method for the period of the report.

All-hydraulic Excavator
Control Costs

1964 1965 1966 Total

Physical operation

in laterals $3, 168.02 $1,771.59 $4, 066.74 $9, 006.35
Removal and disposal

of spoil from lateral

banks 141.11 70.84 249. 40 461.35
Field supervision 40.50 13.05 25.20 78.75
Office cost 40.95 16.65 13.95 71.55
Total cost $3, 390.58 $1, 872.13 $4, 355.29 $9, 618.00
Total miles of

operation 24.5 14.6 23.3 62.4
Average cost per

mile of operation $ 138.39 $ 128.23 $ 186.92 $ 154.13

The average cost per mile of operation was $186.92 in 1966 against the
$138.39 in 1964, which is probably due to removing more silt during the
aquatic weed control operation in 1966.

Backhoe

Although the backhoe is similar in operation and provides similar re-
sults to the all-hydraulic-type excavator discussed previously, itis a
smaller machine with a shorter reach and is a one-man operation. Fig-
ure 17 on the following page, shows a backhoe in operation. The limited
use of this machine during the period of this report provided limited cost
data and is included only as a matter of interest.

18



AQUATIC WEED CONTROL OPERATION SHEET

SOLVENT
Date_/O-/9 -62a Based at_S..S
No. of Men / Classifications Z7, 7TReucK
1. Preparation and Loading time, Begin_O7..30 Finish__OS8 7/5
2. Travel Time to Location, Lv. O8 1S Arrive 9O9./0
location_SE& FW ro 6E€ AGW
Ditch:
Bottom Width 50’ Depth of Water_G “ Gunite Slipform Unlined_+—
Moss Growth:
Light. Medium Heavy.
Type of Moss:
Algae 7h Rooted HY
Condition of Water:
Clear. _— Cloudy _ Muddy,
Set-up time at location, From 29/0 To 292 :/8
(Reason for delay, if any) From, To,
3. Running Time of Pump: G A/RS.
Start Stop Reason for Stop
SE ION 9915 15 21S Finis Cus.
When moving to a new location the same day, use another sheet starting at (2).
4, Amount Completed

Sec./g TZNRIE Sec./Q TENR/E Sec. 9 T2ANR/IE Sec. /7 T2WR/E
Length_/ 7g Mi. Length / Mi. Length / Mi. Length / Mi.

(For additional section squares see opposite side)

Zanjero, Lateral, Rate of Water Flow_30Q” +

37



o92- #98 aD

OcaZ/ THIOL
T
sous eE
%anoty THONLL,
7 ahorp THPNTT
Tanoin "yoni, — ———
vag ua 2g wa as
T anory “yonay
WAL THOUS
ont, quOATOS
°
5 Trepedy
OSz/|% STFaIAL 7
x Tae
ro Buy sei
BAW %
pasn + On *on 59g SS
asodstq|#urssoued | _ sett das aNawarnta | asodsta Sut s a a
WOH Wad Gave | a} Jo ‘on  aaomay | -ssoweq
wt
277 |S  ‘Wiou
iat
a
2ag ud 8S wd 09g
S6Z% 1ZLe6 /
Z2Le OSHS ]
aaoway @ con way
asodsyq |autssomeq Ne go ton} 50 ‘oN 99g eg BP une E:
jonivoraisevIa | 2o,00H at 8 ad s BZ] unea yess
WAOH Wad Sve  aaouay | -ssoued SNOTIVOOT

38


Solvent Control Costs
sewer Lontrol Costs

1964 1965 1966 Total

Physical operation

in laterals $16,953.07 $13,050.37 $12, 863.10 $42, 866.54
Removal and disposal

of aquatic weeds -00 - 00 -00 .00
Supervisory costs 317.25 104, 85 45.45 467.55
Office cost 149, 85 140. 40 62.10 352.35
Total cost $17, 420.17 $13,295.62 $12,970.65 $43, 686. 44
Total miles of

operation 467.5 400.3 485.9 1,353.7

Average cost per
mile of operation $ 37.26 $ 33.21 $ 26.69 $ 32,27

TEST CHANNEL STUDIES
SILT AND AQUATIC WEED CONTROL

Description of Channels

Four test channels, 1-1/2 miles in length, were selected and used in 1965
and 1966 for the purpose of collecting silt removal costs in addition to the
aquatic weed control costs. Each lateral and canal reach consisted of par-
tially lined and partially unlined sections, except for the completely lined
channel in which the turbine was used. The laterals were selected for
their comparable operating conditions and capacity, and the canal was
selected on the basis of being typical of most Project canals.

Originally one aquatic weed control method was assigned to each test chan-
nel, and the tables below present the results. It will be noted that supple -
mental methods were used when the assigned method was not adequate,

Control Costs
Turbine Compressor
eee ompressor

(Lined Channel. Normal channel flow rate--20 cfs.
Wetted perimeter--12 feet. )

Control method No. of treatments Cost Flow rate, cfs
1965 turbine 5.87 $ 826.20 20
1966 turbine 2.33 373, 43 20
1966 solvent 1.66 74.38 5
$1,274.01

*Includes full-length treatments and partial treatments.

24



INTRODUCTION

A significant maintenance expenditure for most open ditch irrigation
projects is for aquatic weed control. To evaluate the cost and effec-
tiveness of various aquatic weed control techniques, the Bureau of
Reclamation entered into a contract on July 15, 1963, for a joint
study with the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, which
operates and maintains the Salt River Project in south-central
Arizona. Included in this study was use of a new turbine compres-
sor; as well as the conventional methods of anchor chain and disc,
gradall, backhoe, acrolein, and solvent. In addition to approxi-
mately 475 miles of general channel maintenance, 6 miles of test
channels were set up to obtain specific data on controlling aquatic
weeds and silt separately.

Field data obtained from over 2, 600 operating miles covering a
3-year period were accumulated and evaluated; and is contained
herein. Each method serves a specific purpose and has specific
advantages and disadvantages. Although some methods result in
a dual benefit, none can be used indiscriminately or thought of as
a panacea for all aquatic weed problems.

ii


necessary. The program was set up on a continuous inspection and
"treatment if necessary" basis following the sequence of the 80 miles

of laterals which had been established.

one complete circuit averaged 30 working days.

The average time involved in

The table below lists the cost of aquatic weed control by the turbine
compressor method for the period of this report.

Physical operation
in laterals

Removal and disposal
of weeds from port-
able grates after
dislodgement from
laterals

Field supervision

Office cost

Total cost

Total miles of
operation

Average cost per
mile of operation

Turbine Compressor
Control Costs

1964 1965 1966 Total

$10,656.65 $ 9,801.72 $6,515.90 $26,974.27
2,949.90 929. 61 30.94 3,910. 45
535.50 84. 60 27.00 647.10
210.15 112.95 37. 80 360.90
$14, 352.20 $10, 928.88 $6,611.64 $31, 892.72

105.6 123.4 63.7 292.7
$ 135.91 $ 88.56 $ 103.79 $ 108. 96

The average cost per mile of operation of $135.91 for 1964 included ex-
perimentation which involved considerable supervisory and office time

as well as mechanical changes in design of the nozzles.

Early experi-

mentation in heavily infested areas was responsible for the high cost of
removal and disposal of aquatic weeds from the laterals.

In 1965, using the plow-type nozzle and operating primarily on a pre-
ventive maintenance schedule, costs per mile of operation were reduced

to $88.56.

Removal and disposal was reduced to $929.61 from $2, 949. 90
and supervision was reduced to $84.60 from $535. 50.

The $103.79 average cost per mile for 1966, an increase cost of $15.23
per mile over 1965, is due to a part preventive maintenance schedule

il



Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Disc and anchor chain shown in
dragging arrangement at Northside
Construction and Maintenance
Headquarters. Photo PX-D-60887.

Closeup view of disc assembly.
Photo PX-D-60888,

13



UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
DIVISION OF IRRIGATION OPERATIONS
Denver, Colorado 80225

IRRIGATION O&M BULLETIN NO. 64
April, May, June 1968

CONTENTS
Page
Introduction...... acer c eres cen ecees cece eee eee rene eens ii
General Analysis ..... a 1
The Salt River Project 1
The Study... wees os wees 1
Definition of Terms ..........-- o 4
System Aquatic Weed Control Studies .......... ences wees 5
Turbine Compressor .... 5

Anchor Chain and Disc 12
All-hydraulic Excavator . 16
Backhoe ... 18
Acrolein .. esas anes seeeeeeeee 20
Solvent .....ce cere cece ees 22
Test Channel Studies--Silt and Aquatic
Weed Control .........+-5- 24
Description of Channels . . 24
Control COStS ... cece cece eee ee eee eee ee eee e tenes 24
[OXoyeCed he t=} Ke) 26
Acknowledgements ......... sce e eee e eee e eee eee e ees . 27

Appendix .........4.. bec e reece eee e eee e eee e eens see eee 29



GRADALL (CONTINUED)

Button-up time at location, From 18:00 to. 15:10

Leave location (5/Q Arrive at Base /5.50Base Location__/V. 5.C.
Time used to fill form 10 minutes.
Remarks,

Person in charge of operation __¢ Ow/sw FeErcusow

Gradall No. Z2-AP
Charge No. 7 22-42 - 5. CPs

Reason for selecting Gradall

Remarks:

Gradall — L

Cost Rate Per Hours Signed rl, Prary
Hours Charged 4 Fred Corbus

Field Foreman Time

Weed Control Foreman Time.

36


Acrolein Control Costs
eee eee ont rol SOsts.

1966

Physical operation in

waterways $11, 246. 82
Removal and disposal

of aquatic weeds .00
Field supervision 204,75
Office cost 25.65
Total $11, 477, 22
Total miles of

operation 213.1
Average cost per mile

of operation $ 53. 86

Solvent

An aromatic solvent of an intermediate distillation range with an
emulsifier introduced into the irrigation channels destroys the algae
and disintegrates the leaves and part of the leaves and stems of the
rooted aquatic plants. Disintegrated aquatics float downstream but
rarely interfere with farmers' irrigation. However, silt accumula-
tion continues though aquatic weed growth is controlled.

The solvent method was adopted by the Salt River Valley Water Users'
Association in 1949 and is used in laterals and occasionally in the lower
reaches of canals. The solvent-treated water is not used for irrigation
until it is diluted in a larger channel or until at least 5 hours after its
introduction into the waterway. For economy, waterflow is reduced
during treatment, but reduced to a point of water channeling among the
weeds,

One solvent charge lasts 2 to 3 hours, depending upon water temper-
ature and the weed infestation, and is effective for approximately

1 mile. Additional charges are made downstream so that the entire
reach is exposed to an effective treatment. During 1964 aromatic
solvent of intermediate distillation range was applied at a rate of

12 gallons per cfs of water. In 1965 and 1966, with the use of xylene,
the rate was reduced to 10 gallons per cfs.

22



The Irrigation Operation and Maintenance Bulletin is published quar-
terly, for the benefit of irrigation project people. Its principal pur-
pose is to serve as a medium of exchanging operation and maintenance
information. It is hoped that the material herein concerning the eval-
uation of cost and effectiveness of canal and lateral aquatic weed con-
trol, prepared by the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, in
cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, will result in improved
efficiency and reduced costs for those operators adapting these ideas
to their needs.

KK KOK

Division of Irrigation Operations
Office of Chief Engineer
Denver, Colorado

COVER PHOTOGRAPH:

This is a turbine compressor and
it is shown operating in a lined
channel using a contoured nozzle,
as described in this Bulletin.
Photo PX-D-60882



TURBINE COMPRESSOR (CONTINUED)

Button-up time at location, From To

Leave location. Arrive at Base

Fuel for Gas Turbine - type. Quantity.

Base Location.

Fill Tanks

Fuel for Truck - type. Quantity.

(Fill Tanks)

Time used to fill form

minutes.

Remarks,

Person in charge of operation.

Truck No.:

Charge No.:.

Reason for selecting Goose:

Remarks.

Truck & Turbine.
Cost Rate Per Hour Signed,

Field Foreman Time.

Weed Control Foreman Time.

32

Fred Corbus



The turbine adequately controlled all silt in the test channel, however,
in 1966 accumulations of algae created a need for solvent treatments.

Anchor Chain and Disc

(Grand Canal, Unlined and Lined.
Normal channel flow rate--100 cfs.
Wetted perimeter--52 feet.)

Control method *No. of treatments Cost Flow rate, cfs
1965 anchor

chain and disc 2.00 $ 502.26 100
1966 anchor

chain and disc 1.33 498.72 100
1966 acrolein 3.00 230.56 100
1966 solvent .67 42.00 25

$1, 273.54

The anchor chain and disc method controlled silt in the test channel.
During the spring of 1966, acrolein was used to control algae growth
in the entire canal on several occasions. Solvent was introduced once
in the downstream 1-mile section of the test channel to control both
algae and rooted aquatic growth.

Excavator

(Canal 3, Lateral 3.2, Lined and Unlined.
Normal channel flow rate--25 cfs.
Wetted perimeter--7 feet.)

Control method ¥*No. of treatments Cost Flow rate, cfs
1965 excavator . 66 “$156.47 25
1965 backhoe 1.00 165. 80 25
1965 solvent 1,00 30. 83 6
1966 excavator 1,13 276.33 25
1966 solvent 1.66 102.38 6
$731. 81

For 1965 sufficient silt control was obtained with the all-hydraulic exca-
vator. The backhoe was substituted for the excavator on two occasions
when all the excavators were employed on construction projects. An
algae infestation without a silt accumulation necessitated the use of a
solvent treatment. The same situation developed in 1966 when solvent
again was employed.

*Includes full-length treatments and partial treatments.

25



Figure 6.

Plow-type nozzle head used for cleaning the bottom

of a 2-foot bottom lined channel. Photo PX D-60884.

—

i
ea'70.48"

TYPICAL LINED WATERWAYS IN THE SALT RIVER
ValeéY WATER USERS’ ASSOCIATION IRRIGATION

SYSTEM

Figure 7.

Typical lined waterways
in the Salt River Valley
Water Users' Association
irrigation system.

lypical cross section of these
channels are shown on Figure 7.

In the most recent nozzle design,
the airstream is directed down-
ward toward the leading edge of
the plow through slits in the for-
ward section of the nozzle. The
total orifice opening is approxi-
mately 3 square inches in order
to maintain a sufficient turbu-
lence to dislodge the aquatic
weed growth and silt effectively,
shown as Figure 8 on the follow-
ing page.

An additional use for the turbine
compressor has been the removal
of obstructions from culverts and
from pipelines up to one-eighth
mile in length. An attachment
for this purpose consists of a
short length of perforated pipe
attached to the end of the duct.
The duct and pipe section are
pulled through the culvert, pref-
erably when the culvert is two-
thirds or more filled with water.
In the treatment of pipelines, as


coupled with a part ''on call'' operation, and the reduced efficiency
resulting from less mileage being treated during the year.

Efforts are being continued to determine the best operating pro-
cedures for the turbine compressor,

Anchor Chain and Disc

The anchor chain and disc method employs two crawler tractors, one
on each canal bank, with anchor chain and disc assemblies dragged
between them on the canal bottom, as shown in Figure 10. The chains
and discs dislodge the aquatic weed growth, which floats downstream
to temporary grates. Figures 11 and 12 are views of the chain and
discs used. Figure 13 is a view of grates used to collect dislodged
weeds. Figure 14 shows the weeds being removed.

Figure 10. Dislodging aquatic weeds and silt by the anchor
chain and disc method in the Grand Canal. The
chains and discs in the canal are not visible.
Photo PX-D-60886.

12