Journal of Agricultural Research v»i. xxvii. n 0 . » 
time for analysis. The results of one series of these observations are 
shown diagrammatically in figure 7 for the north line of wells and in 
figure 8 for the south line. 
These plats had been irrigated each week during August and Septem¬ 
ber. Just after the irrigation that was completed on September 30 the 
water stood in the wells as shown by the upper line in each figure. Six 
days later, on October 5, the water stood as shown in the middle line 
in the figures, while nine days later, on October 14, it stood still lower. 
There are a number of points brought out in these diagrams that deserve 
mention. Possibly the most striking thing is that the upper limit of 
the saturated zone was not level or even approximately so. Then, too, 
the rate of subsidence was very different for the different wells. ’ The 
variation in this respect was from 0.5 feet to 2.85 feet for the 15-day 
period. It may also be recalled that the south line of wells was located 
396/ 
3960 - 
/o 
mm 
i 
// 
12 
3939 - 
&/ 
#/ 
I— 
\ \ 
8 S& 
—7 
/> 
i S9LT 
64. 
\ 
W 
! \ 
3953- 
\ _ y 
w~- - —r~ 
;\ 
'34LT 
57% 
i 
\SRLT 
6 /% 
:£ 
SRLT 
&)LT 
|SRLT 
■'04% 
c 
tMLT 
~04% 
4X04 
SALT 
03X 
264 0.62 0.04 0.57 06/ 006 007 004 004 003 d&2 004 003 
<5/947' COA/TE/VT OCTOBER 5. 
.55 50 230 LOO L35 2/0 255 2.30 /.SO L70 /.SO L25 /.75 
D/EEERENCE //V GROUND HRTER LEVELS SEPTEMBER30 70 OCTOBER /4. 
♦Fig. 7.—Ground-water levels, series Y north, Newlands Experiment Farm; irrigated Sept. 28 
to 30 , 1922 . 
only 15 feet from the tile drain in which the water was kept below 3,956. 
In only two of the wells in this line did the water drop below 3,957. 'The 
salt content of the water in these wells as determined on October 5 is 
shown on the diagram. These figures show that in quality also the 
water differed from well to well. 
In the field in which these observations were made the underground 
water has been for years not more than 4 feet below the surface. While 
the soil in many large spots in the field has been so impermeable that 
irrigation water could not get through it, there have been other spots 
through which the water has soaked down readily. The lateral movement 
of the underground water has been very slow, in fact, almost imper¬ 
ceptible. It is probable that the evaporation losses from the moist 
soil when the water table has been high have resulted in concentrating 
the soil solution fully as much as it has been diluted by such contribu¬ 
tions of irrigation water as have been made to it. 
