1

CT4410– Irrigation and drainage

A case study for irrigation modernization:

Evaluation of canal improvement options in the Nevada
Irrigation District

April 3rd, 2008

Abstract
The Nevada Irrigation District operates an irrigation scheme where the question of
modernization is raised, since the system is likely to encounter difficulties related to water
shortages in the future. In that regard, canal improvement was studied to address both the
matters of a lack of freeboard, noticed in a number of canals by a previous survey, and a rate
of losses of 15%, which will represent a consequent amount of water as the demand increases.
Our approach consisted in building a model of a part of the Rattlesnake canal and running two
sets of scenarios with an applied upstream discharge. The first set illustrates the effects of
rehabilitation of the current canal, through sediments and vegetation removal, or lining by an
impervious material. The second evaluates the possibilities of different cross-section shapes
and dimensions, as well as lining types, for an enlarged canal designed at a 125% of the
estimated 2027 peak flow. Replacement by a pipeline was also considered. A cost analysis
was carried out along with environmental impact considerations, to evaluate the efficiency of
all the options. It was confirmed that although maintenance is sufficient in canals where the
expected flow increase will be less than 30% of the current peak flow, capacity increase is
necessary in the other cases, as it is in the Rattlesnake canal. In the second set of scenarios, no
specific solution was chosen since it finally depends on the expected result, taking into
account the efficiency, costs, equipments availability, and environmental impacts on adjacent
systems.
 2

1. Introduction
The Nevada Irrigation District is a water agency in Northern California, supplying customers
in Nevada, Placer and Yuba Counties since 1921, date of its foundation. The District’s history
is rooted in the California Gold rush, and many of the reservoirs and canal systems built then
were restored to be turned into a new irrigation district. Nowadays, along with municipal,
domestic and industrial water supply, the NID provides irrigation water to 5400 customers for
a total of 97,000 irrigable acres, one third being actually irrigated. In addition to supplying
drinking and irrigation water, the NID produces hydroelectricity and offers public recreation.
Water collected from the mountain snowpack, carry-over storage, contract purchases and
recycled water are the four sources of water in the District. The resource is then conveyed
through a large network of 300 miles of pipes and 425 miles of open canals (NID, Raw Water
Master Plan Update. Phase I: Technical Analysis, 2005). Water for irrigation is purchased
seasonally, based on the maximum flow demand, and delivered to customers via the miner’s-
inch measurement system. A miner’s-inch is the water delivered through a 1x1 inch outlet
surface with a head of 6 inches, and equals 11.22 gallons per minute (61.5 m3 per day). A
continuous flow in the pipes and canals together with a daily delivery shift characterizes the
District’s distribution scheme.
At present the District does not encounter difficulties related to the water resource
management. The NID has sufficient resources to meet the current and projected demand until
2027, assuming normal conditions (NID, Raw Water Master Plan Update, 2005). However,
with growing constraints such as climate change and increasing demand, the average annual
runoff might not be sufficient to meet all the demand in the future, and water conservation and
optimised delivery is likely to become an issue in the District. The District will have to rely
more heavily on carry-over storage, purchased and recycled water. In case of a dry year, the
resources are sufficient to avoid taking drastic measures, but a longer dry period will require
drought management measures. The District is otherwise operating the system in a suitable
manner regarding conservation practices, and has been effectively implementing Best
Management Practices since 1994. These practices include water audits and automation of
canal structures, which could lead to more efficient delivery.
Although these points are worth considering and should be studied more deeply as for
possible modernization, infrastructure improvement in the District is a necessary routine.
Most of the structures are a in a “reasonable shape”, but increased demand will add to the
constraints on these structures and especially where lack of maintenance has decreased their
capacity and efficiency. Regarding that aspect, three main points have been denoted: a lack of
freeboard in canals, siphons and culverts indicating that they are reaching and will exceed
their design capacity; a rate of losses in the structures around 15% (including leakage,
evaporation, over delivery and operation waste); and a need to replace old, small or
deteriorated structures. Lack of freeboard mainly results from a lack of maintenance and/or
inappropriate design capacity considering increases in canal flows. The current percentage of
losses is relatively low compared to other systems, but these losses will represent 30,000 acre-
feet ( 37.106 m3 ) of water in the future, which is not negligible. Although all the sources of
losses cannot be eliminated, leakage from canals can be reduced by lining with impervious
material. Structures that are to be restored or enlarged will be designed at a 125% of the 2027
estimated peak flows (NID, Raw Water Master Plan Update, 2005).
This paper will discuss the potential improvements resulting from the rehabilitation or
increase in capacity of current canals with respect to the projected maximum flows. Costs,
environmental impacts and efficiency are the main criteria considered in the study, on a
purely technical level. A scenario analysis will be carried out on a model of the Rattlesnake
canal which is, according to a survey completed for the Raw Water Master Plan Update,
 3

Phase I (September 2005), reaching its maximum capacity. The scenarios include
maintenance and rehabilitation of the canal through lining and sediments removal, increase in
capacity coupled with lining, and replacement by a pipeline. Although culverts and siphons
should be given consideration concerning the increase in flow, they will not be studied in this
paper. The analysis being carried out in the idea of using the available water more efficiently,
the results will provide a basis for recommendations regarding the actions needed.

2. Materials and method

The purpose of this analysis is to apply different scenarios to a defined existing canal
and observe its behaviour through the variations of the water level. Altogether with a
hydraulic analysis which will determine the efficiency of the system, parameters such as costs
and environmental impacts will be considered.
For this canal analysis, SOBEK 2.1 (trial version) was used along with the software
MANNING (trial version) to determine the expected water level. SOBEK is a modelling
software developed by Delft Hydraulics, and MANNING is a canal design software
developed by Adrian Laycock Ltd., available on their website. The software is based on the
Manning equation:
1
Q = AR 2 / 3i1 2
n
with n the roughness coefficient, i the hydraulic gradient, A the cross-sectional water
area, and R the hydraulic radius, with R=A/P and P the wetted perimeter, with the assumption
of uniform flow. The advantage of the software lays in its simplicity of use and the
availability of different shapes of cross-section, and was basically used to design the canal.
The data obtained are then entered in SOBEK, which operates with the Saint-Venant
equation, to obtain more realistic results.

The investigation is carried out on the upper portion of the Rattlesnake canal (between
1 and 2A, referred to with the reach code RATL01), a secondary canal mainly used for
transport toward tertiary canals. The Rattlesnake is part of the Deer Creek system and depends
directly on the Chicago Park canal.

Figure 1: Location of the Rattlesnake Canal - NID, Raw Water Master Plan Update, 2005 – Attachment
E: Raw Water Demand Model Overview and Representative Figures
 4

Chosen boundaries

Figure 2: Head of the Rattlesnake canal - NID, Raw Water Master Plan Update - Attachment D - Deer
Creek and Bear River System Canal Schematics

It was flagged during the evaluation mentioned in the RMWP for different problems, the main
one being the lack of freeboard. The capacity of the Rattlesnake canal is expected to be
exceeded in 2007 by 134%, hence the need for either maintenance or replacement (NID,
RWMP Update, 2005). Below are reported the expected demand and characteristics of the
canal.

Estimated Peak Canal Flows (including losses) % max New design

Max flow
Existing 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 capacity in capacity
Rattlesnake (head at DC114)
(cfs) 13,3 22,9 25,3 28,1 29,8 31,6 17 134% 39,53
Rattlesnake (head at DC114)
(m3/s) 0,38 0,65 0,72 0,8 0,84 0,9 0,48 1,12
Rattlesnake DC115 (cfs) 12 21,3 23,5 26,1 17,8 29,6 141% 36,98
Rattlesnake DC115 (m3/s) 0,34 0,6 0,67 0,74 0,5 0,84
Difference DC114 - DC115
(m3/s) 0,04 0,05 0,05 0,06 0,34 0,06
Difference DC114 - DC115
(cfs) 1,3 1,6 1,8 2 12 2

Table 1: Rattlesnake canal flow characteristics at head – NID, Raw Water Master Plan Update, 2005 –
Attachment D: Deer Creek and Bear River system canals schematics

According to the maps, a representative length of 9840 feet was taken for the model,
with a slope of 1‰ and an assumed rectangular cross section with a width of 6.56 feet (2m).
The modelled canal is straight with a steady one-dimension flow. The difference between the
two gauges DC114 and DC115 is assumed to be the outflow to the fields plus the losses
through evaporation, leakage, seepage, over delivery and operation waste. This study aims at
evaluating the variations in water head and freeboard for the current canal, as was reported in
the RWMP. For the future canal, the discharge applied at the head will be constant, and the
water depth and freeboard will be equivalent to provide a basis on which to compare cross
sections and types of lining. We therefore assume that an upstream control structure delivers a
constant discharge, which is in practice based on the downstream demand.
In the SOBEK model, the open canal is represented by a simple reach connecting two
boundary conditions nodes:
 5

• The upstream node characterizes the incoming flow from upper reaches and, in our case,
is the estimated peak canal flows mentioned in Table 1. At the downstream node, the
head level is 0 to allow a free flow in the canal.
• Cross sections are defined upstream and downstream and the varying parameters are the
cross section shape and width, as well as the friction coefficient and the bed and surface
levels.
• The bed level is determined according to the water level in the canal at maximum
capacity, plus a freeboard as required by the United States Bureau of Reclamation
(USBR)
• The outflow is represented by negative lateral flow nodes spread out on the canal’s
length, each of a defined discharge of 0.35cfs (0.01 m3/s).
• The effect of sedimentation will be modelled as a decreased bank level, through the
difference between bed and surface level. We estimated that a height of about 4 inches
(10cm) is lost due to sediments accumulation in earth canals.
• The distance between calculation nodes is 50 m, and the time step is 10h for a simulation
over 2 days.

Figure 3: Model in SOBEK

1.1 Evaluation of the canal improvement scenarios

To evaluate how the improvements of the canal can be carried out on a hydraulic level,
two main sets of scenarios were defined. The first set of scenarios is applied to the current
canal, with an initial maximum flow of 17 cfs. The other set concerns the same canal with the
design discharge proposed in the RMWP, i.e. 39.56 cfs. The different scenarios are listed in
Table 2 and
Table 3.
In both cases, the minimum required freeboard was determined according to the USBR
guidelines. This minimum between the water surface and the height of the bank can be
determined with Figure 4 (RWMP), knowing the discharge in the canal.

The software MANNING provides an estimation of the water level for each scenario,
thus giving an approximation of the bank level which will be used in SOBEK to determine the
freeboard. When a canal is lined, it is assumed that the losses decrease, relative to the initial
outflow. The losses are estimated at 15% of the outflow, and a hard-surface lining can reduce
the losses between 60% and 80% (FAO - Training manual n°7: Canals, 1992, p.42). In our
case, we will consider that an average of 60% of the supposedly lost water is retrieved thanks
to lining.
 6

Figure 4: Bank height for canals and freeboard for hard surface, buried membrane, and earth lining -
Bureau of Reclamation, Canals and Related Structures, Bureau of Reclamation Design Standards No. 3,
release No. DS-3-5, Denver, Colorado, December 8, 1967. Figure 4 Par. 1.10

1.2 Evaluation scenarios for the current canal

The current canal is supposed to be a rough earth excavation, not weeded and not
damaged, of rectangular shape and with an intake of 1.41 cfs (0.04 m3/s). The design capacity
was set at 17 cfs plus a freeboard of 1.2 feet as recommended by the USBR.

The description of the scenarios follows:

Case 1: Initial canal described above with the maximum flow, rough earth excavation

Case 2: Canal at current discharge, damaged and with a layer of sediments and vegetation

Case 3: Canal at design discharge, damaged and with a layer of sediments and vegetation

Case 4: Canal at current discharge, lined with concrete and without sediments or vegetation

Case 5: Canal at design discharge, lined with concrete and without sediments or vegetation

Case 6: Canal at design discharge, lined with a polyethylene membrane and without
sediments or vegetation

Case 6: Canal at design discharge, with no lining but with the sediments and vegetation
removed
 7

Cross Minimum Water

Length Design Discharge Cross Bank
Strickler section Intake freeboard depth
Case Description canal discharge at head Type of lining section level
coefficient width (cfs) required MANNING
(feet) (cfs) (cfs) shape (feet)
(feet) (feet) (feet)
Earth
1 Initial canal 9840 17 17 excavation 42 rectangular 6.56 1.3 1.2 1.3 2.5
clean
Earth
initial canal - current discharge -
1-2 9840 17 13.3 excavation 33 rectangular 6.56 1.3 1.2 1.3 2.2
damaged and sediments
damaged
Earth
initial canal - design discharge -
1-3 9840 17 17 excavation 33 rectangular 6.56 1.3 1.2 1.6 2.2
damaged and sediments
damaged
Initial canal - current discharge - Sprayed
1-4 9840 17 13.3 62 rectangular 6.56 1.18 1.2 0.9 2.5
lined and sediments removed concrete clean
Initial canal - design discharge - Sprayed
1-5 9840 17 17 62 rectangular 6.56 1.18 1.2 1 2.5
lined and sediments removed concrete clean
Initial canal - design discharge -
Polyethylene
1-6 lined geomembrane and 9840 17 17 83 rectangular 6.56 1.18 1.2 0.85 2.5
clean
sediments removed
Earth
Initial canal - design discharge -
1-7 9840 17 17 excavation - 33 rectangular 6.56 1.3 1.2 1.6 2.5
sediments removed
clean
Table 2: Evaluation scenarios for the current Rattlesnake canal

1.3 Evaluation scenarios for an enlarged canal

To design the new canal, we will investigate several possibilities, including a change in
the shape of the cross section, material and friction coefficient. The cross-section profiles
investigated are rectangular, parabolic and trapezoidal. We chose to carry out the study with a
water level of about 1.4 feet for comparison (0.43m), and according to the USBR, the required
freeboard is 1.4 feet.
We also considered replacing the canal by a pipeline. In that case, knowing the flow
through the pipeline, we can determine the diameter according to the desired velocity:
4Q
D=
πV
The Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Cascade Canal -
Banner/Cascade Pipeline Project, 2006, states that a pipeline “conveying flows from Loma
Rica Reservoir to E. George WTP, would be a maximum diameter of 36 inches and designed
for a maximum flow rate of approximately 40 cfs”. Since our maximum flow is also 40 cfs,
we will consider that our pipelines will be of a 36 inches diameter, or 3 feet. The materials
chosen here are concrete and steel, since steel can be relatively cheap at large diameters.
Other materials such as PVC might be too expensive for such a diameter (A. Laycock).

In our analysis, we focused on geomembrane and concrete as these are the most
common types of lining. Concrete lining is efficient since it is impermeable, but has the
disadvantage of being subject to cracks or poorly impermeabilized joints (José Liria
Montanés). Exposed geomembrane (polyethylene) are highly impervious, but can be easily
damaged. To correct this, membranes need to be used in combination with a protective
covering on top, like concrete (A.Laycock). Although they would keep an excellent
impermeability, geomembranes covered with gravel or earth would lose one of their benefits
since the roughness coefficient would increase.
The dimensions indicated in Table 3 for trapezoidal canals are respectively the bottom
width and side slope m. For parabolic canals, the first value is the width and the second the
height, necessary to build the parabola. To study the parabolic canal in SOBEK, the equation
 8

for the parabola was found and entered in an Excel spreadsheet, the data then being entered in
the “Y-Z profile” cross-section.

The scenarios are described as follow:

Case 2: Canal at design discharge lined with concrete

Case: 2-1: Previous canal at projected 2027 discharge with sediments and vegetation

Case 2-2: Canal at design discharge, rough earth excavation without sediments and
vegetation (well maintained)

Case 2-3: Canal at design discharge, lined with a polyethylene membrane (well maintained)

Case 2-4: Canal at design discharge, parabolic cross-section lined with concrete (well
maintained)

Case 2-5: Canal at design discharge, trapezoidal cross-section lined with concrete (well
maintained)

Case 2-6: Circular pipe at design discharge, steel pipe, (well maintained)

Case 2-7: Circular pipe at design discharge, concrete pipe, (well maintained)

Cross Minimum Water

Length Design Discharge Cross Bank
section Intake freeboard depth
Case Description canal discharge at head Type of lining Strickler section level
width (cfs) required MANNING
feet (cfs) (cfs) shape (feet)
(feet) (inches) (feet)
New canal - design discharge
2 9840 40 40 Concrete - clean 72 rectangular 8.2 1.82 1.4 1.4 2.8
- lined with concrete
New canal lined - expected
Concrete -
2-1 2027 flow - damaged and 9840 40 32 67 rectangular 8.2 2 1.4 1.3 2.7
damaged
sediments
New canal - design discharge Earth excavation
2-2 9840 40 40 42 rectangular 13.1 2 1.4 1.4 2.8
- earth rough excavation - clean
Exposed
New canal - rectangular -
2-3 9840 40 40 polyethylene 83 rectangular 7.2 1.82 1.4 1.4 2.8
geomembrane
membrane
New canal - lined concrete -
2-4 9840 40 40 Concrete - clean 72 Parabolic 11.5 x 1 1.82 1.4 1.4 2.8
parabolic
Exposed
New canal - geomembrane -
2-42 9840 40 40 polyethylene 83 Parabolic 9.8 x 1 1.82 1.4 1.4 2.8
parabolic
membrane
New canal - lined concrete -
2-5 9840 40 40 Concrete - clean 72 trapezium 6.6 x 3.3 1.82 1.4 1.4 2.8
trapezium
Exposed
New canal - geomembrane -
2-52 9840 40 40 polyethylene 83 trapezium 5.3 x 4.6 1.82 1.4 1.4 2.8
trapezium
membrane
2-6 New canal - PVC pipe 9840 40 40 Steel pipe 100 circular pipe D=3 1.82
2-7 New canal - Concrete pipe 9840 40 40 Concrete pipe 67 circular pipe D=3 1.82
Table 3: Evaluation scenarios for the future Rattlesnake canal

1.4 Cost evaluation

The evaluation of the new canal should include a cost comparison. According to the WRMP,
the minimum cost for excavation is 16.20 $/ft for a canal which flow is comprised between 25
and 50 cfs. Table 4 gives a comparison between concrete lining and geomembrane, as for cost
but also durability and effectiveness. These data are used for the cost analysis. We assume
that there is no extra cost for a parabolic or trapezoidal canal, although this is not the case in
practice. Furthermore, the canals lined with a geomembrane associated to concrete are
supposed to have the same roughness coefficient as canals lined with concrete alone, although
the former are more effective at seepage reduction.
 9

Table 4: Comparison of 34 test sections by the USBR (Swihart & Haynes, 2002)

1.5 Environmental constraints

Since modernization also includes sustainability and consideration of environmental issues,

the impact of the previously mentioned techniques on the adjacent ecosystems has to be
considered.
In case of an increase in freeboard on the current canal, heavy equipments are
required, and could disturb adjacent vegetation and wildlife, as well as possible aquatic
species. The removal of vegetation on slope could result in increased soil erosion.
Where existing canals are lined with Shotcrete to prevent leakages, heavy construction
equipments are used and therefore can potentially affect vegetation and wildlife.
It is also to be noted that leakage from a canal may be used by adjacent systems, such as
vegetation communities (RWMP), and the elimination of leakages by lining or pipeline
conversion can affect adjacent systems that rely on this source of water.
When possible, further research on environmental impact assessment should be carried on to
determine the less damaging methods.

Figure 5: Gunite or Shotcrete used as a lining material in Swaziland – A. Laycock Ltd (photo Chris
Cronin)
 10

Figure 6: Reinforced Polyethylene in Brooks, Alberta, Canada - Erwin Braun, R.E.T. Eastern Irrigation
District Harry Schoorlemmer, P. Eng. Eastern Irrigation District

3. Results and discussion

The summarised results of the SOBEK simulations are given in Table 5 and Table 6.
In the case of the current canal, it is clear from Figure 7 that the best way to increase
freeboard on the long term and with the same maximum flow, is to line the canal with either
sprayed concrete or a geomembrane (cases 1-5 and 1-6). Both methods have the advantage of
avoiding erosion and thus sedimentation downstream. According to the USBR guidelines,
canals should be designed with a sufficient velocity to avoid sedimentation, which is the case
in our scenarios, with an average velocity between 1.5 and 3 ft/s. The USBR recommends that
velocities should be comprised between 1.5 and 2.5 ft/s. In the case of the geomembrane, the
maximum recommended velocity for an unprotected low-density polyethylene membrane is 6
ft/s and more than 16 ft/s for a concrete of reasonable quality (A. Laycock, 2007).
Case 1-3 is not represented on the figure since the water level is largely above the
bank from the beginning of the simulation, clearly indicating that allowing the maximum flow
in the canal with the current conditions (i.e. sediments and vegetation, damaged lining) is not
conceivable. Simple removal of the sediments and vegetation (case 1-7) is not sufficient as
compared with the initial canal (case 1), which was designed considering a normal
maintenance (canal clean and not damaged), but does perform better than the canal in current
conditions, with sediments and vegetation (case 1-2).
However, even lining of the canal would not be adequate for higher discharges as
expected in the future. As a result, it is necessary to focus on the results of the evaluation of
the future canal.
 11

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Freeboard (feet)

1.2
1 case 1
0.8 case 1-5
case 1-6
0.6
case 1-7
0.4
0.2
0
0

0
10

70

20

80

40

90

50

10

60

20

70

30

90

40
66
13

19

26

32

39

45

52

59

65

72

78

85

91

98
Distance (feet)

Figure 7: Freeboard for the current canal scenarios

The results of the SOBEK simulation on the freeboard and velocity in the future canal
are given in Figure 8 and Figure 9. Although the freeboard has been calculated to be the same
in all the canals, as well as waterdepth, we suppose that the difference between the parabolic
canals and the other types of canals is due to the way the profile of the cross-section is
determined in SOBEK. It is also clear that the freeboard increases slightly as the discharge
along the canal decreases, due to the intakes. This graph shows that, in normal conditions of
maintenance of the canal, the freeboard requirements are respected at the design discharge.
The velocities in the canals are comprised between 3.4 and 4.1 ft/s, except for the earthen
canal (case 2-2) where the velocity of 2.2 ft/s is in the interval of recommended velocities for
such canals. The higher velocities in the concrete and geomembrane lined canals are
acceptable since there can be no erosion in these canals, and have the advantage of preventing
deposition of sediments.

1.55
1.53
1.51 case 2
case 2-2
Freeboard (feet)

1.49
1.47 case 2-3
1.45 case 2-4
1.43 case 2-42
1.41 case 2-5
1.39 case 2-52
1.37
1.35
0

0
10

70

20

80

40

90

50

10

60

20

70

30

90

40
66
13

19

26

32

39

45

52

59

65

72

78

85

91

98

Distance (feet)

Figure 8:Freeboard for the future canal scenarios

 12
Cross Minimum Water Average Average
Discharge Cross Average
Strickler section Intake freeboard depth waterdepth freeboard
Case Description at head Type of lining section velocity
coefficient width (cfs) required MANNING SOBEK SOBEK
(cfs) shape (cfs)
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
1 Initial canal 17 Earth excavation clean 42 rectangular 6.56 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.9
initial canal - current discharge - damaged and
1-2 13.3 Earth excavation damaged 33 rectangular 6.56 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.9 1.5
sediments
initial canal - design discharge - damaged and
1-3 17 Earth excavation damaged 33 rectangular 6.56 1.3 1.2 1.6 7.7 -5.5 1.6
sediments
Initial canal - current discharge - lined and sediments
1-4 13.3 Sprayed concrete clean 62 rectangular 6.56 1.18 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.7 2.3
removed
Initial canal - design discharge - lined and sediments
1-5 17 Sprayed concrete clean 62 rectangular 6.56 1.18 1.2 1 1 1.5 2.5
removed
Initial canal - design discharge - lined geomembrane
1-6 17 Polyethylene clean 83 rectangular 6.56 1.18 1.2 0.85 0.8 1.7 3
and sediments removed
1-7 Initial canal - design discharge - sediments removed 17 Earth excavation - clean 33 rectangular 6.56 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.5 1 1.6

Table 5: Results of the evaluation of the current canal scenarios

Cross Minimum Water Average Average

Discharge Cross Average
section Intake freeboard depth waterdepth freeboard
Case Description at head Type of lining Strickler section velocity
width (cfs) required MANNING SOBEK SOBEK
(cfs) shape (ft/s)
(feet) (inches) (feet) (feet) (feet)
New canal - design discharge - lined with
2 40 Concrete - clean 72 rectangular 8.2 1.82 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 3.4
concrete
New canal lined - expected 2027 flow -
2-1 32 Concrete - damaged 67 rectangular 8.2 2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 3.3
damaged and sediments
New canal - design discharge - earth rough
2-2 40 Earth excavation - clean 42 rectangular 13.1 2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.2
excavation
2-3 New canal - rectangular - geomembrane 40 Exposed polyethylene membrane 83 rectangular 7.2 1.82 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 3.9
2-4 New canal - lined concrete - parabolic 40 Concrete - clean 72 Parabolic 11.5 x 1 1.82 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 3.5
2-42 New canal - geomembrane - parabolic 40 Exposed polyethylene membrane 83 Parabolic 9.8 x 1 1.82 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 4.1
2-5 New canal - lined concrete - trapezium 40 Concrete - clean 72 trapezium 6.6 x 3.3 1.82 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 3.5
2-52 New canal - geomembrane - trapezium 40 Exposed polyethylene membrane 83 trapezium 5.3 x 4.6 1.82 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 3.9
2-6 New canal - PVC pipe 40 Steel pipe 100 circular pipe D=3 1.82 5.5
2-7 New canal - Concrete pipe 40 Concrete pipe 67 circular pipe D=3 1.82 5.5
Table 6: Results of the evaluation of the future canal scenarios
 13

5
4.5
4 case 2
3.5 case 2-2
Velocity (ft/s)

3 case 2-3
2.5 case 2-4
2 case 2-42
1.5 case 2-5
case 2-52
1
0.5
0
0

0
10

70

20

80

40

90

50

10

60

20

70

30

90

40
66
13

19

26

32

39

45

52

59

65

72

78

85

91

98
Distance (feet)

Figure 9: Velocity for the future canal scenarios

A first estimate of the avoided losses in 2027 (60% of the 15% losses) gives an approximation
of 6.106 cfs (170,000 m3) a year only in this section of the Rattlesnake canal, therefore non
negligible. The earth canal is the only one to keep its rate of losses of 15% a year.
On a general level, parabolic canals are more efficient than rectangular or even trapezium,
although the technique requires more accuracy than other canals. They tend to have a higher
velocity at low discharge than other shapes, and thus sediment deposition is reduced.
Furthermore, as illustrated in Figure 10, they have hardly any stress concentration points,
avoiding cracks when a concrete lining is applied (A.Laycock, 2007).

Figure 10: Finite Element Analysis of a parabolic profile – A. Laycock

Rectangular canals are also subject to bank collapsing when erosion affects the lower part of
the canal section. Whenever possible, parabolic shape should be preferred over others.
However, for the same water depth, as indicated in Table 6, the canal dimensions would be
greater than other shapes. In that regard, the best shape is the rectangular one, although an
earth lining would not be of any benefit.
Low-pressure pipeline systems can be easier to manage, and has the advantage of sparing
space for usable land as the pipes are buried (A. Laycock). Pipelines could also be the first
step to a more flexible delivery system, which could be the theme of another modernization
case study. However, pipes might require extra equipments such as pressure-reducing valves
and special discharge outlets, that can be both expensive and a great source of disturbance for
vegetative/wildlife communities.
To further compare these scenarios, we need to look at their costs and environmental
impact. According to Table 4, geomembrane covered with concrete is the most efficient lining
at reducing seepage and is not much more expensive than concrete alone, with respect to the
maximum cost. Although a simple earth canal is cheaper than with other linings, the benefits
lost to the low Strickler coefficient and higher rate of seepage causes this choice to be less
 14

advisable. Globally, the variations in cost for the different canals are not considerable, which
leaves more margins to choose the most appropriate on basis of efficiency and environmental
impact.
Cross- Total excavation Maximum Effectiveness
Length of Surface of Construction Excavation
section Lining material and lining cost durability at seepage
canal (ft) lining (ft²) cost ($/ft²) cost ($/ft)
shape ($) (years) reduction (%)
Case 2 Rectangular 9840 10560 Concrete 2.33 16.2 184,013 60
Case 2-2 Rectangular 9840 15540 Earth excavation 0 16.2 159,408 85%
Case 2-3 Rectangular 9840 10140 Geomembrane 1.53 16.2 174,922 25 90%
Case 2-4 Parabolic 9840 10500 Concrete 2.33 16.2 183,873 60
Case 2-42 Parabolic 9840 9000 Geomembrane 1.53 16.2 173,178 25 90%
Geomembrane
Parabolic 9840 10500 covered with 2.54 16.2 186,078 60 95%
concrete
Case 2-5 Trapezium 9840 9540 Concrete 2.33 16.2 181,636 60
Case 2-52 Trapezium 9840 10039.2 Geomembrane 1.53 16.2 174,768 25 90%
Geomembrane
Trapezium 9840 9540 covered with 2.54 16.2 183,640 60 95%
concrete
Cross- Maximum Effectiveness
Length of Surface of Excavation
section Lining material Cost ($/ft) Total ($) durability at seepage
canal (ft) lining (ft²) cost ($/ft)
shape (years) reduction (%)
Case 2-6 Pipe 36" 9840 Steel 50 492,000
Case 2-7 Pipe 36" 9840 Concrete 90 885,600
Table 7: Cost comparison for the future canal scenarios

As for the environmental impact, we have seen that all the methods might have a negative
influence on the adjacent systems. The reduction of seepage to the surrounding being a factor
of disturbance, it might be advisable to choose a lining with a high Strickler coefficient and
with a known rate of seepage that still allows adjacent systems to be sustained.

4. Conclusion
As noted in the RWMP, structures in the NID, and canals in particular, are globally in a good
state, but their performance require consideration regarding future and increased constraints.
The noticed low freeboard due to lack of maintenance and unsuitable capacity call for
improvement in several parts of the District. We have shown that in the case of the
Rattlesnake system, simple maintenance consisting of sediments and vegetation removal
would be sufficient for the current flow, but the recommended freeboard would be exceeded
with the projected 2027 demand flow. Lining would be effective in reducing the losses, but
again, with the projected demand, the freeboard would be limited.
The evaluation scenarios for the future canal shows that a choice has to be made as to
which design and lining to chose, regarding the costs and the feasibility of the project. A
combination of geomembrane and concrete is an advantageous choice to avoid losses and
increase the Strickler coefficient for higher velocity, and thus decreased sedimentation.
Parabolic and trapezium shapes are more adapted for this type of lining, but they cover a
larger surface and are more expensive than a rectangular cross section. Environmental aspects
have to be taken into account, since leaking water can sustain adjacent systems and heavy
works on the canals would influence the vegetative/wildlife communities. In the case of the
Rattlesnake system, the estimated costs of upcoming improvement on canals amount to
804,056$ in 2007, which is consistent with our average estimated cost of 180,000$ over a
portion of 10000 feet in the Rattlesnake canal. Being approximately in the same order of
magnitude, the cost is thus a less considered criterion for the design of the future canal. It
 15

should also be added that in order to keep a constant head for the miner’s-inch system and a
minimum freeboard, maintenance has to be regular in the whole system.
Finally, pipes would solve the problem of losses (leakage and evaporation) and be the first
step to a new delivery plan, except that it is a costly solution which requires additional
equipments to deliver water to the fields.
The rate of losses is an average of 15%, meaning that some canals might have a higher rate of
losses, which should be investigated to aim at the most destitute structures. Lining should be
applied where the maximum losses are in the system, and given the costs, small canals might
not need to be lined. As stated in the Raw Water Master Plan Update (2005), maintenance
activities are sufficient in canals where the projected increase is less than 30 percent of the
current maximum flow, whereas capacity increases are necessary on those where the increase
is greater than 30 percent. This conclusion was illustrated in our analysis of the Rattlesnake
canal.
As a next step, more detailed studies should be carried on the Rattlesnake system, but also on
the other canals reported to exceed their design capacity before 2027. These studies should
include a more detailed economic analysis of the possible solutions as well as a more
comprehensive environmental impact assessment, especially regarding the amount of water
available for adjacent systems after lining. Finally, replacement of large canals by pipelines
and its influence on the global system should be looked at in more detail.

5. Acknowledgement
The author would like to thanks M.W. Ertsen for his advices, as well as the other students
who attended the course for their tips. I also wish to acknowledge the advice of a student to
use the trial version of SOBEK instead of struggling with the faculty’s computers room help
desk.

6. References
Laycock, A., 2007. Irrigation systems. Design, planning and construction. Cromwell Press,
UK. 285 p.
Liria Montanés, J. 2006. Hydraulic canals: design, construction, regulation and maintenance.
Oxon: Taylor & Francis. 389 p.
Van den Bosch, B.E., Hoevenaars, J., Brouwer, C., Hatcho, N. October 1992. Irrigation water
management. Training manual n°7. Canals. Provisionnal edition, FAO.
Swihart, J. and Haynes, J. 2002. Canal-Lining Demonstration Project Year 10: Final Report.
United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. November 2002
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Cascade Canal - Banner/Cascade
Pipeline Project. Draft EIR. Main Report 1 : Project description. March 2006
Nevada Irrigation District. Raw Water Master Plan Update. Phase I: Technical Analysis
Volume I Final Report. September 2005.
Website Nevada Irrigation District. http://www.nid.dst.ca.us/