I’m an agronomist in the Golden Triangle (Great Falls, Shelby, Havre). There’s a lot of dry land farming that goes on, and it’s pretty common to leave a field fallow every other, or every third year in order to replenish the limited moisture we get.
Montana road trip
- Thread starter homestead
- Start date
Peas are being planted also, correct? mtmuley
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,616
. I happen to agree with your opinion though.
Yes, I don’t work with peas much, but iirc the price isn’t great so there’s reduced acres this year. Plus with the early spring, most everything is already in the ground by now.
antlerradar
Well-known member
No different out west. But people love them and money and work do not matter when you love something.
antlerradar
Well-known member
The first irrigation systems were all gravity flow, The landowner would start the ditch far enough up stream so that you could with a ditch with less gradient than the river just let the water flow on to the fields. This worked best where there is plenty of fall in the river. In eastern Mt where there is not much elevation change, the farmer would often have to start the ditch miles upstream from the fields and have a dam in the river. The dam and the extra ditch were very expensive to maintain. There was also a lot of ditch loss of water. Our original pre 1900 ditch was close to three miles long before it got to the first fields. My father was a boy when we quit using it in the 50's. At the intake there was two 36 inch head-gates, by the time the water got to the fields the water volume was maybe half because the first mile of ditch went through a lot of gravel. The dam was combination of rocks, logs and willow sticks bundled together with rope. Every time the river flooded the dam would wash out and would have to be rebuilt. It was very expensive then and with today's regulation, the cost would be too much to even think of going back. Most people have gone to pumping the water instead of gravity flow ditches. However there as still a few gravity flow ditches in use where there is enough river gradient that you do not need a dam and T& Y irrigation district near Miles City has a concrete dam. Most farmers have gone to pumping water into a ditch or sprinkler systems. Pumps come in all different sizes. The pump @cgasner1 mentioned will pump around 7500 gallons a minute give or take depending on the river elevation. There are pumps that will do much more. Sprinkler systems are sold as using a lot less water, but this really isn't true, Plants use water, ditch systems and sprinkler systems deliver the water to the plants. What the plants do not use, evaporates into the air or ends up back in the river. Because sprinklers deliver considerably less water it is economical to irrigate places much higher in elevation above the river than you ever could with a ditch system.
How do the water rights work? Are they attached to the property? The person? Are these water rights permanent, or do they need to be renewed on a continual basis? Are there financial costs? Obligations for upkeep of ditches/dams, etc...?
I really appreciate all the responses, especially given that most of my questions don't pertain to hunting. I'm a social studies teacher, so the culture and history of places I go is just as important to me as the hunting. And the crowd here on Hunttalk always strikes me as quite diverse. Thanks folks.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5,558
I live on a cistern so I have to haul water to my house. I haul 900 gallons of water home a week for the house. Imagine my reaction to being told that pump was pushing 7500 gallons a minute
That definitely provides perspective.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Water rights are generally attached to the property, In general a water right has a set amount of flow and a priority date. My GG grandfather constructed the first ditch on the river, so my cousins still have the water right with the first priority date, I think the flow is around 10 cfs. (cubic feet per second). T&Y irrigation district has the second, Their water right is for around 180 cfs. On dry years like this one often these are the only two water rights that the river flow will accommodate, all of the other farmers are using stored water.(water that is in the reservoir) You do not have to pay for your water right, Stored water in the reservoir was bought with a contract that was payed out over many years, plus an annual operation and maintenance fee for the dam. If you have a water right, you are obligated to keep your water delivery system operational. If you do not use your water, the right can be challenged as abandon. There is no truer statement than in the west we drink whiskey, water is for fighting over.
Last edited:
JEL
Well-known member
Chickpeas, yellow peas, lentils, mustard are all being planted. Cereal grains don't pencil out at the current market price.
Caseknife
Well-known member
If you want to delve into the fight over water in the west, look into the Colorado River Compact that lawyers are fighting over right now. It has or is expiring and it is between states, not just private property owners.
Most of the flood irrigation (open channel flow) in the State of Montana were constructed/developed around 100 years ago. Pivot irrigation is becoming more and more. There is a push for sprinkler irrigation (wheel lines, pivots, etc.) because they conserve water. Pivot sprinklers put more water on the plant and maybe some shallow water into the ground/soil. The cost to put in a practical sprinkler irrigation system can vary. The upfront cost is more expensive, but long term and the ease of irrigating (less maintenance) make it convenient (farmer/rancher can do a lot more other stuff than run around flood irrigating or they can hire less help) assuming nothing fails. Kind of like your yard sprinkler system ... set the time and the duration and let it run (as long as there is water). The source of the water can vary, as well. It could be supplied from a ditch, canal, river/stream or a well. The cost varies, usually several thousands of dollars.
IMO, pivot sprinklers aim at water conservation can be problematic. Where I am coming from is with flood irrigation, water seeps into the plants root system and more importantly the ground. This soaking of the ground often recharges the ground water table or the water flow through the ground back to the river or stream. This all takes time. With conserving water (which can be and is "good") the landowner only takes whatever water and the remaining water stays in the river only to flow right on by downstream, out of state, and into the ocean. There are a lot of benefits to both practices, but a lot of folks think conservation is great, but the flood irrigation method certainly has its benefits. If either method is done right, there are a lot of benefits depending on the practice.
El Jason
Well-known member
Elk LOVE lentils.
El Jason
Well-known member
What year did your family come to the river valley? I was just recently telling someone about the history there.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I think the biggest reason sprinklers aim at water conservation being problematic is farmers often expand the acreage they irrigate when they convert from ditch to a sprinkler. You also have to run the sprinkler more on the same amount of acreage. Combine this with the minimal return flows and evaporation loss and the conservation benefits are not nearly as clear. We are noticing that as more and more farmers are converting to sprinklers, we are having to release a little more water from the dam to get the same amount of water to the mouth of the river.
Another issue with sprinklers that is often overlooked is pocket gophers. Pocket gophers think that alfalfa is slow cooked prime rib. They can infest a sprinkler to the point that crop and machinery damage is a problem. Flood irrigation ether drowns them or forces the gophers to the surface were they are vulnerable to predators. Often when I irrigate there will be a red tail hawk or two setting in the trees next to the fields waiting for the gophers.
antlerradar
Well-known member
1884
Caseknife
Well-known member
The issue that I had with my Uncle's flood irrigated timothy fields in central Washington was the corrugation ditches for the water were pretty severe. I hayed for him, pull-behind New Holland harrow bed behind a John Deer 70, and bucked bales, 120# bales. You knew to look behind before the second tier of bales went up, because more often than not, the first tier had drifted to the back because of the rough corrugations. He must have done something right though, because his hay was personally requested by Japanese race horse owners.
