The document proposes an irrigation system for a 3-acre wetland restoration project. It evaluates potential water sources including treated water from a sanitation district, an existing well, and a nearby pond. Water quality tests show the well and treated water meet standards but the pond does not due to higher salt content. The document also analyzes the water needs of potential crops like sunflowers and corn. It recommends further testing the treated water before drilling a new well and proposes a drip irrigation system powered by a gasoline generator due to high costs and challenges of solar. Additional information is needed to select the best pump system.

1. Dow Wetlands Restoration Project
University of California, Berkeley
Dow Wetland Project/ Chemical Engineering Consulting (ChEC)

2. 1
Table of Contents pg.
1. Executive Summary--------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
2. Potential Water Source-----------------------------------------------------------------------------3
a. DDSD as Past Water Source
b. Existing Well
c. New Well
i. Hydrogeology
d. Alternative Water Source: Pond
3. Irrigation System-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
a. Water Distribution
i. Sunflower Total Water Consumption
ii. Corn Total Water Consumption
iii. Comparison of Sunflower and Corn Water Annual Requirements
b. Dripper Installation
i. Drip Irrigation System
ii. Piping Layout
iii. Flow Rates and Maintenance
iv. Summary of Costs
4. Pumping System-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
a. Well Pump
i. Shallow Well Pump (Single-Drop Jet-Pump System)
ii. Deep Well Pump (Double-Drop Jet-Pump System)
iii. Submersible Pump
b. Irrigation Pump
c. Water Storage Tank
d. Well Pump and Irrigation Pump
5. Power Source--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
a. Conventional Fuel
i. Gasoline
ii. Diesel
b. Sunlight Availability
c. Solar Power
i. Solar Panels
ii. Battery
6. Cost Analysis--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20
7. Recommendation----------------------------------------------------------------------------------21
8. Future Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21
9. Team Biographies---------------------------------------------------------------------------------23
10. References -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24

3. 2

4. 3
1. Executive Summary
The Dow Wetlands Restoration Project is a cooperative project conducted by the Dow Chemical
Company in Pittsburg, CA and the student group at University of California, Berkeley entitled
Dow Wetland Project. For the past decade, the Dow Wetland Preserve in Antioch, CA has been
lacking an irrigation system and water resource due to the degrading water quality from the
previous water supplier, DDSD (Delta Diablo Sanitation District). Our team of chemical
engineers from the University of California, Berkeley has thoughtfully formulated a design to
irrigate Dow’s three acre Wetlands property in Antioch, CA. We have identified existing water
sources such as the pond next to the irrigation site and the new well water, as well as suggested
an optimal water distribution procedure through drip irrigation techniques. We tested the water
source quality in the UC Berkeley Environmental Water Quality Lab in accordance with current
water safety standards. Our current design allows for the pumping of 23,000 gallons of water per
day utilizing a drip line irrigation system requiring 3,060 ft. of hose.
For the water source, we suggest a reexamination the water qualities of DDSD treatment water
before drilling a new well for the irrigation water. For the pump system, a list of pumps is
generated based on the depth of the final well. Consequently, more information is needed before
we can determine the best pump system. Solar power is not a viable power source due to the
cost, large land requirement, and potential for vandalization. Our suggestion for the power source
is a gasoline powered generator, such Champion Power Equipment Model #41135, to provide
energy for the pump. In this upcoming fall semester (2015-2016), we will obtain the water
sample from DDSD and test it in the Berkeley Environmental Laboratory to determine its basic
water qualities (including turbidity, pH value, amount of dissolved oxygen, electrical
conductivity, and chloride concentration). We will be working closely with DDSD to determine
whether or not its treated water is a viable water source for irrigation. If the treated water is not a
viable option, we will focus on formulating a method for well drilling, determining the depth of
the water table near the irrigation site, and pursuing the method proposed by the current
proposal.
The overall cost of the proposed project is listed below:
Capital Costs
Recommendation: Cost:
Well Drilling ~$15,000
Well Pump -$350
Field Pump -$500
Solar Panel Installation and Setup ~$15,000
Gasoline Generator Installation and Setup ~$700

5. 4
PVC piping/plastic tubing (with control) ~$1,800
Final Total Solar Powered Setup (Capital) ~$33350
Final Total Gasoline Powered Setup (Capital) ~$18350
Yearly Costs
Solar Panel Maintenance (Yearly Value) ~$5000
Gasoline Fuel (Yearly Value) ~$5500
2. Potential Water Source
a. DDSD as Past Water Source
According to Krist Jensen, in the past, Dow Chemical Company obtained its irrigation
water for the Dow Wetland Preserve from the treatment water provided by DDSD (Delta Diablo
Sanitation District). However, a decade ago, many plants that were irrigated with the treated
water from DDSD began to wilt and die. A group of Dow Wetland Environmental Engineers
from the Dow Chemical Company tested the water quality and determined that the electrical
conductivity and salt concentration of the treated water were above the tolerance level of the
native plants. As a result, the water source from DDSD was discontinued for irrigation use. Since
then, there hasn’t been any replacement water source for irrigation besides the existing well,
located next to the windmill pump in the Dow Wetland Preserve.
For the three acre irrigation site, the treated water from DDSD is still a viable water
source for irrigation, however, a water quality testing is required. In our estimation, the electrical
conductivity and salt concentration from the DDSD might be lower than ten years ago due to the
advancements in water treatment.
Our recommendation is to test the water quality with the following parameters: turbidity,
pH value, amount of dissolved oxygen, electrical conductivity, and chloride concentration.
(Optimal range: Turbidity < 50 NTU, pH value ~ 7, Dissolved oxygen 8 to 10 mg/l, Electrical
conductivity < 1500 µS/cm (1), Chloride concentration < 5 ppm). If the water quality of treated
water from DDSD meets these requirements, it is the best option we can use for water source.
b. Existing Well
The current water source for irrigation within the wetland is an existing well that
produces water using a windmill pump. Our team obtained a water sample from the wetland
during a visit to the site in January of 2015 and tested its quality in the UC Berkeley
Environmental Water Quality Lab. Four samples were tested for comparison (well and pond
water are water samples from the wetland; DI water is a standard sample for comparison; and

6. 5
Berkeley tap water as a reference for comparison). The water quality parameters of the four
samples are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Results of a water quality test conducted on well water, deionized water, pond water,
and Berkeley tap water.
Turbidity
(NTU)
pH value
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/l)
Electrical conductivity
(µS/cm)
Cl concentration
Well water 1.05 7.75 7.8 1374 <1 ppm
Pond water 11.9 7.34 5.76 1914 <1 ppm
DI water 0.182 8.81 8.53 69.2 <1 ppm
Berkeley tap
water
0.178 6 7.57 2.88 <1 ppm
Turbidity is the measure of water clarity and number of suspended particles in a water
sample; the cloudier the water, the higher the turbidity. Turbidity is mainly caused by suspended
matter such as clay, silt, and organic matter such as plankton and other microscopic organisms
that interfere with the passage of light through the water. According to the EPA, the maximum
turbidity allowed for drinking water is 5 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit). Thus, the
turbidity of the well-1.05 NTU-is deemed appropriate for use, especially since it will not be used
for drinking (2).
pH values are an index of the concentration of hydrogen ions in the water. The higher the
concentration of H+ ions in the water, the lower the pH value is. Water with a pH value of less
than 7 is acidic, while that with a pH value more than 7 is basic. A pH value of 7 is indicative of
neutral water. The hydrogen ions participate in many of the chemical reactions present in water
and soil, influence the solubility of the fertilizers, and affect the availability of nutrients to plants.
Keeping the pH of irrigation water below 7 is important to prevent emitter clogging due to
sedimentation of salts, and a water or soil solution with too high of a pH value may result in
nutrient deficiencies. However, too low of a pH value may result in micronutrient toxicities and
damage to the plants’ roots. Therefore, the irrigation water pH range comfortable for most plants
is around 5.5-6.5. As observed in Table 1, the pH levels of the pond water and Berkeley tap
water are adequate for irrigation, while those of the well water and deionized water are slightly
high for irrigation (3).
Dissolved oxygen refers to the level of free, non-compound oxygen present in the water.
It is an important parameter to consider for the assessment of water quality as it influences the
organisms living in the water. A dissolved oxygen level that is too high or too low can harm
aquatic life and affect water quality (4).
The electrical conductivity of water is a measure of its salinity, or salt content. High
salinity affects the specific toxicity of a particular ion, such as sodium, and results in higher

7. 6
osmotic pressure around the roots. This prevents efficient water absorption by the plant.
Electrical conductivity of irrigation water below 1500 µS/cm is adequate for most plants (5). As
observed in Table 1, well water, deionized water, and Berkeley tap water all meet this
requirement, while the pond water does not. (6).
Chloride is an essential micronutrient required in small quantities by all plants. However,
it is often associated with salinity damage and toxicity. Chloride plays important functions such
as photosynthesis, osmotic adjustment and suppression of plant disease. More than a sufficient
amount of chloride is supplied from the atmosphere and precipitation, as rain water usually
contains a low amount of Cl. Although plants differ in both their chloride requirement as well as
their tolerance to chloride toxicity, chloride concentrations of below 70 ppm are usually safe for
most plants. As observed in Table 1, all the irrigation water sources meet the requirements with
less than 1 ppm of chloride (7).
c. New Well
i. Hydrogeology
Considering that the salt content in Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD) water may
be currently unsuitably high for irrigation, groundwater is an alternative water source. The water
quality analysis referenced in Section 3b indicates that the conductivity of well water is 1374 µS
/cm, below the limit of 1500 µS/cm established in Section 3a. However, there is currently no
infrastructure in place for groundwater retrieval or detection at the Dow Wetland Preserve.
Therefore, it is necessary to consider technologies for groundwater detection and possibly
digging a second well near the area that needs to be irrigated for retrieval purposes.
The technology that dominates the groundwater detection market is Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance (NMR). NMR sends an electromagnetic pulse into the ground and uses the decay
time of the return signal to determine the presence and depth of any groundwater (8).
d. Alternative Water Source: Pond
Pond water is an alternative to the well water as a water source for wetland irrigation.
The turbidity of the pond water is 11.9 NTUs (<50 NTU’s) and the pH of the pond water is 7.34,
making it suitable for irrigation. The pond water’s dissolved oxygen content is 5.76 mg/L, which
is above the chronic criterion of 4.8 mg/L. Therefore it is suitable for irrigation purposes in this
respect. Pond water’s electrical conductivity of 1914 µS/cm exceeds the maximum limit of
electric conductivity of 1500 µS/cm that is deemed appropriate for irrigation use. According to
this evaluation of the pond water’s quality, the pond water is not a viable alternative source of
irrigation water.

8. 7
3. Irrigation System
a. Water Distribution
Water consumption can be estimated through the equation:
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
=
𝐸𝐸𝑇𝑇 𝑜𝑜
∗ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 ∗ 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 ∗ 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 ∗ 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ∗ 0.623
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
Where ETo
is the amount of water needed by the reference crop to survive. For both sunflower
and corn water consumption calculations, the following assumptions are made: a crop
coefficient (purity of a species) of 1, plant density (moderate coverage of planting) of 1,
exposure factor (average exposure in an open field) of 1, and an irrigation efficiency (standard
for a drip irrigation system) of 90% (9). It is also assumed that the corn and sunflowers will be
planted on all three acres (130,680 square feet) of land. The Irrigation Training and Research
Center provides a table for the ET values of common plants for every month of the year (10).
Total water consumption over a period of time is found in the table below.
i. Sunflower Total Water Consumption
Sunflowers, as seen in Table 2 below, require a higher water amount between April-June
(8,500-13,600 gallons per day) with the highest in May (13,600 gallons per day) and a lower
water amount between July-March (100-3,800 gallons per day).
ii. Corn Total Water Consumption
Corn has higher water requirements between May-August (4,000-11,300 gallons per day)
with a peak in July (13,100 gallons per day). The lower water requirements are through
September-April (700-3,500 gallons per day).
iii. Comparison of Sunflower and Corn Water Annual Water Requirements
Both plants have a peak period of water requirement during summer time, mostly due to
the higher evaporation rate in summer. Month-by-month comparisons of water requirements can
be found below in Table 2.

9. 8
Table 2: Sunflower and Corn Water Annual Water Requirements
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Sunflower
Monthly
Gallons
38898 52919 105838 235647 380383 325202 42516 15378 3166 28495 22163 42968
Sunflower
Weekly
Gallons
9724 13230 26459 58912 95096 81301 10629 3845 792 7124 5541 10742
Sunflower
Daily
Gallons
1389 1890 3780 8416 13585 11614 1518 549 113 1018 792 1535
Corn
Monthly
Gallons
38898 41159 97244 62869 116241 315252 367718 249216 22163 28495 22163 42968
Corn
Weekly
Gallons
9724 10290 24311 15717 29060 78813 91930 62304 5541 7124 5541 10742
Corn
Daily
Gallons
1389 1470 3473 2245 4151 11259 13133 8901 792 1018 792 1535
Total
Monthly
Gallons
77796 94078 203082 298516 496624 640454 410234 264594 25329 56990 44326 85936
Total
Weekly
Gallons
19448 23520 50770 74629 124156 160114 102559 66149 6333 14248 11082 21484
Total
Daily
Gallons
2778 3360 7253 10661 17736 22873 14651 9450 905 2036 1584 3070
b. Dripper Installation
i. Drip Irrigation System
The existing sprinkler system and the underground pipeline used for delivering water can
be modified to distribute water via drip irrigation. Assuming the 3-acre land is a square, we
estimated there to be around 18 pipes where the sprinklers were originally attached to. These
pipes can be cut to a height near ground level, and ½” coupling valves can be attached onto the
pipes to steer drip irrigation flow. Compression fittings (where the tube fits inside the fitting) are
preferred over barbed fittings (where the fittings fit inside the tube) because the connections for
barbed fittings can get blown apart as a result of heat (11). These coupling valves are used to
control flow rates to meet the different water needs of sunflowers and corn at different seasons.
These valves should be connected to ½” drip tubes on both sides with 18-inch emitter spacing.
This emitter spacing was determined based on the assumption that the soil type is loam; the 12-
inch emitter spacing is optimal for sand, 18-inch for loam, and 24-inch for clay (12). Elevation
details of these fittings are flexible, but it is important to note that, for every foot of elevation
change in the point of connection to water source, there is a 0.433 psi difference.
The key pieces of equipment involved in drip irrigation include a backflow prevention
device, control valve, filter, and a pressure regulator. The backflow prevention device prevents
contamination of household water, and a filter with 150-200 mesh is usually sufficient for clean
water generation. The adjustable-type pressure regulator can be installed prior to or after the

10. 9
control valves, which are used to turn on or off the water for different zones. These components
should be installed prior to the drip system (13).
ii. Piping Layout
Because sunflowers and corn will have different watering needs, it is recommended that
the two crops be planted in different hydrozones. Our plan is to place corn and sunflowers on
opposite sides of the land and order the plants in rows. There are multiple design choices, but
one of the simplest is to run a main 3” pipeline at the center perpendicular to the rows and branch
off 1” pipelines with 18” spacing emitters that run through the rows. To maintain the same flow
over a wide pressure range, we recommend pressure compensating emitters.
Figure 1: Suggested piping layout of sunflower and corns
iii. Flow Rates and Maintenance
Assuming that there is currently one main underground line running in a loop through all
18 sprinklers, and that watering will be done for 8 hours per day, the water requirements shown
above can be manipulated to indicate the necessary flow rate out of each of the 18 pipes (9
toward the sunflower side and 9 toward the corn side) for each month. These flow rates can be
set at the beginning of each month by adjusting the coupling valves. The gph values included in
the table below were estimated based on this assumption and indicate the flow rate through each
of row of drip tube.

11. 10
Table 3: Summary of Recommended GPH flow rates
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Sunflower
Daily
Gallons
1389 1890 3780 8416 13585 11614 1518 549 113 1018 792 1535
Sunflower
Outlet GPH
19 26 52 117 189 161 21 8 2 14 11 21
Corn Daily
Gallons
1389 1470 3473 2245 4151 11259 13133 8901 792 1018 792 1535
Corn Outet
GPH
19 20 48 31 58 156 182 124 11 14 11 21
Additionally, a blow off valve should be included near the pump, so that in case of
excessive pressure buildup, water can be released safely. If there are any long breaks in between
watering, flush the mainline and system thoroughly to eliminate accumulated dirt and prevent
emitter clogging.
iv. Summary of Costs
The main costs for drip irrigation are dictated by the components listed under the drip
irrigation system: coupling valve, backflow preventer, pressure regulator, filter, drip tubing, and
emitters. Assuming the 3-acre land is a square and that there are 361.5 ft. on each side, we need a
total of around 340 feet of drip tubing (170 feet for each zone) for each row. The equipment is
priced as follows: $5/coupling valve, $50/500 ft. of drip hose, and $11/10 ft. of 3in. PVC piping.
A 30 PSI pressure regulator is as cheap as $8, but blow off valves are estimated to be most costly
(around $240 for a HKS Super SQV4 Sequential Blow off Valve kit) (14, 15). The total cost of
the designed irrigation following the assumptions of the design (square layout, dripper location,
etc.) is approximately $1,800.
4. Pumping System
The pumping system will require two pumps on the basis that we will install a second well. One
pump will first be needed to pump water out of the well. The three options for the well pump are
a shallow well pump, a deep well pump, and a submersible well pump. The type of well pump
used will be dependent upon the depth of the well created. In addition, a second pump
(centrifugal irrigation) will be used to pressurize the water running through the dripper irrigation
lines. The irrigation pump recommendation is dependent upon the water requirements for the
crop types, the estimated crop density, and the estimated watering time.
Furthermore, another major challenge arises from the fact that the flow rate of the jet pump used
to bring well water to the surface will be significantly lower than that of the centrifugal pump
that will be used to irrigate the field. A solution to this problem is an external water storage tank
with a controller that prevents the water level from falling to low in order to prevent damage to
the pump. Additionally, due to the lower flow rate of the well pump, it will need to be run for a
longer period of time to compensate for the higher flow rate of the irrigation pump.

12. 11
a. Well Pump
Depending on the depth of the well, two different types of pump can be used to bring water to
the surface. Shallow well pumps can be used if the water table is less than 25 feet below ground.
These pumps use suction head to bring water to the surface. If the depth of the water table is
between 25 and 50 feet, a deep well pump will need to be used. These pumps run by pumping
water in a loop into the ground and back up in order to reduce pressure at the pump inlet. If the
depth of the water table is greater than 50 feet, a submersible pump will need to be used. Table 4
shows a list of potential well pumps that can be used to bring water to the surface.
i. Shallow Well Pump (Single-Drop Jet-Pump System)
A shallow well pump, mounted at ground level, generates suction using an impeller that
draws water through a jet assembly attached at the entrance of the pump. The jet
assembly constricts water from the well pipe to increase the speed of the water and create
a partial vacuum that pulls additional water from the well. The depth at which this suction
is effective and the pump is safe from cavitation is limited to 25 feet. Behind the jet is a
Venturi tube which slows the water and increases the pressure to combine with the water
already in the impeller to produce a high pressure flow at the outlet. Before the pump can
run, however, the impeller and pipes must be primed with "drive" water in order to create
the suction, but after water starts flowing from the well, the system primes itself. Also, if
the pump runs dry, damage is almost guaranteed. Finally, this system only utilizes one
pipe with a foot valve at the bottom to prevent drainage.
ii. Deep Well Pump (Double-Drop Jet-Pump System)
A deep well jet pump runs on the same principles as the shallow well pump, but it can
reach down to lower water tables than the shallow well pump (down to 50-70 feet deep).
One difference is that the jet assembly in this case is submerged in the well below ground
(the pump is still above ground). Instead of pulling water, here the impeller pushes water
through one pipe into the jet assembly which draws water with suction and circulates it
up and back to the pump through a second pipe. And, if the well water level falls below
the jet assembly, a tailpipe is installed before the jet assembly to ensure the water still
flows through the pipes. The depth at which the jet assembly is submerged in the well is
significant to its pumping efficiency. The main advantage of jet pumps is the ease of
access to and maintenance of all the main parts.

13. 12
iii. Submersible Pump
A submersible pump must be placed in the well itself and can be much more costly to
install than the other two pump types. Submersible pumps have a sealed pump motor
connected to the above ground power source and are generally more efficient than jet
pumps with the same size motor. Another advantage of submersible pumps is that they
automatically prevent cavitation and are reliable for many years. The shaft of the pump
head is typically made of corrosion-resistant stainless steel with a glass filled noryl
impeller. Maximum PSI is dependent on the depth of submersion but we will ensure that
the pump we recommend will provide the minimum required GPM at the deepest
possible well depth, which is 50 GPM. These pumps may also come with control boxes
in the setup. An appropriate pump head/motor system is highlighted in Table 4.
Table 4 Well Pump Options
Pump Name Pump Type
Flow Rate
(GPM)
Max Outlet
Pressure (PSI)
Energy
Use (kW)
Maximum Well
Depth (ft)
Cost
Red Lion 24 GPM
1 HP Cast Iron
Shallow Well Jet
Pump
Shallow Well 24 50 0.75 25 $320
Bur-Cam 16 GPM
3/4 HP Stainless
Steel Shallow Well
Tankless Jet Pump
Shallow Well 16.4 70 0.56 25 $264
Bur-Cam 13 GPM
1/2 HP Cast Iron
Shallow Well Jet
Pump w/ 6.6 Gal.
Steel Tank
Shallow Well 13 65 0.37 25 $290
Simer 3310P 1 HP
Convertible Deep
Well Jet Pump
Deep Well Jet 20.7 50 0.75 70 $286
Red Lion 1/2 HP
Deep Well
Submersible Pump
Submersible
Well
12 80 0.37 200 $300
Red Lion 3/4 HP
Deep Well
Submersible Pump
Submersible
Well
12 80 0.56 240 $375

14. 13
b. Irrigation Pump
The pumping system we are recommending is based off of a maximum flow rate requirement of
23,000 gallons of water per day. This value was calculated based on the water requirements of
sunflowers and corn densely planted over 3 acres (see Water Section). We assume the crops will
be watered overnight for 8 hours on a daily basis.
We are estimating a pressure requirement of at least 30 PSI at the entrance of the dripper
irrigation system in order for the irrigation system to function properly. Pressures higher than
this, up to 60 PSI, should not cause any problems with the irrigation line. We have provided
pumps with a variety of flow rates (Table 5). The water requirements will change depending on
what portion of the field is planted with water intensive corn as opposed to sunflowers. Once the
design of the field is decided, an appropriate pump can be selected.
Table 5. Irrigation Centrifugal Pump Options
Pump Name
Flow Rate
(GPM)
Outlet Pressure
(PSI)
Energy Use
(kW)
Cost
Pedrollo 40 GPM 30 PSI Booster
Pump
50 30 1.12 $546
GT15 IRRI-GATOR Self-
Priming Single Phase Centrifugal
Pump, 1.5 hp
64 40 1.12 $388
Little Giant LSPH-200-C - 85
GPM 2 HP High-Pressure Cast
Iron Sprinkler Pump
85 55 1.49 $619
Red Lion 89 GPM 2 HP Self-
Priming Cast Iron Sprinkler Pump
89 47 1.49 $319
c. Water Storage Tank
In order to prevent the irrigation pump from running dry and causing damage to the pump, a
water storage tank is necessary. The size of this tank will depend on the flow rates of the well
and irrigation pumps, as well as the length of time the crops are being watered each day. The
following charts depict the amount of time that the well pump will need to run to ensure that the
irrigation pump does not run dry.

15. 14
Table 6: Well Pump Running Time Based on Flow Rates of the
d. Well Pump and Irrigation Pump
The red area depicts watering times for the well pump that would be longer than 24 hours, and as
a result, impossible to implement. The yellow region depicts the flow rates at which the well
pump would be able to supply enough water to ensure that the irrigation pump does not run dry.
However, based on the flow rates, a tank with a minimum size of 20,000 gallons will be needed
to store the water from the well pump. A tank of this size would be very costly and is not
practical.
One solution is to manage the water level in the storage tank will be by using a water level
sensor such as a hydrostatic bubble type level sensor. When the water level in the tank rises too
high, a signal will be sent to a controller to activate the irrigation pump. Similarly, if the water
level in the tank falls too low, a signal will be sent to a controller to activate the centrifugal
irrigation pump. However, such a system would be prone to failure and potentially cause
flooding or damage to the pumps.

16. 15
5. Power Source
a. Conventional Fuels
Introduction:
The Dow Wetlands Project has the option of using conventional fuel sources in combination with
a generator in order to operate the pump. The fuel sources are gasoline and diesel. Below, we
have consolidated a recommended set of power generators for each fuel type. All recommended
power generators are compliant to the restrictions set by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB).
The price, power output, fuel type, fuel capacity, fuel requirement, and hours of operation per
capacity were noted from the seller’s website, while the current fuel costs were
i. Gasoline
Table 7. Gasoline Based Generators
Price ($)
Power
Output
(W)
Fuel
Capacity
(gal)
Fuel
Requireme
nt (Gal/hr)
Fuel
Cost
($/gal)
Fuel Cost
Yearly ($/yr
at 8 hour
operation
time per day)
Hours of
Operation
per
Capacity
Champion Powered
Portable Generator
(CARB compliant)
7500/9000W
(run/start)
899.99 7500 5.9 0.7375 3.14 6761.99 8
Powered Electric
Start Portable
Generator with
Wheel Kit - CARB
Approved
892.49 10000 8.3 0.6 3.14 5501.28 13.83
Recoil Start
Powered Portable
Generator
699.00 5500 5.9 0.59 3.14 5409.59 10
Recommendation:
We recommend the Champion Power Equipment Model #41135 which costs $699. This
generator provides 5500 Watts of power (120/240 V) with a fuel capacity of 6 gallons at 10
hours of operation. The cost of filling it for 8 hours of operation every day of the year would be
$5410.

17. 16
When considering which generator to use, the generator should be able to generate only a
fraction of the power listed (“ran on demand”), as the pump only requires about 3 horsepower
and if power is overgenerated, it would go to waste. If it is not possible to find a generator that
runs on demand, we recommend using the generator with the lowest power output: Generac
GP3250 at 3250 Watts of power. This generator will produce enough power for the pump.
ii. Diesel
Table 8. Diesel Based Generators
Name Price ($)
Power
Output
(W)
Fuel
Capacity
(gal)
Fuel
Requireme
nt (Gal/hr)
Fuel
Cost
($/gal)
Fuel Cost
Yearly ($/yr
at 8 hour
operation
time per day)
Hours of
Operation
per Capacity
ETQ DG4LE 4000
Watt/3500 Watt
Rated 8 HP Diesel
Portable Generator
829.00 3500 3.3 0.44 3.06 3936.63 7.50
Kohler Pro
5.4DES - 4700
Watt Portable
Diesel Generator
6,726.04 4700 7.1 0.38 3.06 3399.81 18.68
Recommendation:
We recommend the “ETQ DG4LE 4000 Diesel Portable Generator,” which costs $829.
This generator provides 3500 W (120 V) with a fuel capacity of 3.3 gallons at 8 hours of
operation. The cost of filling it for 8 hours of operation every day of the year would be $3937.
The second option presented for diesel generators, Kohler Pro 5.4DES, is also a viable option,
especially if the generator was to run for an extended period of time. Though it is far more
expensive at $6,726.04, its hours of operation is also far greater at 18.7 hours. In addition, annual
fuel cost is lower at $3399.81.
When considering which generator to use, the generator should be able to generate only a
fraction of the power listed (“ran on demand”), as the pump only requires about 3 horsepower
and if power is over-generated, it would go to waste. If it is not possible to find a generator that
runs on demand, we recommend using the generator with the lowest power output: ETQ DG4LE
4000 at 3500 Watts of power. This generator will produce enough power for the pump.

18. 17
Final Recommendation:
We recommend “Champion Power Equipment Model #41135” generator to be used in the
project. This generator provides 5500 W at (120/240 V) with a fuel capacity of 6.0 gallons at 10
hours of operation. The cost of filling it for 8 hours of operation every day of the year would be
$5410.
Comparing the most viable options for two different fuel sources, the factor that distinctively
differentiates the two generators is the yearly fuel cost while the other areas such as hours of
operation, capital cost etc are similar. The diesel based generator is $3936.60 per year assuming
8 hours of operation per day while that of the gasoline based generator is $5409.6 which is 1.4
times more costly. However, the issue with the diesel based generator is the 120V that does not
agree with the requirement of the pump system we recommended using. Therefore, to cope with
the 240V requirement, our next best option narrows to the Champion Power Equipment model
#41135.
Our decision was based on the required power as given by the pump requirements and continued
low operational costs. Our cost per year is calculated by the current market price of diesel as of
April 19th, 2015 (16).
Generator References:
Champion Powered Portable Generator (CARB compliant) 7500/9000W (run/start):
http://www.tractorsupply.com/en/store/champion-power-equipmenttrade%3B-7500w-9500w-electric-
start-gasoline-powered-portable-generator-carb-compliant
Powered Electric Start Portable Generator with Wheel Kit - CARB Approved:
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Duromax-10-000-Watt-16-HP-Gasoline-Powered-Electric-Start-
Portable-Generator-with-Wheel-Kit-CARB-Approved-XP10000E-CA/203729625
Champion Power Equipment Model #41135: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Champion-Power-
Equipment-5-500-6-800-Watt-Recoil-Start-Gasoline-Powered-Portable-Generator-
41135/203204598?N=5yc1vZbx9nZbwo5oZ1z0xwu8
Kohler Pro 5.4DES - 4700 Watt Portable Diesel Generator:
http://www.electricgeneratorsdirect.com/Kohler-PRO5.4DES-Portable-Generator/p14837.html
ETQ DG4LE 4000 Watt/3500 Watt Rated 8 HP Diesel Portable Generator:
http://findthebestgenerator.com/generator/etq-dg4le-4000-watt3500-watt-rated-8-hp-diesel-portable-
generator-carb-approved/for/under-1000/diesel-generators

19. 18
b. Sunlight Availability
Table 9: Amount of power available at Pittsburg, CA and average weather data such as
temperature and wind speed for each month of the year.
c. Solar Power
The power requirement is dependent on the electrical pump being used to irrigate water around
the site. If we consider the amount of power needed to meet our water systems specifications to
be 1 horsepower (hp) to draw water from the well, and 2 hp to run the pumps to irrigate the
plants for 8 hours per day, the maximum output required would need to be 3 hp at any one
moment. Therefore, any solar panel system would need to generate approximately 2250 Watts.
Given the data of available sunlight, and thus maximum theoretical power that can be generated,
we are tasked to choose a material that meets our expectations within our budget of $20,000.
Figure 2: Calculated limiting efficiency for a single band gap solar cell in AM 1.5

20. 19
In order to reach maximum available power, our solar cell must have a band gap energy of about
1.3 - 1.4 eV, which gives a limiting efficiency of 33.7% for a single band gap. However, solar
cells on the market today are typically made from silicon. Silicon solar cells are viable because
the raw element is very abundant and has a long life time (approximately 20-25 years). Given the
band gap of a silicon solar cell to be 1.1 eV, the limiting efficiency is about 30%. However, the
best efficiencies produced operate at 25% and when manufactured at large scales, the best
commercially available solar cells have 15% efficiency. New technologies such as perovskite
solar cells have already surpassed the silicon solar cell benchmark, yet it is not available
commercially. And still, polymeric solar cells have efficiencies close to 10% and are extremely
cheap to produce, but the downside is that their lifetimes are only a year at best.
To move on with the project, the solar cells available on the market today can provide the
power needed to pump water across the wetland for a decent price. The table below compares the
economic cost with area and power output based on the information given above.
Table 10: Solar Cell Specs
Solar Panel
Power
Output per
panel
(Watts)
Area
(sqft)
Price
(USD)
Num.
Needed
Total
Price
(USD)
Total
Area
(sqft)
Total
Power
output
(watts)
Model: 260 Silver Poly
CHSM 6610P 260 17.6 250 12 3,000 211.2 3120
Model: 310 Silver Poly
CHSM 6612P-310 310 20.9 315 10 3,150 209 3100
Home Depot 265-Watt
Monocrystalline Solar
Panel
265 17.5 357 12 4,284 210 3180
COSTCO Grape Solar
GS-S-250-Fab5 250W
(Including microinverters
and roof racks)
250 - 753 15 11,300 - 3750
Solar City Package
(Includes panel and
installation)
- - - -
15,000
- 20,000
- 4000

21. 20
The first option listed in Table 10 is better because the total area is less and also has a
better price per power output. Option 2 is slightly over a dollar per watt while option 1 is slightly
less than a dollar per watt. Even though the total area is less, two extra panels are needed.
Solar City in California offers a comprehensive solar panel installation service that
encompasses panel costs, installation and maintenance services, and energy storage. Because
they sell this service as a package, there is no general price breakdown. A quote from speaking to
a company representative places the costs in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 for 4kwh with the
battery storage package being an additional $5000. At these costs, a solar power installation
through Solar City would exceed the budget allocated towards powering the system.
Another large concern that should be taken into consideration is the risk of vandalization
and theft of the costly solar power setup. The Dow Wetlands are largely unmanned and open to
the public and thus would be susceptible to vandalism, damage and theft. Crime rate data in the
wider Antioch area places property crime and arson at 16 more incidences per 1000 residents
than the national median. For these reasons, using solar energy to power the irrigation system is
not recommended.
Solar Panel Model Reference
Model: 260 Silver Poly CHSM 6610P
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/module-folder/Astronergy/CHSM6610P-260.html
Model: 310 Silver Poly CHSM 6612P-310
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/module-folder/AstronergyCHSM6612P-310.html
Home Depot 265-Watt Monocrystalline Solar Panel
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Grape-Solar-265-Watt-Mono-Crystalline-Solar-Panel-4-Pack-GS-S-265-
Fab1x4/205481289?N=5yc1vZbm31#specifications
Grape Solar GS-S-250-Fab5 250W (Including microinverters and roof racks)
http://www.costco.com/Grape-Solar-3750-Watt-Expandable-Solar-Kit.product.11755532.html
6. Future Project
For future project:
This upcoming fall semester, we will obtain the water sample from DDSD and test it in the
Berkeley Environmental Laboratory to determine its basics water qualities (including turbidity,
pH value, and amount of dissolved oxygen, electrical conductivity, and chloride concentration).
We will be working closely with DDSD to determine whether or not its treated water is a viable
water source for irrigation. If the treated water is not a viable option, we will focus on
determining method of well drilling and water table level near the irrigation site and pursue the
method proposed by the current proposal.

22. 21
7. Cost Analysis
Capital Costs
Recommendation: Cost:
Well Drilling ~$15,000
Well Pump -$350
Field Pump -$500
Solar Panel Installation and Setup ~$15,000
Gasoline Generator Installation and Setup ~$700
PVC piping/plastic tubing (with control) ~$1,800
Final Total Solar Powered Setup (Capital) ~$33350
Final Total Gasoline Powered Setup (Capital) ~$18350
Yearly Costs
Solar Panel Maintenance (Yearly Value) ~$5000
Gasoline Fuel (Yearly Value) ~$5500
8. Recommendation
In conclusion: for water source, we suggest not using the pond water as an alternative water
source. Instead, drilling a new water well with the method suggested will be more promising by
looking at the water quality parameter determined from the Berkeley water quality lab. For
piping layer, because sunflowers and corn will have different watering needs, it is recommended
that the two crops be planted in different hydrozones. Our plan is to place corn and sunflowers
on opposite sides of the land and order the plants in rows. There are multiple design choices, but
one of the simplest is to run a main 3” pipeline at the center perpendicular to the rows and branch
off 1” pipelines with 18” spacing emitters that run through the rows. To maintain the same flow
over a wide pressure range, we recommend pressure compensating emitters.
For solar power, first concern is due to the high initial installation and setup cost. second
concern is the risk of vandalization and theft of the costly solar power setup. The Dow Wetlands
are largely unmanned and open to the public and thus would be pervious to vandalism, damage
and theft. Crime rate data in the wider Antioch area places property crime and arson at 16 more
incidences per 1000 residents than the national median. possible solutions include building a
scaffolding system to raise the panels high above the ground and protect them using barb wire.

23. 22
Consequently, this will increase the material and labour costs of setting up the solar power
system. While costly, a raised solar power system could potentially provide a shaded area for
visitors to use. Even though solar power is an effective source of renewable energy, the concern
vandalization will become the biggest issue that prevent the usage of solar power.
For the pump system, there are three options for the well pump are a shallow well pump: a deep
well pump, and a submersible well pump. The type of well pump used will be dependent upon
the depth of the well created. In addition, a centrifugal irrigation pump will be used to pressurize
the water running through the dripper irrigation lines. The irrigation pump recommendation is
dependent upon the water requirements for the crop types, the estimated crop density, and the
estimated watering time.
Lastly, for power source, we recommend “Champion Power Equipment Model #41135”
generator to be used in the project. This generator provides 5500 W at (120/240 V) with a fuel
capacity of 6.0 gallons at 10 hours of operation. The cost of filling it for 8 hours of operation
every day of the year would be $5410.
Comparing the most viable options for two different fuel sources, the factor that
distinctively differentiates the two generators is the yearly fuel cost while the other areas such as
hours of operation, capital cost etc are similar. The diesel based generator is $3936.60 per year
assuming 8 hours of operation per day while that of the gasoline based generator is $5409.6
which is 1.4 times more costly. However, the issue with the diesel based generator is the 120V
that does not agree with the requirement of the pump system we recommended using. Therefore,
to cope with the 240V requirement, our next best option narrows to the Champion Power
Equipment model #41135.

24. 23
9. Team Biographies
Project manager:
Yu Hao (Alex) Chang 3rd year - Chemical Engineering/Materials Science & Engineering
Team leaders:
Trevor Bratton 3rd year - Chemical Engineering/Materials Science & Engineering
Bernice Chou 3rd year - Chemical Engineering
Daniel Du 3rd year - Chemical Engineering/Materials Science & Engineering
Daeyoup Kim 3rd year - Chemical Engineering
William Mavrode 3rd year - Chemical Engineering
Apurva Pradhan 3rd year - Chemical Engineering/Materials Science & Engineering
Jay Yostanto 3rd year - Chemical Engineering
Team members:
Shivya Bansal 2nd year - Chemical Engineering
Anuja Godbole 2nd year - Chemical Engineering
Brandon Kim 1st year - Chemical Engineering
Yong-Bin (Phil) Kim 1st year - Chemical Engineering
David Lee 2nd year - Chemical Engineering
Raleigh Lukas 1st year - Chemical Engineering
Austin Li 1st year - Chemical Engineering
Karthik Mayilvahanan 1st year - Chemical Engineering
Samir Mohan 3rd year - Chemical Engineering
Jonathan Ngan 1st year - Chemical Engineering
Deepika Pangarkar 2nd year - Chemical Engineering
Kevin Pease 3rd year - Chemical Engineering/Materials Science & Engineering
Gokul Ramadoss 1st year - Chemical Engineering
Zoheb Sarwar 1st year - Chemical Engineering
Panitan Tan Satamalee 2nd year - Chemical Engineering
Julia Sawaya 1st year - Chemical Engineering
Ria Someshwar 1st year - Chemical Engineering
Kanav Thakker 1st year - Chemical Engineering
Kristine Tolentino 2nd year - Chemical Engineering
Andrew Wang 1st year - Chemical Engineering
Tommy Wu 2nd year - Chemical Engineering / Computer Science

25. 24
10. References
(1) Extension, C. Irrigation Water Quality Criteria
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00506.html (accessed Apr 12, 2015).
(2) Murphy, S. BASIN: General Information on Turbidity
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/data/NEW/info/Turb.html (accessed April 15, 2015).
(3) Smart-fertilizer.com,. Irrigation water pH and Alkalinity http://www.smart-
fertilizer.com/articles/pH-alkalinity (accessed April 22, 2015).
(4) Water.epa.gov,. Aquatic Life Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen - (Saltwater) Cape Cod to Cape
Hatteras | Dissolved Oxygen | US EPA
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/dissolved/dofacts.cfm (accessed
April 12, 2015).
(5) Smart-fertilizer.com,. Electrical Conductivity and Its Effect on Plants - Smart! Fertilizer
Management http://www.smart-fertilizer.com/articles/ec-1 (accessed APril 12, 2015).
(6) Extension, C. Irrigation Water Quality Criteria
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00506.html (accessed April 14, 2015).
(7) Smart-fertilizer.com,. Chloride in Plants, Water and Soil - Smart! Fertilizer Management
http://www.smart-fertilizer.com/articles/chloride (accessed April 14, 2015).
(8) Warsa, W.; Grandis, H.; Parnadi, W.; Santoso, D. Multi-Dimensional Inversion Modeling Of
Surface Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (SNMR) Data For Groundwater Exploration.
j.eng.technol.sci. 2014, 46, 123-140.
(9) Master Gardener Sonoma County http://ucanr.edu/sites/scmg/files/30917.pdf (accessed April
15, 2015).
(10) Crop And Soil Evapotranspiration For Water Balances And Irrigation Scheduling/Design.
Irrigation Training and Research Center 2015, ITRC Report No. R03-001.
(11) Marsh, J.; Design, G. Setting up a Drip System http://www.discovercoronadwp.com/
pubs/brochures/landscaping/Drip_101_Corona-handout.pdf (accessed May 10, 2015).
(12) Wilson, C.; Bauer, M. Colorado State University Extension - Drip Irrigation for Home
Gardens http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/04702.html (accessed May 5, 2015).

26. 25
(13) Irrigationtutorials.com,. Drip System Basic Parts – Valves, Backflow Preventers, Filters,
Tubing, Emitters, and more | Irrigation Tutorials http://www.irrigationtutorials.com/ drip-system-
basic-parts-valves-backflow-preventers-filters-tubing-emitters-and-more/ (accessed May 11,
2015).
(14) PSI, D. DIG Corp - 18-030 - Preset Pressure Regulator for drip irrigation
http://www.sprinklerwarehouse.com/DIG-Drip-Irrigation-Pressure-Regulator-p/18-030.htm
(accessed May 2, 2015).
(15) Amazon.com,. Amazon.com: HKS (71008-AK001) Super SQV4 Sequential Blow Off
Valve Kit: Automotive http://www.amazon.com/HKS-71008-AK001-Super-Sequential-Valve/
dp/B00MM0L10O (accessed May 2, 2015).
(16) Energyalmanac.ca.gov,. California Gasoline Statistics & Data
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/ (accessed May 20, 2015).