Waterline plumbing question

[judd-e]

My project is 4 water points as shown in first attachment. the second and third attachment
are two options of how to connect the points with the water line. NRCS plans are the pic where
the lines sort of meet in the middle. My method would be to do more straight lines from point to point
I feel less connections underground would be better. Am I missing anything? this will be pump fed
via solar pump and pressure tank. 1.25 inch PE pipe buried 36 to 40 inches if that matters.

thanks

 

[Ebenezer]

Can't see the attachments

 

[kenny thomas]

I can click on them and see.
Are you dividing the pastures also.

 

[moses388]

Can't see the attachments

 

[judd-e]

Can't see the attachments

 

[judd-e]

I can click on them and see.
Are you dividing the pastures also.

yes the four points will service 8 paddocks for rotational grazing

 

[Brute 23]

Are they trying to avoid that low area for some reason?

There are pros and cons to both.

The good thing about their design is it easy to know where the line is. You can line up from trough to trough.

With yours, you could put a riser where they all meet with valves and isolate lines off if one gets damaged.

What kind of solar pump are you using?

 

[judd-e]

Are they trying to avoid that low area for some reason?

There are pros and cons to both.

The good thing about their design is it easy to know where the line is. You can line up from trough to trough.

With yours, you could put a riser where they all meet with valves and isolate lines off if one gets damaged.

What kind of solar pump are you using?

The low area is in the waterway that is on the plans with nrcs. My plan is the one that are straight lines.
I have not decided on the pump yet.

 

[Brute 23]

The low area is in the waterway that is on the plans with nrcs. My plan is the one that are straight lines.
I have not decided on the pump yet.

I got you.

The solar booster pumps are very interesting. I don't know of any one who has one yet so give us a review when you get it hooked up.

 

[kenny thomas]

The one in the last picture would allow you to turn off the water in 1 direction if needed to repair anything and still have water in the other 2.

 

[tex452]

My project is 4 water points as shown in first attachment. the second and third attachment
are two options of how to connect the points with the water line. NRCS plans are the pic where
the lines sort of meet in the middle. My method would be to do more straight lines from point to point
I feel less connections underground would be better. Am I missing anything? this will be pump fed
via solar pump and pressure tank. 1.25 inch PE pipe buried 36 to 40 inches if that matters.

thanks

I agree with "less connections the better "
The more connections I have the more problems I have had.

 

[BC]

The plan where the lines split off offers some advantages. If you put in some shutoff valves at the junction, you could isolate an area (2 paddocks) and have water in the rest. The other advantage to the split is water pressure should be better. I am concerned that the last water point in the loop would not have the same pressure.

 

[ClinchValley86]

I would want a manifold point where you can shut off any line for service. One feed line, then hit the manifold. If ya have a problem somewhere you don't have to lose service down stream unless the problem is on the feed line. More expense this way though.

Looks like a good setup you got coming.

 

[Ebenezer]

The NRCS cross system is giving each leg of pipeline about equal distance to let flow rates be similar for each trough. But I see terraces and the elevation differences, if a lot, will change flow rates and pressures. I like their pattern to let you turn off line(s) as needed.

 

[crossbreed]

The low area is in the waterway that is on the plans with nrcs. My plan is the one that are straight lines.
I have not decided on the pump yet.

What type of pipe are you planning to utilize? We just finished a well last week and should have a pond completed in august to catch the fall rains to fill but want to do some water transfer to a couple more paddocks in order to stockpile for winter

 

[Brute 23]

Some thing I thought about on this is I assume it's for rotating pastures? If that is the case you should not have pressure issues because you can, and should, close off the troughs not in use. It might be different if you had animals in all the pastures at once.

I'm a big contingency guy. I would want to have plans for the solar pump going out, no sun, etc. If a (or all) the troughs are full, how long can you go before you are out of water in that pasure? On that property? Can you put them in the pasture with the pond? That kind of stuff.

I know that wasn't part of the question but it's on my mind because of some stuff I'm working on.

 

[SBMF 2015]

buried 36 to 40 inches if that matters

I know you're a ways south of me but I would go 48" min deep. All it takes is bare ground and a polar vortex to really freeze things deep. The only thing worse than broken water lines is broken water lines in the winter.

 

[Mark Reynolds]

My project is 4 water points as shown in first attachment. the second and third attachment
are two options of how to connect the points with the water line. NRCS plans are the pic where
the lines sort of meet in the middle. My method would be to do more straight lines from point to point
I feel less connections underground would be better. Am I missing anything? this will be pump fed
via solar pump and pressure tank. 1.25 inch PE pipe buried 36 to 40 inches if that matters.

thanks

OK. This is too much like work. Being an NRCS Grazing Specialist myself and doing this all the time. (I stopped counting the plans I have developed at 250).

Either way will work as the system is under pressure and does not rely on gravity flow. The system is yours and you have the final say as to what gets installed. As long as the plan chosen meets NRCS specifications, the NRCS should fund either layout, unless your state has some contingency such as they (the NRCS) must use the least cost scenario. The advantage to the plan developed by the NRCS is that the tanks are not sequential. There is also aq little less length of pipeline utilized, but not much. If the tanks are laid out sequentially as your design indicates, if the main line develops a leak, any and all tanks beyond the leak will have to have their supply shut off until the line is fixed. With the 'star' design that the NRCS has supplied, a leak in any of the feeder lines can be shut off (provided a valve is installed) and the remaining troughs can continue to be fed from the source and the leak repaired in due time without it being an 'urgent' problem. Of course if the leak is between the source and the distribution point at the center of the star......

Fewer connections is generally better, but likely more important is the number of bends or corners in the line itself. flow will be more restricted at the corners than a straight connection. A very good source on this forum would be @Ebenezer for your question.

 

[kenny thomas]

I have a couple systems that NRCS helped with. Both have a storage tank and the water gravity flows from storage tank to the water system. I have enough storage for about 4-5 days of power being off, well pump problem or whatever. With a pump system within an hour of a problem the cattle have no water.

 

[Mark Reynolds]

OK. This is too much like work. Being an NRCS Grazing Specialist myself and doing this all the time. (I stopped counting the plans I have developed at 250).

Either way will work as the system is under pressure and does not rely on gravity flow. The system is yours and you have the final say as to what gets installed. As long as the plan chosen meets NRCS specifications, the NRCS should fund either layout, unless your state has some contingency such as they (the NRCS) must use the least cost scenario. The advantage to the plan developed by the NRCS is that the tanks are not sequential. There is also aq little less length of pipeline utilized, but not much. If the tanks are laid out sequentially as your design indicates, if the main line develops a leak, any and all tanks beyond the leak will have to have their supply shut off until the line is fixed. With the 'star' design that the NRCS has supplied, a leak in any of the feeder lines can be shut off (provided a valve is installed) and the remaining troughs can continue to be fed from the source and the leak repaired in due time without it being an 'urgent' problem. Of course if the leak is between the source and the distribution point at the center of the star......

Fewer connections is generally better, but likely more important is the number of bends or corners in the line itself. flow will be more restricted at the corners than a straight connection. A very good source on this forum would be @Ebenezer for your question.

I slept on this overnight. As I said, this is what I do.

Let me propose a third option. It's sort of a hybrid between the two designs. Begin with the initial line running from the source to the trough that is located to the 'SE', as both initial designs show. From there, run a line to the 'SW' trough and a line to the 'NE' trough. Then, make a determination as to weather you want to run a line from the 'SW' trough to the 'NW' trough or run a line from the 'NE' trough to the 'NW' trough. Depending on which option you chose here, have the main line from the source split/make a 'T' to either side of the 'SE' trough so that each branch of the 'T' only feeds two of the four troughs. This will decrease the dependence of all four troughs on a single line and still allow you to make straight runs from one trough to another.