Existing Problem: No Major Maintenance Checks Performed in Past 5 Years.
Inefficient pumping plants, leaks in the delivery and distribution system, pressure and nozzle problems, and faulty controls and gages may lower application efficiency, waste operating dollars, and cause non-uniformity.

Water Conserving Practice: Maintenance Checks Performed

A major maintenance check verifies that fuel is used efficiently, pressure is meeting design requirements, and overall leaks and water losses are minimized. This system check itself does not conserve water, but modifications and repairs following the check can affect the efficiency of water use and should save water on average.

¹Potential No. of Irrigation Systems Affected	11,500
Estimated Water Savings (%)	?⁶ (?⁶)
²Average Year Water Savings (million gal.)	0
³Dry Year Water Savings (million gal.)	18,735
Est. Cost of Full Implementation on Avg. System ($, 1998)	$500
Statewide Costs for Full Implementation ($, 1998)	$5,750,000
Cost / Unit of Water Saved in Average Year ($, 1998 / million gal.)	0

Estimated water savings are between 0 and 10 percent if improvements are made. The largest improvements are based on fixing leaks, repairing gaskets, and so forth. The average estimated water savings is 5%.

An estimated 11,500 systems are considered to be at least 5 years old and have not had a major maintenance check in the last 5 years. The potential water savings from this practice alone would be about 10,929 million gallons in an average year if changes were implemented. The cost to perform a major maintenance check on a 100 ac system is about $500. The estimated statewide cost for major maintenance checks for all appropriate systems is $5.75 million. The cost per unit water saved is not directly applicable, since the costs for improvements have not been added (i.e. the maintenance check does not save water by itself).

Source: Evans, R.O., K.A. Harrison, J.E. Hook, C.V. Privette, W.I. Segars, W.B. Smith, D.L. Thomas, and A.W. Tyson. 1998. Irrigation conservation practices appropriate for the Southeastern United States. D.L. Thomas (ed.) Geologic Survey Project Report No. 32. Georgia Geologic Survey, Georgia Department Of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, GA 30334. 43p.