Merit of impounded water?

This is a bit of the same question I asked previously, but with a little different direction...

Having recently aquired a property with a fairly small (about 20'x30') pond I find myself needing to deal with the pond as I clean up the property.

This "pond" does not appear to have a steady source of inflow - to the best that I can observe the only inflow is from various forms of run-off (yard, possibly gutters, etc).

The outflow, as limited as it is, seems to be mostly due to water seeping through the impoundment wall and across the pasture. Near as I can tell it doesn't even really have a watercourse - it just kinda fades away before it reaches the end of the property and the neighbors house...

As it is the water is brackish, stagnant, full of leaves, cattails, and such - more swampy puddle than pond. There are some willows on the banks among the overgrown brush which we'd like to keep. There are also bugs, snakes, and who knows what else that we'd like to be rid of (or reduce). Other than the willows the whole thing needs to be cleaned out, the banks shored up, etc, etc.

So my question is this:

Given that we hope to raise some sheep, possibly a cow or horse or two, and raise some crops, is there enough merit in this "mess" in terms of water storage to justify spending the time and money to clean it up and reinforce it's inflow with a directed run-off collection plan (and possibly supplemental supply from the well)....

Or should I simply drain it, doze it level with the surrounding pasture, and enjoy the additional space I'll recover?

In simpler terms I guess I'm asking what the merits of impounding rain run-off in an open basin this size are - and do you think they justify the labor and expense??

Thanks,

Gregg

Gregg,

I would watch it thru the summer to see if it truly only a catch basin for runoff. If so I would then doze it full, especially if I planned to run any animals. Animals on "pond water" can develop liver flukes and other stuff. You will probably need to get creative with the runoff once the pond is gone.

Maybe it makes a difference as to where you're located, but everyone I know uses man made ponds (tanks in this part of the country) for the primary water source for their livestock and they all depend solely on run off.

Well those are two of my concerns.

If I do impound water in an open environment will it be reasonably safe to use for animals and possible small scale irrigation (like around the house) without extensive treatment.

And considering that in recent years we've been a bit "droughty" around here I thought trying to save what I can collect would have merit.

But if I collect in an open pond I'll be losing to evaporation and seepage, plus the potential health issues with snakes, mosquitoes (we have West Nile to worry about around here), etc. The obvious solution to stagnation/mosquitoes/etc is to areate, but that also increases evaporative losses. To offset that, and maintain a functional level I was considering an automatic float controlled supplement from the well, but it seems if I'm going to do that it would be simpler to just use the well water directly.

From these two responses I'm thinking that maybe getting rid of the pond and its problems would make sense, and collection of run-off in holding tanks would be both safer and more efficient.

Any other input??

Thanks

Gregg

Gregg, I may have misled you by using the word "tank", but a "tank" in Texas and Oklahoma is a "pond" in the northeast. We don't have ponds in this part of the country; just tanks or "stock tanks" made by bulldozing a hole in the ground and using the dirt that was removed to build a dam. And you select a location for the run off to fill it (and then hope it doesn't dry up during the hot part of the summer, which many do). Incidentally, the forecast for tomorrow is for 98 degrees; it's only 93 right now. [img]/forums/images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

As Bird said, all of our tanks are fed by runoff. If you dam up a river, that there is a lake.

I have an acre tank on my property it stays full just from runoff, mostly off of my property. When it runs over, it goes over the spillway and into the creek, but the creek is not the source of water for the tank at all.

Bird, I'm pretty sure that liver flukes are a problem in Texas also. The severity of the problem varies from condemmed livers at slaughter to loss of calves.
It is treatable to some degree in the spring with IVOMEC. Maybe Cowboy Doc will weigh in with some insight. From Gregg's description of his land I would stand by my advise to doze it in.

One problem in ponds with little turnover is a lack of oxygen. You can help things out and reduce mosquito problems by proper stocking (some fish eat mosquito larva) and getting a working ecosystem going. grass carp do a decent job of keeping vegetation down as long as you don't overstock. If you can get electric you can put ina pond airpump or if you have a steady breeze they make windmill powered airpumps just for this purpose. (Thats why many runoff ponds have fountains runnning - not just asthetics, actually helps the pond from becoming stagnant). I have a mud pond that is only filled with runnoff and I wouldn't hesitate to drink from it - in fact is used to be the old water source for the barn although I don't use it for that anymore since the pump froze up from non use.)

Al, you're talking about a topic that I know nothing about, so I'll take your word for it and had no intention of disagreeing with your recommendation; I only know what's done in this area; don't know whether it causes any problems or not; just never heard of any.

I think a lot of my problem is related to scale and surroundings. If this "pond" was as large as an acre, or even half of that, I would feel better about saving it. As it is I would estimate it to be maybe 20'x30', and if it were filled to the brim might be all of 5 or 6 feet deep in some parts, and much less for the most part. So how much water would it hold - not a lot relative to the scale of what most farms seem to be working with.
I can't really enlarge it much, perhaps 4 or 5 feet wider and maybe another 10 feet in length, and of course if I were to shore up the sides in some way the depth could be made more consistent. These limitations are due to the pond being about 10 feet from the back yard/pool/etc (separated by a fence) and perhaps 30 yards from the neighbors house.
My small farm is located in an area described as "rural residential" meaning that the area is pretty well developed, with homes on 3/4 to 1 1/2 acre lots, except for the development right behind us where an exemption was given and the homes are on about 1/2 acre or less. The pasture the pond is in is between our house and one of these newer homes. In fact I was looking at the swale that is the general discharge path for this pond the other day and as near as I can tell it runs right over to this guys garage/house!?! And I'm sure it's been like that ever since the house was built since the lot he's on was originally part of this farm. Makes you wonder about builders for sure...

At this point I'm thinking that for the short term maybe I should slowly open the impoundment wall ( a few inches every few days, don't want to flood the neighbor) and let this mess drain and dry out this year. That'll help alleviate the pest situation, allow me to work around it more effectively, and also allow me to get a look at what the bottom contours are like. Then if it seems like it's worth the effort I can always rebuild it next year, or fill it in then.

Realistically if I do keep it I need to modify the discharge path so it doesn't run towards the neighbors property, probably have to direct it towards the road which could get interesting with the township.

Considering all the work involved how big do you guys think it would have to be in order to be useful?

Any other opinions?

Thanks

Gregg

Sounds similar to what I had - 30 foot farm pond that had filled in over the years so it was only 3-4 feet deep. I hired an excavator for $100/ho with operator. Took him 6 hours to enlarge and deepen to 10 foot depth about 45 feet across round. If you can't go much larger you could always go deeper, especially if you have a use for the spoils elsewhere on your property or can use them to grade the perimiter of the pond.

You could set it up as a grassy "retention pond" that only holds storm water for a specified period as it can slowly drain out through fixed diameter orifices. That would enable you to graze it when the pond is dry and yet be a flood-preventer that would keep neighborhood relations on the positive side. [img]/forums/images/icons/crazy.gif[/img] We have a similar situation. Once in a blue moon the little detention (retention) area next to the grassy dike ponds up and sometimes takes a half-day to drain away. We mow the whole thing easily, it's never that muddy for very long. [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
As it is I would estimate it to be maybe 20'x30', and if it were filled to the brim might be all of 5 or 6 feet deep in some parts, and much less for the most part. So how much water would it hold - not a lot relative to the scale of what most farms seem to be working with.


[/ QUOTE ]

20 x 30 = 600 x6=3600 x 7.481 ( 1 cu ft = gallons) =26,931.6 gallons, if my fingers hit all the buttons correct [img]/forums/images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

Greg, Just a couple of thoughts about your pond. You should check www.PONDBOSS.COM and ask some questions over there. A number of pond management professionals contribute on that forum and it has a nice atmosphere like here and TBN.

I was also wondering what the ramifications, if any, there are to you if this pond is the main run off retention area and you fill it. Is it possible that with out a retention area your pastures would be negatively effected or your neighbor's property affected? I would hate to find that without the pond every big rain flooded your neighbors garage and they felt it was you fault.

MarkV