Abstract
Ortloff, Moseley, and Feldman fail to understand the basics of canal hydraulics and irrigation hydrology. They estimate nonpermissible velocities, calculate a critical state of flow, and assume a discharge without considering the field requirements. Their claim that tectonic movements caused canal abandonment is rejected. There is no geomorphological evidence for such events. Other research is described which indicates that the canal was designed with a stable channel and was intended to transport the required discharge to state fields. Its breakdown is attributed to the effect of a large discharge flowing down a steep slope.

This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit: