Sub-surface irrigation of lawns

stonecutter1309 · May 24, 2007 2:10 pm

In another post on synthetic grass, someone mentioned the option of going underground with lawn irrigation.

My understanding is that a lawn irrigated in this way would use only 30% of the water vs standard sprinklers. No idea if this is true - told this by someone installing the KISSS system.

I know lawns are water guzzlers - but we would love a large open space for our (future) kids to kick around a football or play backyard cricket.

We've been looking into the KISSS system - http://www.kisss.net.au/ - but it's pricey. $2/m of irrigation line - installed on a rectangular site - you're looking at $10/m2 for full installation - lines, joins, tap bits etc. So for our 300m2 lawn - that's $3,000 straight off. Plus another $6/m2 for turf and underlay (15cm - it's a clay base). So in total $4,800 - ouch :evil:

Has anyone used the Netafim products for subsurface irrigation of lawns? Or any other subsurface irrigation product? If so, was it expensive?

PeeJay · May 25, 2007 4:10 pm

The idea behind the Kisss System is basically it can irrigate more area with less pipe, and it is far more efficient than conventional irrigation methods. Using Kisss will save around 60% water over sprinklers, and 30% over conventional drip lines.

Conventional drip lines need to be installed at about 0.4m spacings, Kisss is 0.6-0.7m, so less pipework is required. Kisss generaly uses standard 17mm Netafim dripline so you will still need all the same fittings and whatnot irrespective of wether you use Kisss or standard dripline.

The thing that makes Kisss better than standard dripline is it's ability to evenly distribute water along the full length of the line. This lowers deep drainage losses, and basically stops water from pooling up around the dripper outlets (which are spaced at anywhere between 0.3-0.6m or more.) Kisss acts like a long continous dripper. There is a video that somewhat shows this in action.

So basically, when considering Kisss remember to take into account the cost of water, and also the avalibility of water (Kisss has some exemptions from water restrictions in various places).

The $2.20 per lm (inc gst) is retail price, installers get it somewhat cheaper than that, so it may be beneficial to have it installed professionaly, not just because there is more to installing it than meets the eye!

Have a look on the Kisss website for some photos, I'm just putting more on there now. The fields at Quakers Hill and Bungendore are quite amazing, if you're in the area you could go and have a look at them.

Disclaimer: Yes, I work for IWT (makers of Kisss product), but I'm only the IT/Maintainence guy, so take what I say with a grain of salt! Just trying to help out.

Yak_Chat · May 25, 2007 4:19 pm

Nice info PeeJay.

stonecutter1309 · May 25, 2007 4:21 pm

Hi PeeJay!

Thanks for your reply. I've seen the results of KISSS at the Museum of Contemporary Art - I always wondered how it looked so good.

It's our preferred system at the moment - we have a rough quote from an installer (Stive from H20 Revolution) - with turf $16/m2 - which is pretty good.

I wouldn't mind seeing somewhere that has just the dripper system to compare - as what you've identified with water distribution is just my worry .

I'll keep my eye on the site for new pics - will they go in the SubSurface Irrigation album?

We'll also have to check out the fields at Quakers Hill in the next few weeks (have to head out to Dunheved Golf Club for something)

PeeJay · May 25, 2007 5:42 pm

Pics are up. Look under subsurface.

The oval at Quakers Hill is on the corner of Quakers Hill Parkway and Hambledon rd.

I've also put another photo in product testing which shows the wetting pattern from a standard drip line. The dripper spacings seem unusually large, but it shows the effect of the water transfer through the soil. From that trial at UWS it was shown that Kisss transfers the water 10,000 times faster than soil, which is why the other photo looks so good.

stonecutter1309 · May 25, 2007 9:19 pm

Hi PeeJay - great pics - thanks

Faster water transfer too hopefully means less water used