Search USGSSearch

USGS · ofr5078

Chemical composition of Texas surface waters, 1949

Abstract

This report is the fifth the a series of publications by the Texas Board of Water Engineers giving chemical analyses of the surface waters in the State of Texas. The samples for which data are given were collected between October 1, 1948 and September 30, 1949. During the water year 25 daily sampling stations were maintained by the Geological Survey. Sampled were collected less frequently during the year at many other points. Quality of water records for previous years can be found in the following reports: "Chemical Composition of Texas Surface Waters, 1938-1945," by W. W. Hastings, and J. H. Rowley; "Chemical Composition of Texas Surface Waters, 1946," by W. W. Hastings and B. Irelan; "Chemical Composition of Texas Surface Waters, 1947," by B. Irelan and J. R. Avrett; "Chemical Composition of Texas Surface Waters, 1948," by B. Irelan, D. E. Weaver, and J. R. Avrett. These reports may be obtained from the Texas Board of Water Engineers and Geological Survey at Austin, Texas. Samples for chemical analysis were collected daily at or near points on streams where gaging stations are maintained for measurement of discharge. Most of the analyses were made of 10-day composites of daily samples collected for a year at each sampling point. Three composite samples were usually prepared each month by mixing together equal quantities of daily samples collected for the 1st to the 10th, from the 11th to the 20th, and during the remainder of the month. Monthly composites were made at a few stations where variation in daily conductance was small. For some streams that are subject to sudden large changes in chemical composition, composite samples were made for shorter periods on the basis of the concentration of dissolved solids as indicated by measurement of specific conductance of the daily samples. The mean discharge for the composite period is reported in second-feet. Specific conductance values are expressed as "micromhos, K x 10 at 25° C." Silica, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride, and nitrate are reported in parts per million. The quantity of dissolved solids is given in tons per acre-foot, tons per day (if discharge records are available), and parts per million. The total and non-carbonate hardness are reported as parts per million calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ). For those analyses where sodium and potassium are reported separately, "recent sodium" will include the equivalent quantity of sodium only. In analyses where sodium and potassium were calculated and reported as a combined value, the "percent sodium" will include the equivalent quantity of sodium and potassium. Weighted average analyses are given for most daily sampling stations. The weighted average analysis represent approximately the composition of water that would be found in a reservoir containing all the water passing a given station during the year after through mixing in the reservoir. Samples were analyzed according to method regularly used by the Geological Survey. These methods are essentially the same or are modifications of methods described in recognized authoritative publications for mineral analysis of water samples. These quality of water records have been collected as part of the cooperative investigations of the water resources of Texas conducted by the Geological Survey and the Texas Board of Water Engineers. Much of the work would have been impossible without the support of the following Federal State, and local agencies The United States Bureau of Reclamation, U. S. Corps of Engineers, Brazos River Conservation and Reclamation District, Lower Colorado River Authority, Red Bluff Water Power Control District, City of Amarillo, City of Abilene, and City of Forth Worth. The investigations were under the firection of Burdge Irelan, District Chemist, Austin, Texas. Analyses of water samples were made by Clara J. Carter, Lee J. Freeman, Homer D. Smith, Dorothy M. Suttle, DeForrest E. Weaver, and Clarence T. Welborn. Calculations of weighted averages were made by James R. Avrett, Burdge Irelan, Dorothy M. Suttle, and DeForrest E. Weaver.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 25.84° to 36.5° latitude; -106.65° to -93.51° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Burdge Irelan. 1950. Chemical composition of Texas surface waters, 1949. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr5078

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona