Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Water Supply Paper”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
USGS2010

Availability of Groundwater Data for California, Water Year 2009

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the groundwater resources of California each water year (October 1-September 30). These data constitute a valuable database for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. This Fact Sheet serves as an index to groundwater data for Water Year 2009. The 2 page report contains a map of California showing the number of wells (by county) with available water-level and water-quality data for Water Year 2009 (fig. 1) and instructions for obtaining this and other groundwater information contained in the databases of the U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center. From 1985 to 1993, data were published in the annual report 'Water Resources Data for California, Volume 5. Ground-Water Data'; prior to 1985, the data were published in U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2011

Availability of groundwater data for California, water year 2010

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the groundwater resources of California each water year (October 1-September 30). These data constitute a valuable database for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. This Fact Sheet serves as an index to groundwater data for Water Year 2010. It contains a map of California showing the number of wells (by county) with available water-level or water-quality data for Water Year 2010 (fig. 1) and instructions for obtaining this and other groundwater information contained in the databases of the U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center. From 1985 to 1993, data were published in the annual report "Water Resources Data for California, Volume 5. Ground-Water Data"; prior to 1985, the data were published in U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers.

California↗
USGS1960

Ground-water data for Fairbanks area, Alaska

A compilation of records of about 450 wells in the Fairbanks area is presented herein. The data were collected by D. J. Cedarstrom and Troy L. Pewe during the first phases of an investigation by the United States Geological Survey of the permafrost, terrain, and water resources of the Fairbanks area. The enclosed map of the area, showing well locations, was prepared by the Regional Sanitary Engineer, Sanitation and Engineering, Alaska Department of Health and Welfare. The data were released to the Survey's open file in 1948, but are reproduced in the Alaska Department of Health and Welfare Hydrological Data series to insure preservation. Where known, the data include for each well the names of the owner and driller; the depth of the well; the depth to the top and bottom of permafrost; and the reported quality of water. The well records and location may be very useful for future subsurface investigations or construction. The well location map was based on the Fairbanks street names as of 1948. Since that time, many of the street names and the numbering system have changed. Hence, the reader should not refer to the address of a particular well, but to the well number when locating a well on the map. The Geological Survey has recompiled the well data in the Fairbanks area for its final phase of a ground-water study. Data through 1954 is to be presented in a Water-Supply Paper now in preparation. Pertinent portions of the enclosed well data will be presented in the forthcoming report. Some of the enclosed well data, and additional well logs, have been published in a report (Pewe, Troy L., 1958, Geology of the Fairbanks (D-2) quadrangle, Alaska: U. S. Geological Survey GQ 110) describing the geology and subsurface conditions in the area.

Alaska↗
USGS1965

Ground-water data of selected test holes and wells along the Arkansas river in Muskogee County, Oklahoma

The data in this report were collected during the period 1958-64 by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, as part of a comprehensive study of the ground-water resources of the alluvium along the Arkansas and Verdigris Rivers between Moffett and Catoosa, Oklahoma (fig. 1). The purpose of this report is to make the hydrologic data obtained during the study of ground water in the alluvium along the Arkansas River in Muskogee County readily available to the public. The data in this report should be useful in predicting geologic and hydrologic conditions when drilling new wells. Table 1 gives information on the sizes, depths, yields, and other characteristics of wells in the area. The table also provides a key to the additional information for each well site given in tables 2 through 6. Table 2 gives logs for the materials penetrated at test holes and wells in the report area; table 3 gives depths to water measured in wells; table 4 includes chemical analyses of water from wells; table 5 gives laboratory determinations of particle-size distribution of earth samples collected from test holes and wells; and table 6 gives coefficients of permeability and other hydrologic properties of earth samples from the selected test holes. Similar data for Sequoyah County, LeFlore-Haskell Counties, and Wagoner-Rogers Counties are available in other open-file reports. An interpretive report, 'Hydrology of the alluvium of the Arkansas River, Muskogee, Oklahoma, to Fort Smith, Arkansas,' by Harry H. Tanaka and Jerrald R. Hollowell will be published as U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1809-T.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1965

Ground-water data of selected test holes and wells along the Verdigris River in Wagoner and Rogers Counties, Oklahoma

The data in this report were collected during the period 1958-64 by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, as part of a comprehensive study of the ground-water resources of the alluvium along the Arkansas and Verdigris Rivers between Moffett and Catoosa, Oklahoma (fig. 1). The purpose of this report is to make the hydrologic data obtained during the study of ground water in the alluvium along the Verdigris River in Wagoner and Rogers Counties readily available to the public. The data in this report should be useful in predicting geologic and hydrologic conditions when drilling new wells. Table 1 gives information on the sizes, depths, yields, and other characteristics of wells in the area. The table also provides a key to the additional information for each well site given in tables 2 through 6. Table 2 gives logs for the materials penetrated at test holes and wells in the report area; table 3 gives depths to water measured in wells; table 4 includes chemical analyses of water from wells; table 5 gives laboratory determinations of particle-size distribution of earth samples collected from test holes and wells; and table 6 gives coefficients of permeability and other hydrologic properties of earth samples from the selected test holes. Similar data for Sequoyah County, LeFlore-Haskell Counties, and Muskogee County are available in other open-file reports. An interpretive report, 'Hydrology of the alluvium of the Arkansas River, Muskogee, Oklahoma, to Fort Smith, Arkansas,' by Harry H. Tanaka and Jerrald R. Hollowell will be published as U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1809-T.

Oklahoma↗
USGS1965

Ground-water data of selected test holes and wells along the Arkansas River in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma

The data in this report were collected during the period 1958-64 by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, as part of a comprehensive study of the ground-water resources of the alluvium along the Arkansas and Verdigris Rivers between Moffett and Catoosa, Oklahoma (fig. 1). The purpose of this report is to make the hydrologic data obtained during the study of ground water in the alluvium along the Arkansas River in Sequoyah County readily available to the public. The data in this report should be useful in predicting geologic and hydrologic conditions when drilling new wells. Table 1 gives information on the sizes, depths, yields, and other characteristics of wells in the area. The table also provides a key to the additional information for each well site given in tables 2 through 6. Table 2 gives logs for the materials penetrated at test holes and wells in the report area; table 3 gives depths to water measured in wells; table 4 includes chemical analyses of water from wells; table 5 gives laboratory determinations of particle-size distribution of earth samples collected from test holes and wells; and table 6 gives coefficients of permeability and other hydrologic properties of earth samples from the selected test holes. Similar data for LeFlore-Haskell Counties, Muskogee County, and Wagoner-Rogers Counties are available in other open-file reports. An interpretive report, 'Hydrology of the alluvium of the Arkansas River, Muskogee, Oklahoma, to Fort Smith, Arkansas,' by Harry H. Tanaka and Jerrald R. Hollowell will be published as U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1809-T.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1965

Ground-water data of selected test holes and wells along the Arkansas River in LeFlore and Haskell Counties, Oklahoma

The data in this report were collected during the period 1958-64 by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, as part of a comprehensive study of the ground-water resources of the alluvium along the Arkansas and Verdigris Rivers between Moffett and Catoosa, Oklahoma (fig. 1). The purpose of this report is to make the hydrologic data obtained during the study of ground water in the alluvium along the Arkansas River in Le Flore and Haskell Counties readily available to the public. The data in this report should be useful in predicting geologic and hydrologic conditions when drilling new wells. Table 1 gives information on the sizes, depths, yields, and other characteristics of wells in the area. The table also provides a key to the additional information for each well site given in tables 2 through 6. Table 2 gives logs for the materials penetrated at test holes and wells in the report area; table 3 gives depths to water measured in wells; table 4 includes chemical analyses of water from wells; table 5 gives laboratory determinations of particle-size distribution of earth samples collected from test holes and wells; and table 6 gives coefficients of permeability and other hydrologic properties of earth samples from the selected test holes. Similar data for Sequoyah County, Muskogee County, and Wagoner-Rogers Counties are available in other open-file reports. An interpretive report, 'Hydrology of the alluvium of the Arkansas River, Muskogee, Oklahoma, to Fort Smith, Arkansas,' by Harry H. Tanaka and Jerrald R. Hollowell will be published as U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1809-T.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2014

Evaluation of the expected moments algorithm and a multiple low-outlier test for flood frequency analysis at streamgaging stations in Arizona

Flooding is among the costliest natural disasters in terms of loss of life and property in Arizona, which is why the accurate estimation of flood frequency and magnitude is crucial for proper structural design and accurate floodplain mapping. Current guidelines for flood frequency analysis in the United States are described in Bulletin 17B (B17B), yet since B17B’s publication in 1982 (Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982), several improvements have been proposed as updates for future guidelines. Two proposed updates are the Expected Moments Algorithm (EMA) to accommodate historical and censored data, and a generalized multiple Grubbs-Beck (MGB) low-outlier test. The current guidelines use a standard Grubbs-Beck (GB) method to identify low outliers, changing the determination of the moment estimators because B17B uses a conditional probability adjustment to handle low outliers while EMA censors the low outliers. B17B and EMA estimates are identical if no historical information or censored or low outliers are present in the peak-flow data. EMA with MGB (EMA-MGB) test was compared to the standard B17B (B17B-GB) method for flood frequency analysis at 328 streamgaging stations in Arizona. The methods were compared using the relative percent difference (RPD) between annual exceedance probabilities (AEPs), goodness-of-fit assessments, random resampling procedures, and Monte Carlo simulations. The AEPs were calculated and compared using both station skew and weighted skew. Streamgaging stations were classified by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS) qualification codes, used to denote historical and censored peak-flow data, to better understand the effect that nonstandard flood information has on the flood frequency analysis for each method. Streamgaging stations were also grouped according to geographic flood regions and analyzed separately to better understand regional differences caused by physiography and climate. The B17B-GB and EMA-MGB RPD-boxplot results showed that the median RPDs across all streamgaging stations for the 10-, 1-, and 0.2-percent AEPs, computed using station skew, were approximately zero. As the AEP flow estimates decreased (that is, from 10 to 0.2 percent AEP) the variability in the RPDs increased, indicating that the AEP flow estimate was greater for EMA-MGB when compared to B17B-GB. There was only one RPD greater than 100 percent for the 10- and 1-percent AEP estimates, whereas 19 RPDs exceeded 100 percent for the 0.2-percent AEP. At streamgaging stations with low-outlier data, historical peak-flow data, or both, RPDs ranged from −84 to 262 percent for the 0.2-percent AEP flow estimate. When streamgaging stations were separated by the presence of historical peak-flow data (that is, no low outliers or censored peaks) or by low outlier peak-flow data (no historical data), the results showed that RPD variability was greatest for the 0.2-AEP flow estimates, indicating that the treatment of historical and (or) low-outlier data was different between methods and that method differences were most influential when estimating the less probable AEP flows (1, 0.5, and 0.2 percent). When regional skew information was weighted with the station skew, B17B-GB estimates were generally higher than the EMA-MGB estimates for any given AEP. This was related to the different regional skews and mean square error used in the weighting procedure for each flood frequency analysis. The B17B-GB weighted skew analysis used a more positive regional skew determined in USGS Water Supply Paper 2433 (Thomas and others, 1997), while the EMA-MGB analysis used a more negative regional skew with a lower mean square error determined from a Bayesian generalized least squares analysis. Regional groupings of streamgaging stations reflected differences in physiographic and climatic characteristics. Potentially influential low flows (PILFs) were more prevalent in arid regions of the State, and generally AEP flows were larger with EMA-MGB than with B17B-GB for gaging stations with PILFs. In most cases EMA-MGB curves would fit the largest floods more accurately than B17B-GB. In areas of the State with more baseflow, such as along the Mogollon Rim and the White Mountains, streamgaging stations generally had fewer PILFs and more positive skews, causing estimated AEP flows to be larger with B17B-GB than with EMA-MGB. The effect of including regional skew was similar for all regions, and the observed pattern was increasingly greater B17B-GB flows (more negative RPDs) with each decreasing AEP quantile. A variation on a goodness-of-fit test statistic was used to describe each method’s ability to fit the largest floods. The mean absolute percent difference between the measured peak flows and the log-Pearson Type 3 (LP3)-estimated flows, for each method, was averaged over the 90th, 75th, and 50th percentiles of peak-flow data at each site. In most percentile subsets, EMA-MGB on average had smaller differences (1 to 3 percent) between the observed and fitted value, suggesting that the EMA-MGB-LP3 distribution is fitting the observed peak-flow data more precisely than B17B-GB. The smallest EMA-MGB percent differences occurred for the greatest 10 percent (90th percentile) of the peak-flow data. When stations were analyzed by USGS NWIS peak flow qualification code groups, the stations with historical peak flows and no low outliers had average percent differences as high as 11 percent greater for B17B-GB, indicating that EMA-MGB utilized the historical information to fit the largest observed floods more accurately. A resampling procedure was used in which 1,000 random subsamples were drawn, each comprising one-half of the observed data. An LP3 distribution was fit to each subsample using B17B-GB and EMA-MGB methods, and the predicted 1-percent AEP flows were compared to those generated from distributions fit to the entire dataset. With station skew, the two methods were similar in the median percent difference, but with weighted skew EMA-MGB estimates were generally better. At two gages where B17B-GB appeared to perform better, a large number of peak flows were deemed to be PILFs by the MGB test, although they did not appear to depart significantly from the trend of the data (step or dogleg appearance). At two gages where EMA-MGB performed better, the MGB identified several PILFs that were affecting the fitted distribution of the B17B-GB method. Monte Carlo simulations were run for the LP3 distribution using different skews and with different assumptions about the expected number of historical peaks. The primary benefit of running Monte Carlo simulations is that the underlying distribution statistics are known, meaning that the true 1-percent AEP is known. The results showed that EMA-MGB performed as well or better in situations where the LP3 distribution had a zero or positive skew and historical information. When the skew for the LP3 distribution was negative, EMA-MGB performed significantly better than B17B-GB and EMA-MGB estimates were less biased by more closely estimating the true 1-percent AEP for 1, 2, and 10 historical flood scenarios.

Arizona↗
USGS2014

Methods for estimating magnitude and frequency of floods in Arizona, developed with unregulated and rural peak-flow data through water year 2010

Flooding is among the worst natural disasters responsible for loss of life and property in Arizona, underscoring the importance of accurate estimation of flood magnitude for proper structural design and floodplain mapping. Twenty-four years of additional peak-flow data have been recorded since the last comprehensive regional flood frequency analysis conducted in Arizona. Periodically, flood frequency estimates and regional regression equations must be revised to maintain the accurate estimation of flood frequency and magnitude. Annual peak-flow data collected through water year 2010 were compiled from 448 unregulated streamflow-gaging stations, hereafter referred to as streamgages, in Arizona having a minimum of 10 years of record. Flood frequency estimates were first computed with station (or at-site) skew using the Expected Moments Algorithm with a multiple Grubbs-Beck test to identify multiple potentially influential low flows to fit a Pearson Type III distribution. Next, a multiple step Bayesian least-squares-regression approach was used to determine a new statewide regional skew of −0.09. No basin characteristics analyzed were statistically significant in explaining the variation in skew and as a result, the constant model was chosen as the best regional skew model for the Arizona study area. The mean square error used in Bulletin 17B (B17B) of the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data is used to describe the precision of the regional skew. The constant model had a mean square error equal to 0.08, which corresponds to an effective record length of 85 years. This is a marked improvement over a previous Arizona regional skew analysis, with a reported mean square error of 0.31, for a corresponding effective record length of around 17 years. Thus the new regional model had almost five times the information content (as measured by effective record length) of that calculated in USGS Water Supply Paper 2433, published in 1997, or the value of 0.302 reported in the B17B generalized skew map. The flood frequency estimates were recalculated using a weighted skew of the station and regional skew. Station flood frequency estimates for each streamgage are presented for the 50-, 20-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, 0.5-, and 0.2-percent annual exceedance probabilities. Geographical information systems were used to compute basin characteristic information for each streamgage for the purpose of developing regional equations to estimate flood statistics at ungaged basins. Five hydrologic flood regions in Arizona were defined in a multivariate regionalization process based on mean basin elevation, mean annual precipitation, and soil permeability. A regional generalized least-squares-regression analysis was used to develop five sets of equations from 344 nonredundant streamgages, corresponding to five regions, for estimating the 50-, 20-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, 0.5-, and 0.2-percent annual exceedance probabilities at ungaged basins in Arizona. The regression equations developed for these five regions were based on one or more of the statistically significant explanatory variables: drainage area, mean basin elevation, and mean annual precipitation. Average standard errors of prediction for the regression regions for the five regions ranged from 27 to 122 percent and the pseudo-coefficients of determination (pseudo-R 2 ), a measure of the proportion of peak-flow variation that is explained by the basin characteristics, ranged from 68 to 98 percent. Regression equations for Central Highlands (region 4) had the lowest model error and the greatest pseudo-R 2 metrics. The equations for Colorado Plateau (region 2) regression equations generally had greater model error and lower pseudo-R 2 metrics. The improvement of regional regression equation model error and pseudo-R 2 metrics was related to higher numbers of streamgages, longer period of record, and even spatial coverage within a region. The regional regression equations were integrated into the U.S. Geological Survey’s StreamStats program. The StreamStats program is a national map-based web application that allows the public to easily access published flood frequency and basin characteristic statistics. The interactive web application allows a user to select a point within a watershed (gaged or ungaged) and retrieve flood-frequency estimates derived from the current regional regression equations and geographic information system data within the selected basin. StreamStats provides users with an efficient and accurate means for retrieving the most up to date flood frequency and basin characteristic data. StreamStats is intended to provide consistent statistics, minimize user error, and reduce the need for large datasets and costly geographic information system software.

Arizona↗
USGS1959

Annual water-level measurements in observation wells, 1951-1955, and atlas of maps showing changes in water levels for various periods from beginning of record through 1954, New Mexico

This report tabulates the annual measurements of water level in the observation wells in the various irrigated areas, primarily from 1951 through 1955. It summarizes changes in water level by discussion and with an atlas of nearly all the maps of change of water level for the period of record to 1955 for each area in which observations are being made. Included also are hydrographs for the period of record through 1954 of several selected wells in the various areas irrigated from ground-water sources. The annual measurements of water level before 1951, seasonal measurements, and daily records of water levels in wells equipped with recording gages have been published in an annual series of U. S. Geological Survey water-supply papers.

New Mexico↗
USGS1926

Stream measurement work: Chapter 7 in Fifteenth biennial report of the State Engineer to the governor of Utah: 1925-1926

The general stream measurement work has been continued during the biennium by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State Engineer. This agreement is essentially the same as that outlined in previous reports and the details of the stream gauging operations carried on under these agreements can be found in the biennial reports of the State Engineer. The data collected are published in the annual water supply papers of the United States Geological Survey which contain stream flow records for the whole United States including Alaska and Hawaii. For convenience and uniformity in publications the United States has been divided into 12 primary drainage basins and the results of stream measurements are published annually in a series of progress reports that correspond to these twelve divisions. Data for Utah appear in two of these: the Great Basin and the Colorado River basin reports. A complete set of these publications is on fine at the district office of the Geological Survey, 313 Federal Building, Salt Lake City, where the data in advance of publication are also available.

Utah↗
USGS1961

Developing ground water in the central Sevier Valley, Utah

This report presents a summary of conclusions reached from the recently completed State Engineer-United States Geological Survey cooperative investigation of the geology and ground water resources of the central Sevier River Valley. The detailed report will be published as a United States Geological Survey water supply paper and will be available to the public.

Utah↗
USGS1906

Quality of water in the upper Ohio River basin and at Erie, Pennsylvania

This paper discusses the quality of water on the most important tributaries of Ohio River in Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, and Maryland, and the nature of the water supply at Erie, Pa. The amount and character of the pollution is described and the results of drinking contaminated water as shown by typhoid statistics are indicated. The conditions on the tributaries of Ohio River in Ohio are discussed in Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 79, United States Geological Survey, pages 129-187. The water supplies and sewerage of small towns high up toward the head of a large drainage system do not in many cases receive the attention they should. Epidemics of a waterborne disease which affect large municipalities near the mouth of the river and therefore attract attention must necessarily have their origin in the pollution of the watershed above. It is evident, therefore, that adequate sanitation of the small towns and a water supply as carefully guarded as that of a large city would prevent disease at its very source and be far less expensive than the costly battles which are waged against epidemics in huge centers of population after disease has broken out. Typhoid fever statistics for small towns in this section are seldom available and are more or less unreliable at best. The few figures given show the existence of virulent typhoid fever in most towns of the drainage areas in certain years, and as these towns drain into the streams the liability ofthe water to infection is evident. The significance of typhoid fever death rates will be better understood from the statistics presented below, which have been collated from a number of cities having excellent water supplies.

Water Supply Paper↗
USGS1964

Water resources of the Green Bay area, Wisconsin

The Green Bay area comprises an area of about 525 square miles in eastern Wisconsin at the south end of Green Bay. It includes the western three-fourths of Brown County and the eastern one-ninth of Outagamie County. In 1960, the population of the area was estimated at 124,000. The most prominent topographic feature is the northwest-facing, southwestward trending Niagara escarpment. The area northwest of the escarpment drains into Green Bay via the Fox River, Suamico River, Duck Creek, and their tributaries. The area southeast of the escarpment is drained by streams that flow into Lake Michigan. The chief sources of surface water in the Green Bay area are the Fox River, Green Bay, and Lake Michigan. Smaller amounts of water are available from the East and Suamico Rivers and other streams. A sandstone aquifer is the principal source of the ground-water supply. The Niagara dolomite, although largely undeveloped, is potentially an important aquifer in the eastern part of the area. Small amounts of water are obtained also from the Platteville formation and from deposits of Pleistocene and Recent age. Water from the surfaceand ground-water sources is moderately hard to very hard. The Fox River, tributary to Lake Michigan at Green Bay, is a significant source of water for industrial use in the Green Bay area. The Menasha Dam, which controls release of water from the Lake Winnebago pool, is the major regulation on the Fox River, and it has considerable effect in reducing peak flows and supplementing low flows in the lower Fox River. The average discharge of the lower Fox River for the period 1898-1959, as measured at the gaging station at Rapide Croche Dam, was 2,687 mgd (million gallons per day). The longest consecutive period during which the discharge averaged less than 500 mgd was 80 days. The average discharge can be expected to fall below 700 mgd about once every 5 years for a 7-day period. In 1959, the average withdrawal of water from the Fox River was about 62 mgd. The water in the river is of the calcium magnesium bicarbonate type and is hard. The small streams in the area are utilized chiefly for stock watering; some of the water, however, is used for irrigation. The water in the small streams is more highly mineralized than the water in the Fox River and is very hard. Large quantities of water are available from Green Bay, but the disposal of industrial waste into the bay has restricted the use of the water. The major withdrawal is for condenser cooling, and, in 1959, it averaged about 415 mgd. The water from Green Bay is moderately hard but is of better chemical quality than the water from the Fox River and the small streams in the area. The only withdrawals of water from Lake Michigan for use in the Green Bay area are made by the city of Green Bay. In 1959, these withdrawals averaged 7.8 mgd. The lower Fox River is not subject to extremes of flow owing to the dampening effect of the Lake Winnebago pool and the regulation of flow at Menasha Dam. Cloudbursts over the lower Fox River valley below Menasha Dam, however, have occasionally caused extremely high water, as in 1922, when the discharge at the mouth of the Fox River was estimated to be about 50,000 mgd. Daily discharges greater than about 13,000 mgd occurred only 7 times in the period 1918-59. The 50-year flood of 15,500 mgd represents an average runoff of less than 2.6 mgd per square mile of drainage area, a relatively low runoff for a 50-year flood in Wisconsin. The sandstone aquifer is the principal source of ground water in the Green Bay area and furnishes water for public supply and industrial use. This aquifer includes rocks of Late Cambrian age, and the Prairie du Chien group and St. Peter sandstone of Ordovician age; it ranges in thickness from 550 to 640 feet. Ground water is found in openings along fractures and bedding planes and in the interstices between sand grains. The sandstone aquifer can support additional development of large supplies of ground water. Wells can be developed in most of the area that will yield 500 gpm (gallons per minute) or more, provided they are properly spaced and penetrate the entire thickness of the aquifer. It is estimated that the perennial yield of the sandstone in the Green Bay area could be at least 30 mgd if the aquifer is properly developed; only 5.4 mgd was withdrawn in 1959. The water from this sandstone aquifer is of the calcium magnesium bicarbonate type, is very hard, and, at a few places, contains objectionable amounts of iron. The Niagara dolomite, potentially a source of moderate to large quantities of water in the eastern part of the area, probably will yield 500 gpm or more to wells. In 1959, the average withdrawal of water for all uses was estimated at 495 mgd, of which 98.2 percent was from surface-water sources and 1.8 percent was from wells. About 485 mgd of water was withdrawn for industrial use, 6 mgd for public supply, and 4 mgd for rural use. The industrial use of water averaged 441 mgd for condenser cooling, 38 mgd fot processing by the paper industry, and 6 mgd for other industrial uses. The city of Green Bay used 7.8 mgd of water from Lake Michigan; other public supplies in the area used 2.6 mgd from wells. Of the withdrawals of water for rural use, about 75 percent was from wells and about 25 percent was from streams. The discharge of wastes into the lower Fox River and its tributary streams has altered the quality of the natural water. The wastes consist chiefly of treated municipal sewage and treated and untreated wastes from the paper industry, rendering plants, a sugar mill, and other industries. The industrial waste makes up about 90 percent of the oxygen-demand loading in the lower Fox River, and treated municipal sewage accounts for about 10 percent. The dissolved-oxygen concentration of water in the lower Fox River decreases rapidly in the vicinity of Green Bay during the summer when the river water is warm. If the periods when the river water is warmest, generally during July and early August, were to coincide with periods of lowest annual streamflow, generally in late August, the river would be unable to assimilate the loading of decomposable organic matter. In an emergency, industrial and public supply wells could supply at least 6 mgd for a sustained period and probably as much as 10 mgd for a period of several days. Six of the wells that formerly supplied the city of Green Bay are maintained in operating condition and could furnish about the same quantity of water as the industrial and other public supply wells. Small streams in the area would be supplemental sources of water, and the water in the Fox River and Green Bay is easily accessible.

Wisconsin↗
USGS1963

Methods of collecting and interpreting ground-water data

Because ground water is hidden from view, ancient man could only theorize as to its sources of replenishment and its behavior. His theories held sway until the latter part of the 17th century, which marked the first experimental work to determine the source and movement of ground water. Thus founded, the science of ground-water hydrology grew slowly and not until the 19th century is there substantial evidence of conclusions having been based on observational data. The 20th century has witnessed tremendous advances in the science in the methods of field investigation and interpretation of collected data, in the methods of determining the hydrologic characteristics of water-bearing material, and in the methods of inventorying ground-water supplies. Now, as is true of many other disciplines, the science of ground-water hydrology is characterized by frequent advancement of new ideas and techniques, refinement of old techniques, and an increasing wealth of data awaiting interpretation. So that its widely scattered staff of professional hydrologists could keep abreast of new ideas and advances in the techniques of groundwater investigation, it has been the practice in the U.S. Geological Survey to distribute such information for immediate internal use. As the methods become better established and developed, they are described in formal publications. Six papers pertaining to widely different phases of ground-water investigation comprise this particular contribution. For the sake of clarity and conformity, the original papers have been revised and edited by the compiler.

Water Supply Paper↗
USGS1925

Power resources of Snake River between Huntington, Oregon and Lewiston, Idaho: Chapter C in Contributions to the hydrology of the United States, 1923-1924

Thousands of people are familiar with that part of Snake River where it flows for more than 300 miles in a general westward course across the plains of southern Idaho, but few have traversed the river where it flows northward and for 200 miles forms the boundary between Idaho and Oregon and for 30 miles the boundary between Idaho and Washington. Below the mining town of Homestead, Oreg., which is the end of a branch line of the Oregon Short Line Railroad, Snake River finds its way through the mountain ranges that seem to block its way to Columbia River in a canyon which, though not so well known, so majestic, nor so kaleidoscopic in color, is in some respects worthy of comparison with the Grand Canyon of the Colorado, for at some places it is deeper and narrower than the Grand Canyon at El Tovar. The Snake, unlike the Colorado, can be reached at many points through the valleys of tributary streams, and the early prospectors no doubt thoroughly explored all parts of the canyon. To traverse the river between Homestead, Oreg., and Lewiston, Idaho, is, however, a difficult undertaking and there are only a few records of boat journeys through the entire stretch. It has long been known that this portion of Snake River contains large potential water powers, but until recently no detailed surveys or examinations covering the entire stretch of the river had been made to determine their location or extent. A railroad has been proposed between Homestead and Lewiston which would provide a direct connection between the railroad systems of northern and southern Idaho. One function of the Geological Survey is to determine the possible interface between transportation routes on land and potential water-power development, and the information set forth in this paper has a bearing on that problem.

Idaho;Oregon↗