Summary Appraisals of the 

Nation's Ground-Water 

Resources-Ohio Region 

G E 0 L 0 G I CAL SUR V E Y P R 0 FE S S I 0 N A L PAP E R 8 13-A 

..... ~..-..c ,I ~~ 

I f INDIANA 

J l 

I 

'ILLINOIS 

) 

I ' \-----------~..r ,... 

""~· l- ......, 

Sun1n1ary Appraisals of the 

Nation's Ground-Water Resources 

Ohio Region 

By RICHARD M. BLOYD, JR. 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 813-A 

Ground-water development and 

management opportunities in the region 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1974 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

JAMES G. WATT, Secretary 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Doyle G. Frederick, Acting Director 

First Printing 1974 

Second Printing 1981 

For sale by the Distribution Branch, U.S. Geological Survey, 

604 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304 
CONTENTS 

Page Page Abstract ______________________________ _ A1 Productivity of aquifers in the Ohio Region ---------- A14 

Introduction ___________________________ _ 1 Water-supply needs ------------------------ 15 

Integrating ground water into water resource planning ___ _ 3 Current needs------------------------- 15 

Technology available for planning ____________ _ 3 Projected needs------------------------ 15 

Data requirements for planning _____________ _ 3 The significance of the subsurface system in the 

Assessing the ground-water resource _____________ _ 4 Ohio Region ------------------------ 19 

Geologic framework ____________________ _ 4 The potential for additional development ___ - - - --- 19 

Aquifer characteristics ___________________ _ 4 Advantages for management of the subsurface system - 20 

Stream-aquifer interrelation _______________ _ 4 Ground water to satisfy local water requirements --- - 22 

Precipitation - The source ________________ _ 8 Ground water as a regional resource ____ - _------ 22 

Evapotranspiration - A major use ___________ _ 8 The potential for underground waste disposal - - - - - - 33 

T~~PPb -------------------------- 8 Planning for ground-water utilization-An example Fresh water ______________________ _ 8 of simulation techniques for ground-water systems _- 33 

Saline water ______________________ _ 13 Water resources versus water demands in the 

Underground space _____________________ _ 13 Columbus area----------------------- 35 

Defining water flow through the system ___________ _ 13 Use of a hydrologic model to evaluate aquifer capability 38 

Delineation of aquifers ___________________ _ 14 Summary------------------------------ 38 

Ground-water recharge __________________ _ 14 Selected references ------------------------ 41 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Page 

FIGURE 1. Map showing subbasins in the Ohio Region described in this report _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A2 

2. Map showing distribution of unconsolidated sediments _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 

3. Map showing major subdivisions of the bedrock in the Ohio Region _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 

4. Graph showing the liquid- and vapor-discharge components and their relation to total ground-water discharge 8 

5-8. Maps showing: 

5. Average annual precipitation ----------------------------------------- 9 

6. Estimated mean annual lake evaporation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 

7. High-yield sources of ground water ------------------------------------- 16 

8. Low-yield sources of ground water-------------------------------------- 17 

9-17. Maps showing potential water-supply problem areas, potential well yields, and present ground-water use in the: 

9. Allegheny subbasin----------------------------------------------- 23 

10. Upper Ohio River subbasin ------------------------------------------ 24 

11. Muskingum subbasin --------------------------------------------- 25 12. Scioto subbasin _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 26 

13. Great and Little Miami subbasin -------------------------------------- 27 

14. Upper Wabash River drainage ---------------------------------------- 28 

15. Lower Wabash River drainage ---------------------------------------- 29 

16. White River drainage --------------------------------------------- 30 

17. Green-Salt-Lower Ohio River subbasin ----------------------------------- 31 

18-21. Maps showing: 

18. Ground-water supply and potential outdoor recreation areas _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 32 

19. Ground-water supply, population density, and interstate highway system _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 34 

20. Area of model and assumed values for transmissivity and storage coefficient _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 37 

21. Placement of simulated pumping wells ----------------------------------- 39 

22. Computer printout showing computed ground-water-level decline after pumping simulated wells for 9 months 40 

m 
IV CONTENTS 

TABLES 

Page 

TABLE 1. Characteristics of the consolidated and unconsolidated aquifers in the Ohio Region and ranking of aquifers__ A7 

2. Estimated average annual subbasin precipitation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11 

3. Calculation of potable water available from storage in the outwash and alluvial aquifer in the Ohio River valley 11 

4. Calculation of water available from storage in the outwash and alluvial aquifers in the subbasins _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12 

5. Summary of ground-water recharge computations------------------------------------ 15 

6. Classification of subbasin area by potential amounts of ground-water withdrawal _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 18 

7. Average daily base-year (1960) municipal, industrial, and rural water use---------------------- 18 

8. Estimated gross demand for water in the Ohio Region --------------------------------- 19 

9. Projected ground-water withdrawals for the year 2020 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 19 

10. Comparison of projected ground-water withdrawals with estimated ground-water recharge for the year 2020 _ _ 20 

11. Estimated average monthly inflow to O'Shaughnessy, Griggs, and Hoover Reservoirs _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 35 

12. Estimated critical period inflow to O'Shaughnessy, Griggs, and Hoover Reservoirs_________________ 36 

13. Comparison of estimated critical period inflow with estimated daily and monthly water demand 

for the year 2000 ----------------------------------------- ---------- 36 
SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER 

RESOURCES - OHIO REGION 

By RICHARD M. BLOYD, JR. 

ABSTRACT 

Ground water in the Ohio Region is a large, important, and 

manageable resource that should have a significant role in regional 

water development. 

On the basis of a comparison of ground-water withdrawals with estimated ground-water recharge, it appears that the ground-water 

resources of the Ohio Region probably will not be used at full potential 

under existing development plans. Annual ground-water use (1960) by 

municipalities and rural residents was about 1,000 million gallons per 

day. Average annual regional ground-water recharge is about 35,000 

million gallons per day. Therefore, base-year (1960) municipal and 

rural ground-water use is only about 3 percent of recharge. Annual 

regionwide ground-water use (1965) by industry also is only about 3 

percent of recharge. 

Not all ground water in storage is recoverable for development, but 

estimates of the amounts that can be obtained from storage, under 

specified conditions, are calculated to show the magnitude of water 

that is available. Total potable ground water available from storage in 

the outwash and alluvial aquifers in the Ohio River valley and the subbasins is about 23,000 billion gallons. This about four times the floodcontrol storage of all Ohio Region Corps of Engineers reservoirs constructed, under construction, or in advance planning as of July 1965. 

Approximately 85,000 billion gallons of potable ground water is 

available from storage in the region in aquifers other than the outwash 

and alluvial aquifers. This is about 20 percent of estimated storage in 

Lake Ontario. 

About 5 percent of the region has ground-water resources capable of 

supplying more than local needs. For example, under certain specified 

conditions the excess of ground-water recharge over base-year (1960) 

ground-water use is available for 22 million additional people in the 

Wabash subbasin; for 4, 1.5, and 12 million additional people, respectively, in the Miami, lower Scioto, and Allegheny subbasins; for 5 

million additional people in the Ohio River valley; or for equivalent 

quantities of water supply for industrial or a~ricultural expansion or 

other use. A reasonable assumption is that much of the available 

ground water in these areas can be pumped and transported to 

reasonably distant points of need. 

The Wabash and White subbasins probably have the highest potential of all Ohio River subbasins for additional ground-water development. About 30,000 billion gallons, or about 28 percent of the total 

potable ground water available from storage in the Ohio Region, is in 

storage in t hese subbasins. Estimated average annual ground-water 

recharge in the Wabash and White subbasins is 7,300 million gallons 

per day. Annual ground-water use (1960) by municipalities and rural 

residents of the subbasins of about 220 million gallons per day is only 

about 3 percent of estimated annual ground-water recharge and only 

about 0.3 percent of the potable ground water in storage in the subbasins. Also, many high-yield aquifers are present and offer excellent 

reservoir-manipulation possibilities in conjunction with existing and 

planned surface reservoirs. 

Practically all areas of high population density in the Ohio Region 

have the potential for development of ground-water resources. The Indianapolis, Ind., area probably has the highest potential. 

Assuming that future population growth will be heaviest in the areas 

paralleling the interstate highway system, much of the increased water 

demand associated with these growth areas can be supplied by ground 

water. The areas of population growth in Indiana and southwestern 

and south-central Ohio are especially well situated in terms of potential ground-water supplies. 

Underground space in the Ohio Region, consisting of natural pore 

spaces and fractures in rocks and sediments, can be considered a 

regional resource in the sense that it can be included in regional waterpollution control or waste-disposal plans. Much of this space is already 

occupied by ground water or other fluids which must be displaced for 

any alternate use. There is a potential for underground waste storage in 

practically the entire Ohio Region. 

Rapid advance of techniques in ground-water hydrology during recent years has provided methods which the hydrologist can use for 

evaluating planned ground-water development. Therefore, the 

manager can resolve the inherent problems that historically have bred 

caution when this part of our total water resource was considered for 

development. 

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this study was to make a broadperspective analysis of the ground-water resources of the 

Ohio Region and thereby to demonstrate that the 

region's ground water is a large, important, and manageable resource that should have a significant role in 

regional water development. The analysis includes 

assessment of the significance of the ground-water 

resource in regional water supply, of quantities of ground 

water available, of quality of the water, of present and 

potential problems associated with its use, and of additional information needed for planning and efficient 

development. 

This report emphasizes the role of ground water in 

water-resource planning and presents hydrologic and 

related information which will permit incorporation of 

the ground-water resource in the overall resource 

development and water-management scheme for the 

region. 

The boundaries of the study area are the surface-water 

drainage boundaries of the Ohio River basin, exclusive of 

the Tennessee River drainage. For study purposes, the 

area was divided into 13 subbasins (fig. 1). 

A1 
A2 

9o•oo· 43 °+ 00' 

00' 39°+ 

0035°' t - - ___JENNESSEC 

MISSISSIPPI 9o•oo· 

SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

sG·oo· 

Chicago 

I. Allegheny 

2. Monongahela 

3. Upper Ohio River 

4. Muskingum 

+ 

0 50 100 200 KILOMETERS 

SUBBASINS IN THE OHIO REGION 

S. Kanawha-Little Kanawha 

6. Scioto 

7. Big and Little Sandy-Guyandotte 

8. Great and Little Miami 

9. Licking-Kentucky 

10. Wabash 

II. White 

I 2. Green-Salt-Lower Ohio River 

13. Cumberland 

FIGURE 1.-Subbasins in the Ohio Region described in this report. 
OHIO REGION A3 

INTEGRATING GROUND WATER 

INTO WATER RESOURCE PLANNING 

Historically, the tendency of planners has been to ignore or minimize the role of ground water, even though 

the subsurface system offers many advantages, including versatility. This tendency may have been 

justified in some situations because the ground-water 

resource could not be precisely evaluated in terms of 

availability, quality, cost of development, or effects of 

development on surface-water supplies. The water 

pumped from wells must be balanced by a change in 

water distribution within the total hydrologic system. 

Therefore, when ground water is used, one or more of the 

following conditions may arise and cause alarm: The 

ground-water supply is progressively depleted, the 

streamflow is reduced, and (or) the water quality is 

changed. 

Rapid advance of techniques in ground-water 

hydrology during recent years has provided methods 

which the hydrologist can use for evaluating planned 

ground-water development. Therefore, the manager can 

resolve the inherent problems that historically have bred 

caution when this part of our total water resource was 

considered for development. 

TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE FOR PLANNING 

An impressive array of tools is available for planning 

the development of ground water, for analyzing the 

alternative conjunctive or independent use of ground 

water and surface water, and for optimizing management objectives within specified physical, economic, and 

social constraints. Mathematical and statistical models 

have achieved greater utility since computers have 

become available. Models have been developed that 

simulate the ground-water regimen and predict the 

effects of stresses imposed by man. 

Electric analog models have been used to describe 

ground-water hydrology in a variety of geologic environments in many places throughout the United States 

and in several foreign countries. The resistor-capacitor 

network of an analog permits display of a visual analogy 

of the ground-water system, which is especially useful in 

describing and understanding ground-water systems. 

Analogs also can predict the effects of stresses that may 

be applied to hydrologic systems. 

Also, mathematical models have been programed in 

digital computers, providing yet another valuable tool to 

the hydrologist and water manager. Sufficient experience in digital modeling has been acquired to show 

that ground-water systems can be accurately simulated 

and the models manipulated to predict changes, both in 

quantity of flow and in water quality, resulting from 

natural phenomena and from man's activities. For example, it is possible to describe changes in water quality 

that might result from changes in water-management 

practices or to predict the fate of liquid contaminants intentionally or accidentally released to the environment. 

Thus, a pilot project now underway in the Arkansas 

River valley of Colorado will be used there to describe 

and predict on a monthly basis changes in salinity in the 

alluvial aquifer and in the adjacent stream. 

The results of a model analysis are no more reliable 

than the data used to construct the model. However, 

with adequate geologic and hydrologic investigation, 

aided by models, ground water can be integrated into 

water-resource planning with a high degree of assurance 

and effectiveness. 

DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNING 

The data requirements for a planning study of a 

ground-water system depend upon the size and 

hydrologic complexity of the area and upon the types of 

water problems. Some planning studies need large-scale 

model analyses, whereas others require only a descriptive evaluation of the hydrologic data. 

In determining the types of ground-water information 

to be presented in this report, it was assumed that waterresource planners in the Ohio Region will use systems 

engineering for establishing and implementing an optimal water-resource development scheme. What types 

of information are necessary for the application of the 

various methods, such as modeling and simulation, comprising the systems method? 

The first type of information needed is that which 

helps the planner to determine whether the groundwater resource in the Ohio Region is available at points 

of need, or can be transported, in sufficient quantity at 

the right time and in acceptable quality to warrant 

further consideration. 

The second type of information needed is estimates of 

the total resource available for allocation and of the individual demands among competing activities. Suchestimates, along with cost estimates associated with 

allocation of the resource, are pertinent to the application of optimization techniques, such as linear programming. In the typical linear programming approach, 

available resources are allocated in an optimal manner 

among various competing activities. 

This report provides an estimate of the total groundwater resource available. Initial estimates of water demand are available in a comprehensive survey study of 

the basin (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1969). The 

present report includes no estimates of costs for supplying ground water because costs vary widely from place to 

place and from use to use. However, when specific requirements and a time frame are specified, cost estimates can be developed. 

The third type of information needed is estimates of 

storage coefficients, transmissivities, aquifer boundaries, and the degree of connection between streams 
A4 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

and aquifers. Such information is basic to the application of system modeling and simulation. 

Many pertinent data, already available, are summarized in following sections of this report. 

ASSESSING THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCE 

GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK 

Alluvium, outwash, and glaciofluvial deposits constitute the most productive part of the ground-water 

system in the Ohio Region. Streams draining the 

glaciated part of the region (fig. 2), have redeposited 

size-sorted glacial sediments well beyond the southernmost encroachment of the glacial ice during the Ice Age 

and, thus, have helped to create highly permeable 

aquifers in widespread parts of the region. 

Holocene alluvium, consisting of silt, sand, and gravel, 

is present in the lower reaches of the major tributary 

valleys south of the Ohio River. In general, these 

sediments are finer grained and less permeable than the 

glaciofluvial deposits. 

Outwash, composed predominantly of sand and gravel 

deposited by melt-water streams, is generally highly 

permeable and is an excellent source of water. Outwash 

deposits are most extensive in valleys of major 

tributaries within the limits of glaciation. Where these 

deposits are present beyond the limits of glaciation, they 

occur as valley-train deposits. 

Glaciofluvial deposits, which are a mixture of 

Pleistocene outwash deposits and Holocene alluvium, 

occur along many of the major tributary streams and in 

the Ohio River valley. These deposits are generally excellent sources of water. 

Till is the principal type of glacial deposit present in 

the region. It is a heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, 

sand, and gravel, has very low water-transmitting 

ability, and therefore is a relatively poor source of water. 

Moraines of unsorted till deposits form low ridges along 

former fronts of glacial ice sheets. 

The Ohio Region is underlain by a series of bedrock 

units that vary greatly in thickness and in hydrologic 

characteristics and that range in age from Pre cam brian 

to Tertiary (fig. 3). The most conspicuous large features 

of the bedrock are the Appalachian and Illinois basins 

(fig. 3). These two basins are separated from each other 

and from the Michigan basin to the north by the Cincinnati, Findlay, and Kankakee arches and the Nashville 

dome (fig. 3). By envisioning a two-bowled candy dish 

with the bowls separated but molded together by rims, 

one can envision the general configuration of the surface 

of the basement rock in the Ohio Region. 

The slope on the surface of the basement complex, 

from the arch areas toward the Appalachian and Illinois 

basins, is the central feature controlling the slope or dip 

of the younger bedrock unit overlying the basement. 

This general slope or dip is modified locally in areas of 

folding and faulting. The general dip on the bedrock 

aquifers east of the Nashville dome and Findlay arch is 

toward the low point of the Appalachian basement-rock 

depression; the dip on the bedrock aquifers west of the 

Findlay arch and south of the Kankakee arch is toward 

the low point of the Illinois basement-rock depression. 

AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS 

Another important step in assessing the ground-water 

resource in the Ohio Region and in describing the aquifer 

system is the specification of values for aquifer 

characteristics, such as hydraulic conductivity and 

storage coefficient. Knowledge of aquifer characteristics 

makes it possible to delineate the various aquifers in the 

basin and to analyze the dynamic processes of groundwater movement. 

Hydraulic conductivity, which is a unit measure of the 

ability of an aquifer to transmit water, depends 

primarily on the nature of the pore space in the aquifer 

and on the type of fluid occupying the space. In general, 

the greater the hydraulic conductivity, the greater is the 

ability of the aquifer to transmit water. 

Transmissivity is a measure of the gross ability of the 

aquifer to transmit water. It is equal to the hydraulic 

conductivity multiplied by the saturated thickness of 

the aquifer. 

The storage coefficient is the volume of water an 

aquifer releases or takes into storage per unit surface 

area of the aquifer per unit change in head. In a confined 

water body the water derived from storage with decline 

in head comes from expansion of the water and from 

compression of the aquifer; similarly, water added to 

storage with a rise in head is accommodated partly by 

compression of the water and partly by expansion of the 

aquifer. In an unconfined water body, the amount of 

water derived from storage by expansion of the water or 

by compression of the aquifer is generally negligible 

compared to that involved in gravity drainage or filling 

of pores. In an unconfined water body the storage coefficient corresponds to the specific yield and is generally 

greater than 0.01. 

Estimated aquifer characteristics for aquifers in the 

0 hio Region are listed in table 1. The estimates are 

derived from previous studies and are considered to be 

sufficiently accurate for areal application. 

STREAM-AQUIFER INTERRELATION 

The purposes of this section of the report are to show 

that generally there is hydraulic connection between the 

ground-water and surface-water systems and to develop 

data needed in defining the ground-water resources of 

the region. 

Hydraulic connection between the ground-water and 

surface-water systems and a vast supply of ground-water 
go·oo· 

00' 43°+ 

00' 39°+ 

00' 35•-t-- __ TENNESSEE 

MISSISS IPPI 9o•oo• 

Chicago 

OHIO REGION 

86°00' 

+ 

0 5 0 100 2 00 M I L ES 

0 50 100 2 00 KILOME T E RS 

EXPLANATION 

D Glac ial o utwash and Ho locene alluvium 

D Till and morainal deposits 

FIGURE 2. -Distribution of unconsolidated sediments. 

A5 

in the region indicate a potential for large economic 

benefits. Nature has provided a natural subsurface multipurpose multireservoir system. Not only has nature 

supplied the system, she has tailored the system with a 

hydraulic link with the surface-water system. 

Because of the interaction between ground water and 

surface water, streamflow data for nonregulated perennial streams can be used to estimate ground-water discharge to streams, average annual ground-water discharge and recharge, and the hydraulic conductivity of 
A6 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

9o•oo· 

43°+ 

00' 

s6•oo· 82.00' 

+ 

Chicago MICHIGAN 

"iNi5iANA--~ Hio 

I 

I 

00' 39°+ 

/ 

) 

;v'v.J 

:<;."-"".) 

~ 

35°+- 00' - - ____JENNEssrc 

MISSISSIPPI go•oo• -- --_ + TEN o ESSEE _G;RTH CAROLINA_.-- ~~~ 35 •oO'r /\ ALA llAMA T - ------c-EoRGIA / "'' 

D 

- l s6·oo· I lc,o" sroo· 

( 0 5 0 100 2 00 M ILES 

Cretaceous and Tertiary 

undivided 

0 

} MESOZOIC 

Permian and Pennsylvani an 

Pennsylvanian 

Mississippian PALEOZOIC 

Devonian 

50 100 2 00 K ILOM ETERS 

EXPLANATION 

Silurian 

J PALEOZOIC 

Ordovician 

Paleo zoic rocks 

undivided* 

Precambrian 

Contact 

* Includes Cambrian through Mississippian rocks in Val ley 

and Ridge provi nce; Upper Ordovicia n, Silurian, and 

Devonian rocks along southern rim of Cincinnati 

arch; Siluria n, Devonian, and Lower Mississippian 

rocks around Nashvi lle dome ; and Devonian and 

Mississippian rocks along Pi ne Mount ain t hrust 

fa ult. 

FIGURE 3. - Major subdivisions of the bedrock in the Ohio Region. Adopted from U.S. Geological Survey (1932). 
OHIO REGION A7 

TABLE 1. - Characteristics of the consolidated and unconsolidated aquifers in the Ohio Region and ranking of aquifers in order of decreasing 

transmissivity 

Hydraulic conduc- Storage coefficient 

Aquifer tivity (gpd/ft2) or specific yield 

4,000-4,500 0.25 

0.05-0.20 

1. Mad River alluvial aquifer ----------------------------- 2. Ohio River valley outwash and alluvial aquifer ________________ _ 400-8,400 

3. Miami River, Scioto River, Upper Muskingum River, and Whitewater River alluvial aquifers __________________________________ _ 2,500-3,000 .15- .20 

4. Allegheny, Lower Wabash, and White River alluvial aquifers ________ _ 2,000 .15- .20 

5. Hocking River, Lower Muskingum River, and Upper Wabash River alluvial aquifers _______________________________________ _ 1,500-2,000 .15- .20 

6. Beaver River alluvial aquifer and alluvial aquifers in the minor tributaries north 

of the Ohio River---------------------------------- 500-1,000 .15 

7. Alluvial aquifers in the major tributaries south of the Ohio River ______ _ 500 .10 

8. Mississippian bedrock aquifer (Green River Basin) ______________ _ >20 .01- .05 

9. Mississippian bedrock aquifer with glacial cover ________________ _ >20 .01- .05 

10. Pennsylvanian bedrock (Allegheny and Pottsville Formations) ________ _ >20 .01- .05 

11. Pennsylvanian bedrock with glacial cover ____________________ _ >20 .01- .05 

12. Silurian bedrock with glacial cover------------------------- >20 .01- .05 

13. Pennsylvanian bedrock (Conemaugh Formation) ________________ _ >20 .01- .05 

>20 .01- .05 

.01- .05 

14. Pennsylvanian and Permian bedrock (Dunkard Group) ____________ _ 15. Ordovician bedrock with glacial cover ______________________ _ >20 

16. Silurian bedrock ____ ------------------------------- >20 .01- .05 

17. Mississippian bedrock _______________________________ _ >20 .01- .05 

18. Pennsylvanian bedrock (Monongahela Formation) _______________ _ >20 .01- .05 

19. Devonian bedrock with glacial cover------------------------ >20 .01- .05 

20. Ordovician and undifferentiated Paleozoic rocks ________________ _ >20 .01- .05 

21. Devonian bedrock __________________________________ _ >20 .01- .05 

aquifers that are in hydraulic connection with streams. 

Data from U.S. Geological Survey offices in the region 

were used for such purposes in the study., Most of the 

data were obtained from streamgage network evaluation 

studies made in each State. In these evaluation studies, 

a streamflow-frequency distribution was computed for 

each unregulated gaging site where at least 10 years of 

streamflow records were available. Except for the data 

on Ohio, which was adjusted to the standard period 

1931-60 (Cross, 1968), the data used in this report were 

not adjusted to a common base period because of the 

short time allotted to the study. Even though the 

streamflow data were not adjusted to the standard base 

period, they can be used effectively in this general appraisal study as long as possible deficiencies in the data 

are kept in mind. 

Variation in the overall regimen of streamflow can be 

depicted with a cumulative frequency curve constructed 

on the basis of the amount of time during which specific 

values of streamflow are equaled or exceeded. The water 

in streams during periods of high flow is derived from 

both direct surface runoff and ground-water discharge. 

As streamflow decreases, the percentage of streamflow 

derived from direct surface runoff also decreases. 

The flow equaled or exceeded 90 percent of the time, or 

the 90-percent flow, generally is assumed to be all 

ground-water discharge. Because the choice is based on 

empirical studies and because ground-water discharge 

does vary ·seasonally, arguments have been presented for 

the choice of different percent flow values. Wyrick and 

Lloyd (1968, p. H19), mentioned data that indicated 

that the ground-water component of discharge to 

streamflow varies from the streamflow exceeded 60 percent of the time to that exceeded 90 percent of the time. 

Stuart, Schneider, and Crooks (1967, p. 42) showed that, 

for a stream in southeastern Pennsylvania, the flow exceeded more than about 75 percent of the time is all 

ground-water discharge. 

The approach taken in this study is that two flowduration parameters define the annual ground-water 

discharge to streams better than one. This approach is 

based upon the assumption that seasonal variation in 

base flow of a perennial stream is caused partly by 

seasonal variation in vapor discharge from aquifers. 

Because of the variation in vapor discharge, one 

parameter is necessary to define the ground-water discharge to streamflow during the season when vapor discharge is at a maximum, and another parameter is 

necessary for the season when vapor discharge is at a 

minimum. 

Where ground water sustains streamflow in the Ohio 

Region, the water table in the vicinity of the streams is 

close to the land surface and is a ready source of moisture 

for plants. Therefore. abundant vegetative growths 

generally line stream channels. Because vegetation on 

flood plains is situated between the ground-waterrecharge areas and the stream channels or liquiddischarge areas, the vegetation gets "first crack" at the 
AS SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

ground water that is enroute to discharge. During 

summer months, when transpiration is at a maximum, 

vegetation diverts more ground water to the vapor phase 

than during winter months when transpiration is at a 

min1mum. This seasonal variation in magnitude of 

ground-water diversion by plants causes seasonal variation in base flow. 

The assumption is made that the 90-percent flowduration parameter is an indicator of base flow in a 

stream during that part of the year when ground-water 

vapor discharge is a maximum and that the 60-percent 

flow-duration parameter is an indicator during that part 

of the year when vapor discharge is at a minimum (fig. 

4). Although the above choices may not be the "true" 

values, at least they seem reasonable. 

0 25 Total ground-water discharge 2460 mgd = 60 percent ftow 

X 20 "0 1810 mgd = Cl 

E 60-90 percent flow 

w 15 

t? 

a: 

<( 

I 10 

(.) 650 mgd = tf) 

0 5 90 percent flow 

/ 

0 WINTER SUMMER WINTER 

FIGURE 4. - The liquid- and vapor-discharge components and their 

relation to total ground-water discharge. 

Where large reservoirs control flows, downstream flow 

records are not usable as indices of ground-water discharge. For the Allegheny, Upper Ohio River, 

Muskingum, Kentucky, and Cumberland subbasins, the 

60- and 90-percent flow-duration parameters were determined by averaging values from nonregulated headwater and tributary flow records. 

Further discussion on the use of the streamflow data to 

estimate ground-water recharge is presented in the section "Ground-Water Recharge." 

PRECIPITATION -THE SOURCE 

Gross water input to the Ohio Region is equal to total 

basin precipitation. Ground-water inflow to the region, if 

it occurs, is insignificant relative to total region 

precipitation. 

Although precipitation is areally variable (fig. 5; table 

2), average annual precipitation in all parts of the Ohio 

Region exceeds the national average. Monthly and 

seasonal variability of precipitation is greatest in the 

northwestern part of the region and least in the southern 

part. 

On the basis of annual precipitation, average 

precipitation rates in the various subbasins range from 

15,900 mgd (million gallons per day) in the Miami subbasin to about 47,200 mgd in the Cumberland subbasin. 

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION-A MAJOR USE 

The term -"evapotranspiration" refers to the natural 

processes by which water on and beneath the land surface returns to the atmosphere as water vapor. 

Evapotranspiration is the largest single component of 

natural fresh-water discharge from the hydrologic 

system. 

Mean annual lake evaporation is commonly accepted 

as potential evaporation or the maximum rate at which 

water can be taken into the atmosphere. It ranges from 

about 27 inches to about 37 inches in the region (fig. 6). 

The type of vegetation and the depth of vegetative root 

systems in part determines the depth limit from which 

evapotranspiration can occur. This lower depth limit is 

not accurately known, but it probably is not more than 

15 feet. 

Maximum evapotranspiration probably occurs from 

alluvial aquifers adjacent to gaining reaches of many 

streams of the region, where water is readily available to 

the vegetation growing in the highly transmissive 

alluvial deposits. Evapotranspiration of ground water 

also occurs in marshlands and in the immediate vicinity 

of natural lakes fed by ground water. 

THE SUPPLY 

In simple terms, ground water in the region occurs in 

two zones: the supply of fresh water is at relatively 

shallow depths; the deeper zone contains a large supply 

of water of poorer quality. Hopkins (1966) mapped the 

interface between fresh and saline water in some parts of 

the region. 

Although not all ground water in storage is recoverable 

by development, estimates of the amounts that can be 

obtained from storage, under specified conditions, are 

calculated to show the magnitude of water that is 

available. 

FRESHWATER 

For purposes of assessing the ground water available 

from storage, fresh water is .defined as water containing 

less than 1,000 mg/1 (milligrams per liter) dissolved 

solids. The definition is arbitrary because some waters 

with less than 1,000 mg/1 dissolved solids are not potable. 

On the other hand, some municipal water systems in the 

Southwestern United States deliver water that has dissolved solids exceeding 2,000 mg/1. The Public Health 

Service specifies 500 mg/1 as the desirable upper limit of 

dissolved solids in drinking water. Most waters can be 

treated to remove undesirable constituents at a cost. 

Therefore, in this report, all water is considered to be a 

resource, and it becomes a planning or management 

decision whether a given supply is potable or is usable 

only for other purposes. 
OHIO REGION A9 

Chicago 

39"+ 00' 

200 MILES 

0 50 100 200 KILOMETERS 

EXPLANATION 

---40---

Line of equal average annual precipitation, in inches 

FIGURE 5.- Average annual precipitation, in inches (U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Administration, 1968). 

Three categories of storage were specified for the purpose of computing the amount of potable ground water 

available from storage in the Ohio Region. They are (1) 

storage in the outwash and alluvial aquifer in the Ohio 

River valley, (2) storage in the outwash and alluvial 

aquifers in the various subbasins, and (3) storage in all 

other aquifers. 

For making calculations of ground water available 

from storage, the simplifying assumption was made that 

all the outwash and alluvial aquifers in the Ohio Region 

are unconfined. In calculating the ground-water 

available from storage in an unconfined aquifer, the surface area of the aquifer, the saturated thickness of the 

aquifer, and the specific yield of the aquifer are needed. 

The areas of aquifers were estimated from geologic maps. 

Lithologic well logs and water levels in wells were used to 
AlO 

39°+ 00' 

"'" 

:;.__ (_,'\\ 

c.,\'---

. 

SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

Chicago 

86°00' 

+ 

MICHIGAN 

'i'iiiDiANA- - r oHio 

I 

I 

0 50 100 200 KILOMETERS 

EXPLANATION 

---32---

Line of equal estimated mean annual lake evaporation, 

in inches 

FIGURE 6. - Estimated mean annual lake evaporation, in inches (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Admin., 1968). 

estimate the saturated aquifer thickness - the lithologic 

logs to estimate formation thickness, and water levels in 

wells to define the zone of saturation. Much of the information on aquifer thickness is from Walker (1957) and 

Cross and Schemel (1956). Aquifer specific yields and 

storage coefficients are from aquifier tests. 

Estimated amount of water available from storage in 

the outwash and alluvial aquifer in the Ohio River valley 

is about 4,500 billion gallons (table 3). About 60 percent 

of the water is in storage along the lower 200-mile reach 

of the river. The computed value of available stored 

water is crude but reasonable. The purpose of the com-
OHIO REGION 

TABLE 2. - Estimated average annual subbasin precipitation 

No. 

(in figol) Subbasin 

1. Allegheny ---------------- 2. Monongahela -------------- 3. Upper Ohio River ------------

4. Muskingum ---------------

5. Kanawha-Little Kanawha ______ _ 

6. Scioto-------------------

7. Big and Little Sandy-Guyandotte __ _ 8. Great and Little Miami ________ _ 9. Licking-Kentucky ___________ _ 

10. Wabash __ ----------------

11. White-------------------

12. Green-Salt-Lower Ohio River ____ _ 

13. Cumberland ---------------

'mgd, million gallons per day. 

Estimated annual 

precipitation (in..,lyr) 

42.0 

47.0 

40.0 

39.5 

44.5 

39.5 

44.0 

38.5 

45.0 

40.0 

42.0 

48.0 

49.0 

Subbasin area 

(sq mi) 

11,500 

7,200 

8,400 

9,250 

14,750 

9,150 

8,100 

8,650 

11,250 

23,000 

12,500 

16,350 

20,250 

Estimated precipitation (mgd)l 

23,000 

16,100 

16,000 

17,400 

31,300 

17,200 

17,000 

15,900 

24,100 

43,800 

25,000 

37,400 

47,200 

All 

TABLE 3. - Calculation of potable water available from storage in the outwash and alluvial aquifer in the Ohio River valley 

Reach of river 

Pittsburgh to Beaver river ____________ _ 

Beaver River to Ohio-Pennsylvania boundary __ Ohio-Pennsylvania boundary to Wellsburg __ _ Wellsburg to Captina ______________ _ Captina to Friendly _______________ _ 

Friendly to Muskingum River __________ _ 

Muskingum River to Washington Bottom ___ _ 

Washington Bottom to Mason _________ _ Mason to Glenwood _______________ _ 

Glenwood to Big Sandy River __________ _ Big Sandy River to Greenup ___________ _ Greenup to Portsmouth _____________ _ 

Portsmouth to Cincinnati ____________ _ 

Cincinnati to Warsaw _____ ----------

Warsawto Madison ___ ------------ _ Madison to Charleston _____________ _ 

Charleston toNE. Louisville __________ _ 

NE. Louisville to Valley Station ________ _ Valley Station to West Point __________ _ West Point to Brandenburg ___________ _ Brandenburg to dam 45 _____________ _ Dam 45 to Hawesville ______________ _ 

Hawesville to Lewisport _____________ _ 

Lewisport to NE. Owensboro __________ _ 

NE. Owensboro to dam 47 _____ -------- Dam 47 to Henderson ----------- ___ _ Henderson to Mississippi River _________ _ 

Length 

of 

reach 

(miles) 

25.5 

14.5 

34.0 

38.0 

30.0 

30.0 

22.5 

55.5 

36.5 

30.5 

19.0 

20.5 

113.5 

59.0 

28.5 

31.5 

13.0 

19.5 

8.5 

16.0 

57.0 

21.0 

14.0 

15.0 

25.0 

26.0 

175.5 

Average 

aquifer 

width 

(ft) 

4,000 

4,000 

4,200 

3,700 

3,700 

4,700 

6,300 

4,700 

7,400 

5,800 

7,900 

8,400 

5,300 

7,100 

6,800 

5,300 

8,400 

15,800 

11,600 

7,400 

6,600 

5,800 

10,000 

18,200 

31,200 

35,400 

20,600 

Saturated 

aquifer 

thickness (ft) 

50 

50 

50 

45 

25 

35 

35 

30 

35 

15 

40 

40 

50 

60 

60 

60 

70 

60 

70 

70 

70 

80 

70 

70 

100 

70 

70 

Saturated 

aquifer 

volume 

(billion cu ft) 

25 

15 

40 

35 

15 

25 

25 

40 

50 

15 

30 

35 

160 

135 

60 

55 

40 

100 

35 

45 

140 

50 

50 

100 

410 

340 

1,340 

Specific 

yield 

0.20 

.20 

.20 

.20 

.20 

.20 

.20 

.15 

.10 

.05 

.05 

.10 

.20 

.10 

.20 

.20 

.20 

.20 

.20 

.20 

.20 

.20 

.15 

.10 

.10 

.20 

.20 

Stored ground water 

Billions of 

cubic feet 

5 

3 

8 

7 

3 

5 

5 

6 

5 

1 

2 

4 

32 

14 

12 

11 

8 

20 

7 

9 

28 

10 

8 

10 

41 

68 

270 

Billions of 

gallons 

37 

22 

60 

52 

22 

37 

37 

45 

37 

7 

15 

30 

239 

105 

90 

82 

60 

150 

52 

67 

209 

75 

60 

75 

307 

509 

2,020 

Total _________________________________________________ ----------- 602 4,501 

putations is to help planners assess the approximate 

magnitude of the ground-water resource, rather than to 

present precise figures. 

About 18,300 billion gallons of water is available from 

storage in the outwash and alluvial aquifers in the subbasins (table 4). The amount ranges from 45 billion 

gallons in the Kanawha subbasin to 7,100 billion gallons 

in the Wabash subbasin. The estimates are considered to 

be conservative, especially those for some areas of higher 

potential yield. A conservative approach was taken 

because of the significant areal variations in the 

saturated thickness of the alluvial and outwash aquifers 

and because of the paucity of data on the thickness of 

alluvial sediments for some locations. 
A12 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

TABLE 4. - Calculation of water available from storage in the outwash and alluvial aquifers in the subbasins 

No. 

(in 

fig. 1) 

Subbasin 

Surface area 

of outwash 

and alluvium 

(sq mi) 

Assumed 

saturated 

thickness 

(ft) 

Saturated 

volume 

(billion 

cu ft) 

Assumed 

specific 

yield 

Stored ground water 

Billions of Billions of 

cubic feet gallons 

1. Allegheny __________________________ _ 

2. Monongahela ________________________ _ 

3. Upper Ohio River ----------------------- 4. Muskingum --------------------------

1,610 

70 

370 

1,050 

25 

25 

50 

50 

1,120 

50 

515 

1,460 

0.15 

.15 

.15 

.15 

170 1,270 

8 60 

77 576 

220 1,650 

5. Kanawha-Little Kanawha _________________ _ 6. Scioto _____________________________ _ 

7. Big and Little Sandy-Guyandotte _____________ _ 8. Great and Little Miami ___________________ _ 

90 

490 

310 

1,010 

25 

50 

25 

50 

65 

685 

215 

1,410 

.10 

.15 

.10 

.20 

6 45 

100 748 

22 165 

280 2,090 

9. Licking-Kentucky ______________________ _ 10. Wabash ____________________________ _ 

11. White------------------------ _____ _ 12. Green-Salt-Lower Ohio River _______________ _ 

120 

3,410 

1,980 

560 

25 

50 

50 

25 

25 

85 

4,750 

2,760 

390 

.10 

.20 

.20 

.10 

.10 

8 60 

950 7,110 

550 4,110 

39 292 

13. Cumberland -------------------------- 290 200 20 150 

Total ___________________________________________________________ _ 2,450 18,326 

Total water available from storage in the outwash and 

alluvial aquifers in the Ohio River valley and the subbasins is about 23,000 billion gallons. This volume is 

about four times the flood-control storage of all Ohio 

Region Corps of Engineers reservoirs constructed, under 

construction, or in advance planning as of July 1965. By 

further comparison, the volume of ground water is about 

5 percent of the volume of water in storage in Lake Ontario, based on Bue's estimate (1963, p. 11) of the volume 

of water in Lake Ontario. 

Most of the ground water in the outwash and alluvial 

aquifers in the Ohio River valley and the subbasins is 

assumed to be potable. Exceptions are areas where acid 

mine drainage is prevalent. In such areas, even where the 

quality of the ground water is not now degraded, future 

degradation is possible. This is especially true where 

alluvial aquifers are hydraulically connected with 

polluted streams. This study does not delineate aquifers 

affected by acid mine drainage or other pollutants. Such 

a delineation should be made in subsequent, more intensive subregional studies. Without a delineation, satisfactory estimates of potable ground water available from 

storage are not possible. 

For calculating the amount of water available from 

storage in the consolidated aquifers and the remaining 

unconsolidated aquifers of the region, the following 

simplifying assumptions were made: 

1. That the aquifers are now confined but that lowering 

of water levels into the aquifers will produce unconfined conditions. 

2. That a uniform vertical thickness of 250 feet of 

potable water is present throughout the Ohio Region 

in these aquifers. 

3. That the amount of potable water available from 

storage in the aquifers is defined by the product of the 

aquifer surface area, a saturated thickness of 250 feet, 

and a storage coefficient or specific yield of 0.01. 

The assumed 250 feet of saturated thickness is 

reasonable and probably conservative. Available data on 

water levels in wells in the region suggest that, in 

general, the potentiometric head in aquifers - other 

than the alluvial aquifers - is less than 100 feet below 

land surface. Feth and others (1965), showed that at 

depths greater than 500 feet in practically the entire 

Ohio region the dissolved solids in ground water is in excess of 1,000 mg/1. Using 100 feet and 500 feet below land 

surface as the upper and lower limits of potable water, 

the maximum saturated thickness in aquifers other than 

the alluvial aquifers is 400 feet. Such saturated 

thicknesses are not present everywhere. Actually, in 

many parts of the region, brine is present at shallow 

depths. Also, because practically all aquifers considered 

in this example are confined, the potentiometric head is 

closer to the land surface than the zone of saturation. 

The simplifying assumption was made that 250 feet is a 

reasonable value to use for the saturated thickness of 

potable water. 

The assumed storage coefficient of 0.01 also is 

reasonable and probably conservative. As long as the 

aquifers are confined, the storage coefficient may range 

from 0.001 to 0.0001 or less. As the water levels are 

lowered into the aquifers to produce unconfined conditions, the storage coefficient probably increases and 

may range from 0.01 to 0.05 or more. In line with the 

other simplifying assumptions, the use of a constant 

storage coefficient of 0.01 seems justified. 

On the basis of these assumptions, approximately 

85,000 billion gallons of potable water is estimated to be 

available from storage in the Ohio Region in aquifers 

other than the outwash and alluvial aquifers. This 

amount is about four times the estimated water 

available from storage in the outwash and alluvial 

aquifers (tables 3, 4) and equivalent to about 20 percent 

of the volume of water in Lake Ontario. 
OHIO REGION A13 

SAUNEWATER 

Saline ground water is present throughout the Ohio 

Region. As shown by Feth and others (1965), the dissolved solids in ground water exceeds 1,000 mg/1 at 

depths greater than 500 feet throughout the region. Salt 

concentrations in the saline zone range from 1,000 mg/1 

to considerably more than the 32,000-35,000 mg/1 concentration in sea water. 

The largest quantities of saline water, and therefore of 

equivalent storage volume in the saline zone, are in the 

Illinois and Appalachian basins. In these basins the 

depth to basement rock is the greatest in the Ohio 

Region. Assuming that the basement rock is the bottom 

of the saline zone, the bottom of the zone in the Illinois 

basin is about 9,000 feet below sea level; the bottom in 

the Appalachian basin is about 15,000-21,000 feet below 

sea level. 

The saline zone can be used as a source of water for 

desalting, especially in areas where fresh-water supplies 

are small or as a storage reservoir for injection and 

recovery of fresh water. 

UNDERGROUND SPACE 

A simple definition of natural underground space 

might be expressed as the interconnected pore or fracture space into which a fluid can be emplaced. 

Underground space is not necessarily vacant. It is 

already occupied by a liquid or gas that must be compressed or displaced in order to use the space. That part 

of underground space occupied by potable water is 

evaluated in the section entitled "The Supply." In this 

section of the report, emphasis is upon unsaturated underground space at shallow depths. The presence of large 

volumes of unsaturated permeable deposits suggests the 

potential for additional temporary underground storage 

of potable water. 

Geologic data suggest the presence of unsaturated outwash and alluvial sediment thicknesses of from 30 to 70 

feet in the Ohio River valley adjacent to the main stem of 

the Ohio River. Seventy-foot thicknesses are present 

betweem dam 47 and Henderson (figs. 16, 17). Sixty-foot 

thicknesses are present between Cincinnati and Madison 

(figs. 13, 17) and between Brandenburg and Hawesville 

(fig. 17). Aquifer characteristics suggest that the 

sediments are permeable in all these reaches. 

A gross estimate of the unsaturated volume in the 

above three reaches is 125 billion cubic feet; approximately 68 billion cubic feet is present between dam 

47 and Henderson. Even if only one-half of the volume 

can be artificially recharged, temporary storage is 

available for approximately 450 billion gallons of water. 

Lesser volumes of unsaturated sediments and storage are 

present in other parts of the Ohio River valley. 

Only a small potential exists for temporary storage 

water in other unsaturated geologic units in the region. 

The low relative permeability of the glacial till probably 

precludes the use of this unit. The small volumes of unsaturated alluvium in the various subbasins probably 

makes their use unfeasible. The consolidated aquifers 

are, for the most part, confined and already saturated, so 

that pressure effects of artificial recharge probably 

preclude their use. 

DEFINING WATER FLOW THROUGH THE 

SYSTEM 

Except for the almost stagnant brine in the deeper 

zone, most ground water in the 0 hio Region flows 

through the porous rock stratum or aquifer system of the 

region from place of intake or recharge to place of discharge. The rate of flow under natural conditions 

generally ranges from a few tens of feet to a few hundreds 

of feet per year. 

The recharge area for a consolidated or bedrock 

aquifer in the region is assumed to be the outcrop area of 

the aquifer; or, if the aquifer is covered with glacial or 

alluvial deposits, the recharge area is assumed to be the 

subcrop area underlying the glacial or alluvial deposits. 

The subcrop area underlying perennial streams generally 

is a discharge area. On the basis of these factors, the 

recharge areas for all bedrock aquifers can be inferred 

from a detailed geologic map. 

Once water enters a consolidated aquifer there are two 

possible flow paths - the path through the intergranular, or primary, openings called pores and the 

path through secondary openings, such as rock fractures 

or solution channels. The intergranular openings 

generally were formed when the rocks were deposited as 

sediments. Although compaction and cementation 

generally occur with time and alter the original size and 

shape of the primary openings, some pore space 

generally is available in rocks. Rock fractures and solution channels, which occurred after the original deposition of the rocks, provide additional conduits for groundwater accumulation and movement. The secondary 

openings generally transmit greater quantities of water 

at higher rates than the primary openings. 

The major discharge areas of the consolidated aquifers 

in the Ohio Region probably are the Illinois and Appal-achian basins and the Ohio River valley. In these 

areas there is significant vertical ground-water discharge 

or interaquifer flow. Cartwright (1970, p. 917) used 

ground-water temperature anomalies in the Illinois 

basin to calculate the annual vertical ground-water discharge in an 1,800-square-mile area. He concluded that 

possibly as much as 95 percent of the discharge must be 

moving upward through vertical fractures or secondary 

openings. 

Recharge to the unconsolidated alluvial and outwash 

aquifers comes from infiltration of precipitation, from 

upward interaquifer flow, and from percolation of 
A14 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

streamflow from losing streams. In most areas the major 

source of recharge is precipitation. Under natural conditions practically all the exposed surface areas of the 

unconsolidated aquifers are recharge areas. 

Under present manmade conditions of development, 

the recharge areas for unconsolidated aquifers encompass a smaller area than under former natural conditions. The unconsolidated alluvial aquifers generally 

are in the relatively flat stream valleys. The flat terrain 

favors economic development and habitation by man. As 

man develops and inhabits the area, some of the 

previously exposed land surface is covered by pavement 

and other impervious materials. Therefore, there is a 

decrease in the recharge area of the unconsolidated 

aquifers. In some areas of intensive urban and industrial 

development, almost all ground-water recharge is 

prevented. 

The general direction of ground-water flow in the unconsolidated deposits of the region is toward the streams. 

As suggested in the section, "Stream-Aquifer 

Interrelation," the streams of the region are the "sinks" 

for ground-water discharge. Actually, there is interplay 

between the surface-water and ground-water systems. 

One reach of a stream may be a gaining reach, whereas a 

subsequent reach may be losing. Also, a gaining stream 

can become a losing stream and a losing stream can 

become a gaining one as the stream stage changes. 

DELINEATION OF AQUIFERS 

The aquifer system in the region was subdivided and 

ranked into 21 major units (table 1). The ranking of the 

units was made on the basis of the transmissivity of the 

aquifers in the units. The initial subdivision was made 

mainly on the basis of geologic age of the various units in 

the region (fig. 3). Modification of the initial subdivision was made on the basis of streamflow data, and 

the final refinement was made on the basis of available 

aquifer-test data. 

The highest yielding aquifer in the Ohio Region is the 

outwash and alluvial aquifer occupying a valley that is 

incised into the Silurian bedrock system in the Mad 

River drainage area (fig. 15). Yields of individual wells in 

this area exceed 1,000 gpm (gallons per minute), and 

rather extensive development of the ground-water 

resource has already occurred. For example, in the 

Dayton, Ohio, area, 110 mgd of ground water was used in 

1958. This was about one-fourth of the total groundwater use in the State at that time (Norris and Spieker, 

1966). 

The outwash and alluvial aquifer in the Ohio River 

valley is ranked as the second highest yielding aquifer in 

the region. Aquifer yields in some parts of the valley exceed those of the aquifer in the Mad River drainage, but 

as an overall unit the aquifer is less productive. 

The Mississippian aquifer is the highest yielding bedrock unit in the region. Aquifer yields vary from place to 

place, but yields to wells are significant in the Green 

River subbasin, in Indiana and Ohio, and in Pennsylvania, where the unit is covered by glacial drift. 

GROUND-WATER RECHARGE 

Although various methods are used to determine 

available ground water in a region, most methods 

assume that average annual ground-water recharge is 

the upper limit of ground water perennially available. 

Assuming such a need for recharge estimates, they are 

presented in this report, but it should be recognized that 

not all recharge is necessarily available for use. 

The 60-percent flow-duration data were used to make 

order-of-magnitude estimates of subbasin ground-water 

recharge (table 5). Assuming that the 60-percent flows 

are indicators of natural ground-water discharge, they 

also can be used as indicators of natural ground-water 

recharge. This assumes that an approximate hydrologic 

equilibrium must exist between ground water entering 

and leaving the hydrologic system. Actual ground-water 

discharge to streams probably is less than that indicated 

by the 60-percent flow parameter for the Monongahela, 

Allegheny, and Kanawha Rivers; therefore, groundwater recharge as determined by this parameter (table 5) 

for those rivers probably should be adjusted downward. 

The summary of recharge computations (table 5) 

suggests that recharge in the subbasins may be on the 

order of 15 percent of the subbasin precipitation. 

Although for the general purposes of this study no adjustments were made, detailed studies should include 

more precise estimates of recharge. 

PRODUCTIVITY OF AQUIFERS IN THE OHIO 

REGION 

Deutsch, Dove, Jordan, and Wallace (1969) estimated the rates at which aquifers in the Ohio Region 

can yield water to wells. These estimates, which were 

adopted in this study, were prepared on the basis of rock 

type, geologic structure, known well and spring production, low-flow streamflow records, drillers' records, and 

general knowledge of the local geohydrology. 

Both the consolidated and unconsolidated aquifers of 

the region were classified on an areal basis into the 

categories of highest, high, intermediate, or low yield. 

The highest yield category applies to aquifers with a 

potential yield greater than 500 gpm; the high-yield 

category, 100-500 gpm; the intermediate-yield category, 

25-100 gpm; and the low yield less than 25 gpm. In the 

Ohio Region the most productive wells are those situated 

adjacent to major streams and designed to induce flow 

from the stream to the alluvial ground-water reservoir. 

Areas ranked in the highest- and high-yield categories 

(fig. 7) have sufficient ground water for most municipal 

and industrial water demands. Areas ranked in the 
OHIO REGION A15 

TABLE 5. - Summary of ground-water recharge computations 

No. 

(in 

fig. 1) Subbasin 

1. Allegheny ___________________ _ 

2. Monongahela _________________ _ 

3. Upper Ohio River _______________ _ 4. Muskingum __________________ _ 

5. Kanawha-Little Kanawha __________ _ Kanawha _________________ _ 

Little Kanawha _____________ _ 6. Scioto ______________________ _ 

7. Big and Little Sandy-Guyandotte ______ _ Big Sandy ________________ _ 

Little Sandy _______________ _ Guyandotte ________________ _ 

8. Great and Little Miami ____________ _ Great Miami _______________ _ 

Little Miami _______________ _ 

9. Licking-Kentucky _______________ _ Licking __________________ _ 

Kentucky 

10. Wabash _____________________ _ 11. White ______________________ _ 

12. Green-Salt-Lower Ohio River ________ _ 13. Cumberland __________________ _ 

Subbasin 60-percent area (sq mi) flow 

(cfsm)' 

11,500 0.55 

7,200 0.63 

8,400 0.28 

9,250 0.27 

14,750 

12,461 0.58 

2,294 0.29 

9,150 0.11 

8,100 

4,660 0.23 

1,610 0.16 

1,830 0.31 

8,655 

6,276 0.29 

2,369 0.24 

11,231 

4,185 0.19 

7,046 0.19 

23,000 0.32 

12,500 0.31 

16,350 0.31 

20,250 0.36 

Estimated 

ground-water 

recharge 

Cfs 

6,300 

4,500 

2,400 

2,500 

7,200 

670 

1,000 

1,100 

260 

570 

1,800 

570 

800 

1,300 

7,400 

3,900 

5,100 

7,300 

Mgd 

4,100 

2,900 

1,600 

1,600 

4,700 

400 

600 

700 

200 

400 

1, 200 

400 

500 

800 

4,800 

2,500 

3,300 

4,700 

Percent of 

subbasin 

precipitation 

18 

18 

10 

9 

16 

3 

8 

10 

5 

11 

10 

9 

10 

Total ___________________________________________ _ 54,670 35,400 

1Cfsm, Cubic feet per second per square mile. 

intermediate-yield category are capable of meeting the 

water demands of many small municipalities or industries. Areas ranked in the low-yield category (fig. 8) 

are capable in general of meeting only domestic water 

demands through individual wells. 

Approximately 5 percent of the total region is 

classified in the highest yield category (table 6). Individual wells yield greater than 1,000 gpm in at least 

eight reaches of the Ohio River main stem and in the 

Wabash, Scioto, Muskingum, and Allegheny subbasins. 

Potential extraction rates in excess of 500 gpm are possible from practically the entire Ohio River valley outwash and alluvial aquifer and from parts of the unconsolidated aquifers in all subbasins north of the Ohio 

River. 

WATER-SUPPLY NEEDS 

Foregoing information in this report was presented to 

assist evaluation of the potential of the ground-water 

supply in the Ohio Region; the next logical step is to 

consider water demand. 

CURRENT NEEDS 

Partial estimates for ground-water withdrawals are 

presented in the "Ohio River Basin Comprehensive 

Survey." Estimates are presented by subbasin for the 

base-year (1960) municipal and industrial water use 

(U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water 

Pollution Control Administration, 1967), and for baseyear rural water use (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

1968). The estimated base-year municipal water use is 

by water source so that estimated base-year municipal 

ground-water use is available. Industrial ground-water 

use by subbasin is not presented in the above reports. 

However, Murray (1968) presents basinwide industrial 

ground-water use for 1965. For the purposes of this report 

it was assumed that all base-year rural water use was 

from ground-water sources. This assumption probably is 

not far in error. The available base-year ground-wateruse data were extracted from the reports of the 

comprehensive survey and from Murray's report and are 

presented in tabular form (table 7). 

PROJECTED NEEDS 

The gross demand for water and related functions in 

the region was estimated by the Corps of Engineers for 

the years 1980, 2000, and 2020 (table 8). By the year 

2020, the total annual surface-water withdrawals in the 

region, including the nonconsumptive part returned to 

streams, are projected to be about 64 percent of the 

average annual volume of streamflow of the Ohio River 

at its mouth. Excluding the flow volumes from the 

Tennessee River, the Ohio River streamflow will, by the 

year 2020, about equal withdrawals in the Ohio Region. 

Reuse of water, of course, allows for greater use than 

total flow. 
Al6 

goooo· 

00' 43°+ 

39°+ 00' 

35°+ 00' - _ _]ENNESSEE 

MISSISS IPPI 90°00' 

SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

86°00' 82°00' 

+ 

ChicJtgo 

'\._ "'--. "'" "' "' ) ·""<;../ u .J 

~v /~~ I --r-----r ---- _ + TENNESSEE J.!:IQRTII CAROUNA.....- ---{;:Il0"- 1-1~ 35°00' /\ I ALABAMA 1- ~ORGi"A / "~ I I 86 ° oo· r,,o'" 82 ° oo· 

0 50 100 200 MI LES 

0 50 100 200 KILOMETERS 

EXPLANATION 

Potential yields to individual wells 

Unconsolidated aquifers, greater than 500 gpm 

D Unconsolidated aquifers, 100-500 gpm 

D Consolidated aquifers, 100-500 gpm 

FIGURE 7 . - High-yield sources of ground water. 
9o •oo· 

43°+ 00' 

39°+ 00' 

35•t 00' - - ...JENNESSEE MISSISSIPPI go•oo• 

I 

86°00' 

+ 

OHIO REGION 

,«<fv.J ~<;,<;'.) 

___¥ 

/ 

) 

- ~l---+ TENNESS_EE ___ l!:!9RTH 

I CAROLINA.....- ~---, 

Cl'"-o\Jl'l ~ 35°00' 

ABAMA I GEORGIA / "~ I 

86•oo· I (c,O.;, a2•oo• 

0 50 100 200 MILES 

0 50 100 200 KILOMETERS 

EXPLANATION 

Areas where individual wells generally yield less than 

25 gallons per minute 

FIGURE 8. - Low-yield sources of ground water. 

Al7 
Al8 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

TABLE 6. - Classification of subbasin area by potential amounts of ground-water withdrawal 

Percent of area 

No. 

(in Highest High Intermediate 

fig. 1) Subbasin yield yield yield 

1. Allegheny -------------- 8 12 50 

2. Monongahela ------------ 0 26 49 

3. Upper Ohio River ---------- 4 1 41 

4. Muskingum ------------- 2 4 5 

5. Kanawha-Little Kanawha ----- 1 35 35 

6. Scioto ___ ______________ 3 26 6 

7. Big and Little Sandy- Guyandotte _ 2 43 35 

8. Great and Little Miami _______ 5 19 19 

9. Licking-Kentucky __________ 1 3 42 

10. Wabash ________________ 12 32 41 

11. White _________________ 8 16 40 

12. Green-Salt-Lower Ohio River --- 5 1 76 

13. Cumberland ------------- 4 0 74 

Total Ohio basin --------- 5 16 44 

TABLE 7. -Base-year (1960) municipal, industrial,! and rural water use 

NOTE. -Total basin industrial ground-water use (1965) was 930 mgd (Murray, 1968). 

Subbasin 

Allegheny ----------- _________ _ 

Monongahela __________________ _ 

Upper Ohio River _____ _ _________ _ 

Muskingum ___________________ _ 

Kanawha-Little Kanawha __________ _ 

Scioto ___________ __________ _ _ 

Big and Little Sandy-Guyandotte ______ _ 

Great and Little Miami ____________ _ 

Licking-Kentucky _______________ _ 

Wabash ______________________ } 

WhHe ----------------------- Green-Salt-Lower Ohio River ________ _ 

Cumberland __________________ _ 

Ohio River Huntington ____________ _ 

Ohio River Cincinnati _____________ _ 

Ohio River Louisville _____________ _ 

Ohio River Evansville 

Total _______ -------------

Average municipal water use (mgd) 

Total Ground water Surface water 

215 32 183 

142 4 138 

172 60 112 

86 50 36 

~ w ~ 

m 9 n 

16 8 8 

142 128 14 

35 3 32 

242 88 154 

4 1 3 

67 6 61 

30 

121 

100 

46 

1,544 

4 

7 

11 

10 

431 

26 

114 

89 

36 

1,113 

1

1ndustrial water use does not include water withdrawn for electric·power cooling purposes. 

Low 

yield 

30 

25 

54 

89 

29 

65 

20 

57 

54 

15 

36 

18 

22 

35 

Average 

industrial 

use (mgd) 

278 

4,718 

1,608 

72 

1,477 

57 

51 

161 

3 

216 

3 

46 

362 

47 

37 

27 

9,163 

Average 

rural 

use (mgd) 

51 

36 

28 

53 

53 

29 

31 

45 

34 

129 

22 

54 

565 

Estimates of future subbasin water withdrawals in 

addition to the base-year (1960) amounts are also 

presented in the "Ohio River Basin Comprehensive 

Survey" (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1968). The 

values presented for the years 1980 and 2020 represent 

the water required to satisfy projected demands for 

withdrawal and use in addition to those provided in the 

base year. Such additional withdrawals are assumed by 

the Corps of Engineers to be a part of the total water 

withdrawals, both surface and ground water, required to 

satisfy municipal and industrial, electric-power cooling, 

rural community, rural domestic and livestock, and 
OHIO REGION 

TABLE 8. - Estimated gross demand for water in the Ohio Region 

[Data are from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1968). Values are in millions of gallons per day! 

Total demand 

Withdrawals 

Use in 1965 Year 1980 Year 2000 Year 2020 

Municipal and industrial ------ 11,553 14,035 19,357 28,251 

Farm, domestic and livestock ____ 162 168 231 294 

Rural, nonfarm domestic ------ 587 673 794 934 

Irrigation _______________ 46 102 352 682 

Electric-power cooling ________ 19,200 29,000 46,000 63,000 

Mining ---------------- 289 511 974 1,894 

Total ______________ 31,837 44,489 67,708 95,055 

TABLE 9. - Projected ground-water withdrawals for the year 2020, in millions of gallons per da.Y 

No. 

(in 

fig. 1) 

Subbasin 

1. Allegheny __________________________ _ 

2. Monongahela ________________________ _ 

3. Upper Ohio River ______________________ _ 

4. Muskingum --------------------------

5. Kanawha-Little Kanawha _________________ _ 6. Scioto _____________________________ _ 

7. Big and Little Sandy-Guyandotte _____________ _ 

8. Great and Little Miami ___________________ _ 

9. Licking-Kentucky-----------------------

10. Wabash -----------------------------t 

11. White ------------------------------f 12. Green-Salt-Lower Ohio River _______________ _ 

13. Cumberland --------------------------

Total ____________________________ _ 

Ground-water withdrawals 

1960 

Municipal 

32 

4 

60 

50 

10 

9 

8 

128 

3 

88 

1 

6 

399 

Rural 

51 

36 

28 

53 

53 

29 

31 

45 

34 

129 

22 

54 

565 

Estimated additional 

withdrawals 

for the year 20201 

120 

150 

200 

110 

260 

110 

60 

510 

20 

570 

20 

40 

2,170 

1

Additional ground water required to partially satisfy municipal and industrial, electric-power cooling, rural community, rural domestic and livestock, and irrigation demands. 2 Summation of estimated municipal and rural ground-water withdrawals in 1960 and estimated additional withdrawals above. Values have been 

rounded off. 

A19 

Total 

withdrawal 

for the year 20202 

200 

190 

290 

210 

320 

150 

100 

680 

60 

790 

40 

100 

3,130 

irrigation demands. The estimated allowable groundwater-withdrawal rates for the year 2020 were extracted 

from the Corps of Engineers' report and are presented in 

tabular form (table 9) to permit further comparison and 

discussion. 

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUBSURFACE 

SYSTEM IN THE OHIO REGION 

The foregoing information in the report suggests that 

the region's ground water is a large natural resource and 

that there is a demand for such a resource. The next 

logical step is to show how the ground-water resource 

might be used and that ideally it can have a significant 

role in regional water development. 

THE POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

On the basis of a comparison of the projected groundwater withdrawals for the year 2020 with estimated 

ground-water recharge (table 10), it appears that the 

ground-water resources of the Ohio Region probably will 

not be used at full potential under existing development 

plans. Annual ground-water use (1960) by municipalities 

and rural residents is about 1,000 mgd (table 7). Average 

annual regional ground-water recharge is about 35,000 

mgd (table 5). Therefore, base-year (1960) municipal 

and rural ground-water use is only about 3 percent of 

recharge. Annual regionwide ground-water use (1965) 

by industry, also, is only about 3 percent of recharge. 

The Miami subbasin, which includes the Little Miami 

River drainage, is the only subbasin with projected total 
A20 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

TABLE 10. - Comparison of projected ground-water withdrawals 

with estimated ground-water recharge for the year 2020 

No. 

(in 

fig. 1) Subbasin 

1. Allegheny ------------ 2. Monongahela ---------- 3. UpperOhioRiver -------- 4. Muskingum -----------

5. Kanawha-Little Kanawha __ _ 6. Scioto------- _______ _ 

7. Big and Little Sandy- Guyandotte ______ ---- 8. Great and Little Miami ____ _ 9. Licking-Kentucky _______ _ 

10. Wabash --------------l 

11. White---------------f 

12. Green-Salt-Lower Ohio River _ 13. Cumberland __________ _ 

14. Basinwide industrial use ___ _ 

Total _____________ _ 

Total' 

withdrawal 

(mgd) 

200 

190 

290 

210 

"320 

150 

100 

680 

60 

790 

40 

100 

930 

4,060 

Estimated 

ground-water 

recharge (mgd) 

4,100 

2,900 

1,600 

1,600 

5,100 

600 

1,300 

1,600 

1,300 

{4,800 

2,500 

3,300 

4,700 

35,400 

'Summation of estimated municipal and rural ground-water withdrawals in 1960 and es- timated additional withdrawals (from table 9). 

withdrawal rates greater than 25 percent of annual 

ground-water-recharge rates. A similar comparison for 

the Wabash subbasin suggests that plans for 

development are grossly underestimating the groundwater potential of the Wabash subbasin. This is true 

even if all the base-year industrial water use is from 

ground-water sources, which in fact it is not. The 

ground-water resources of the Allegheny, Monongahela, 

and Kanawha-Little Kanawha subbasins are also 

underdeveloped quantitatively, but water-quality 

considerations may be the controlling factor in these 

subbasins. 

The Wabash and White subbasins probably have the 

highest potential of all Ohio Region subbasins for 

additional ground-water development. About 30,000 

billion gallons, or about 28 percent of the total potable 

ground water available from storage in the Ohio Region, 

is in storage there. Estimated average annual groundwater recharge in the Wabash and White subbasins is 

about 7,300 mgd (table 5). Annual ground-water use 

(1960) by municipalities and rural residents of the subbasins of about 220 mgd (table 7) is only about 3 percent 

of ground-water recharge and about 0.3 percent of the 

potable ground water available from storage in the subbasins. Also, many high-yield aquifers are present and 

offer excellent reservoir-manipulation possibilities in 

conjunction with existing and planned surface 

reservoirs. Additional evaluation of the available 

hydrologic data is needed to design an optimal groundwater-development program for the subbasin. 

ADVANTAGES FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE SUBSURFACE 

SYSTEM 

Realizing that there is a potential for further groundwater development in the region, the planner ideally 

should consider utilizing several advantages associated 

with the subsurface (geologic) system and ground water. 

A discussion of some of these advantages follows. 

One major advantage is the versatility of the 

subsurface system. The uses of the subsurface system 

already are diverse. Broadly speaking, however, the uses 

may be grouped into two categories - the temporary 

storage of gases and fluids (principally natural gas and 

fresh water) for later withdrawal and the injection of 

waste fluids for which withdrawal is not contemplated. 

These uses are likely to be competing in many parts of 

the Ohio Region, hence the ne£d for proper planning and 

water-resource utilization. 

Another advantage associai:ed with ground water is 

that it generally is a renewable resource. In the section 

entitled "Ground-Water Recharge," estimates of 

average annual ground-water recharge are given. In 

addition to this -natural recharge, artificial recharge of 

aquifers is also possible. Aquifer recharge can be induced 

from surface streams if the aquifer and stream are 

hydrologically connected. Surface spreading basins can 

be constructed adjacent to the stream to increase the 

area over which infiltration can occur. Recharge wells 

are used where hydrologic connection between aquifer 

and streams is poor or where land values prohibit land 

use for infiltration. 

Flexibility is possible in the choice of a type of 

recharge facility. Depending upon the type of site 

available, reservoirs, ponds, lagoons, ditches, or pits may 

be utilized. 

A very successful surface spreading facility has been in 

operation in Dayton, Ohio, for many years. The greater 

part of the Dayton municipal water supply is ground 

water. Ground-water pumpage in the major well field 

averages about 40 mgd; peak pumpage has been as high 

as 90 mgd (Norris and Spieker, 1966, p. 83). This large 

supply is maintained by artificial recharge of the aquifer 

with Mad River water. Infiltration ditches and lagoons 

covering a 20-acre area have been dredged and are 

flooded periodically when the turbidity of river water is 

low. The lagoons and ditches are dredged each year to 

remove bottom-clogging material and, thus, to maintain 

a high rate of infiltration. 

Some of the records on the use of recharge wells are 

conflicting, and successes as well as failures have been 

reported. The injection of chlorinated water, free from 

silt, into a well casing at a rate sufficient to keep the casing full, has yielded the best results. Chlorine helps prevent the growth of soil-clogging micro-organisms. Silt in-
OHIO REGION A21 

troduced into a well can clog the well perforations or 

even penetrate the aquifer and reduce its hydraulic conductivity; and introduction of air in the aquifer can also 

decrease hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer. Incrustations by chemical action can also occur on metal 

casings where perforations are above the normal water 

table and exposed to air, where recharge waters are incompatible with the native water, or for other reasons. 

Another advantage associated with ground water is 

that in much of the region the ground-water supply 

generally is equally available and dependable 

throughout the year. Because the volumes of the groundwater reservoir and of the water available from storage 

are vast, the ratio of the annual volume of ground water 

pumped from a particular reservoir or aquifer to the total 

volume present is small. Therefore, the supply is not 

depleted significantly in any one year or even in a series 

of years. 

Another advantage is that the ground-water supply is 

widely distributed throughout the region. It is not equal 

everywhere in volume or rate of availability but is almost 

universally present in some quantity. This is in contrast 

to surface water which is readily available only in areas 

adjacent to perennial streams. The fact that ground 

water is almost universally present makes it an excellent 

reserve resource. It is available for emergency use during 

drought periods when surface-water resources are not 

available. An emergency also could arise from an 

accidental contamination of surface-water resources. 

Another emergency could arise in event of war. 

Therefore, even though the ground-water resource may 

not be the prime water resource in an area, a knowledge 

of the potential of the resource is warranted in planning 

for contingencies. 

Ground water generally is not subject to large seasonal 

changes in temperature, a feature of importance to some 

industrial water users, such as chemical companies. 

Seasonal temperature fluctuations generally are greatest 

at shallow depths. Seasonal temperature fluctuations 

may amount to only a few degrees in deeper parts of an 

aquifer. 

Of further importance to many water users, ground 

water generally is uniform in chemical quality, and the 

quality is not subject to sudden changes or even seasonal 

changes. Because the volume of ground water in storage 

is large and because of low velocities associated with 

ground-water movement, the replacement or turnover of 

water in storage is slow; therefore, chemical quality and 

temperature do not fluctuate considerably over short 

periods of time in most parts of the aquifer. 

An advantage to be considered relative to the presentday concern for the environment is that the local 

environment or ecology is not permanently altered or 

scarred when ground water is developed properly. Visible 

evidence of development is generally limited to a pump, 

pumphouse, and pipeline. If development at the site 

ceases, the pump, pumphouse, and pipeline can be 

dismantled, and the environment can readily be restored 

to its original state. 

Another important advantage is that the subsurface 

system generally is hydrologically connected with the 

surface-water system. Where the subsurface and surfacewater systems are in good hydrologic connection, 

beneficial manipulation of the subsurface system is 

possible. 

The beneficial manipulation of the ground-water 

system involves the lowering or raising of ground-water 

levels in order to regulate the available storage volume in 

response to time-varying storage requirements. Because 

the ground-water reservoir or aquifer, just as a surface 

reservoir, need not be maintained at full storage 

throughout the year, storage volume can be regulated. 

The value of the ground-water reservoir can be measured 

in part by the practicality or feasibility of such 

regulation. 

The feasibility of any manipulation plan depends 

partly on the benefits derived as compared with 

detrimental effects. Just as with a surface reservoir, 

detrimental effects upon the rest of the hydrologic 

system and upon the local ecology can result because of 

induced reservoir water-level changes. In considering 

possible effects, a range of water-level changes for each 

manipulation scheme can be estimated. The total range 

of change can be subdivided into a number of intervals 

or increments. Then the effect on the ecology or 

environment can be estimated for each incremental 

change in water level. 

The feasibility of any manipulation plan also depends 

upon the availability of answers to certain basic 

technical questions, such as: 

1. What is the size of the ground-water reservoir or 

aquifer? 

2. Where are the boundaries of the ground-water 

reservoir? 

3. How much is the natural recharge to and natural 

discharge from the ground-water reservoir? 

4. Where are the areas of natural recharge and 

discharge? 

5. At what rate can water be taken from or added to the 

reservoir? 

6. Are there any local geologic or hydrologic conditions 

that may hinder use of the reservoir? 

7. What is the quality of water in storage and what 

quality changes may occur because of reservoir 

manipulation? 

8. What is the project life of the reservoir? 
A22 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

Answers to many of these questions can be obtained 

using the information in this and other reports. More 

specific and definitive answers are possible when specific 

manipulation plans for specific areas are proposed and 

considered. 

A limiting factor in practically every potential 

manipulation plan is the rate at which the ground-water 

reservoir can be artificially recharged. The potential 

ground-water extraction rates from wells are general 

indicators of the rates at which the wells can accept 

water. Theoretically, an aquifer can be recharged using 

injection wells at the same rate at which water can be 

withdrawn from the well, under a given head 

differential. However, the tendency for wells and 

infiltration facilities to become clogged causes a decrease 

in recharge rates with time. Therefore, average recharge 

rates with time probably will be much less than the 

designed rates. 

The sites with the highest potential for beneficial 

manipulation of available ground-water-storage volume 

are in and adjacent to the flood plains of the major 

streams in the region (fig. 2). These areas have relatively 

thick and permeable aquifers underlying a surface 

stream or ready source of recharge. The benefits to be 

derived in utilizing the ground-water reservoirs 

underlying these areas as part of the proposed basinwide reservoir system should be considered in any 

subsequent subregional studies. 

With proper planning and proper water-resource 

utilization the natural advantages of the subsurface 

system and ground water commonly outweight inherent 

disadvantages, and ground water ideally should receive 

full consideration in water planning. 

GROUND WATER TO SATISFY LOCAL WATER 

REQUIREMENTS 

An individual well in almost any part of the region will 

yield enough water to satisfy a domestic water requirement. However, approximately 35 percent of the region 

(table 6, fig. 8) in general is capable of meeting only a 

domestic requirement through an individual well. 

Disregarding water-quality considerations, approximately 65 percent of the region (table 6) can satisfy 

water demands of many small municipalities or industries through individual wells. In such areas individual wells generally yield greater than 25 gpm. Also, 

ground water can be used in meeting recreational 

demands where a large surface reservoir is not a specific 

requirement; for example, for small off-stream fishing 

ponds, swimming pools, or ice-skating rinks. 

In order to consider some local problem-solving alternatives, locations of existing and potential water 

problems (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1968, appendix K) were superimposed on subbasin maps showing 

locations of existing ground-water use and productivity 

of aquifers. In almost all these locations the use is for 

municipal water supply. For illustrative purposes, only 

the maps for subbasins with a significant number of 

projected problem areas are presented in this report 

(figs. 9-17). 

As indicated by figures 9-17, many of the potential 

problem areas and some of the existing problem areas 

are underlain by high-yield ground-water reservoirs, 

which could have an important role in areal or local 

water-resource development plans. 

The Miami subbasin, one with highly developed 

ground-water resources, is indicated as having many 

potential water-supply problem areas (fig. 13). Most of 

the problem areas are ones of existing ground-water use 

and development. The Miami subbasin is the only subbasin in the Ohio Region with projected total withdrawal 

rates in excess of the subbasin 90-percent flow 

parameters. Therefore over-development may become a 

reality. Principles outlined in Spieker's report (1968) 

should be used for management and development 

decisions, and other subbasin areas should be studied in 

like manner. 

A comparative illustration shows that more than 140 

potential outdoor recreational areas in the Ohio Region 

are outside the areas of poor sources of ground water (fig. 

18). Therefore the ground-water resource is capable of 

meeting many of the recreational water demands, especially in areas remote from a surface-water source. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (1966), determined the potential outdoor recreational areas. An outdoor recreational area is 

one which meets all or part of demands for swimming, 

boating, water skiing, picnicking, camping, sightseeing, 

nature walks, and hiking. In nearly all places ground 

water can satisfy the water demand associated with the 

last five of the above demands because the demands are 

generally small. 

The uniform temperature of ground water, especially 

if the temperature approaches that needed for trout 

hatcheries, makes the ground-water resource a potentially valuable resource of the sports-fishery industry. 

The potential value is there because cold-water streams 

capable of producing or sustaining trout fishing 

generally are limited to the forested mountainous areas 

of the Appalachian area. The use of ground water, 

although it may be expensive, could significantly expand 

the area in which trout fishing is possible. 

GROUND WATER AS A REGIONAL RESOURCE 

For ground water to be considered a regional resource, 

a large supply must be present, a large part of the supply 
OHIO REGION 

79"00' 

0 10 2 0 3 0 40 5 0 M ILES 

0 10 20 3 0 40 50 K ILOME T E RS 

Potential water-supply 

problem areas 

G Present ( 1972) 

[t1 1980 

E3 2000 

E!J 2020 

8 Location of known significant 

municipal ground-water use 

EXPLANATION 

Potential well yields 

Unconsolidated aquifers yield greater than 500 gpm 

Unconsolidated aquifers yield 100-500 gpm 

~ Consolidated aquifers yield 100-500 gpm 

D Unconsolidated aquifers yield 25-100 gpm 

• Consolidated aquifers yield 25-100 gpm 

D Aquifers yield less than 25 gpm 

FIGURE 9. -Potential water-supply problem areas, potential well yields, and present ground-water use 

in the Allegheny subbasin. 

A23 
A24 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

0 10 20 30 40 50 Ml LES 

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS 

Potential water-supply 

problem areas 

8 Present (1972) 

G3 1980 

B 2000 

E!l 2020 

8 Location of known significant 

municipal ground-water use 

EXPLANATION 

Potential well yields 

Unconsolidated aquifers yeild greater than 500 gpm 

D Unconsolidated aquifers yield 100-500 gpm 

~ Consolidated aquifers yield 100-500 gpm 

D Unconsolidated aquifers yield 25-100 gpm 

~ Consolidated aquifers yield 25-100 gpm 

D Aquifers yield less than 25 gpm 

FIGURE 10. - Potential water-supply problem areas, potential well yields, and present ground-water 

use in the Upper Ohio River subbasin. 
OHIO REGION 

0 10 2 0 3 0 40 50 MI LES 

0 10 20 3 0 40 50 KIL OM ETERS 

Potential water-supply 

problem areas 

~ Present (1972) 

[!3 1980 

El 2000 

EJ 2020 

8 Location of known significant 

municipal ground-water use 

EXPLANATION 

Potential well yields 

Unconsolidated aquifers yield greater than 500 gpm 

D Unconsolidated aquifers yield I 00-500 gpm 

D Unconsolidated aquifers yield 25-100 gpm 

D Consolidated aquifers yield 25-100 gpm 

D Aquifers yield less than 25 gpm 

FIGURE 11. - Potential water-supply problem areas, potential well yields, and present ground-water 

use in the Muskingum subbasin. 

A25 

must be available, and the supply must be renewable. 

Unless these criteria are met, large-scale regulation of 

the subsurface system probably is not warranted. 

2. The aquifer(s) must have a potential to yield greater 

than 500 gpm to individual wells. 

Specific criteria used in this report to classify the 

resource as regional are: 

1. An unconsolidated aquifer(s) of significant areal extent and a saturated thickness of at least 50 feet must 

be present. 

3. Surface water must be available for artificial recharge 

of the aquifer(s). 

The ensuing discussion assumes that necessary 

legislation and land acquisition are possible if development of ground water is feasible. Also, all water referred 

to is assumed to be potable. 
A26 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

8 3 ·oo· 

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES 

0 10 20 3 0 40 50 KILOMETERS 

Potential water-supply 

problem areas 

G Present (1972) 

[tl 1980 

E3 2000 

f!] 2020 

8 Location of known significant 

municipal ground-water use 

EXPLANATION 

D 

~ 

D 

~ 

~ 

D 

Potential well yields 

Unconsolidated aquifers yield greater than 500 gpm 

Unconsolidated aquifers yield 100-500 gpm 

Consolidated aquifers yield 100-500 gpm 

Unconsolidated aquifers yield 25-100 gpm 

Consolidated aquifers yield 25-100 gpm 

Aquifers yield less than 25 gpm 

FIGURE 12. - Potential water-supply problem areas, potential well yields, and present ground-water 

use in the Scioto subbasin. 

The above criteria are satisfied in approximately 5 

percent of the region in that part underlain by unconsolidated aquifers with the potential to yield greater 

than 500 gpm to individual wells. The area in the 

Allegheny subbasin underlain by outwash and alluvial 

aquifers is included even though the available data 
OHIO REGION 

84 °00' 

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES 

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS 

Potential water-supply 

problem areas 

G Present (1972) 

[1j 1980 

E3 2000 

E) 2020 

8 Location of known significant 

municipal ground-water use 

EXPLANATION 

Potential well yields 

Unconsolidated aquifers yield greater than 500 gpm 

D Unconsolidated aquifers yield 100-500 gpm 

~ Consolidated aquifers yield 100-500 gpm 

~ Consolidated aquifers yield 25-100 gpm 

D Aquifers yield less than 25 gpm 

FIGURE 13. - Potential water-supply problem areas, potential well yields, and present ground-water 

use in the Great and Little Miami subbasin. 

A27 

suggest a saturated thickness of only 25 feet (table 4). 

This area is included because the available data on 

aquifer thickness are extremely sparse. 

resource. In these areas ground water can satisfy more 

than local needs. 

Specifically, the ground water in the unconsolidated 

outwash and alluvial aquifers in much of the Ohio River 

valley, and in the Wabash, Miami, lower Scioto, and 

Allegheny subbasins can be considered a regional 

For example, the water requirements for a large population increase in the above areas can be satisfied with 

ground water. In order to estimate the actual population 

that can be satisfied, the following assumptions were 

made: 
A28 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

86°00' 

0 10 20 30 40 50 MI LES 

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS 

EXPLANATION 

Potential water-supply 

problem areas 

G Present ( 1972) 

Potential well yields 

Unconsolidated aquifers yield greater than 500 gpm 

[!3 1980 

B 2000 

E!J 2020 

0 Location of known significant 

municipal ground-water use 

D Unconsolidated aquifers yield 100-5 00 gpm 

~ Consolidated aquifers yield I 00-500 gpm 

D Unconsolidated aquifers yield 25-100 gpm 

D Consolidated aquifers yield 25-100 gpm 

D Aquifers yield less than 25 gpm 

FIGURE 14. - Potential water-supply problem areas, potential well yields, and present ground-water use in the 

upper Wabash River drainage. 

1. One-half the excess of annual ground-water recharge 

over base-year (1960) ground-water use is available. 

This should be a conservative estimate of available 

water. 

2. All base-year industrial water use is from groundwater sources. This also causes the estimate of 

available water to be conservative. 

3. The available water is used only once. Again, this 

causes the estimate of available water to be conservative. 

4. Per-capita water use is 150 gpd (gallons per day). 

Therefore, a 1-mgd supply will satisfy the requirements of approximately 6,500 people. 

On the basis of the above assumptions, ground water 

is available for 22 million additional people in the 

Wabash subbasin, and for 4, 1.5, and 12 million additional people, respectively, in the Miami, lower Scioto, 

and Allegheny subbasins. 

The above estimates are given for illustration only. 

Instead of supporting a population increase, the 

available ground water in these subbasins could be 

utilized for industrial or agricultural expansion or for 

other uses. However, factors other than water supply 

constrain and determine development potential. 

Ground water also is available in the Ohio River valley 

for approximately 5 million additional people. This estimate is based on the previously stated assumptions, 

except that a different method was used to estimate 

ground-water recharge. Because the Ohio River is 

regulated, streamflow data could not be used to estimate 

ground-water recharge. Instead, Rorabaugh's (1949) estimates of recharge were used. 
OHIO REGION 

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES 

0 10 2 0 30 40 50 KILOMETERS 

Potential water-supply 

problem areas 

G Present ( 1972) 

~ 1980 

El 2000 

E!J 2020 

8 Location of known significant 

municipal ground-water use 

EXPLANATION 

Potential well yields 

Unconsolidated aquifers yield greater than 500 gpm 

D Unconsolidated aquifers yield 100-500 gpm 

D Unconsolidated aquifers yie ld 25-100 gpm 

D Consolidated aquifers yield 25-100 gpm 

D Aquifers yield less than 25 gpm 

FIGURE 15. - Potential water-supply problem areas, potential well yields, and present ground-water 

use in the lower Wabash River drainage. 

A29 

Natural recharge to the outwash and alluvium in the 

Ohio River flood plain is partly by flow through the 

permeable rocks of the uplands adjacent to the outwash 

and alluvium and partly by direct downward seepage of 

precipitation. 

For the purposes of this report, where a conservative 

estimate of recharge and available ground water is 

desired, zero recharge is assumed from the uplands. 

Sparse data on such recharge also make such an assumption necessary. 
A30 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES 

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS 

Potential water-supply 

problem areas 

G 

[!3 

8 

EJ 

Present ( 1972) 

1980 

2000 

2020 

Location of known significant 

municipal ground-water use 

EXPLANATION 

Potential well yields 

Unconsolidated aquifers yield greater than 500 gpm 

D Unconsolidated aquifers yield 100-500 gpm 

~ Consolidated aquifers yield 100-500 gpm 

D Unconsolidated aquifers yield 25-100 gpm 

D Consolidated aquifers yie ld 25-100 gpm 

D Aq uifers yield less than 25 gpm 

FIGURE 16. - Potential water-supply problem areas, potential well yields, and present ground-water 

use in the White River drainage. 

Assumed recharge per square mile of outwash and 

alluvium from seepage of precipitation is 200,000 gpd. 

Rorabaugh (1949, p. 21) estimated seepage to the aquifer 

southwest of Louisville, Ky. , in 1945 of about 250,000 

gpd per square mile. However, because 1945 was a wet 

year, seepage would be less in dry years. Therefore, an 

average seepage of 200,000 gpd per square mile is 

assumed. The author also assumes that this estimate is 

applicable to the outwash and alluvium along the entire 

length of the Ohio River. 
OHIO REGION 

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES 

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS 

Potential water-supply 

problem areas 

G Present ( 1972) 

U3 1980 

E3 2000 

E!J 2020 

G) Location of known significant 

municipal ground-water use 

EXPLANATION 

Potential well yields 

Unconsolidated aquifers yeild greater than 500 gpm 

Unconsolidated aquifers yield 100-500 gpm 

D Consolidated aquifers yield 25-100 gpm 

D Aquifers yield less than 25 gpm 

FIGURE 17. - Potential water-supply problem areas, potential well yields, and present ground-water use in the 

Green-Salt-Lower Ohio River subbasin. 

A31 

Recharge from seepage of precipitation into the entire 

aquifer(s) in the Ohio River valley is about 2,000 mgd. 

This is· the product of 10,000 square miles, or approximate aquifer area (table 3), and 200,000 gpd per 

square mile, or assumed recharge rate. 

Finally, using the above estimate of recharge and 
A32 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

9o•oo· 

00' 43°+ 86 .00' 

+ 

Chicago 

39•+ 00' 

35•t 00' - - _:I'ENNESSEE 

90 0 OO' MISSISSIPPI 

0 

0 

50 100 

50 100 

82 °00' 

EXPLANATION 

• 

Potential outdoor recreation areas 

Poor sources of ground water 

D 

Adequate sources of ground water 

200 MILES 

200 KILOMETERS 

FIGURE 18.- Ground-water supply and potential outdoor recreation areas. 

base-year water use (table 7), ground water is available 

in the Ohio River valley for approximately 5 million additional people. 

In summary, ground water is available for 22 million 

additional people in the Wabash subbasin; for 4, 1.5, and 

12 million additional people, respectively, in the Miami, 

lower Scioto, and Allegheny subbasins; and for 5 million 

additional people in the Ohio River valley. 

Even though the above figures are gross, the obvious 

fact is that ground water is available in significant 

amounts in at least 5 percent of the region. 

Of further importance to the planner, a reasonable 

assumption is that much of the available ground water 

in the above areas can be pumped and transported to 

relatively distant points of need. For example, approximately 55,000 people in the Fort Knox, Ky., area, 
OHIO REGION A33 

southwest of Louisville, are served with ground water 

delivered from approximately 10 miles away (Mull and 

others, 1971). Several other communities in Kentucky 

also pump ground water from the outwash and alluvial 

aquifer in the Ohio River valley and transport the water 

to relatively distant points of use. 

To make maximum use of the available ground-water 

resources of the region, the population-density pattern 

should be one of maximum population density adjacent 

to the Ohio River, and in the Wabash, Miami, lower 

Scioto, and possibly the Allegheny subbasins. An illustration, comparing ground-water supply, population 

density, and the interstate highway system (fig. 19), 

suggests that all areas of existing high population density have the potential for development of ground-water 

resources. The Indianapolis, Ind., area probably has the 

highest potential for ground-water development. Among 

the major population areas, the Youngstown, Ohio, area 

and the Nashville, Tenn., area probably have the poorest 

potential for ground-water development. 

Assuming that future population growth will be 

heaviest in the areas paralleling the insterstate highway 

system, much of the increased water demand associated 

with these growth areas can be supplied by ground 

water. The areas of potential growth in Indiana and 

southwestern and south-central Ohio are especially well 

situated in terms of potential ground-water supplies. 

The development of the ground-water resources in 

western Pennsylvania and West Virginia probably 

depends primarily upon water-quality considerations, 

rather than upon availability of the resource. 

The potential for additional industrial development 

also is enhanced in the areas where ground water is 

classified as a regional resource. Almost any type of industry can satisfy its water requirements with ground 

water in these areas. 

THE POTENTIAL FOR UNDERGROUND WASTE DISPOSAL 

Underground space in the Ohio Region also can be 

considered a regional resource in the sense that it can be 

included in regional water-pollution-control or wastedisposal plans. As previously suggested, a simple definition of natural underground space might be interconnected pore or fracture space into which a fluid can 

be emplaced. In this section of the report emphasis is 

upon underground space occupied by saline ground 

water. Before assessing the potential for underground 

waste storage in the region, a discussion is presented on 

the characteristics generally considered to be necessary 

for successful waste injection and underground storage. 

Two geologic characteristics generally considered 

necessary for the use of waste-injection wells are (1) an 

injection zone with sufficient permeability, porosity, 

thickness, and areal extent to serve as a liquid-storage 

reservoir at safe injection pressures, and (2) an injection 

zone that is below the level of fresh-water circulation and 

is confined above by rocks that are, for practical purposes, impermeable to waste liquids. 

Metamorphic and igneous crystalline rocks, which 

everywhere underlie the sedimentary rocks of the 

region, provide little potential for underground liquidwaste disposal because of lack of storage space and low 

permeability. Artificial tunnels or chambers in these 

rocks may facilitate storage under certain conditions. 

Warner (1969, p. B-28-A) listed characteristics of areas 

feasible for waste injection and underground storage. 

On the basis of considering these characteristics, 

known conditions in the Ohio Region warrant investigation of waste-disposal potential in practically the entire 

region. In much of southern Illinois, southwestern Indiana, West Virginia, southwestern Pennsylvania, and 

extreme southeastern Ohio there is at least 1,500 to 2,000 

feet of Mississippian and Pennsylvanian sedimentary 

rock present at considerable depth; in northwestern 

Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, and south-central Indiana 

there are comparable thicknesses of Silurian and Devonian rock (Warner, 1969, fig. 9). 

Although there is a great potential for underground 

waste storage in the Ohio Region, storing wastes underground is not a pollution panacea. The properties of the 

potential host rock and adjacent formations must be 

thoroughly understood. Waste injection undertaken 

without a knowledge of the limitations of the host formation may lead to undesirable or disastrous consequences. 

Possible consequences are the escape of waste to the surface or near-surface environment; the contamination of 

soils, surface water, ground water and other resources; 

and the denial of the use of other resources, such as oil 

and mineral ores. Evidently, effective underground 

waste management requires development of new 

technology (R. L. Nace, written commun., 1972). 

Further discussion of waste management is beyond the 

scope of this report. However, the technical aspects of 

the use of salaquifers for waste storage is now under 

study by the U.S. Geological Survey. 

PLANNING FOR GROUND-WATER 

UTILIZATION - AN EXAMPLE 

OF SIMUlATION TECHNIQUES FOR GROUNDWATER SYSTEMS 

The purpose of this section of the report is to 

demonstrate the relevancy of ground-water simulation 

techniques in solving a water-supply problem. As an example, a digital model of a small part of the streamaquifer system south of Columbus, Ohio, was developed. 

S. E. Norris and other personnel of the U.S. Geological 

Survey office in Ohio contributed basic data and 

geohydrologic information that made development of the 

model possible. The model was developed in a very short 

time, for illustrative purposes. No verification of the 
A34 

90'00' 43'+ 00' 

39'+ 00' 

35'+ 00' - - ___IENNESSEE 

MISS ISSIPPI 

90'00' 

SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

86'00' 82'00' 

+ 

MICHIGAN 

INi5iANA- -~ oiilo 

I 

I 

I 

,":oJv../ 

,;:."'"' ') 

f ~ v /" 

I ~-- -, 

----_ + TENNESSEE J.!:I<;JRTH CA ROLINA_.- --{;:"l<o\.ll'~ 35'00' -"'. / ALA HAM A 1 - ---G-LORc i"A / "-'" I 

I 86'oo· I 1,,o-0 82'oo· 

0 50 100 2 00 MILES 

0 50 100 2 00 KILOME T E RS 

EXPLANATION 

D Adequate sources of ground water 

[3 Poor sources of ground water 

D More than 400 people per square mile 

D 200-400 people per square mile 

D I 00-200 people per square mile 

Interstate highway route 

FIGURE 19.-Ground-water supply, population density, and interstate highway system. 

VIRGINIA ___ ----

!WRTi-i(' AROLINA 
OHIO REGION A35 

model was attempted. In the study of an actual model 

the hydrologist generally verifies the model by 

simulating historical ground-water level changes caused 

by pumping, on the assumption that if the model 

simulates historical conditions it will also closely predict 

future conditions. The intent of the example is to 

demonstrate the methodology rather than to develop a 

verified model. Data related to the degree of streamaquifer connection and data on hydraulic head 

differences between the stream and aquifer are scant. 

Such data are critical in determining actual drawdowns 

in the aquifer. Therefore, the model results should be 

considered as hypothetical. 

The Columbus, Ohio, area was chosen for the example 

because large amounts of ground water are available in 

the aquifer system under the area and because the 

potential for additional surface storage in relation to 

need is small. Therefore, the Columbus area seemed a 

logical one in which to consider feasibility of conjunctive 

use of surface-water and ground-water resources. 

A rather typical approach to solving a water-supply 

problem is used in the example. The surface-water 

supply is evaluated both in terms of average conditions 

and in terms of the critical period; the demand for water 

is compared with the surface-water supply; and, then, 

the ground-water supply is evaluated. Note, however, 

that the ground-water supply is evaluated for only a 

small part of the total Columbus area. 

WATER RESOURCES VERSUS WATER DEMANDS 

IN THE COLUMBUS AREA 

The major developed water resources of the Columbus 

area are the Scioto and Olentangy Rivers and Alum and 

Big Walnut Creeks. The city of Columbus has three surface reservoirs to store streamflow: O'Shaughnessy and 

Griggs Reservoirs on the Scioto River, with capacities of 

5,520 and 1,440 million gallons, respectively, and Hoover 

Reservoir on Big Walnut Creek with a capacity of 19,660 

million gallons. Because sediment-inflow estimates were 

not readily available, the above storage volumes for the 

surface reservoirs are assumed to be constant with time. 

Streamflow records were used to estimate average 

monthly surface inflows to the three reservoirs operated 

by the city of Columbus (table 11). Streamflow records 

for the Scioto River near Prospect, Mill Creek near 

Bellepoint, and Big Walnut Creek at Central College 

were used in computing the monthly inflows. The 

amount of inflow to O'Shaugnessy Reservoir derived 

from an ungaged area of 235 square miles above the 

reservoir was estimated using the formula: 

Ungaged inflow = 0.166 Prospect + 0. 790 Bellepoint. In 

the above formula, Prospect refers to the Scioto River 

flow near Prospect and Bellepoint refers to the Mill 

Creek flow near Bellepoint. The formula is based on a 

simple areal relation. The first coefficient in the formula 

is the product of Prospect flow per unit drainage area 

and 40 percent of the ungaged drainage area. The second 

coefficient is the product of Bellepoint flow per unit 

drainage area and 60 percent of the ungaged drainage 

area. In other words, the assumption was made that 40 

percent of the ungaged area had the same streamflow per 

unit drainage area as the Scioto drainage above Prospect 

and that 60 percent of the ungaged area had the same 

streamflow per unit of drainage area as the Mill Creek 

drainage. Much more accurate estimates of inflow to 

O'Shaughnessy and Griggs Reservoirs would be possible 

TABLE 11. -Estimated average monthly inflow to O'Shaughnessy, Griggs, and Hoover Reservoirs 

Flow (mgd) 

Estimated Estimated 

ungaged total 

Scioto River Mill Creek Big Walnut Creek flow inflow' Month near Prospect near Bellepoint at Central College (mgd) (mgd) 

October ______ 115 11 15 19+ 12= 31 170 

November _____ 180 72 56 30+ 44= 74 380 

December _____ 377 194 118 63+ 93=156 850 

January ______ 791 362 288 131 +228=359 1,800 

February ----- 746 378 291 124+230=354 1,770 

March------- 1,016 400 363 169+287=456 2,240 April ________ 859 326 285 143+225=368 1,840 

May -------- 422 161 149 70+118=188 920 

June-------- 364 202 130 60+103=163 860 

July ________ 178 95 35 30+ 28= 58 370 

August ------ 109 42 31 18+ 25= 43 230 

September ---- 106 17 18 18+ 14= 32 170 

'Inflow values have been rounded off. 
A36 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

TABLE 12. -Estimated critical-period inflow to O'Shaughnessy, Griggs, and Hoover Reservoirs 

Flow (mgd) 

Scioto River Mill Creek 

Month near Prospect near Bellepoint 

May -------- 157 59 

June-------- 85 63 

July -------- 13 1 

August ------ 10 2 

September ---- 7 1 

October ______ 7 1 

November _____ 10 2 

December _____ 11 3 

January ______ 10 4 

February ----- 286 243 

'Inflow value has been rounded off. 

if a stream gage were present on the Scioto River just 

above O'Shaughnessy Reservoir. 

The estimated average yearly inflow to the three reservoirs, based on the above estimates of monthly inflows, 

is approximately 3.5xl05 million gallons, or about 960 

mgd. 

Again using streamflow records and the above formula 

for estimating inflow from the ungaged drainage area, 

monthly values for critical-period inflow were estimated 

for the three surface reservoirs (table 12). The critical 

period of record for the Scioto River near Prospect is 

assumed as May 1944 to February 1945. This critical 

period is assumed to be applicable to the other records 

under consideration in this example. 

Another major water resource in the Columbus area is 

the ground water available from storage in the unconsolidated glacial and alluvial deposits. Lesser volumes of 

water are available from the consolidated aquifers in 

much of the Scioto basin above Columbus, but this 

Estimated Estimated 

ungaged total 

Big Walnut Creek flow inflow 

at Central College (mgd) (mgd) 

45 73 '330 

35 64 1250 

1 3 18 

0 3 15 

1 2 11 

2 2 12 

1 3 16 

3 4 21 

5 4 23 

333 239 11,100 

potential supply is not considered in this example. A 50-

foot-thick layer of aquifer in an area of 70 square miles, 

just south of Columbus, is considered (fig. 20). Outwash 

deposits are present in about 19 square miles of the 70-

square-mile area; till is present in the rest of the area. 

The use of the renewable ground-water resource from 

storage here is not new to the city of Columbus. During 

the severe drought of the early 1960's, the city planned 

and developed a well field to tap the outwash and 

alluvial aquifer adjacent to Alum Creek. 

The average water demand for Columbus in the year 

2000 is estimated to be 350 mgd (Ohio Division of Water, 

1963, pl. 16), or almost 130,000 million gallons per year. 

Because demand is not constant throughout the year, 

average demand for each month was estimated. Monthly 

demand is assumed at a relative maximum during June, 

July, and August; demand is assumed at a relative 

minimum from November through February (table 13). 

Even though the period of maximum water demand 

TABLE 13. - Comparison of estimated critical period inflow with estimated daily and monthly water demand for the year 2000 

Percent of 

Month yearly water 

demand 

May ------------------ 9 

June------------------ 10 

July -------- _ ___ ___ ___ 10 

August ---------------- 10 

September ----------- ___ 9 

October _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8 

November_______________ 7 

December--------------- 7 

January---------------- 7 

F~ruary --------------- 7 

Total deficit _________ _ 

'Values have been rounded. 

Monthly 

water 

demand' 

(million gallons) 

11,500 

12,780 

12,770 

12,770 

11,130 

10,230 

9,240 

8,930 

8,930 

9,250 

Daily 

water 

demand 

(mgd) 

371 

426 

412 

412 

371 

330 

"298 

288 

288 

319 

Surfacewater 

supply 

(mgd) 

330 

250 

18 

15 

11 

12 

16 

21 

23 

1,100 

Daily 

water 

deficit 

(mgd) 

41 

176 

394 

397 

360 

318 

282 

267 

265 

Monthly 

water 

deficit' 

(million gallons) 

1,270 

5,280 

12,210 

12,310 

10,800 

9,860 

8,460 

8,280 

8,220 

76,690 
~ 

D 

~ 

OHIO REGION 

0 2 4 6 8 M ILES 

0 2 4 6 8 K ILOMETERS 

EXPLANATION 

Transmissivi ty va lues, in ga llons per day per foot , 

and storage coefficient 

T = 80,000 and S = 0.20 D T = 4,000 and S = 0.0 1 

T = 40,000 and S = O.Ql D T= 400 and S = 0.0 1 

T = 20,000 and S = 0.01 • T=O 

-- Model boundary 

FIGURE 20. - Area of model and assumed values for transmissivity and storage coefficient. 

A37 
A38 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

does not coincide with the period of maximum surfacewater supply, the available surface-water reservoirs have 

sufficient carryover storage volume to satisfy demands if 

average or greater than average streamflow occurs. 

During the critical period, the carryover storage 

volume in the existing surface reservoirs is not sufficient 

to satisfy the estimated water demand in the year 2000. 

After considering dead-storage requirements, the total 

available surface-reservoir storage is 26,640 million 

gallons. During the critical period of 9 months there is a 

water deficit of about 77,000 million gallons, in terms of 

surface-water inflow versus demand (table 13). Even 

assuming considerable error in the above monthly breakdown in demand, there is a deficit in terms of criticalperiod surface-water supply and demand. Therefore, additional surface storage must be made available or the 

ground-water resource must be utilized. 

Once a demand for ground water is evident, as in the 

example above, a hydrologic model can be used to 

evaluate the capability of an aquifer or aquifers to satisfy 

all or part of that demand. 

The data input to the model is as follows: 

1. Transmissivity: 40,000 to 80,000 gallons per day per 

foot (fig. 20). 

2. Storage coefficient: 0.01 and 0.20. 

3. Aquifer thickness: 50 feet. 

4. Hydraulic conductivity of stream bottoms: 27 gallons 

per day per square foot. 

5. Thickness of streambed: 5 feet. 

6. Width of Sciotto River and Big Walnut Creek: 100 

feet. 

7. Nodal spacing: 1,056 feet. 

USE OF A HYDROLOGIC MODEL TO 

EVALUATE AQUIFER CAPABILITY 

A detailed theoretical development of the digital 

model utilized is given in a report by Pinder and 

Bredehoeft (1968), and is not repeated in this report. 

They also discuss the assumptions necessary in using the 

model. The digital model is designed to solve the 

equations of flow for the complex hydrologic systems 

encountered in nature, and is based upon finitedifference approximations to the flow equations. 

Solutions to the flow equations are calculated for each 

nodal point of an established finite-difference network. 

In the example model of the Columbus area, the 

established network is a rectangular 55-row by 45-

column matrix with a total of 55x45 or 2,475 nodal 

points. The nodal points are equally spaced on 1

/ 5-mile 

centers. Each of the nodel points is a point of data input 

and output. 

The model was used to simulate the response of the 

aquifer system in the Columbus area to a hypothetical 

pumping stress during a 9-month critical period, with a 

10-foot ground-water-level drawdown limitation. The 10-

foot decline is 20 percent of the assumed aquifer 

thickness. Such a limitation or set of conditions must be 

stated prior to determining "available" water. Available 

water is the amount of ground water that can be 

withdrawn on some sort of an areal basis, and for a very 

long period of time, under the conditions stated. 

Continuous pumpage of 22 mgd for 9 months was 

simulated. Each of 22 simulated wells located along lines 

parallel to the Scioto River and Big Walnut Creek was 

pumped at a rate of 1 mgd. The simulated wells were 

located approximately on 1-mile centers (fig. 21). By 

placing the wells adjacent to the stream channels, 

recharge is induced from the streams, and, therefore, not 

all the water pumped from the wells is from groundwater storage. Actually, about 80 percent of the water 

pumped is induced recharge from the two streams. In 

actual development the well-field configuration can be 

determined in such a way that some other percentage of 

the water pumped is river water induced to flow to the 

wells. 

The output of the model - the computed groundwater-level decline values for each nodal point (fig. 22) 

-suggests that the modeled stream-aquifer system can 

supply 22 mgd under the conditions stated. Actually, 

much more water is available because nowhere in the 

modeled area is there a computed decline in excess of 7 

feet after 9 months of pumping (fig. 22). However, the 

available water should not be overestimated from the 

small drawdowns indicated by the model. The drawdown, or head, calculated by the model at a node where 

pumping is simulated, should be related to a well with a 

diameter of about 440 feet. Using a formula derived by 

Prickett and Lonnquist (1971, p. 61), the drawdown in a 

24-inch-diameter simulated well would be about 5.5 feet 

greater than was indicated by the model. In study of an 

actual model, more precise water-availability values 

could be estimated by designing an optimal well-field 

pattern. Again, however, the purpose of this example is 

simply to demonstrate the methodology. 

SUMMARY 

Ground water in the Ohio Region is a large, important, 

and manageable resource that should have a significant 

role in regional water development. 

Total potable ground water available from storage in 

the outwash and alluvial aquifers in the Ohio River 

valley and the subbasins is about 23,000 billion gallons. 

This is about four times the flood-control storage of all 

Ohio region Corps of Engineers reservoirs constructed, 

under construction, or in advance planning as of July 

1965. 

Approximately 85,000 billion gallons of potable 

ground water is available from storage in the region in 

aquifers other than the outwash and alluvial aquifers. 
OHIO REGION A39 

~" ... ·=-. 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1967 0 2 4 6 8 MILES 

0 2 4 6 8 KILOMETERS 

EXPLANATION 

0 

Simulated well 

Model boundary 

FIGURE 21. -Map showing placement of simulated pumping wells. 

This is about 20 percent of estimated storage in Lake 

Ontario. 

Estimated average annual ground-water recharge in 

the subbasins is about 35,000 mgd; estimated recharge 

from seepage of precipitation into the aquifer(s) in the 

Ohio River valley is about 2,000 mgd. 

About 5 percent of the region has ground-water 

resources capable of satisfying more than local needs. 

For example, under certain specified conditions the 

excess of ground-water recharge over base-year (1960) 

ground-water use is available for 22 million additional 

people in the Wabash subbasin; for 4, 1.5, and 12 million 
A40 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 1 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 1 1 6 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 2 6 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 1 1 1 1 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 5 2 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

EXPLANATION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Computed ground-water-level decline, in feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 7 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

FIGURE 22. -Computed ground-water-level decline after pumping simulated wells for 9 months. 

additional people, respectively, in the Miami, lower Rapid advance of techniques in ground-water 

Scioto, and Allegheny subbasins; for 5 million additional hydrology during recent years has provided methods 

people in the Ohio River valley; or for equivalent which the hydrologist and planner can use for evaluating 

magnitudes of water supply for industry, agriculture, or planned ground-water development in high potential 

other uses. A reasonable assumption is that much of the areas such as those mentioned above. As an example of 

available ground water in these areas can be pumped simulation techniques, a digital model of a small part of 

and transported to reasonably distant points of need. the stream-aquifer system south of Columbus, Ohio, was 

However, factors other than water supply constrain and developed. Although the model results should be 

determine development potential. considered hypothetical because no model verification 
OHIO REGION A41 

was attempted, the output of the model illustrates the 

technical feasibility of conjunctive development of a 

local ground-water surface-water system. 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

Bue, C. D., 1963, Principal lakes of the United States: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Circ. 476, 22 p. 

Cartwright, Keros, 1970, Ground-water discharge in the Illinois basin 

as suggested by temperature anomalies: Water Resources 

Research, v. 6, no. 3, p. 912-918. 

Cross, A. T., and Schemel, M. P., 1956, Geology of the Ohio River 

Valley in West Virginia, in v. XXII, Geology and economic 

resources of the Ohio River Valley in West Virginia: West Virginia 

Geol. Survey, 131 p. 

Cross, W. P., 1968, Flow duration of Ohio streams: Ohio Div. Water 

Bull. BU-42, 68 p. 

Deutsch, Morris, Dove, G. D., Jordan, P.R., and Wallace, J. C., 1969, 

Ground-water distribution and potential in the Ohio River basin, 

v. VI of Ohio River basin comprehensive survey: U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers. 

Feth, J. H., and others, 1965, Preliminary map of the conterminous 

United States showing depth to and quality of shallowest ground 

water containing more than 1,000 parts per million dissolved 

solids; U.S. Geol. Survey Hydro!. Inv. Atlas HA-199, 31 p. text. 

Ohio Division of Water, 1963, Water inventory of the Scioto River 

basin: Ohio Div. Water Plan Inventory Rept. 17, 76 p. 

Hopkins, H. T., 1966, Fresh-saline water interface map of Kentucky: 

Kentucky Geological Survey. 

Mull, D. S., Cushman, R. V., and Lambert, T. W., 1971, Public and industrial water supplies of Kentucky, 1968-69: Kentucky Geol. 

Survey Information Circ. 20, 107 p. 

Murray, C. R., 1968, Estimated useofwaterin the United States, 1965: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 556, 53 p. 

Norris, S. E., and Spieker, A. M., 1966, Ground-water resources of the 

Dayton area, Ohio: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1808, 

167 p. 

Pinder, G. F., and Bredehoeft, J. D., 1968, Application of the digital 

computer for aquifer evaluation: Water Resources Research, v. 4, 

no. 5, 1069-1093. 

Prickett, T. A., and Lonnquist, C. G., 1971, Selected digital computer 

techniques for ground-water resource evaluation: Illinois Water 

Survey Bull. 55, 62 p. 

Rorabaugh, M. 1., 1949, Progress report on the ground-water resources 

of the Louisville area, Kentucky: U.S. Geol. Survey open-file 

report, 64 p. 

Spieker, A.M., 1968, Future development of the ground-water resource 

in the lower Great Miami River valley, Ohio - Problems and 

alternative solutions: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 605-D, 15 p. 

Stuart, W. T., Schneider, W. J., and Crooks, J. W., 1967, Swatara 

Creek basin of southeastern Pennsylvania - An evaluation of its 

hydrologic system: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1829, 

79 p. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1968, Development program formulation, v. XII of Ohio River basin comprehensive survey: U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

___ 1969, Ohio River basin comprehensive survey: v. I-XIV. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Administration, 1968, Climatic atlas of the United States: 80 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1966, 

Outdoor recreation study of the Ohio River basin, v. IX of Ohio 

River basin comprehensive survey: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, F~deral Water Pollution Control Administration, 1967, Framework study of water-supply and waterpollution-control problem areas in the Ohio River basin, v. V of 

Ohio River basin comprehensive survey: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1932, Geologic map of the United States. 

Walker, E. H., 1957, The deep channel and alluvial deposits of the 

Ohio Valley in Kentucky: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 

1411, 25 p. 

Warner, D. L., 1969, Administrative guidelines and evaluation criteria, 

pt. 2 of Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission Perspective on the regulation of underground injection of wastewaters: 65 

p. 

Wyrick, G. G., and Lloyd, 0. B., 1968, Ground-water resources, 

Appendix H of Report for development of water resources in Appalachia: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 122 p. 

-k U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981- 341-614/232