Summary Appraisals 

of the Nation's 

Ground-Water ResourcesArkansas-White-Red Region 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 813-H 

Summary Appraisals 

of the Nation's 

Ground-Water ResourcesArkansas-White-Red Region 

By M.S. BEDINGER and R. T. SNIEGOCKI 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 813-H 

Ground-water development and management 

opportunities in the region 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1976 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

THOMAS S. KLEPPE, Secretary 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

V. E. McKelvey, Director 

First Printing 1976 

Second Printing 1980 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

Bedinger, M.S. 

Summary appraisals of the Nation's ground-water resources, Arkansas-White-Red region. 

(Geological Survey Professional Paper 813-H) 

Bibliography: p. 

Supt. of Docs. no.: I 19.813-4 

1. Water, Underground-Arkansas River watershed. 2. Water, Underground-Red River watershed (Tex.-La.) 3. Water, Underground-White River watershed, Ark. & Mo. 

I. Sniegocki, Richard Ted, 1922- joint author. II. Title. III. Series: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 813-H) 

GB1027.A74B42 551'.79'0976 76-608100 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 

Stock Number 024-001-02883-2 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Metric units .... .............. ...... .................... .. ............ ............ .............. ...... .. . IV 

Abstract.................................................................................................... H1 

Introduction............................................................................................. 1 

The water resource .. .. .............. ...... .. .. .. .................... .... .. ................ .. .. ..... 1 

Accent on ground water......................................................................... 3 

Hydrologic aspects of water-resource planning ............................... 4 

Ground water in water-resource planning ....................................... 11 

Conjunctive use with surface water........................................... 11 

Artificial recharge .... .................. .... ...................... .. ................ ....... 11 

Reduction of consumptive waste ................................................. 11 

Legal and organizational considerations................................... 12 

Models for water-resource planning................................................... 14 

Ground water in the Arkansas-White-Red Region......................... 17 

Aquifer systems in the region ............................................................. 19 

Stream-valley alluvial aquifers................................................... 19 

Operation of the flow system in the waterdeficient area....................................................................... 19 

Case history-Arkansas River valley, Colorado............. 20 

Operation of the flow system in the 

water-excess area .............. .. ...................... .. .. ............ .. ....... 22 

Aquifer systems in the region-Continued 

Terrace alluvial aquifers ............................................................ . 

Operation of the flow system ............................................. . 

Case history-Ogallala Formation in the southern 

High Plains ofTexas and New Mexico ......................... . 

Sand and sandstone aquifers ..................................................... . 

Operation of the aquifers ................................................... . 

Case history-The Sparta Sand of the 

Coastal Plain ..................................................................... . 

Carbonate-rock and gypsum aquifers ..................................... . 

Operation of the flow system ............................................. . 

Case history-Limestone area of the Ozark 

region in Missouri and Arkansas ................................. . 

Previous studies and needs in the 

Arkansas-White-Red Region ........................................................ . 

Selected State and Federal water-oriented agencies 

in the Arkansas-White-Red-Region ............................................. . 

Selected references .............................................................................. . 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Page 

H23 

23 

24 

24 

24 

25 

25 

25 

25 

26 

28 

29 

FIGURES 1-7. Maps showing: Page 

1. Location of the Arkansas-White-Red Region ................................................................................................................ H2 

2. Physiographic subdivisions of the Arkansas-White-Red Region .............................................................................. 3 

3. Mean annual precipitation ................................................................................................................................................ 4 

4. Areas of natural water deficiency and natural water surplus.................................................................................... 5 

5. Average annual runoff........................................................................................................................................................ 6 

6. Variations ofthe annual runoff........................................................................................................................................ 7 

7. Ground-water withdrawal and principal irrigated areas............................................................................................ 10 

8-14. Maps showing: 

8. Preconstruction ground-water conditions and projected ground-water conditions in a part of the 

Arkansas River valley, Arkansas ............................................................................................................................ 15 

9. An alluvial-s~ream aquifer in part of the Arkansas River valley, Colorado, showing the electricanalog grid network and lines of equal stream-depletion factors...................................................................... 16 

10. Observed and calculated dissolved-solids concentration in ground water in a part of the Arkansas 

River valley, Colorado................................................................................................................................................ 17 

11. Principal aquifers in the Arkansas-White-Red Region................................................................................................ 20 

12. Prevalent dissolved-solids concentration of water in the rivers at low flow............................................................ 21 

13. Prevalent chemical types of water in the rivers at low flow........................................................................................ 22 

14. Areas of potential or existing ground-water pollution in the Arkansas-White-Red Region................................ 23 

15-19. Hydrologic sections showing: 

15. Stream-valley alluvial aquifer with an ephemeral or intermittent stream in the water-deficient area .......... 23 

16. Stream-valley alluvial aquifer with a perennial stream in the water-excess area................................................ 24 

17. Terrace alluvial aquifer...................................................................................................................................................... 24 

18. Sand or sandstone aquifer.................................................................................................................................................. 25 

19. Carbonate rock and gypsum aquifer................................................................................................................................ 25 

20. Map showing areas of principal ground-water investigations in the Arkansas-White-Red Region.................................. 26 

21. Flow diagram illustrating model and network development .................................................................................................... 27 

III 
IV CONTENTS 

TABLES 

Page 

TABLE 1. Summary of ground water withdrawn in the Arkansas-White-Red Region in 1970 ···························'······································ H4 

2. Impact matrix relating stress and response in aquifer systems ................. ,.................................................................................... 8 

3. Impact matrices of water-resource development actions on aquifer systems................................................................................ 12 

4. Principal aquifers in the Arkansas-White-Red Region .................................................................................................................... 18 

5. Names and geographic distribution of major geologic units that form aquifers.......................................................................... 19 

METRIC UNITS 

For those readers interested in the metric system, metric equivalents of English units are 

given in parentheses throughout the text. The English units may be converted to metric units 

as follows: 

English unit 

Conversion 

factor Metric unit 

To convert Multiply by To obtain 

Inches (in.) ............................................ 25.4 Millimetres (mm). 

Feet (ft).................................................. 3.048x 10- 1 Metres (m). 

Square miles (mi2) .............•.....•....•.•.•. 2.59 x 106 Square metres (m2). 

Gallons per minute (gal/min) .......... 6.31 x 10-5 Cubic metres per second (m3/s). 

Gallons per day (gal/d) ...................... 4.38x lo-s Cubic metres per second (m3/s). 

Feet per day (ft/d) ................................ 3.53 x 10-6 Metres per second (m/s). 

Inches (in.)............................................ 2.54 x 10-2 Metres (m). 

Acre-feet (acre-ft) ................................ 1.23 x 103 Cubic metres (m3). 

Acres...................................................... 4.05 x lOS Square metres (m2 ). 

Miles...................................................... 1.61 x 103 Metres (m). 

Tons (short, 2,000 pounds) ................ 9.07 x 102 Kilograms (kg). 

Cubic feet (ft3) ...................................... 2.83 x 10-2 Cubic metres (m3). 

Gallons .................................................. 3.79x10- 3 Cubicmetres(m3). 

Billion gallons per day 43.81 x lOS Cubic decimetres per 

(Bgal/d). second (dm3/s). 

Million gallons per day 0.04381 Cubic metres per 

(Mgal/d). second (m3/s). 

The conversion from temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to temperature in 

degrees Celsius (°C) is expressed by: °C=(5/9) eF-32). 
SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER 

RESOURCES--ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION 

By M.S. BEDINGER and R. T. SNIEGOCKI 

ABSTRACT 

The Arkansas-White-Red Region, an area of265,000 square miles 

(6.86x 1011 square metres), is characterized by diversity in geography, climate, and geology and, in turn, by diversity in water 

resources and water problems. The western semiarid part of the 

region is water deficient, that is, potential evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation. The eastern, humid part has a surplus. Water 

use in the region in 1970 averaged 10 billion gallons per day (438 

cubic metres per second), of which more than 65 percent was ground 

water. Th lwgest use of ground water was for irrigation of crops, 

mostly in the water-deficient areas of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and 

Colorado. Because of its ready availability and widespread occurrence, ground water is used throughout the region to supply municipal and rural water needs. The most productive aquifers, capable of 

yielding more than 50 gallons per minute (0.0032 cubic metres per 

second) to individual wells, are alluvium, carbonate. rocks, gypsum, 

and sandstone. Fresh water in storage in aquifers in the region is 

estimated to be 2 billion acre-feet (2.5x 1012 cubic metres). In addition, a large, unmeasured volume of saline water (containing more 

than 1,000 milligrams per litre of dissolved solids) underlies the 

fresh water at depths generally less than 500 feet (150 metres). 

The flow of water in each aquifer depends upon the physical and 

hydrologic characteristics of the aquifer, the climate, and the relation to, and the character of, adjacent rocks and streams. These 

factors also determine the effect of water-supply development or 

other man-induced stresses on the flow and the quality of water in 

the aquifers. Analog and digital models of aquifers can be used to 

evaluate stresses on aquifers and thereby provide water managers 

and planners with efficient tools for planning the development and 

continued use of aquifers. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Arkansas-White-Red Region, as defined by the 

Water Resources Council, includes about 265,000 

square miles (6.86 x 1011 m2 ) in the South-Central 

United States (fig. 1). The three largest rivers-the 

Arkansas, White, and Red-drain approximately onetenth of the Nation's conterminous land area, including all of Oklahoma and parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. 

The Arkansas-White-Red Region is characterized by 

diversity in geography, climate, and geology, and, in 

turn, by diversity in water resources and water problems. The principal surface features of the region 

(Fenneman, 1931) consist of the high Southern Rocky 

Mountains in the west; the low mountains of the Ozark 

Plateaus and the Ouachita province, which rise 

abruptly from the Coastal Plain in the east; and between the two mountain areas, a broad expanse of the 

Great Plains and the Central Lowland, sloping gradually from west to east, broken in places by escarpments, hills, and a few old, eroded mountains (fig. 2). 

The climate varies from humid in the east to semiarid 

in the west. The western half of the region experiences 

temperature extremes and moisture deficiencies associated with its interior continental location. The 

eastern part is influenced by the warm moist air from 

the Gulf of Mexico. 

THE WATER RESOURCE 

Precipitation (mean annual) is about 50 inches 

(1,270 mm) in Arkansas and Louisiana, decreases 

rather uniformly to about 12 inches (300 mm) in the 

western Great Plains (fig. 3), and increases to 32 

inches (810 mm) in the mountains of Colorado and 

New Mexico. In the Great Plains, annual precipitation 

is low and highly variable, and serious deficiencies 

occur during the growing season. The eastern section is 

subject to climatic extremes-to severe rainstorms and 

flash flooding and to droughts. Localized floods in the 

central and western sections result from infrequent 

but intense rainstorms of short duration. High wind 

velocities and high evaporation rates, associated with 

the dry climate of most of the western half of the 

region, cause annual lake evaporation to exceed precipitation. 

The eastern half of the region is characterized by a 

surplus of water-that is, annual precipitation exceeds 

potential evapotranspiration. Areas of natural water 

surplus and of natural water deficiency within the 

Arkansas-White-Red Region are shown in figure 4. 

The water deficiency was computed by subtracting 

values of potential evapotranspiration from the average precipitation. However, even the areas of annual 

water surplus have seasonal or short-term periods of 

deficiency. 

The occurrence of ground and surface water is entirely different in flow rate, quantity in storage, variability in quality, variability in quantity with time, and 

Hl 
H2 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

-·- ·- . 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 

The National Atlas o f the United States of Amenca 

0 50 100 200 300 MILES 

r--.~.----L-,------,-L---_, ____ _j 

0 50 100 200 300 400 KILOMETRES 

EXPLANATION 

D 

Area of this report 

FIGURE I.--Location of the Arkansas-White-Red Region. 

areal distribution. These differences can be used to precipitation. Fluctuations are moderated by storage 

advantage in managing ground and surface water con- in surface-water and ground-water reservoirs. Regionjunctively to achieve the most efficient use of the total ally, the water resource consists of an average annual 

supply. runoff of about 6 inches (150 mm) from a 265,000-

The natural streamflow, shown in figure 5, is the 

average annual flow in streams if there were no upstream development. In areas of direct hydraulic connection between surface water and ground water, the 

natural runoff may include natural base flow from 

aquifers. 

Water in the Arkansas-White-Red Region is derived 

from precipitation in the region and interbasin transfers. The water resource fluctuates with variations in 

square-mile (6.86x 1011 m2) area and an underground 

storage of about 2 billion acre-feet (2.5x 1012 m3 ). From 

1961 through 1973, an average of 82,440 acre-feet 

(1,016.0x 108 m3) of water was transferred from the 

Colorado River basin to the Arkansas River basin. 

Interbasin transfers during this period increased. 

Plans for diversion call for an eventual average of more 

than 200,000 acre-feet (2.47x108 m3) to be imported 

annually from the Colorado River basin to the Arkansas River basin. 
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION H3 

0 50 100 200 300 

• 

FIGURE 2.-Physiographic subdivisions of the Arkansas-White-Red Region. 

The year-to-year difference between extremes of 

runoff is called the variability, which greatly affects 

the amount of water that can be developed for use. The 

natural runoff in the Arkansas-White-Red Region is 73 

Bgal/d (3.2 x 103 m3 /s). The natural runoff varies 

widely-in 90 years out of 100 years, the flow exceeds 

36 Bgal/d (1.6x 103 m3/s; Murray and Reeves, 1972), 

and in 95 of 100 years, the flow exceeds 33.4 Bgal/d 

(1.5 x 103 m3/s). In addition, great variations in natural 

streamflow occur seasonally. Annual runoff is more 

variable in the west-central water-deficient part of the 

Arkansas-White-Red Region (fig. 6). Storage is required to meet the water demand in dry years. Even at 

such levels of development as those indicated possible 

by the available runoff in 90 percent and 95 percent of 

the years, storage would be required to make the indicated runoff available for use. Thus, the percentage of 

the mean runoff that is available for development depends on the variability of the annual runoff, the storage in the reservoirs, and evapotranspiration from the 

reservoirs. Woodward (1957) estimated that in 1955 

the dependable water supply was 10 Bgal/d (4.4x 102 

m3/s) and projected that in 1980 the dependable supply 

will be 20 Bgal/d (8.8x102 m3/s), principally because of 

increased surface-water storage. 

ACCENT ON GROUND WATER 

Approximately two-thirds of the 10 Bgal/d (4.4x102 

m3/s) of water withdrawn in the region for public, 

rural, industrial, and irrigational use in 1970 was from 

ground water (table 1). Of the 6.6 Bgal/d (2.89x102 

m3/s) withdrawn from ground-water sources, about 90 

percent was for irrigation. The general distribution of 

ground-water withdrawal and the major areas irrigated by ground water are shown in figure 7. Irrigation 

is practiced primarily in the major stream valleys and 

terraces of the Great Plains and Central Lowland, 

where aquifers provide large well yields. Of the remaining 10 percent of ground water withdrawn, about 

4 percent is for industrial supplies, 4 percent is for 

public supplies, and 2 percent is for rural supplies. 

An estimated 2 billion acre-feet (2.5x1012 m3) of 

fresh water is in storage in aquifers in the region, 

about 60,000 times more than the 1970 water use from 

both ground- and surface-water sources. Further, the 
H4 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

0 50 100 200 

0 50 100 200 300 

EXPLANATION 

---20---

lsohyet of mean annual precipitation, in inches 

FIGURE 3.-Mean annual precipitation. 

amount of fresh water stored in aquifers is more than 

30,000 times that estimated to be perennially available from both ground- and surface-water sources in the 

region. 

Red Region, within a given time can be related by the 

following continuity equation: 

Inflow = outflow ± change in storage. 

If inflow is greater than outflow, the change in storage 

is positive; if inflow is less than outflow, the change in 

storage is negative. 

TABLE I.-Summary of ground water withdrawn in the 

Arkansas-White-Red Region in 1970, except for 

hydroelectric-power and thermoelectric-power generation 

[Mter Murray and Reeves (1972), and Murray, written commun. (1947)) 

Withdrawal 

State (BgaUd) 

Arkansas ........................................................................ 0.150 

Colorado.............................. ............................................ .220 

Kansas ............................................................................ 2.500 

Louisiana........................................................................ .027 

Missouri .......................................................................... .058 

New Mexico .................................................................... .074 

Oklahoma ...................................................................... .880 

Texas ................................................................................ 2.700 

Total (rounded) .................................................. 6.600 

HYDROLOGIC ASPECTS OF 

WATER-RESOURCE PLANNING 

The quantity of water entering and leaving a hydrologic system, such as that of the Arkansas-WhitePrior to development by wells, aquifers are in a state 

of dynamic equilibrium in which inflow and outflow 

are equal. Ground-water withdrawal upsets this balance by producing a loss from storage. A new state of 

equilibrium can be reached only by an increase in 

inflow and a decrease in outflow. Inflow can be increased by a lowering of water level, resulting in: 

1. Storage space in the aquifer for recharge that would 

otherwise be rejected. 

2. Induced leakage to the aquifer from confining beds. 

3. Induced inflow from surface water. 

Outflow can be decreased by a lowering of water level, 

resulting in: 

1. Decrease in evapotranspiration from the aquifer. 

2. Decrease in discharge from the aquifer by springs 

and flow to surface water. 
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION H5 

FIGURE 4.-Areas of natural water deficiency and natural water surplus (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1968). 

3. Decrease in leakage from the aquifer through confining beds. 

Use of ground water (as opposed to the exclusive use 

of surface water) increases the potential amount of 

water available for development. The increase includes 

the amount of water permanently withdrawn from 

storage in excess of recharge, and the water salvaged 

by reduction in evapotranspiration. Reduction in 

exapotranspiration from the aquifer represents an increase in the water available for use in the basin. The 

water in storage in an aquifer can be managed as a 

reserve to be withdrawn during seasons of peak demand or periods of drought. The depletion from storage 

can be replenished during seasons or periods when 

water is available for recharge. 

To express the hydraulic response of an aquifer system to development, the equation of continuity may be 

written: 

I + ill = 0 + flO + Q + ilS, 

in which 

I =inflow rate, 

ill =change in inflow rate, 

0 =natural outflow rate, 

and 

flO =change in outflow rate, 

Q=rate ofwithdrawal from wells, 

ilS =rate of change in storage. 

It is implicit from this equation that an aquifer flow 

system is a complete functional unit. Application of the 

equation requires an understanding of the nature of 

the flow between the aquifer and contiguous streams 

and confining beds. 

A desirable management objective in a groundwater development is to use the aquifer such that a 

continued decrease in subsurface storage is minimized. 

To do this, the withdrawal from storage must be balanced by an increase in inflow to the aquifer or a 

decrease in outflow. 

Another management objective is to prevent or retard deterioration of the physical or chemical quality of 

the water or the environment. Under natural conditions, a state of balance is reached between hydraulic, 

thermal, and geochemical stresses in the flow system. 

An imposed hydraulic stress upsets not only the 

natural hydraulic balance but also the thermal and 

geochemical balances. 
H6 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

0 50 100 200 

0 50 100 200 300 

EXPLANATION 

---20---

Line of equal average annual runoff, in inches 

FIGURE 5.-Average annual runoff(after Busby, 1966). 

The rationale for response of the system to changes 

in stress may be stated as follows: 

1. The system reacts to each stress in accordance with 

the laws of conservation of energy and mass. 

2. Any given stress or combination of stresses on the 

flow system will result in a trifold response, that is, 

hydraulic, thermal, and chemical responses in the 

system. 

3. The response of the system to the stress is uniquely 

dependent upon the geometry and the physical and 

chemical characteristics of the system. In addition, a 

stress or response may involve a change in the physical or chemical character of the system framework. 

The breadth of impact of a given stress on the aquifer 

may be illustrated by the use of table 2. The object of 

this table is to point out that a wide range of actions 

can affect an aquifer system. Actions that can affect 

the ground water include not only actions directed 

toward management of ground water and surface 

water but also to those related to agriculture, urbanization, manufacturing, and many others that are not 

directed toward water management. 

Neither the list of actions nor the responses to stress 

shown in table 2 are intended to be complete. The table 

is intended as a checklist and an aid to the planner or 

water manager in considering systematically the full 

ranges of stresses and responses that an action will 

produce. The table may be considered to be an expansion of a part of an environmental-impact matrix, as 

presented by Leopold, Clarke, Hanshaw, and Balsley 

(1971). Also, it may be expanded and redesigned to aid 

in evaluation of the impact of a particular action on 

ground water. 

The principal nature of stress on the aquifer for each 

action can be indicated in the table. Framework 

stresses include physical changes in the system 

framework, such as dredging, resulting in greater connection between the aquifer and streams, or channelization, resulting in new boundary conditions on part of 

the aquifer. A hydraulic stress is one that produces a 
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION H7 

FIGURE G.-Variations ofthe annual runoff(after Busby, 1966). 

change in head or flow on a hydrologic boundary. 

Likewide, a thermal stress is one that produces a 

change in heat flow or heat gradient across a hydrologic boundary. A chemical stress is one that results 

in a direct change in chemical character of the water 

flowing into the aquifer or a chemical change in the 

system framework itself. 

Responses of the aquifer are classified by the same 

groupings as those used for stress; however, the nature 

of the response of the aquifer is not limited to the same 

nature as the stress. Large changes in the aquifer 

framework in response to stress are not common but 

can be very significant, such as the extensive subsidence caused by large withdrawals in certain areas of 

California, at Mexico City, Mexico, and in the Houston, 

Tex., area. Earth movements in Denver, Colo., and 

vicinity have been attributed to injection of waste 

liquids. Subsidence has not been documented in the 

Arkansas-White-Red Region. The areas susceptible to 

subsidence are thick unconsolidated deposits, such as 

occur in the Gulf Coastal Plain and in deep basins in 

Colorado. 

Hydraulic response in the aquifer is the most common response, particularly to water-management 

stresses. Hydraulic response has been divided into several changes in head and flow conditions in the aquifer 

and directly related effects, such as changes in well 

yield and specific capacity. The divisions of hydraulic 

response, as well as the other major response 

categories, are not intended to be comprehensive nor 

exclusive. Overlap between some of the divisions occurs and is sometimes desirable. Change in saturated 

thickness of the aquifer has been included in this table 

as a hydraulic response rather than a change in the 

aquifer framework. 

Thermal response may be significant, particularly in 

applications where cooling water is required. The spectrum of chemical response is vast and complex. Only a 

few broad subdivisions of chemical response are given 

in table 2. 

Table 2 can be used in the manner similar to that 

described by Leopold and others (1971) as follows: 

First, identify all actions that are a part of the proposed project. Second, in the rows of the proposed ac-
H8 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

Actions of potential impact on 

ground water 

Direct modification of hydrologic reqime: 

Weather modification .. .•.....•.. _ 

Principal nature of stress 

Framework Hydraulic Thermal 

TABLE 20-Impact matrix relating 

Response of aquifer 

Hydraulic 

Increase in 

Chemical Framework Change in leakage from seepage to confining Rise in 

or from beds and water level 

streams interbedded 

clays 

Decline in 

water level 

Desa linization __ . .. ....... .. _ ••••..... ·f----+----+----+----+----+-------if-----+----+---- Surface-water management: 

Reservoirs .. 

Flow regulation ........ . ....•••• .. . _ f----+----+----+----+----+-------if-----+----+----

Water-retarding structures 

Locks and dams . 

Revetments ..... __ •••.. . ••. . . . • _ 

Levees ........•. ••••. . _ . •• •... _ 

Dredging ..••••.•. 

Ditches and cana Is .. . 

Channelization .... . 

lnterbasin diversions .. . 

Pumping plants _ 00 0 00 0 00 00 __ 00 _ 00 00 0 _ f----+----+---- +----+----+-------if-----+----+---- Surface-waste disposal . _ ....•......... ·l-----+----+----+----+----+-------11------+-----t----- Storm drains ..... ----oo oooooo oo 001--+---+------11--+---+--+-----1---t--- lrrigation ............. . 

Ground-water management: 

Reliri wells . ... 

Supply wells __ 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ -000000 ooOO 01--+---+------11--+---+--+-----1---+---

Dewatering wells 

Artificial-recharge ......... . ...... . . 

Underground-waste disposal 

Sub5urface drains ............ . 

Indirect modification of hydrologic regime : 

Agriculture: 

Fish farming ................ .. ..... . ·1-----+----+-------t----+---+----f------+----+----

Cultivation .... . ..•... •• ••• •........ ·f----+----+----+---+---+----1-----+----+---- Land clearing ..... •.... . . . . . . . . . . . 

~---4----~----+---~----~-----+-----4----~1------- Land leveling ----------- OOJ----+----+----+----4----~-----+------+-----+------

Terracing ...... . 

Fertilizer application 

Pesticide application ... .. ............. 1----+----+----+----+----+-------j-----+----+---- Feedlots . . ..... ......... . l------+----,_----r----4-----r-----r-----+-----+------ Pastures and grazing ..... ••• •. _ . . ...... f----1----+----+----+----+-------j-----+----+---- Timber management .. 

Urbanization: 

Homes and buildings .. 

Streets, parking lots, and airports. 

-- -o--o--•-oooo• f------t---+-----1--+---t---+-----1---t--- Sewage lines ... 

Sanitary landfill ----00 00 0000 00 00 0000 1---+----+----+----4----~-----+-------+-----+----

Sewage spreading ............... ..... ·f-----+----+----+----+------+-------1-----+-----t-----

Septic tanks .. .. . 

Mining and mineral production: 

Production ............. . . . 

Surface excavation ... ....... ••... . 

Subsurface excavation .. 

Well drilling and fluid removal 

Manufacturing and processing. 

Tourism and recreation .. ....... . . . . 
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION H9 

stress and response in aquifer systems 

Response of aquifer - Cant inued 

Hydraulic - Cant inued Chemical 

Change in Change from Change in Change in Dispersion Chemical re- Chemical re· 

rate or di- nonartesian saturated Change in evapotranspi- Change in and diffusion Salinization action be· action berection of to artesian, thickness Change in specific ration or Thermal dissolved· of introduced of tween intra- tween intra· 

ground-water or vice of well yield capacity rejected solids fluid of soils duced fluid duced fluid 

content exoqenous and natural and system movement versa aquifer recharge quality ground water framework 
HlO SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

EXPLANATION 

D 

Areas irrigated with ground water 

• Represents withdrawa l of 100 million 

gallons per day of ground water for 

all purposes 

FIGURE 7 .-Ground-water withdrawal and principal irrigated areas. 

tions, place an "X" at the intersection with each 

applicable stress category. Third, consider the response 

to the combined stresses. Place a slash at the intersection of the action row with the response column. At this 

stage, an expansion of the response categories may be 

desired, depending upon the nature of the stress and 

the characteristics of the system being evaluated. 

Fourth, in the upper left corner of each box containing 

a slash, place a number from 0 to 3, which indicates the 

magnitude of the response; 3 represents the greatest 

magnitude ofthe response and 0, the least. In the lower 

right corner of the box, place a number from 0 to 3, 

which also indicates the significance of the possible 

response. 

As examples, the matrix is used to illustrate the 

responses of aquifers to three projects (table 3). First, 

consider a navigation project involving construction of 

locks and dams, dredging of the channel, ditching to 

redirect interior drainage, and building revetments to 

stabilize the channel. These actions will produce 

changes in the framework and hydraulic, thermal, and 

chemical stresses. The greatest and most significant 

change will be a rise in water level in the aquifer. 

Small water-level declines will occur immediately 

downstream from the navigation dams. The resulting 

change in saturated thickness will be large but not 

significant in affecting transmissivity or the specific 

capacity of wells. In areas where water levels are 
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION Hll 

raised, there will be significant increases in evapotranspiration from the aquifer. Increased evapotranspiration and seepage around dams will produce small 

thermal and chemical responses in water in the 

aquifer, and possibly salinization of the soils. Therevetments and dredging will produce changes in the 

degree of connection between the aquifer and the 

stream and consequential changes in seepage. Ditching will cause water-level changes and attendant 

changes in the rate and direction of flow. 

An irrigation project, in a semiarid climate, that 

derives water by ground-water withdrawals and 

surface-water diversion, will cause hydraulic and 

chemical stresses and small thermal changes. Declines 

in water levels near pumping wells, rises in water 

levels near leaky canals, and changes in seepage to the 

river will be the most significant hydraulic responses. 

Dissolved-solids concentration of the water in the 

aquifer will increase because of reuse and evaporation 

of the applied irrigation water. Salinization of soils 

will occur where applied water is insufficient to flush 

salts from the soil. 

A water supply developed in a large artesian sand 

aquifer imposes a hydraulic stress. The response is 

largely hydraulic-lowering of water levels and related changes and the changes in the flow regime in 

the outcrop area. Responses may include a framework 

response, such as subsidence, and small thermal and 

chemical responses. 

GROUND WATER IN WATER-RESOURCE 

PLANNING 

CONJUNCTIVE USE WITH SURFACE WATER 

Few projects have been deliberately planned to use 

ground water and surface water conjunctively. However, as discussed, many aquifer systems include hydrologically connected streams. This natural aquiferstream connection results in an unplanned form of 

conjunctive use. The consequence may be deleterious 

or beneficial. But, even if beneficial, the benefits can be 

increased by sound hydrologically based planning. 

Planned conjunctive use of ground water and surface 

water unfolds a new dimension of water planning in 

which practices such as inter basin transfers of water, 

artificial recharge, and streamflow augmentation are 

employed. 

The most readily amenable types of hydrologic systems for conjunctive management are the alluvial 

aquifer-stream systems along most of the length of the 

Arkansas and Red Rivers and along the lower White 

River. Pumping from the aquifer induces flow from the 

river to the aquifer or intercepts water that is moving 

toward the river; thus, drawdown in the aquifer is less 

than if there were no connected river. Poor-quality 

water in the middle reaches of the Arkansas River 

(Kansas and Oklahoma) is mixed with good-quality 

ground water, resulting in a quality that is satisfactory 

for irrigation and suitable for municipal supply after 

minimal treatment. The upper Arkansas River valley 

is intensively irrigated by ground and surface water. 

Conjunctive use of ground water and surface water, as 

practiced in the Arkansas River valley in Colorado, 

increases the usable water supply by 30 percent over 

the supply that could be developed by using surface 

water alone. The dependable supply could be further 

increased 23 percent by water-management practices 

that more fully utilize conjunctive-use techniques 

(Taylor and Luckey, 1974). 

ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE 

Conjunctive-use potential, involving utilization of 

the vast underground space in the western part of the 

Arkansas-White-Red River basins, calls for the technique of artificial recharge for storage of seasonal excess water or imported water. Artificial recharge has 

been the topic of much discussion and study. Although 

artificial recharge is frequently cited as a panacea for 

water-shortage problems, in reality its feasibility for 

application depends upon several factors. 

Artificial recharge through wells is costly because of 

technical problems, maintenance costs, and large capital expenditure requirements. One of the inherent advantages of use of ground water over the use of surface 

water is the wide distribution and availability of 

ground water throughout large areas. In artificial recharge through wells, the reverse of withdrawal, the 

wide areal distribution is a disadvantage, requiring a 

surface-distribution system to many artificialrecharge wells. Generally, water recharged through 

wells and later withdrawn will cost at least twice as 

much as withdrawing native ground water. Studies by 

Sniegocki (1963) showed the cost of recharging 

through wells to be prohibitive for supplying water for 

irrigation in the Grand Prairie Region of Arkansas. 

Artificial recharge through water spreading may be 

feasible on parts of the Arkansas-White-Red Region, 

including the High Plains. The feasibility of recharge 

by spreading is dependent upon the local conditions, 

requiring a large surface area of highly pervious earth 

materials above the aquifer. 

REDUCTION OF CONSUMPTIVE WASTE 

The salvage of evapotranspiration losses is the only 

practical means at present by which the amount of 

water available for use could be increased. A large part 

of the evapotranspiration loss is by transpiration by 

nonbeneficial plants such as phreatophytes. 
H12 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

TABLE 3.-Impact matrices of water-resource 

Principal nature of stress Response of aquifer 

Hydraulic 

Actions of potential impact on Increase in ground water Framework Hydraulic Thermal Chemical Framework Change in leakage from 

seepage to confining Rise in Decline in 

or from beds and water level water level 

streams interbedded 

clays 

Navigation project in alluvial-stream 

aquifers: 1 ------ 3 __.--: ':! ~ ? ___.-: 

Loc~and~ms ____________________ ~~~~~-X~~~~X~~~-X~~~~~~ 11~-~~~~ 11~~~~~~~~~ J3~~~-~~ 11 

Revetments _______________________ f--~~-+-~~~t--~~-+-~~---i~~~---f-<::'=----~--=--::,+--~~~----!-""'--~~+-~~----= X ~ ~ 

X X X ~ _3------1 Dred~ng·------------------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----= 

Ditching- - - ______________________ _ X X X ~ _3--------3 

Irrigation project in alluvial-stream 

aquifers: 

R9e~o~~ ------------------------ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~----1~~~~=----~----=~~~~~~~----=~~~~ 

X X X ~ ~ 

Diversion canals ______________ . ____ ~~~~~~~~~~-+-~~---1~~~~::::::__~--==-=+-~~~~=----~-==~~~~ 

X X X X ~2~ ~ 

X X x ~ ~ _3--------2 Irrigation _________________ . _ .... _ . f--~~-+-~~~t--~~-+-~~---i..c::_~~----1-"==----~----:::-+-~~--,:::~~~~+-~~-= 

Supply wells _____________________ _ X ~ _!----0 _3--------3 

Industrial supply from artesian-sand 

a~~i;::: wells ...... _ ........... _ .. _I X 

Phreatophytes send their roots down to the water 

table or capillary fringe. They consume large quantities of water in arid and semiarid regions, where they 

infest large acreages, particularly along those streams 

where the water table is shallow. They may cause 

serious siltation problems by clogging stream channels, thereby retarding streamflow. 

In the eastern part of the Arkansas-White-Red Region, where water is more plentiful, as well as in the 

western part, many species of plants either of low 

economic value or of no value consume large quantities 

of water that would otherwise be available for beneficial use. Transpiration by noneconomic plants in the 

Arkansas River valley, downstream from Pueblo, 

Colo., averages 140,000 acre-feet (1.7x 108 m3) per year 

(J. E. Moore, oral commun., 197 4). 

Reduction of evapotranspiration losses may require 

removing noneconomic plants or depriving them of 

their source of water. The efficacy of a given procedure 

depends upon proper planning, based on an understanding of the conditions. Perhaps the most direct 

method of removing the water supply from the 

phreatophyte would be the lowering of the water level 

below the root depth of the plant. This procedure may 

I~ 

also reduce loss of water by evaporation from the 

aquifer through the capillary fringe. Phreatophyte 

control by pumping from wells may not be feasible 

near perennial streams. 

Control of plants of no economic value by removal 

could be augmented by replacement with economically 

valuable plants. Such practices have been successful in 

restoring rangeland in the western part of the 

Arkansas-White-Red Region. There, deep-rooted nonbeneficial plants and shrubs intercept water before it 

reaches the water table. Lowering of the water level 

would be of minimal value. In rangelands it has been 

shown (Rechenthin and Smith, 1967, p. 11), that many 

of the nonbeneficial plants consume up to four times as 

much water per pound of dry matter produced than the 

beneficial grasses consume. 

LEGAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL 

CONSIDERATIONS 

Water-resource management includes a comprehension of legal theories and procedures involving water. 

The laws are relatively few and simple in the eastern 

water-surplus part of the Arkansas-White-Red Region 

but are more complex in the western water-deficient 
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION H13 

development actions on aquifer system 

Response of aquifer-Continued 

Hydraulic-Continued Chemical 

Change in Change from Change in Change in Dispersion Chemical re- Chemical rerate or di- water table saturated Change in evapotranspi- Thermal Change in and diffusion Salinization action be- action berection of to artesian thickness Change in specific ration or dissolved- of introduced of tween intra- tween intraground-water or vice of well yield capacity rejected solids fluid of soils duced fluid duced fluid 

content exogenous and natural and system movement versa aquifer recharge quality ground water framework 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _3------2 ~ ~ ~ 

~ ~ /-D ~ __;----a ~ ~ ~ ~ 

1~1~1~1~1~1~1~1 /~/~ 

part (fig. 4.). Obviously, a resource in surplus supply 

has little need of legal tools for its local allocation. 

Regional management by methods such as water 

transport to water-deficient areas from water-surplus 

areas may necessitate allocation procedures. 

In most of the eight States in the Arkansas-WhiteRed Region, the laws are now in the process of modification or development. Consequently, only the principal terms presently used in water law in the 

Arkansas-White-Red Region are considered. 

These terms are riparian, overlying, and appropriative rights. Under riparian rights, the land adjacent to 

a stream or lake is riparian to that body of water. 

Under common law, the waters of the stream are 

available on a correlative basis for the use of all riparian owners. In overlying rights, the overlying landowner either possesses rights that are analogous to 

riparian rights on a stream or asserts absolute title to 

water under his land. Under appropriative rights, the 

right to water use is based upon priority of diversion 

and application of the water to beneficial use. 

The riparian doctrine of reasonable use has been 

accepted by the Arkansas Supreme Court. This general 

rule applies to surface water, as well as to ground 

water. In addition to the riparian doctrine, the Arkansas Legislature has adopted some aspects of the appropriative doctrine, whereby a State agency may allocate 

a fair share of water to persons where there is a shortage. 

Colorado's basic principle of water law is that of 

appropriation and includes ground water that is 

tributary to a watercourse. The State recognizes the 

need for clarification of the question regarding ground 

water not adjacent to a watercourse and is in the process (1974) of modification of the water laws. 

The water law in Kansas is based on the principle of 

prior appropriation and applies to surface and ground 

water. 

In a general way, Louisiana follows the riparian 

rule. In 1910 the State declared that all surface water 

then not in private ownership was the property of the 

State, subject only to the jurisdiction of the United 

States on navigable waters. Almost no attention has 

been given to water laws concerning ground water. 

Missouri adheres to the riparian doctrine in the administration of water rights and includes ground water 

and surface water in this category. Modifications in the 

State's water laws are being considered. 
H14 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION.S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

In New Mexico, both surface water and ground water 

are managed under the doctrine of prior appropriation. 

The State engineer recognizes the relation between 

surface water and ground water and requires that new 

pumping of ground water be offset by retirement of 

existing surface-water rights equivalent to the anticipated depletion of streamflow. 

Oklahoma is operating under the appropriative 

theory of water rights. Riparian rights are recognized 

only to the extent of domestic, household, and stock 

water. The State's ground-water law provides for adjudication of ground-water rights in designated critical 

areas. Ground water and surface water are treated as 

separate entities. 

Texas enacted a ground-water law in 1949 that authorized the formation of local districts having the 

power to make and enforce regulations governing the 

withdrawal of percolating ground water. By virtue of 

this law, Texas has given the power of regulation to 

local groups, thus placing the responsibility for regula .. 

tion at the lowest possible governmental level capable 

of performing the desired functions. The districts in 

Texas are unique in that their boundaries are required 

to be coterminous with the underground reservoir or 

subdivision thereof. 

A compact, in the general sense, is a type of water 

law that deals with streamflow across State boundaries. Noteworthy examples are compacts between 

Colorado and Kansas, Kansas and Oklahoma, and 

Oklahoma and Arkansas, on the flow of the Arkansas 

River and the proposed compact on the flow of the Red 

River. For the most part, these compacts do not deal 

with ground-water flow across State boundaries. Considerable quantities of ground water are exchanged 

between Colorado and Kansas, and Kansas and Oklahoma, in the vicinity of the Arkansas River. Only negligible amounts of ground water move across the 

boundary between Oklahoma and Arkansas. 

This brief review of the water laws in the 

Arkansas-White-Red River basins shows that variations exist in the application of the three principal 

doctrines. As indicated, most of the States are in the 

process of modifying these laws. 

MODELS FOR WATER-RESOURCE 

PLANNING 

The development of sophisticated and accurate digital and analog models for representation of groundwater-flow systems has provided efficient tools for 

water-resource planning and for water-management 

decisions. The scope of modem-modeling techniques 

provides a basis for environmental evaluations of 

quantity and quality of water and for considering the 

effects of economic and legal constraints on water use. 

This section discusses modem techniques of groundwater modeling, with special reference to model applications in the Arkansas-White-Red Region. 

Analog and digital models simulate the hydrologic 

properties and boundaries of the hydrologic system. 

The scientific basis for both models is the finitedifference approximations of the equations that define 

the flow system. The main difference between the two 

types of models is that in the digital model flow equations are solved mathematically and in an electric 

analog model the equations are simulated with a 

resistor-capacitor network. Each type has certain advantages, depending on the system to be modeled. 

The analog model can simulate very large, complex 

hydrologic problems, such as one that involves two or 

more aquifers with fine-grained interbeds and confining beds. It provides a visual display of the aquifer 

characteristics (transmissivity and storage) and 

boundaries (impermeable and stream contacts). The 

analog is also programed and read by the use of 

visual-display units. The visual nature of the analog 

and its operation, and the readiness with which stress 

acting on the aquifer, such as pumping or river stage, 

can be changed and the effects observed, make the 

analog useful in visibly modeling the operation of the 

hydrologic system. 

The digital model can solve the more complex problems, such as heat flow, movement of contaminants, 

chemical quality changes, and transient changes in 

transmissivity with saturated thickness. Digital models can also incorporate legal, economic, and environmental constraints on the system and can be programed to seek the best water-use conditions. Data 

input, data output, and program changes can be managed more efficiently by using digital models. 

Analog models of the lower Arkansas and Verdigris 

River alluvial aquifers were used to analyze the effects 

of rocks and dams on the potentiometric surface (fig. 8). 

The Arkansas and Verdigris Rivers are made navigable by a series of 17 locks and dams for a distance of 

450 miles (7 .2 x 105 m) from the Mississippi River 

through Arkansas to near Tulsa, Okla. The analog 

models represent 2,350 square miles (6.1x109 m2) of 

alluvial aquifer adjacent to the river (Bedinger and 

others, 1970). They were made up of resistors and 

capacitors in a rectangular network to represent the 

transmissivity and storage characteristics of the 

aquifer. Resistor-capacitor nodes in the model were 

spaced to represent distances of lk- 1h mile (201 to 805 

m). Resistors connected at each node of the aquifer 

network were used to model evapotranspiration as a 

function of the depth to water level. 

A combination of an electric analog and a digital 

model was used in the Arkansas River valley of Colorado to define the operation of an aquifer-stream sys-
94 ' 20' 

ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION 

E XPLANATION 

D Area of alluvium wherepotentrOmetri csurfacc 

iswitt> in Sfeetofland surfal-c 

IT23J EJ 

2 MILES 

2 KILOMETRES 

A. Area studied in selection of a site for lock and dam 13, near Fort Smith, Ark. 

EXPLANATION 

D Area of alluvium where potentiometric surface 

iswithin5 feetofland!urface 

Topographic conrrol inru{ficienr to delin· 

eate area within 5 fut of ground surface 

011 fl~er side of /e~ee 

CZJ D 

2 MILES 

2 KILOMETRES 

B. Projected potentiometric surface for dam site (lock and dam 13) at river~rnil• 

EXPLANATION 

D Area of alluvium where potentiomellic surf~ce 

iswithin 5feetoflandsurface 

Topographic control imufficient to de/in· 

eau: art'tl w11hin 5 fen of~:row!d surface cZ]""';d<o[i] [ZJ 

2 MILES 

2 KILOMETRES 

C. Projected potentiometric surface for damsite (lock and d am 13) at river·mile 341.7. 

FiGURE 8.-Preconstruction ground-water conditions and projected ground-water 

conditions in a part of the Arkansas River valley, Arkansas (from Bedinger and 

others, 1970, p. 63-65). 

HIS 
H16 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION.S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

tern and to predict effects of changes in water management. The area modeled, extending about 150 miles 

(2.4x105 m) from Pueblo, Colo., to the Kansas boundary (Moore and Wood, 1967), is underlain by an alluvial aquifer that is hydraulically connected to the 

river. The ground water and surface water constitute 

one supply. The development of ground water for irrigation has caused legal disputes between groundwater and surface-water users because withdrawals by 

wells have reduced the flow of the Arkansas River. An 

electric analog model was developed to simulate the 

stream and the aquifer. Applied irrigation water, precipitation, evapotranspiration, and well withdrawal 

were the hydrologic stresses incorporated in the model. 

The analog model was stressed at 266 points to obtain reponse curves showing the effect of aquifer stress 

on streamflow. The response curves, summarizing differences in aquifer transmissivity, specific yield, and 

boundaries, were then prepared as a stream-depletion 

factor map (Moulder and Jenkins, 1969). The lines of 

equal-stream-depletion factors connect points where 

the hydrologic stresses on the aquifer have the same 

effects on the streamflow (fig. 9). The streamdepletion-factor map was the basis for constructing a 

digital model of the aquifer-stream system, to analyze 

and optimize water-management plans for any given 

set of management objectives. The model was designed 

to predict the availability of surface water at successive diversion points downstream, on a month-tomonth schedule, and to show change in ground-water 

storage. Output data from the model of the Arkansas 

River valley have been used for planning maximum 

water use within legal, economic, environmental, and 

hydrogeologic constraints. The results have been used 

for modifying water law, for developing ground-water 

supplies, and for distributing water. 

Digital models have been developed to couple the 

computer solutions of ground-water-flow equations 

with mass-transport and dispersion equations of a 

dissolved-chemical constituent in an aquifer (Bredehoeft and Pinder, 1973). This coupling permits the 

modeling of the spread of saline water or other contaminants in an aquifer. The model has been used to simulate changes in salinity related to irrigational practices in the Arkansas River valley of southeast Colorado (fig. 10) (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1973), where 

the ground water and surface water are interrelated in 

an aquifer-stream system. Crops are irrigated by both 

diverted surface water and pumped ground water from 

the alluvial aquifer. Much of the irrigation water is 

lost by evapotranspiration, but some of it infiltrates 

the alluvial aquifer and provides return flow to the 

stream. Dissolved solids in the return flow become 

concentrated because of the evapotranspiration. The 

downvalley reuse of water causes a buildup of salts 

CANAL I --- '~ Stream 

etj-...-

~ 

C..qN..qL 2 

A. Alluvium-stream aqu1fer showmg electnc- ---.... ......_ 

EXPLANATION 

- 30-

Stream-depletion factor, 

in number of days 

analog grid network 

B. Alluvial-stream aquifer showing lines of equal 

stream-depletion factors 

0 1 MI LE 

I I 

0 1 KILOMETRE 

FIGURE 9.-An alluvial-stream aquifer in part of the Arkansas River 

valley, Colorado, showing (A) the electric analog grid network and 

(B) lines of equal-stream-depletion factors (from Moulder and Jenkins, 1969). 

approaching levels that could restrict the use of the 

water. 

The model can be used to predict the effects of 

changes in management or irrigational practices on 

the quality and quantity of ground and surface water. 

For example, the model could be used to evaluate the 

impact of increased pumping from irrigation wells, increased surface-water diversions, increased irrigated 

acreage, floods, droughts, and increased salinity in the 

river due to upstream activities. The model can aid in 

determining the feasibility of plans to improve the 

quality of ground water or to limit salinity increases in 

the river during critical low-flow periods. 

One application that illustrates the versatility of 

digital models for use by the planner is the development of models that simulate the physical and chemical responses of a flow system to changes in environmental and managerial stresses. The digital models 

may also incorporate features to perfect management 

of the system under environmental, social, legal, and 

economic constraints. A model of the aquifer-stream 

system in southeastern Colorado was used to simulate 

the dependable supply under various waterdistribution schemes. Included in analysis are flow 

components, such as salvage of water from 

phreatophytes, evapotranspiration, different 
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION H17 

EXPLANATION 

-2000- LINE OF EQUAL DISSOLVED-SOLIDS CONCENTRATION, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITRE, MARCH 1, 1972 

1::::::::::::1 INCREASE GREATER THAN 10 PERCENT 

c:=J DECREASE GREATER THAN 10 PERCENT 

---- APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF VALLEY-FILL AQUIFER 

0 2 3 4 KILOMETRES 

A. Observed dissolved-solids concentration on March 1, 1972, and observed changes since March 1, 1971 

0 2 3 4 KILOMETRES 

B. Calculated dissolved-solids concentration on March 1, 19 72, and calculated changes since March 1, 1971 

FIGURE 10.-0bserved and calculated dissolved-solids concentrations in ground water in a part of the Arkansas River 

valley, Colorado (from Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1973). 

reservoir-operation regulations, use of imported 

ground water and surface water, additional reservoirs, 

additional ground-water use, and application of excess 

streamflow (Taylor and Luckey, 1974). 

GROUND WATER IN THE 

ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION 

The Arkansas-White-Red Region comprises the following six aquifer types: (1) Stream-valley alluvium, 

(2) terrace alluvium, (3) alluvium of intermontane valleys and buried alluvial valleys, ( 4) carbonate and gypsum, (5) sand and sandstone, and (6) undifferentiated 

sandstone, carbonate rock, shale, and (or) basalt. Their 

distribution is shown in figure 11. 

Information is available about the aquifers from offices of the U.S. Geological Survey and from State 

agencies in the respective States in which the aquifers 

occur; references to published information and unpublished data can be obtained from the agencies listed 

later in this report. Included are data on thickness, 

permeability, transmissivity, storage coefficient, recharge rates, water in storage, depth to water, direction and rate of ground-water movement, water use, 

well yields, water quality, and other information, such 

as grain size of aquifer materials. A summary of data is 

given in table 4. Geologic and geographic distribution 

of formations that are principal aquifers are given in 

table 5. 

The quality of ground water throughout the 

Arkansas-White-Red River basin varies considerably, 

depending upon the original character of water entering the aquifer, the nature of the rocks through which 
H18 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

TABLE 4.-Principal aquifers in the Arkansas-White-Red Region 

Aquifer type Nature of rock 

Stream valley 

alluvium 

Terrace alluvium Sand and gravel 

Alluvium of 

intermontane 

valleys and 

buried alluvial valleys 

Limestone and dolomite, 

and gypsum beds. 

Carbonate and Generally a dense 

gypsum rock, but subject to 

solution along fracture and bedding 

planes. 

Sand grains ranging 

from very fine to 

coarse. Generally Sand and cemented with sili- sandstone ceous material or 

carbonate. Unconsolidated in the 

Coastal Plain. 

Undifferentiated Consolidated rocks, 

sandstone, including sandstone, 

carbonate, interbedded shale, 

shale, or basalt carbonate, and 

crystalline igneous 

rocks. 

1 Generally less than I 00 ft/d. 2 Generally less than 10ft/d. 

Thickness 

{ft) Areal extent 

Along large streams 

in flood plains. 

50-200 Extensive in Coastal 

Plain of Arkansas 

and Louisiana. 

Plains of Texas, New 

50-600 Mexico, Colorado, 

Kansas, and Oklahoma. 

Arkansas River basin 100-5,000 in Colorado. 

Limestone and dolomite 

in southern Missouri, 

northern Arkansas, 50-1,500 southeastern Kansas, 

and Oklahoma. Gypsum 

in Oklahoma and Texas. 

Sandstone principally in Kansas, 

New Mexico, and 100-500 Oklahoma. Sand in 

Coastal Plain of 

Arkansas, Texas, and 

Louisiana. 

Sandstone, carbonate, 

and shale I ocally 

100-5,000 throughout region; 

basalt in parts of New 

Mexico, Colorado, and 

northwestern Oklahoma. 

the water has moved, the contaminants that may have 

been introduced, and (or) the concentration of 

mineralization by evaporation or transpiration. The 

quality ranges from fresh to saline. Fresh water (containing less than 1,000 mg/l of dissolved solids) is generally present at shallow depths, and saline water, at 

greater depths. 

The prevalent dissolved-solids concentrations and 

chemical types in streams at low flow are shown in 

Depth to Hydraulic Well Ground water 

water {ft) conductivity yields Development and use in storage 

{ft/d) (gal/min) {acre-ft x 108 ) 

Extensive; principal 

source of ground water; 0-30 100-1,500 300-5,000 2.8 frequently overdeveloped. 

Not used in some areas. 

50-300 4.1 

Extensive; subject to 

overdevelopment and 

10-700 50-1,000 water mining, particularly in High Plains of 

Texas. 0-50 0.2 

Moderately to heavily developed; overlooked as a 

source of water in some 

30-450 50-1,500 50-1,000 areas. More subject to 3.2 

pollution than other 

aquifers because of 

cavernous nature. 

Extensive; subject to 

overdevelopment and 

eJ water mining. Loss of 20-300 10-1,000 artesian head in many 7.9 

areas ranging from 2 to 

300 feet. 

Mainly domestic use, not 

heavy, concentrated use, 

1,200 eJ 5-50 because of low permeability and low well yields. 2.2 

Difficult to predict well 

yields. 

figures 12 and 13. At low flow the streamflow is largely 

ground-water discharge. The quality characteristics of 

water in streams at low flow are therefore indicative of 

the quality of the water in the aquifers in contact with 

the streams. The dissolved-solids concentration (fig. 

12) is generally low in the eastern part of the region 

and at the higher elevations along the west margin of 

the region. The areas having high dissolved-solids concentrations coincide with the distribution of shale beds 
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION Hl9 

TABLE 5.-Names and geographic distribution of maJor geologic units 

that form aquifers 

Aquifer type Major geologic unit names 0 istribution 

Stream valley alluvium Valleys of major streams. 

Seymour Formation Texas. 

Terrace alluvium Equus zone of McPherson Formation Kansas. 

Ogallala Formation Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, 

Kansas, and Oklahoma. 

Alluvium of inter- Upper Arkansas River valley and montane valleys and 

buried alluvial valleys Wet Mountain valley, Colorado. 

Reeds Spring Limestone Oklahoma. 

Boone Formation Arkansas. 

Carbonate Roubidoux and Gasconade Formations and 

the Eminence and Potosi Dolomites of Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, and 

the Arbuckle Group Oklahoma. 

Arbuckle Group undivided Oklahoma and Kansas. 

Gypsum Oog Creek Shale and Blaine Gypsum Oklahoma and Texas. 

Sparta Sand Arkansas and Louisiana. 

Wilcox Group, Carrizo Sand, and Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas. Trinity Group 

Sand and sandstone Purgatoire Formation, Cheyenne Sandstone, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, 

and DaKota Sandstone and Oklahoma. 

Vamoosa Formation, Rush Springs Sandstone, 

Garber Sandstone, Wellington Formation, Oklahoma. Member of Gasconade Formation, 

Simpson Group, and Gunter Sandstone 

in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico, with 

salt springs and the pollution by oil-field brine in 

northern and central Oklahoma; and with the occurrence of gypsum beds in Texas through central Oklahoma to southern Kansas. The chemical types (fig. 13) 

reflect the nature of water in the shallow aquifers. 

Saline ground water (containing more than 1,000 

mg/1 dissolved solids) is at depth beneath fresh water 

in most of the Arkansas-White-Red Region (Feth and 

others, 1965). Saline water is at depths less than 500 

feet (150 m) throughout most of the area. The rate of 

use of saline ground water in the region in 1970 was 

estimated to be 38 Mgal!d (1.66 m3/s; Murray and 

Reeves, 1972)-a very low rate compared with the rate 

of use offresh water and compared with the amount of 

saline ground water that is available. When considered 

as a resource, the potential of saline water falls mainly 

into two categories-(!) direct use in industrial processes, such as cooling, or for irrigation where a moderate mineral concentration may not be a disadvantage, and (2) use after dilution or demineralization to 

whatever degree may be required by the intended user. 

Aquifers containing saline water may be considered as 

a resource potential for temporary storage of fresh 

water (Moulder, 1970) and disposal of wastes. 

The areas of potential or existing ground-water pollution (fig. 14) are chiefly associated with areas of 

naturally high dissolved solids in streams and aquifers 

and the limestone terrane of the Ozark region. Water 

of naturally high dissolved solids may be further concentrated by evaporation and reuse for irrigation. Infiltration of irrigation water to the aquifer increases 

the salinity of the aquifer. The highly permeable 

limestones of the Ozark region are subject to pollution 

by entry of polluted wastes. Saline water may be induced to enter freshwater aquifers from adjacent 

saline-water aquifers and streams. 

AQUIFER SYSTEMS IN THE REGION 

The flow operation of each aquifer system depends 

on the characteristics of the aquifer, the climate, and 

the character of adjacent rocks and streams. These are 

the principal factors that also determine the response 

of aquifer flow systems to development or other maninduced stresses. 

STREAM-VALLEY ALLUVIAL AQUIFERS 

Alluvial deposits in stream valleys cover more than 

28,000 square miles (7.25xl010 m2) of surface area and 

constitute some of the most productive aquifers. The 

alluvium generally ranges in thickness from 50 to 200 

feet (15.2 to 61.0 m) and ranges in width from 1 to 10 

miles (1.6x103 to 16.0x103 m), except in the Coastal 

Plain, where the width is several tens of miles. The 

aquifers are generally composed of sand and gravel in 

the lower part of the alluvium. 

The alluvial aquifers are in connection with the predominantly perennial streams. Ground water in the 

alluvium generally is at shallow depths, within reach 

of roots of plants. The alluvial material above the sand 

and gravel varies from fine sand to silt and clay; consequently, the water in the aquifer may be under 

water-table or semiconfined conditions. 

The alluvium commonly lies in a valley cut in less 

permeable rock. Locally, the alluvium is in contact 

with rocks of equal or greater permeability. 

OPERATION OF THE FLOW SYSTEM 

IN THE WATER-DEFICIENT AREA 

Recharge by rainfall is low, 14-¥2 inch (6.4xl(J3 to 

1.3xlo-2 m) per year. Streams may be perennial or 

intermittent. Discharge is by evapotranspiration and 

by flow to streams. In response to withdrawal of 

ground water, water levels are lowered, reducing the 

amount of both evapotranspiration and rejected recharge. The amount of water salvaged from rejected 

recharge is relatively small because of low precipitation and high loss of precipitation by evaporation. 

Water-level declines also reduce streamflow, either by 

decreasing flow to the stream or by inducing flow from 

the stream into the aquifer. Operation of a streamvalley alluvial aquifer in a water-deficient area is illustrated in figure 15. 
H20 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 

The National Atlas of the United States of America 

0 50 100 200 

0 50 100 200 300 400 KILOMETRES 

Stream valley alluvium 

Sand and gravel, less than 200 feet 

160m) thick, traversed by streams 

D Carbonate and gypsum 

Limestone and dolomite of the Central 

Lowland and Ozark Plateaus; gypsum beds of the Central Lowland 

of Texas and Oklahoma 

EXPLANATION 

A l luvium of in• termontane valleys and 

buried alluvial va ll eys 

Sand and gravel as much as 5,000 feet 

( 1,500 m) thick 

nm 

Llill Sand and sandstone 

Fine to coarse sand, unconsolidated in 

the Coastal Plain, elsewhere cemented with silica or carbonate material. 

Ruled pattern indicates p resence of 

sand or sandstone aquifers in addi· 

tion to aquifer indicated 

Pml 

LJljJ 

Terrace alluvium 

Extensive deposits of sand and gravel 

bordering major streams or capping 

interstream divides 

Sandstone, carbonate, shale or basalt 

undifferentiated 

Consolidated rocks, principally sandstone, 

carbonate and crystalline igneous rocks 

of low water yield 

FIGURE 11.-Principal aquifers in the Arkansas-White-Red Region (modified from Lohman and others, 1953), 

The amount of water in storage in the aquifer is 

small, about 10 times the annual withdrawal. Perennial overdrafts in excess of recharge cannot occur. 

Large developments, such as those in which a large 

part of the valley is irrigated by ground water, temporarily draw water from storage, but most of the 

water withdrawn must be restored by induced infiltration from rivers. Thus, the water supply is limited by 

available streamflow. Excess salts will build up in soil 

unless water in excess of evapotranspiration is applied, 

CASE HISTORY-ARKANSAS 

RIVER VALLEY, COLORADO 

The 150-mile (2.41 x 105-m) reach of the Arkansas 

River valley from Pueblo to the Colorado-Kansas State 

boundary is intensively irrigated by ground and surface waters. The annual delivery by wells and canals is 

725,000 acre-ft (8.95x 108 m3) of water, of which about 

150,000 acre-ft (1.85x 108 m3) is from wells. Storage in 

the aquifer is small, about 10 times the annual with-
Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 

The National Atlas of the United States of Amer 

0 50 100 200 300 MILES 

0 50 100 200 300 400 KILOMETRES 

2000 

EXPLANATION 

2300 

MILLIGRAMS PER LITRE 

Boundary I i nes 

Dashed where data are sparse 

2600 

FIGURE 12.-Prevalent dissolved-solids concentration of water in the rivers at low flow (modified after Rainwater, 1962). 

> 

::0 

~ z 

> "'

"' 

~ :=i 

~ 

::0 

t'Tj 

0 

::0 

~ 

0 

z 

§ 
H22 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 

The National Atlas of the United States of Ameroc.•-

0 50 100 200 

0 50 100 200 300 400 KILOMETRES 

EXPLANATION 

D D Calcium magnesium and carbonate bicar- Calcium magnesium and sulfate chloride Sodium potassium and sulfate chloride 

bonate type type type 

Boundary lines 

Dashed where data are sparse 

FIGURE 13.-Prevalent chemical types of water in the rivers at low flow (after Rainwater, 1962). 

drawal. Water is withdrawn from storage during the 

irrigation season and is then replenished by rainfall, 

by infiltration of surface applications for irrigation, 

and influent seepage from the rivers and canals during 

and after the irrigation season. Because little water is 

salvaged from evapotranspiration by lowering the 

water level, the water supply in the aquifer is limited 

by the streamflow. Because of the heavy demand and 

reuse of water, the water quality in the aquifer progressively deteriorates downstream in the valley. 

Studies by Taylor and Luckey (1974) show that under 

present conditions use of ground water from storage 

during the irrigation season increases the water available during the irrigation season by as much as 

113,000 acre-ft (1.39x 10s m3). 

OPERATION OF THE FLOW SYSTEM 

IN THE WATER-EXCESS AREA 

Recharge by infiltration of rainfall is about 3-10 

inches (0.076-0.25 m) per year. Discharge is by evapotranspiration and seepage to the stream (fig. 16). In 

response to withdrawal, water levels are lowered, 

thereby reducing losses by evapotranspiration, reducing rejected recharge, and reducing base flow to the 

stream. Drawdown near the stream will induce flow 

from the stream to the aquifer. Large ground-water 

developments can be supported by water salvaged from 

evapotranspiration and by increased net infiltration of 

rainfall and reduced ground-water flow to streams. 

Streamflow is large and does not limit development. 

The quality of water in the aquifer is generally good. 
0 

0 

ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION 

0 50 100 200 

0 50 100 200 300 

EXPLANATION 

D 

Area of ex isting or potential 

ground-water pollution 

H23 

FIGURE 14.-Areas of potential or existing ground-water pollution in the Arkansas-White-Red Region. 

Recharge 

·.::.:_. 

Bedrock 

E ~ "' 0 1:: -· t; 

~ c 

E ~ QJ .'!::::: 

-3.§ 

w"' 

t t .~ 

Phreatophytes 

1 KILOMETRE 

TERRACE-ALLUVIAL AQUIFERS 

Terrace alluvium is extensive in the plains of Texas, 

Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, and New Mexico. The 

sand-and-gravel section of the terrace alluvium is as 

much as 600 feet (1.8x 102 m) thick and averages 300 

feet (91 m) thick. Perennial streams generally are incised below the base of the terrace deposits. Terracealluvial aquifers contain large amounts of water in 

storage-as much as 75,000 acre-feet (9.2x107 m3) per 

square mile (2.59 x 106 m2 ) of surface area. Water 

levels are 50 feet (15 m) or more below the land surface. 

OPERATION OF THE FLOW SYSTEM 

FIGURE 15.-Stream-valley alluvial aquifer with an ephemeral, or 

intermittent, stream in the water-deficient area. Recharge to the aquifer, derived solely from sparse 

precipitation, is estimated to be 112o-lf2 inch (1.3 x 10·3 to 
H24 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

Recharge 

Phreatophytes ~ 

' t 

~ 

.· .·· 

Bedrock {locally water bearing) 

0 2 3 

0 2 3 4 5 

~ Phreatophytes t 

t 

~~:;:::::?il&1!li¥ ._ ~ 

4 

6 

w 1- w w u. :; 

~Ig 0 "' "' ~ 

0 0 

5 MILES 

7 KILOMETRES 

FIGURE 16.-Stream-valley alluvial aquifer with a perennial stream 

in the water-excess area. 

1.8 x 1 0·2 m) per year. The natural discharge is to the 

adjacent valley alluvium or by seeps and springs along 

the terrace escarpment (fig. 17). 

In response to withdrawal, there is little or no salvage of evapotranspiration from the water table because of generally low initial water levels. Also because streamflow is generally intermittent, there is 

little water induced from the stream to the aquifer. 

Withdrawals in excess of the meager recharge must 

come from storage. 

0 

0 

Recharge 

Well 

• ,.., Col) 

~f~ - - :!l Q N ~ 

Q 0 

Bedrock {locally water bearing) 

50 100 MILES 

50 100 KILOMETRES 

FIGURE 17.-Terrace alluvial aquifer. 

CASE HISTORY-OGALLALA FORMATION IN 

THE SOUTHERN HIGH PLAINS OF TEXAS 

AND NEW MEXICO 

Ground-water withdrawals increased from about 

92,000 acre-feet (1.1 x 108 m3) per year, in 1934, to 

more than 4,600,000 acre-feet (5. 7 x 109 m3 ) per year 

and are used mainly for irrigation. The storage of 

ground water prior to pumping was very large, approximately 460,000,000 acre-feet (5. 7 x 1011 m3 ). 

Recharge from precipitation is approximately 69,000 

acre-feet (8.5x 107 m3) per year. Rechenthin and Smith 

(1967) estimated that a program in the High Plains to 

remove wasteful nonbeneficial plants and restore grass 

vegetation would save approximately 290,000 acre-feet 

(3.59 x 108 m3) of water annually. Much of the area of 

nonbeneficial plants does not overlie the aquifer, but, 

even if a large part of this salvaged water infiltrated to 

the water table, the increased annual accretion to the 

aquifer would amount to only about 5 percent of the 

annual withdrawal. 

Salvaged rejected recharge and natural discharge 

are very low. The withdrawal is depleting water in 

storage, and the ground water is being mined. 

A form of conjunctive use has been suggested for the 

High Plains in which surface water would be transported to the area from the Mississippi River valley. 

The large volume of unsaturated sand and gravel in 

the terrace deposits is a potential reservoir for the 

imported water. Increasing population and demand for 

food and fiber production may shift the plan into 

economic reality. 

SAND AND SANDSTONE AQUIFERS 

Unconsolidated sand in the Coastal Plain and 

sandstone partly cemented with calcium carbonate or 

silica in the High Plains and Central Lowland constitute the sand and sandstone aquifers. The sand and 

sandstone range in thickness from 100 to 500 feet (30 

to 150 m). The aquifer is nonartesian (under watertable conditions) in the outcrop area. Where the sand 

or sandstone in the subsurface is confined by shale, 

clay, or siltstone of low permeability, the aquifer is 

artesian (under confined conditions) . 

OPERATION OF THE AQUIFERS 

Recharge is by infiltration of rainfall in the outcrop 

area (fig. 18). The recharge rate is highly dependent 

upon climatic conditions; it ranges from less than 1 

inch (2.5 x 10·2 m) per year in the western, waterdeficient part of the region to 4-6 inches (0.1 to 0.15 m) 

per year in the eastern part of the region. Recharge to 

the sand also occurs where it is overlain by extensive, 

saturated sand and gravel in the Coastal Plain. 

Natural discharge is by seepage to streams incised into 

the aquifer in the outcrop area and by seepage to confining beds in the subsurface. 

Pumping in the area where the aquifer is artesian 

produces large, widespread declines in head. Water is 

initially pumped from storage; as pumping continues, 

water is induced from interbedded fine-grained beds 

and confining beds. As the cone of depression reaches 

outcrop areas, water is induced from the streams and 

from the overlying alluvium into the sand aquifer. 
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION H25 

Recharge 

0 

0 

l l 

"' 

1:! ... ... w w w :li ... gig M -

0 0 

"' 0 - "' 

0 0 

Confining beds 

(shale or clay) 

Well 

Pumping 

level 

! ::· ... ·.::· ... : · .. . . ·:_."/_:_:: 

Confin ing beds 

(shale or clay) 

50 100 KILOMETRES 

EXPLANATION 

General direction of f low 

FIGURE 18.-Sand or sandstone aquifer. 

CASE HISTORY-THE SPARTA SAND 

OF THE COASTAL PLAIN 

100 MI LES 

The Sparta Sand and the contiguous sand beds above 

and below it form an aquifer that extends over 

thousands of square miles in Arkansas, Louisiana, 

Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi. Only 

a small part of the Sparta's extent is in the 

Arkansas-White-Red Region. But the aquifer cannot 

be dissected along arbitrary lines for analysis, such as 

those bounding States or Water Resources Council regions. Significant water withdrawal from the Sparta 

Sand began in 1886 at Memphis, Tenn. Since then, 

more than 3lh trillion gallons (10,740,000 acre-ft) 

(1.32x1010 m3) of water has been pumped from the 

aquifer. Analog-model analysis of flow in the Sparta 

Sand by Reed (1972) showed that in 1965 only about 20 

percent of the 350 million gallons (1,074 acre-ft) 

(1.32x 108 m3) of water pumped was from storage in the 

aquifer. Sixty percent of the water was derived from 

leakage from confining beds and 20 percent of the 

water was induced recharge or captured discharge in 

the outcrop area. 

Pumping from the aquifer is not evenly distributed 

areally. Consequently, large drawdowns in artesian 

head have occurred near centers of large withdrawals. 

Analog-model studies have shown that the Sparta 

Sand can provide large sustained yields. Projections to 

the year 1990 of the drawdown in artesian head, in 

response to a pumping rate of 630 Mgal/d (27 .6 m3/s), 

show that at some pumping centers water levels will 

decline below the top of the aquifer. Local excessive 

drawdowns can be alleviated by more even distribution 

of pumping. 

CARBONATE-ROCK AND GYPSUM AQUIFERS 

Carbonate rocks crop out extensively over the Ozark 

Plateaus region, principally in Missouri and Arkansas. 

Gypsum beds form productive aquifers in southwest 

Oklahoma and north Texas. Limestone, dolomite, or 

gypsum aquifers range in thickness from 50 to 1,500 

feet (15 to 460 m). Porosity and permeability are due to 

solution of the rock. Water in storage ranges in amount 

from moderate to very large. 

OPERATION OF THE FLOW SYSTEM 

Recharge is by infiltration of rainfall in the outcrop 

area (fig. 19). Natural discharge is to streams in the 

outcrop area and by seepage to confining beds where 

the formation is in the subsurface. The rates of water 

movement and well yields are variable but are highest 

in the outcrop area. Recharge may be as much as 20 

inches (0.51 m) a year. The depth to water is 3Q-450 

feet (9-137 m). Water pumped from the aquifer in the 

outcrop area is derived from storage and results in a 

decrease in natural discharge. Where these aquifers 

are confined in the subsurface, they operate similarly 

to the confined sandstone aquifers. 

Recharge 

.j. 

:-=-=-=-:::.-:::.-:::. :::.-:::.-=Sli le:ii :PtlieL:rii:c~ ii"tio \i ~(frl~ti]Jify -:::_-_-__ _ ---------------------------

0 2 MILES 

0 2 3 KILOM ETR ES 

FIGURE 19.-Carbonate-rock and gypsum aquifer. 

CASE HISTORY-LIMESTONE AREA OF 

THE OZARK REGION IN 

MISSOURI AND ARKANSAS 

Thick, dense limestone and dolomite of Paleozoic age 

underlie a large area. Permeability of the limestone is 

due to joints, bedding planes and solution openings. 

Recharge is high in some areas where there is no surface runoff. Recharge and ground-water flow are rapid, 

soon appearing as increased discharge in springs. 
H26 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

0 50 100 200 

0 50 100 200 300 400 KILOMETRES 

EXPLANATION 

D D 

Relatively detailed ground-water information available, of inventory and 

appraisa l type, genera ll y published 

Less detailed ground-water information Generally, on ly file data available, mostly 

available, more of a reconnaisance unpublished 

nature, generally pu blished 

FIGURE 20.-Areas of principal ground-water investigations in the Arkansas-White-Red Region. 

There are many large springs and caves, and sinkholes 

are common. Water travels long distances rapidly underground. Wells yield as much as 500 gal/min 

(3.2xl0·2 m3/s), depending on openings encountered by 

the well. 

Pollution is a problem; pollutants travel rapidly and 

can enter in large quantities. Pollution by mining 

wastes and by collapse of sewage ponds has occurred in 

the carbonate area of Missouri. 

PREVIOUS STUDIES AND NEEDS IN THE 

ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION 

Ground-water information is available for nearly all 

the Arkansas-White-Red Region. In those areas not 

covered by reports, file data are available from appropriate water-oriented State and Federal agencies. A 

list of these agencies in each State is given immediately preceding "Selected References" in this report. Areas of principal ground-water investigations 

for which reports are available are shown in figure 20. 

Reports on the area are classified as detailed or reconnaissance. Both types of reports generally contain information on the most productive aquifers, including 

well yields, thickness, extent, potentiometric surface, 

water-table configuration, top of the aquifer, storage 

coefficient, transmissivity, water quality, and the nature of overlying and underlying beds. The detailed 

reports generally contain more data at more points 

than the reconnaissance reports and also contain information on recharge, discharge, water use, and relation of aquifers to streams. 

To date, few areas in the region have been modeled 

by analog or digital models. The few model studies of 

ground-water systems reflect a prevailing lack of 

quantitative consideration of ground water in waterresource planning in the Arkansas-White-Red Region. 
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION H27 

Ground water now can be adequately evaluated in 

terms of quantity, availability, quality, cost of development, and impact on the environment through 

the use of models. Greater consideration should be 

given to use of ground water in making planning decisions. The inclusion of ground water in water planning 

affords many more alternatives for development and 

control of water supply. If ground-water reservoirs underlying an area can yield water to wells at rates 

exceeding 50 gallons per minute (3.2 x 10·3 m3/s), plan-

. ners can be certain that these sources are significant 

and that they should not be ignored. If these reservoirs 

also contain good-quality water in amounts equal to 

the storage capacity of existing surface-water reservoirs and potential surface-water reservoir sites, planners can be certain that ground water should play a 

principal role in any water-development plans (Moore, 

1971). Future studies in the region should incorporate 

the use of models in providing planners with quantitative analyses required for incorporating ground water 

into water-management plans. 

General studies provide a valuable basis for conceptual models or even initial analog or digital models 

useful in designing data-collection and analysis programs. The appraisal and reconnaissance studies (fig. 

20) provide some data for all three modeling needsdefinition of the system, stress on the system, and 

response of the system. The reports generally lack 

definition of aquifer hydrologic characteristics in 

quantitative terms required for detailed modeling, as 

well as lack quantitative hydrologic data on confining 

beds or the degree of connection of the aquifer with 

streams. Data on stress and response of the system to 

stress are generally incomplete for adequate model 

analysis. For example, many studies lack sufficient 

data on the history and the distribution of withdrawals 

from the aquifer. In many model studies, withdrawals 

are historically the major stresses on the· aquifer and 

the pumping history should be duplicated in testing 

the model. 

Other critical information on aquifer stresses that 

are not commonly collected or analyzed as a part of an 

appraisal study are recharge to the aquifer and its 

relation to the depth to water. In addition to the 

natural recharge from precipitation, information is required on the recharge and return surface flow of 

applied irrigation water. 

Reconnaissance and appraisal studies generally are 

limited by political boundaries. Areas for model 

studies are best delineated by the natural boundaries 

of the hydrologic system (Bedinger and Sniegocki, 

1972). Ideally, these are boundaries across which there 

is no flow, or boundaries at which the hydrologic head 

or flow conditions can be defined-that is, streams, 

FIGURE 21.-Model and network development (after 

Bedinger and Sniegocki, 1972). 

lakes, or wells. Natural system boundaries should be 

used in planning future studies in the area. Exceptions 

may include the very extensive water-table aquifers in 

which intensive development is limited to a small part 

of the aquifer. Nevertheless, ultimate needs for systemwide water planning should be considered in continuing data-collection programs and in comprehensive ground-water studies. 

The relation between data networks and the use of 

data in modeling is shown by the flow diagram in 

figure 21. Data on response of the system to stress are 

used conjunctively with stress data in testing the 

model. Response data are thus needed for adequate 

historic and spatial coverage to assess the validity of 

the model. These data, or the lack thereof, may be more 

critical than stress data. In some instances much of the 

stress history, such as pumpage and recharge, can be 

reconstructed from indirect records of agricultural or 

industrial production or from population and climatic 

records. Response data cannot be so reconstructed and 

therefore must be available before a model study is 

initiated. It follows that areas of potential model 

studies should be identified and that continuing records be kept of stress and response. These datacollection programs should be designed to provide 

adequate sampling in frequency and areal distribution. 

Regionally, continuing ground-water data-collection 

programs (exclusive of studies in designated areas) by 

the U.S. Geological Survey and by State and private 

agencies consist principally of observations of water 

levels in wells. In some areas periodic measurements of 

spring flow and analyses of ground-water quality are 

made every 5 years by the Survey. These data do not 

provide a sufficient history of stress and response for 

adequate model analysis. The most serious deficiency 

in data collection in the Arkansas-White-Red Region 

concerns water-use information. Not only is the coverage inadequate, but the accuracy of some of the information is variable and questionable. Inadequate data 
H28 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

collection constitutes a major problem and causes 

lengthy delays in model analysis. 

Outstanding needs for detailed quantitative definition of several ground-water systems exist in the western, water-deficient part of the Arkansas-White-Red 

Region. The systems needing study include the large, 

basin-fill aquifers in Colorado and the limestone 

aquifer of the Arbuckle Group of Oklahoma. These 

aquifers are virtually unused and could potentially 

play a significant part in meeting future water needs 

in the Arkansas-White-Red Region. The large basinfill ground-water reservoirs in the Arkansas River 

.basin in Colorado are estimated to hold 20 million 

acre-feet (2.46xl010 m3) of water (P. A. Emery, L.A. 

Hershey, and J. M. Klein, written commun., 1974). 

Presently, they are virtually unused. The reservoirs 

could be utilized in conjunctive-use planning for irrigation requirements in the Arkansas River valley and 

may be used for storing water from interbasin transfers during times of excess. This water could then be 

used during times of demand for irrigation or other 

use, or, as an alternative, the water in these basins 

could be mined to supply water during water-deficient 

periods. Water-development plans in Oklahoma include interbasin transport of water from Broken Bow, 

Hugo, Pine Creek, and several to-be-constructed reservoirs in the vicinity of Oklahoma City. Part of the 

water would lie used for municipal supplies and the 

rest moved to southwest Oklahoma for other uses. 

These plans call for transporting surface water across a 

very productive aquifer in the limestone of the Arbuckle Group. This aquifer is not included in the 

'Yater-transport plan, but it could potentially supply a 

significant part of the water required, and it would be 

relatively near the area of use. 

The aquifer systems mentioned could play significant parts in regional and local water-management 

plans, but further study \vould be required before 

ground water can be fully incorporated in these plans. 

Studies are needed to define the extent and characteristics of the aquifer and to define the flow system 

quantitatively, so that the response of the system to 

stress could be predicted. These studies would also 

provide information needed to determine well spacing, 

well yields, cost of pumping, and cost of construction of 

wells and collection systems. 

SELECTED STATE AND 

FEDERAL WATER-ORIENTED 

AGENCIES IN THE ARKANSASWHITE-RED REGION 

Arkansas: 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Division 

2301 Federal Office Building 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 

Arkansas Geological Commission 

State Capitol Building 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 

Arkansas Department of Pollution 

Control and Ecology 

8801 National Drive 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 

Colorado: 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Division 

Denver Federal Center, Building 25 

Lakewood, Colorado 80225 

Colorado Water Conservation Board 

102 Columbine Building 

1845 Sherman Street 

Denver, Colorado 80203 

Colorado Division of Water Resources 

Office of the State Engineer 

303 Columbine Building 

1845 Sherman Street 

Denver, Colorado 80203 

Southeastern Colorado Water 

Conservancy District 

905 Highway 50 West 

Pueblo, Colorado 81008 

Kansas: 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Division 

1950 Avenue A, Campus West 

University of Kansas 

Lawrence, Kansas 66045 

Kansas Water Resources Board 

4th Floor, Mills Building 

109 West 9th Street 

Topeka, Kansas 66612 

Kansas Geological Survey 

1930 Avenue A, Campus West 

University of Kansas 

Lawrence, Kansas 66045 

Kansas State Board of Agriculture 

Division of Water Resources 

lOth Floor, State Office Building 

Topeka, Kansas 66612 

Louisiana: 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Division 

6554 Florida Boulevard 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806 

Louisiana Geological Survey 

Department of Conservation 

Post Office Box G, University Station 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION H29 

Louisiana Department of Public Works 

Post Office Box 4155, Capitol Station 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 

Louisiana Department of Highways 

Post Office Box 4245, Capitol Station 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 

Missouri: 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Division 

Post Office Box 340 

Rolla, Missouri 65401 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

Division of Research and Technical Information 

Post Office Box 250 

Rolla, Missouri 65401 

New Mexico: 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Division 

Post Office Box 4369 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106 

New Mexico State Engineer 

State Capitol Building 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 

New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission 

State Capitol Building 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 

Oklahoma: 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Division 

200 Northwest 4th Street, Room 4301 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

2241 Northwest 40th Street 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112 

Oklahoma Geological Survey 

The UniversityofOklahoma 

Norman, Oklahoma 73069 

Texas: 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Division 

Federal Building 

300 East 8th Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Texas Water Development Board 

Post Office Box 13087 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Texas Water Quality Board 

Post Office Box 13246 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Texas Water Rights Commission 

Post Office Box 13207 

Austin, Texas 78711 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

Alexander, W. H., Jr., 1961, Geology and ground-water resources of 

the northern High Plains of Texas, Progress Report No. 1: Texas 

Board Water Engineers Bull. 6109,39 p. 

Aley, T. J., and others, 1976, Ground-water contamination and sinkhole collapse in soluble rock terrain: Missouri Geol. Survey and 

Water Resources Eng. Geology Ser. 5 (in press). 

Arkansas-White-Red Basins Inter-Agency Committee, 1955, A report on the conservation and development of the water and land 

resources, Part 1, 252 p. 

Baker, E. T., Jr., 1960, Geology and ground-water resources of 

Grayson County, Texas: Texas Board Water Engineers Bull. 

6013, 152p. 

Bayne, C. K., 1956, Geology and ground-water resources of Reno 

County, Kansas, with a geologic map, by 0. S. Fent and C. K. 

Bayne: Kansas Geol. Survey Bull. 120, 130 p. 

Bedinger, M. S., Reed, J. E., Wells, C. J., and Swafford, B. F., 1970, 

Methods and applications of electrical simulation in groundwater studies in the lower Arkansas and Verdigris River valleys, Arkansas and Oklahoma: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 1971, 71 p. 

Bedinger, M.S., and Sniegocki, R. T., 1972, Definition of hydrologic 

units for water studies in Arkansas: Water Resources Research, 

v.8,no.1,p.217-221. 

Berkstresser, C. F., Jr., and Mourant, W. A., 1966, Ground-water 

resources and geology of Quay County, New Mexico: New Mexico 

Bur. Mines and Mineral Resources, Ground-Water Rept. 9, 115 p. 

Bredehoeft, J.D., and Pinder, G. F., 1973, Mass transport in flowing 

ground water: Water Resources Research, v. 9., no. 1, p. 194-210. 

Broadhurst, W. L., and Follett, C. R., 1944, Ground-water resources 

in the vicinity of Nocona, Montague County, Texas: Texas Board 

Water Engineers Misc. Pub., 15 p. 

Busby, M. W., 1963, Yearly variations in runoff for the conterminous 

United States, 1931-60: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 

1669-S, 49p. 

__ 1966, Annual runoff in the conterminous United States: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Hydrol. Inv. Atlas HA-212. 

Cooper, J. B., and Davis, L. V., 1967, General occurrence and quality of 

ground water in Union County, New Mexico: New Mexico Bur. 

Mines and Mineral Resources, Ground-Water Rept. 8, 168 p. 

Cronin, J. G., 1964, A summary of the occurrence and development of 

ground water in the southern High Plains of Texas, with a 

section on Artificial recharge studies, by B. N. Myers: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1693,88 p. 

__ 1969, Ground water in the Ogallala Formation of the High 

Plains of Texas and New Mexico: U.S. Geol. Survey Hydrol. Inv. 

Atlas HA-330. 

Davis, L. V., 1955, Geology and water resources of Grady and northern Stephens Counties, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geol. Survey 

Bull. 73, 184 p. 

___ 1960, Geology and ground-water resources of southern 

McCurtain County, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geol. Survey Bull. 

86, 108p. 

Dole, R. B., and Stabler, Herman, 1909, Denudation, in Papers on 

the conservation of water resources: U.S. Geol. Survey WaterSupply Paper 234, p. 78-93. 

Feder, G. L., Skelton, John, Jeffery, H. G., and Harvey, E. J., 1969, 

Water resources of the Joplin area, Missouri: Missouri Geol. 

Survey and Water Resources, Water Resources Rept. 24, 97 p. 

Fenneman, N. M., 1931, Physiography of Western United States: 

New York and London, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 534 p. 
H30 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

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. 

Gutentag, E. D., Lohmeyer, D. H., and McGovern, H. E., 1972, 

Ground water in Kearny County, southwestern Kansas: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Hydro!. Inv. Atlas HA-416. 

Hart, D. L., Jr., 1965, Ground water in the alluvial deposits of the 

Washita River between Clinton and Anadarko, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Water Resources Board Bull. 26, 25 p. 

Hart, D. L., Jr., 1965, Ground water in the alluvial deposits of the 

Washita River between Clinton and Anadarko, Oklahoma: 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board Bull. 26, 25 p. 

Hurr, R. T., and Moore, J. E., 1972, Hydrogeologic characteristics of 

the valley-fill aquifer in the Arkansas River valley, Bent 

County, Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey Hydro!. Inv. Atlas HA-461. 

Irwin, J. H., 1971, Ground-water investigations in Oklahoma, in 

Environmental aspects of geology and engineering in Oklahoma, Annals of The Oklahoma Academy of Science Pub. No. 2: 

Oklahoma Geol. Survey, p. 58-70. 

Jenkins, E. D., 1964, Ground water in Fountain and Jimmy Camp 

Valleys, El Paso County, Colorado, with a section on Computations of drawdowns caused by the pumping of wells in Fountain 

Valley, by R. E. Glover and E. D. Jenkins: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1583, 66 p. 

Johnston, J. R., 1957, The significance of a water budget for Texas: 

Texas A & M Univ., 3d Ann. Water for Texas Conf. 

Knight, R. D., 1962, Groundwater areas in Missouri, in Groundwater maps of Missouri: Missouri Geol. Survey and Water Resources [1963]. 

Konikow, L. F., and Bredehoeft, J.D., 1973, Simulation of hydrologic 

and chemical-quality variations in an irrigated stream-aquifer 

system-A preliminary report: Colorado Water Conserv. Board 

Water Resources Circ. 17, 43 p. 

Latta, B. F., 1950, Geology and ground-water resources of Barton 

and Stafford Counties, Kansas: Kansas Geol. Survey Bull. 88, 

228p. 

Leonard, R. B., 1972, Chemical quality of water in the Walnut River 

basin, south-central Kansas: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 1982, 113 p. 

Leopold, L. B., Clarke, F. E., Hanshaw, B. B., and Balsley, J. R., 

1971, A procedure for evaluating environmental impact: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Circ. 645, 13 p. 

Lohman, S. W., Burtis, V. M., and others, 1953, General availability 

of ground water and depth to water level in the Arkansas, 

White, and Red River basins: U.S. Geol. Survey Hydro!. Inv. 

AtlasHA-3. 

Lohman, S. W., and others, 1972, Definitions of selected groundwater terms-Revisions and conceptual refinements: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1988,21 p. 

McGovern, H. E., and Jenkins, E. D., 1966, Ground water in Black 

Squirrel Creek valley, El Paso County, Colorado: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Hydro!. Inv. Atlas HA-236. 

McGuinness, C. L., 1963, The role of ground water in the national 

water situation: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1800, 

1121 p. 

McLaughlin, T. G., 1943, Geology and ground-water resources of 

Hamilton and Kearny Counties, Kansas: Kansas State Geol. 

Survey Bull. 49,220 p. 

_1949, Geology and ground-water resources of Pawnee and 

Edwards Counties, Kansas: Kansas State Geol. Survey Bull. 80, 

189p. 

___ 1954, Geology and ground-water resources of Baca County, 

Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1256,232 p. 

Maher, J. C., 1939, Fluoride in the ground water of Avoyelles and 

Rap ides Parishes, Louisiana: Louisiana Dept. Conserv. Geol. 

Pamph. 1, 23 p. 

Major, T. J., Hurr, R. T., and Moore, J. E., 1970, Hydrogeologic data 

for the lower Arkansas River valley, Colorado: Colorado Water 

Conserv. Board Ground-Water Series, Basic-Data Release 21, 

125p. 

Marcher, M. V., 1969, Reconnaissance of the water resources of the 

Fort Smith quadrangle, east-central Oklahoma: Oklahoma 

Geol. Survey HA-l. 

___ 1972, Major sources of water in Oklahoma, in Johnson, K. S., 

and others, Geology and earth resources of Oklahoma, an atlas 

of maps and cross sections: Oklahoma Geol. Survey Educ. Pub. 1, 

p.8. 

Marcher, M. V., and Bergman, D. L., 1976, Reconnaissance of the 

water resources of the McAlester and Texarkana quadrangles, 

southeastern Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geol. Survey HA (in press). 

Marcher, M. V., and Bingham, R. H., 1971, Reconnaissance of the 

water resources of the Tulsa quadrangle, northeastern Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geol. Survey HA-2. 

Meyer, W. R., Gutentag; E. D., and Lohmeyer, D. H., 1970, Geohydrology of Finney County, southwestern Kansas: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1891, 117 p. 

Moore, J. E., 1971, Integrating the use of ground water into waterresource planning, in Minutes of 165th Meeting: Missouri Basin 

Inter-Agency Comm., June 23, 1971, 9 p. 

Moore, J. E., and Wood, L.A., 1967, Data requirements and preliminary results of an analog-model evaluation, Arkansas River 

valley in eastern Colorado: Ground Water, v. 5, no. 1, p. 20-23. 

Morton, R. B., and Goemaat, 1973, Reconnaissance of the water 

resources of Beaver County, Oklahoma: U.S. Geol. Survey Hydro!. Inv. Atlas HA-450. 

Moulder, E. A., 1970, Freshwater bubbles, a possibility for using 

saline aquifers to store water: Water Resources Research, v. 6, 

no.5,p.1528-1531. 

Moulder, E. A., and Jenkins, C. T., 1969, Analog-digital models of 

stream-aquifer systems: Ground Water, v. 7, no. 5, p. 19-24. 

Moulder, E. A., Jenkins, C. T., Moore, J. E., and Coffin, D. L., 1963, 

Effects of water management on a reach of the Arkansas valley, 

La Junta to Las Animas, Colorado: Colorado Water Conserv. 

Board Ground-Water Series, Circ. 10, 20 p. 

Murray, C. R., and Reeves, E. B., 1972, Estimated use of water in the 

United States in 1970: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 676,37 p. 

Newcome, Roy, Jr., and Page, L. V., 1962, Water resources of Red 

River Parish, Louisiana: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 

1614, 133 p. [1963]. 

Newcome, Roy, Jr., Page, L. V., Sloss, Raymond, 1963, Water resources of Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana: Louisiana Dept. Conserv. Geol. Survey and Louisiana Dept. Public Works, Water 

Resources Bull. 4, 189 p. 

Newcome, Roy, Jr., and Sloss, Raymond, 1965, Water resources of 

Rapides Parish, Louisiana: Louisiana Dept. Conserv. Geol. Survey and Louisiana Dept. Public Works, Water Resources Bull. 8. 

Page, L. V., and May, H. G., 1964, Water resources of Bossier and 

Caddo Parishes, Louisiana: Louisiana Dept. Conserv. Geol. Survey and Louisiana Dept. Public Works, Water Resources Bull. 5. 

Page, L. V., and Pree, H. L., Jr., 1964, Water resources of DeSoto 

Parish, Louisiana: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1774, 

152 p. [1965]. 

Petri, L. R., Lane, C. W., and Furness, L. W., 1964, Water resources 

of the Wichita area, Kansas: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 1499-I, 69 p. 

Rainwater, F. H., 1962, Stream composition of the conterminous 

United States: U.S. Geol. Survey Hydro!. Inv. Atlas HA-61. 
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED REGION H31 

Rechenthin, C. A., and Smith, H. M., 1967, Effect on water yield and 

supply, pt. 5 of Grassland restoration: Temple, Tex., U.S. Dept. 

Agriculture, Soil Conserv. Service, 46 p. 

Reed, J. E., 1972, Analog simulation of water-level declines in the 

Sparta Sand, Mississippi embayment: U.S. Geol. Survey Hydrol. 

Inv. Atlas HA-434. 

Robertson, C. E., 1962, Water well yield map of Missouri, in Ground 

water maps of Missouri: Missouri Geol. Survey and Water Resources [1963]. 

Sapik, D. B., and Goemaat, R. L., 1973, Reconnaissance of the 

ground-water resources of Cimarron County, Oklahoma: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Hydrol. Inv. Atlas HA-373. 

Sniegocki, R. T., 1963, Problems in artificial recharge through wells 

in the Grand Prairie region, Arkansas: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1615-F, 25 p. 

Stramel, G. J., Lane, C. W., and Hodson, W. G., 1958, Geology and 

ground-water hydrology of the Ingalls area, Kansas: Kansas 

Geol. Survey Bull. 132, 154 p. 

Tanaka, H. H., 1972, Geohydrology of the lower Verdigris River 

valley between Muskogee and Catoosa, Oklahoma: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1999-A, 23 p. 

Tanaka, H. H., and Hollowell, J. R., 1966, Hydrology of the alluvium 

of the Arkansas River, Muskogee, Oklahoma, to Fort Smith, 

Arkansas, with a section on Chemical quality of the water, by J. 

J. Murphy: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1809-T, 42 p. 

Taylor, 0. J., and Luckey, R. R., 1974, Water management studies of 

a stream-aquifer system, Arkansas River valley, Colorado: 

Ground Water, v. 12, no. 1, p. 22-38. 

Voegeli, P. T., Sr., and Hershey, L. A., 1965, Geology and groundwater resources of Prowers County, Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1772, 101 p. 

Waite, H. A., 1942, Geology and ground-water resources of Ford 

County, Kansas: Kansas Geol. Survey Bull. 43. 

__ 1961, Geology and ground-water resources of Sumner County, 

Kansas: Kansas Geol. Survey Bull. 151. 

Water Resources Council, 1968, The Nation's water resources-The 

first national assessment of the Water Resources Council: 403 p. 

Williams, C. C., and Lohman, S. W., 1949, Geology and ground-water 

resources of a part of south-central Kansas, with special reference to the Wichita municipal water supply: Kansas Geol. Survey Bull. 79,455 p. 

Wood, P.R., and Hart, D. L., Jr., 1967, Availability of ground water 

in Texas County, Oklahoma: U.S. Geol. Survey Hydrol. Inv. 

Atlas HA-250. 

Woodward, D. R., 1957, Availability of water in the United States, 

with special reference to industrial needs by 1980: Washington, 

[U.S.] Armed Forces Indus. Coll., 74 p. 

'tl U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980-6n-129/31