National Water-Quality Assessment Program 

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 

and Refined Estimated Withdrawals from Selected 

Aquifers in the United States, 2000 

Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5003 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
Cover:

Left: The Missouri River separates agriculture from the city life as it flows past the Missouri State 

Capitol in Jefferson City, Missouri (photograph by Sarah Minor, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 2002).

Upper right: Center pivot irrigation on wheat growing in Yuma County, Colorado (photograph by Gene 

Alexander, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1987). 

Lower right: View to the southwest showing the Red River alluvial valley at the Louisiana Highway 8 

bridge near Boyce, Louisiana (photograph by Dennis K. Demcheck, U.S. Geological Survey, December 

2007). 
Estimated Withdrawals from StreamValley Aquifers and Refined Estimated 

Withdrawals from Selected Aquifers 

in the United States, 2000

By B. Pierre Sargent, Molly A. Maupin, and Stephen R. Hinkle

National Water-Quality Assessment Program

Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5003

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Sargent, B.P., Maupin, M.A., and Hinkle, S.R., 2008, Estimated withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers and 

refined estimated withdrawals from selected aquifers in the United States, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2008–5003, 71 p. 
iii

Foreword

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is committed to providing the Nation with credible scientific information that helps to enhance and protect 

the overall quality of life and that facilitates effective management of water, biological, energy, and mineral resources (http://www.usgs.gov/). 

Information on the Nation’s water resources is critical to ensuring long-term availability of water that is safe for drinking and recreation and is 

suitable for industry, irrigation, and fish and wildlife. Population growth and increasing demands for water make the availability of that water, 

now measured in terms of quantity and quality, even more essential to the long-term sustainability of our communities and ecosystems.

The USGS implemented the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program in 1991 to support national, regional, State, and local 

information needs and decisions related to water-quality management and policy (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa). The NAWQA Program is 

designed to answer: What is the condition of our Nation’s streams and ground water? How are conditions changing over time? How do natural 

features and human activities affect the quality of streams and ground water, and where are those effects most pronounced? By combining 

information on water chemistry, physical characteristics, stream habitat, and aquatic life, the NAWQA Program aims to provide science-based 

insights for current and emerging water issues and priorities. From 1991-2001, the NAWQA Program completed interdisciplinary assessments 

and established a baseline understanding of water-quality conditions in 51 of the Nation’s river basins and aquifers, referred to as Study Units 

(http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/studyu.html). 

In the second decade of the Program (2001–2012), a major focus is on regional assessments of water-quality conditions and trends. These 

regional assessments are based on major river basins and principal aquifers, which encompass larger regions of the country than the Study 

Units. Regional assessments extend the findings in the Study Units by filling critical gaps in characterizing the quality of surface water and 

ground water, and by determining status and trends at sites that have been consistently monitored for more than a decade. In addition, the 

regional assessments continue to build an understanding of how natural features and human activities affect water quality. Many of the 

regional assessments employ modeling and other scientific tools, developed on the basis of data collected at individual sites, to help extend 

knowledge of water quality to unmonitored, yet comparable areas within the regions. The models thereby enhance the value of our existing data 

and our understanding of the hydrologic system. In addition, the models are useful in evaluating various resource-management scenarios and in 

predicting how our actions, such as reducing or managing nonpoint and point sources of contamination, land conversion, and altering flow and

(or) pumping regimes, are likely to affect water conditions within a region.

Other activities planned during the second decade include continuing national syntheses of information on pesticides, volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), nutrients, selected trace elements, and aquatic ecology; and continuing national topical studies on the fate of agricultural 

chemicals, effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems, bioaccumulation of mercury in stream ecosystems, effects of nutrient enrichment on

stream ecosystems, and transport of contaminants to public-supply wells.

The USGS aims to disseminate credible, timely, and relevant science information to address practical and effective water-resource management 

and strategies that protect and restore water quality. We hope this NAWQA publication will provide you with insights and information to meet 

your needs, and will foster increased citizen awareness and involvement in the protection and restoration of our Nation’s waters. 

The USGS recognizes that a national assessment by a single program cannot address all water-resource issues of interest. External coordination 

at all levels is critical for cost-effective management, regulation, and conservation of our Nation’s water resources. The NAWQA Program, 

therefore, depends on advice and information from other agencies—Federal, State, regional, interstate, Tribal, and local—as well as 

nongovernmental organizations, industry, academia, and other stakeholder groups. Your assistance and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Matthew C. Larsen

Acting Associate Director for Water
iv

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of U.S. Geological Survey National Water Use 

Information Program contacts for state water-use information. They are identified, and contact 

information for them is listed on the World Wide Web at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/wupersonnel.

html. Additional thanks are extended to personnel at state agencies who provided fresh groundwater withdrawal data or answered questions about aquifer extent and productivity, depth to water, 

or suitability of water quality for a specific water use. Wendy J. Danchuk, a cartographer at the U.S. 

Geological Survey, and Michael D. Kemppainen, a scientific illustrator at the U.S. Geological Survey, 

assisted with preparation of illustrations. 
v

Contents

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................iii

Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................1

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

Background ...........................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................................2

Description of Study Area .................................................................................................................2

Aquifer Terminology .....................................................................................................................................3

Approach and Estimation Methods ...........................................................................................................5

Summary of Refined Estimated Withdrawals from Selected Aquifers in the United States, 

2000 ....................................................................................................................................................6

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers ............................................................................6

States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ...............................................................................6

Arizona ..........................................................................................................................................6

Arkansas .......................................................................................................................................6

Colorado .......................................................................................................................................6

Illinois ............................................................................................................................................8

Indiana ..........................................................................................................................................8

Kansas ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Kentucky .....................................................................................................................................17

Louisiana ....................................................................................................................................20

Missouri ......................................................................................................................................20

Montana .....................................................................................................................................21

Nebraska ....................................................................................................................................22

New Jersey ................................................................................................................................23

New Mexico ...............................................................................................................................23

New York ....................................................................................................................................25

North Dakota ..............................................................................................................................26

Ohio .............................................................................................................................................26

Oklahoma ....................................................................................................................................29

Pennsylvania ..............................................................................................................................31

Puerto Rico .................................................................................................................................32

South Dakota .............................................................................................................................32

Tennessee ..................................................................................................................................35

Texas ...........................................................................................................................................35

Utah .............................................................................................................................................35

West Virginia .............................................................................................................................38

Wyoming .....................................................................................................................................39

Water-Resources Regions ...............................................................................................................40

Arkansas-White-Red Region ..................................................................................................40

Mid-Atlantic Region .................................................................................................................42

Missouri Region ........................................................................................................................42

Ohio Region ................................................................................................................................42
vi

Tennessee Region .....................................................................................................................42

Texas-Gulf Region .....................................................................................................................42

Upper Colorado Region ............................................................................................................42

Upper Mississippi Region ........................................................................................................43

Summary .......................................................................................................................................................43

References Cited .........................................................................................................................................43

Appendixes ..................................................................................................................................................47

1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state ........49

2. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial 

uses from principal and Other aquifers in 24 States and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, 2000 .......................................................................................................................65

3. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial 

uses for aquifers and aquifer units disaggregated from withdrawals from Alluvial

aquifers north of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation in North Dakota, 

2000 ..............................................................................................................................................71

Figures

1. Map showing location of the study area in the contiguous United States and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ..................................................................................................3

2. Diagrammatic section of hydrogeologic setting of two alluvial aquifers ...........................4

3–22. Maps showing extent of:

3. Alluvial deposits in Arizona where stream-valley aquifer withdrawals were 

investigated .......................................................................................................................15

4. The Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer and other surficial alluvial 

aquifers along major rivers in Arkansas where withdrawals were associated 

with stream-valley aquifers ............................................................................................16

5. Alluvial deposits in Colorado where withdrawals from Alluvial and Other

aquifers were associated with stream-valley aquifers ..............................................17

6. Alluvial deposits and the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer in Illinois 

that were evaluated for possible withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers ..........18

7. Alluvial deposits in Indiana that were evaluated for possible withdrawals 

from stream-valley aquifers ............................................................................................19

8. Alluvial deposits in Kansas where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were 

associated with stream-valley aquifers ........................................................................20

9. Alluvial deposits in Kentucky where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were 

associated with stream-valley aquifers ........................................................................21

10. The Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer and the Red River alluvial aquifer 

in Louisiana where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were associated with 

stream-valley aquifers and other principal aquifers ..................................................22

11. Alluvial deposits in Missouri where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were 

associated with stream-valley aquifers ........................................................................23

12. Alluvial deposits in Montana where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were 

associated with stream-valley aquifers ........................................................................24

13. Alluvial deposits in Nebraska where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were 

associated with stream-valley aquifers ........................................................................25
vii

14. Alluvial deposits in New Jersey where stream-valley aquifer withdrawals 

were investigated .............................................................................................................26

15. Alluvial deposits in New Mexico where stream-valley aquifer withdrawals 

were investigated .............................................................................................................27

16. Alluvial deposits in New York that were evaluated for possible withdrawals 

from stream-valley aquifers ............................................................................................28

17. Alluvial deposits in North Dakota where stream-valley aquifer withdrawals 

were investigated .............................................................................................................29

18. Alluvial deposits in Ohio that were evaluated for possible withdrawals 

associated with stream-valley aquifers ........................................................................30

19. Alluvial deposits along major streams in Oklahoma where withdrawals from 

Alluvial aquifers were associated with stream-valley aquifers ...............................31

20. Alluvial deposits in Pennsylvania that were evaluated for possible 

withdrawals associated with stream-valley aquifers ................................................32

21. Aquifers in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico where stream-valley aquifer 

withdrawals were investigated ......................................................................................33

22. Coarse-grained glacial deposits, stream-valley alluvium, and basin fill in 

South Dakota where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were associated 

with stream-valley aquifers ............................................................................................34

23. Map showing the surficial aquifer system in Tennessee that consists mainly of the 

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer................................................................................. 35

24–27. Maps showing extent of: 

24. Alluvial deposits along major streams in Texas where withdrawals from 

Alluvial aquifers were associated with stream-valley aquifers ...............................36

25. Alluvial deposits in Utah where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were 

associated with stream-valley aquifers ........................................................................37

26. Alluvial deposits in West Virginia where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers 

were associated with stream-valley aquifers .............................................................38

27. Stream-valley alluvium and basin-fill deposits in Wyoming where 

withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were associated with stream-valley 

aquifers ...............................................................................................................................39

28. Map showing water-resources regions of the United States ............................................40

Tables 

1. Summary of original and revised estimated withdrawals from principal and Other

aquifers, and estimated withdrawals attributed to stream-valley aquifers .......................7

2. Total estimated withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers associated with major 

rivers, by state, 2000 ....................................................................................................................8

3. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial 

uses from stream-valley aquifers associated with major rivers and principal 

aquifers in 20 States, 2000 ..........................................................................................................9

4. Distribution of estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and selfsupplied industrial uses from aquifers and water-bearing units disaggregated 

from withdrawals from Other aquifers in 10 States, 2000 ...................................................13

5. Estimated withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers associated with major rivers, 

creeks, and areas by water-resources region, 2000 ...........................................................41
viii

Conversion Factors and Datum

Multiply By To obtain

Length

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 43,560 square foot (ft2)

acre 4,047 square meter (m2) 

acre 0.001562 square mile (mi2)

Volume

gallon 3. 785 liter (L)

Flow rate

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second (L/s)

gallon per day (gal/d) 3.785 liter per day

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 1.121 thousand acre-feet per year

0.001547 thousand cubic feet per second

0.6944 thousand gallons per minute

0.003785 million cubic meters per day

1.3815 million cubic meters per year

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27). 
Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey National Water Use 

Information Program compiles estimates of fresh groundwater withdrawals in the United States on a 5-year interval. 

In the year-2000 compilation, withdrawals were reported 

from principal aquifers and aquifer systems including two 

general aquifers—Alluvial and Other aquifers. Withdrawals 

from a widespread aquifer group—stream-valley aquifers—

were not specifically identified in the year-2000 compilation, 

but they are important sources of ground water. Stream-valley 

aquifers are alluvial aquifers located in the valley of major 

streams and rivers. Stream-valley aquifers are long but narrow 

aquifers that are in direct hydraulic connection with associated streams and limited in extent compared to most principal 

aquifers.

Based in large part on information published in U.S. 

Geological Survey reports, preliminary analysis of withdrawal 

data and hydrogeologic and surface-water information indicated areas in the United States where possible stream-valley 

aquifers were located. Further assessment focused on 24 states 

and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Withdrawals reported 

from Alluvial aquifers and (or) Other aquifers in 22 states and 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico were investigated. Two 

additional States—Arkansas and New Jersey—were investigated because withdrawals reported from other principal 

aquifers in these two States may have been from stream-valley 

aquifers.

Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers were identified 

in 20 States and were 1,560 Mgal/d (million gallons per day), 

a rate comparable to withdrawals from the 10th most productive principal aquifer in the United States. Of the 1,560 Mgal/d 

of withdrawals attributed to stream-valley aquifers, 1,240 

Mgal/d were disaggregated from Alluvial aquifers, 150 Mgal/d 

from glacial sand and gravel aquifers, 116 Mgal/d from 

Other aquifers, 28.1 Mgal/d from Pennsylvanian aquifers, 

and 24.9 Mgal/d from the Mississippi River Valley alluvial 

aquifer. Five States, including Colorado (552 Mgal/d), 

Kansas (384 Mgal/d), Oklahoma (126 Mgal/d), Kentucky 

(102 Mgal/d), and Ohio (100 Mgal/d), accounted for 81 percent of estimated stream-valley aquifer withdrawals identified 

in this report. Of the total withdrawals from stream-valley 

aquifers, about 63 percent (984 Mgal/d) were used 

for irrigation, 26 percent (400 Mgal/d) for public-supply, 

and 11 percent (177 Mgal/d) for self-supplied industrial uses. 

The largest estimated water withdrawals were from streamvalley aquifers associated with the South Platte (404 Mgal/d), 

Arkansas (395 Mgal/d), and Ohio (221 Mgal/d) Rivers.

Introduction

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water 

Use Information Program (NWUIP) compiles estimates of 

fresh ground-water withdrawals in the United States on a 

5-year interval. Water-use reports that present the compilations are accessible on the World Wide Web (online) at http://

water.usgs.gov/watuse/50years.html, and the compilation data 

grouped by county and watershed are accessible at http://

water.usgs.gov/watuse/. In this report, the compilation of interest is for the year 2000 and is referred to as the 2000 compilation. As part of the 2000 compilation, the USGS estimated 

ground-water withdrawals for 66 principal aquifers and aquifer 

systems and an Other1 aquifer group. The Other aquifer group 

includes withdrawals from aquifers that were not included 

in one of the principal aquifers. The resulting publication, 

“Estimated Withdrawals from Principal Aquifers in the United 

States, 2000” (Maupin and Barber, 2005), which is accessible online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1279, includes 

estimated freshwater withdrawals for the water-use categories 

of irrigation, public supply, and self-supplied industrial. The 

three categories of use represented 92 percent of total groundwater use in the United States in 2000 (Maupin and Barber, 

2005). 

Most of the principal aquifers and aquifer systems are 

equivalent to major aquifers and aquifer systems described 

1

 The specific term Other aquifers, denoted with italics, is used to refer 

to withdrawals from various miscellaneous aquifers and water-bearing units 

reported as “Other” aquifers by Maupin and Barber (2005).

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 

and Refined Estimated Withdrawals from Selected 

Aquifers in the United States, 2000

By B. Pierre Sargent, Molly A. Maupin, and Stephen R. Hinkle
by Miller (2000) in the “Ground Water Atlas of the United 

States” (hereafter called the atlas) and are depicted on the 

map of the “Principal Aquifers of the 48 conterminous United 

States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands” 

(hereafter called the principal aquifer map) (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2003). Although Alluvial2 and Other aquifers (Maupin 

and Barber, 2005) are not shown on the principal aquifer map, 

large withdrawals were assigned to these two general aquifers. Stream-valley aquifers were not specifically identified 

by Maupin and Barber (2005); however, the NWUIP recognized the importance of stream-valley aquifer withdrawals. 

The aquifer group, Alluvial aquifers, was expected to include 

withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers and other alluvial 

materials. 

Withdrawals from the Alluvial (1,800 Mgal/d [million 

gallons per day]) and Other (1,160 Mgal/d) aquifers were the 

10th and 11th largest, respectively, within the ranking of total 

withdrawals from the 67 aquifers and aquifer systems in the 

United States in 2000 (Maupin and Barber, 2005). Further 

investigation of withdrawals from Alluvial and Other aquifers 

was needed to (1) improve the knowledge of regional water 

availability and use, and (2) refine (disaggregate and redistribute) withdrawals assigned to Alluvial and Other aquifers 

to determine whether another potentially important aquifer 

group—stream-valley aquifers—provides substantial amounts 

of freshwater for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied 

industrial uses. 

Background

Identification and compilation of withdrawals from 

stream-valley aquifers will provide information useful to water 

managers and the USGS water-resources monitoring and 

assessment programs. In particular, refined water-withdrawal 

data will assist the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment 

(NAWQA) Program in addressing its long-term goals: the 

description of the status and trends in the quality of a large, 

representative part of the Nation’s surface and ground-water 

resources, and the identification of the major natural and 

human factors that affect the quality of these resources. In 

2001, the NAWQA Program began ground-water investigations that focused on regional assessments based on a framework of principal aquifers that provide the majority of water 

used in the United States (Lapham and others, 2005). The 

studies included 19 of the principal aquifers (Lapham and others, 2005) shown on the principal aquifer map (U.S. Geological Survey, 2003). The criteria for selecting the 19 study sites 

included the analysis of withdrawals from aquifers described 

by the NWUIP, which provided a means to prioritize and rank 

principal aquifers and aquifer systems on the basis of total 

2

 In this report, the general term “alluvial aquifers” refers to unconsolidated 

sand and gravel aquifers that typically consist of sediments deposited by 

rivers and streams. The term Alluvial aquifers denoted with italics, refers to 

withdrawals from alluvial-type deposits that were not represented in any other 

aquifer or aquifer system, as reported by Maupin and Barber (2005).

annual withdrawals. Withdrawal estimates from stream-valley 

aquifers will improve the knowledge of the nature and locations of the specific aquifers represented by Alluvial and Other

aquifers in Maupin and Barber (2005), and will further assist 

the NAWQA Program in its overall evaluation of groundwater-quality assessments of aquifers that provide the largest withdrawals nationwide. In 2004, the NAWQA Program 

began a study of withdrawals from Alluvial and Other aquifers 

described in Maupin and Barber (2005) to determine whether 

any withdrawal amount could be reassigned to stream-valley 

aquifers or various other relatively less important (local or 

regional) aquifers. 

Purpose and Scope

This report describes estimated fresh ground-water 

withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied 

industrial uses from stream-valley aquifers in the United States 

for the year 2000, which were refined from estimated withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers, selected principal aquifers, and

Other aquifers described by Maupin and Barber (2005). The 

report includes a summary of estimated stream-valley aquifer 

withdrawals at the state level and a brief national overview of 

the results of this investigation. Discussions, maps, and tables, 

grouped by states and water-resources regions, provide an 

understanding of the distribution of withdrawals from specific stream-valley aquifers. The section presented by states 

includes (for each state) a brief description of efforts to refine 

the data and tabulated withdrawals for the three water-use 

categories; supporting information on each state’s sources of 

data for the 2000 compilation is included in appendix 1. The 

relative importance of withdrawals from Alluvial and Other 

aquifers in comparison to withdrawals from other principal 

aquifers within a state is discussed. The section presented by 

water-resources regions includes tabulated withdrawals within 

the USGS two-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUC’s) (Seaber 

and others, 1987).

The data presented represent the amount of water withdrawn from aquifers at the point of the well. There are no 

double-accounted withdrawals for a stream-valley aquifer. In 

this report, the amount of water withdrawn from a stream-valley aquifer and reported by a state is not included in a reported 

value for another state with a stream-valley aquifer of the 

same name. An interbasin transfer of water from stream-valley 

aquifers can not be determined from the data collected. The 

estimated withdrawals are rounded to three significant figures. 

All values are rounded independently; therefore, the sums of 

individual rounded numbers may not equal the totals. Appendix 2 lists selected water-withdrawal data from Maupin and 

Barber (2005) that are used in the current report.

Description of Study Area 

Twenty-four states and the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico (Puerto Rico) are included in the study area (fig. 1). 

2 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
These states and Puerto Rico were identified as areas where 

stream-valley aquifer withdrawals could be present based in 

large part on the atlas (Miller, 2000). Many of these states and 

Puerto Rico reported withdrawals for Alluvial and/or Other

aquifers in 2000 (Maupin and Barber, 2005). Withdrawals 

from Alluvial aquifers were reported for 16 States—Colorado, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North 

Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Six additional 

States—Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, New Mexico, New York, 

and Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico—reported 2000 withdrawals from Other aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005). Two 

States—Arkansas and New Jersey—were investigated because 

information presented in the atlas (Miller, 2000) indicated the 

possible presence of stream-valley aquifers.

The study area generally excluded areas that lie completely within the maximum extent of Quaternary continental glaciation, areas west of the Rocky Mountain/Colorado 

Plateau region, and areas coincident with the North Atlantic 

Coastal Plain aquifer systems, Basin and Range basin-fill 

aquifers, and Northern Rocky Mountains Intermontane Basins 

aquifer system (U.S. Geological Survey, 2003). Within the 

study area, the areal extent of the High Plains aquifer and glaciated areas also were excluded from the investigation (fig. 1). 

In these excluded areas, stream-valley aquifers and their withdrawals typically cannot be differentiated from other principal 

aquifers consisting of the same types of lithologic materials.

Aquifer Terminology

A principal aquifer, as used in this report and in the 

principal aquifer map of the National Atlas of the United 

States (U.S. Geological Survey, 2003), is defined as a regionally extensive aquifer or aquifer system that has the potential 

to be used as a source of potable water. Alluvial aquifers 

and glacial sand and gravel aquifers are considered principal 

aquifers (U.S. Geological Survey, 2003; Maupin and Barber, 

2005). Alluvial aquifers consist of sediments deposited by 

rivers and streams that are present in or near existing major 

streams (Maupin and Barber, 2005), but the aquifers also 

include terrace deposits and unconsolidated sediments 

deposited by ancient streams. Some eolian deposits or 

Figure 1. Location of the study area in the contiguous United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

70o

0 500 KILOMETERS

0 500 MILES 

100o

90o

0 20 MILES

0 20 KILOMETERS

18o

67o 66o 65o 18o30' 30'

120o

110o

30o

40o

80o

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

Caribbean Sea

Study area

High Plains aquifer

Southern extent of Quaternary 

 continental glaciation

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 

 1:2,000,000, 1972 

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection 

Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian 96°00'

Puerto Rico

Ohio

Kansas

Arkansas

Tennessee

Kentucky

nd a a I i

Illinois n

Missouri

Iowa

Michigan

Wisconsin

Minnesota

North

Dakota

South Dakota

Nebraska

Oklahoma

West Virginia Virginia

North

Carolina

Carolina South

Georgia l A abama

F o ida l r

Mi si ip s s

s pi

Louisiana

Pennsylvania

York

New

Maine Vermont

New Hampshire

Massachusetts

Connecticut

Rhode Island

New Jersey

Maryland

Delaware

Texas

New Mexico

Arizona

Utah

Montana

Nevada R o c k y M o u n t a i n s

Idaho

Washington

Oregon

C

l ia a iforn

Wyoming

Colorado

Aquifer Terminology 3
wind-blown sediments in Colorado were included in 

Alluvial aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005). For the purpose 

of this report, stream-valley aquifers are alluvial sand and 

gravel aquifers that are in direct hydraulic connection with 

an existing stream or river. Stream-valley aquifers are similar 

to alluvial-valley aquifers described by Rosenshein (1988, 

p. 174) and alluvial valleys described by Heath (1984, p. 59). 

Rosenshein (1988) defined alluvial-valley aquifers to be long 

but narrow aquifers that “are in hydraulic connection with 

associated streams,” and that “are of limited areal extent in 

comparison to most aquifer systems, [but] they are among 

the most intensively used.” Heath (1984, p. 58) defined 

alluvial valleys as “thick sand and gravel deposits beneath 

floodplains and terraces of streams.” Heath (1984, p. 59) used 

three criteria to distinguish alluvial valleys. These criteria are 

as follows:

1. The valleys contain sand and gravel deposits thick enough 

to supply water to wells at moderate to large rates. [Commonly, the water-transmitting capacity of the sand and 

gravel is at least 10 times larger than that of the adjacent 

(enclosing) rocks.]

2. The sand and gravel deposits are in hydraulic contact with 

a perennial stream which serves as a source of recharge 

and whose flow normally far exceeds the demand from 

any typical well field.

3. The sand and gravel deposit occurs in a clearly defined 

band (‘channel’) that normally does not extend beyond 

the floodplain and adjacent terraces. (In other words, the 

width of the deposit is small or very small compared with 

its length.) 

Figure 2 shows two hydrogeologic settings that illustrate 

the nature of stream-valley aquifers. On the left side of the 

figure, the sand and gravel aquifer is clearly defined within 

the alluvial floodplain and in hydraulic contact with the 

river. Recharge to wells screened in the alluvial floodplain is 

provided directly by precipitation or by infiltration from the 

river. This setting meets some of the criteria for stream-valley 

aquifer designation. On the right side of figure 2, the sand 

and gravel deposits in a buried river valley may have watertransmitting capacity greater than adjacent rocks, but recharge 

is reduced to the volume that passes through the overlying clay 

and silt. There is no direct hydraulic connection to an existing 

river. The setting on the right side of the figure does not meet 

the criteria for stream-valley aquifer designation but the sediments deposited by ancient streams may transmit sufficient 

water to wells to be classified as an alluvial aquifer.

In the atlas, stream-valley aquifers are defined as alluvial 

aquifers “located beneath channels, floodplains, and terraces 

in the valleys of major streams” (Miller, 2000, p. A6). Miller 

(2000) further states that, “stream-valley aquifers are not 

shown [on the principal aquifer map] because they are too 

small to map accurately at the scale of the figure.” However, 

the most important stream-valley aquifers are mapped in the 

further descriptive atlas chapters and provide a guide for this 

investigation.

Glacial sand and gravel aquifers are unconsolidated 

deposits of sand, gravel, and silt and clay located north of 

the limit of Quaternary continental glaciation and east of 

the Rocky Mountains. Large areas of North America were 

subjected to episodes of continental glacial advances and 

retreats over millions of years. After each retreat, the glaciers 

left thick sequences of sediments (collectively called glacial 

Figure 2. Diagrammatic section of hydrogeologic setting of two alluvial aquifers. The alluvial aquifer on the left meets the definition of 

a stream-valley aquifer, but the alluvial aquifer on the right does not. 

Alluvial floodplain Buried river valley

Water table

River

Bedrock

Clay and silt

Sand and gravel

NOT TO SCALE

Direction of 

ground-water

movement

4 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
drift) in basins and valleys. Materials deposited by the glacial 

ice may vary in size from clay to boulders and be unsorted and 

unstratified. Vast amounts of fluvial material (glacial outwash) 

were carried away from the glaciers by streams and rivers 

originating from the melting glaciers. Over time, more recent 

(Holocene) alluvial deposits were deposited and reworked. 

Glacial sand and gravel aquifers often are not distinguishable 

from overlying stream-valley aquifers that are present beneath 

and along rivers and streams.

Approach and Estimation Methods

In this report, ground-water withdrawals reported from 

Alluvial and Other aquifers in Maupin and Barber (2005) 

that meet the definition of stream-valley aquifers are identified. Residual Alluvial aquifer withdrawals from deposits that 

do not fit the definition of a stream-valley aquifer also are 

identified. Elevated terrace deposits in Oklahoma and eolian 

sand and isolated terrace deposits in Colorado are examples 

of deposits that do not meet the definition of a stream-valley 

aquifer although they are considered Alluvial aquifers in this 

report. 

There are instances where withdrawals were reclassified based upon this analysis. For example, some year-2000 

withdrawals from counties south of the extent of Quaternary 

continental glaciation previously assigned to glacial sand and 

gravel aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005) were reclassified 

as stream-valley aquifer withdrawals. If withdrawals from 

Alluvial or Other aquifers could not be disaggregated and 

assigned to a specific aquifer or aquifer system, the withdrawals remained assigned to Alluvial or Other aquifers. Thus 

estimated withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers associated 

with specific rivers, creeks, or areas represent a minimum 

estimate. Nevertheless, this estimate provides a quantitative 

assessment on their importance and, as such, this estimate may 

be useful for researchers evaluating ground-water resources at 

regional and national scales.

All data and supporting information were gathered 

from USGS offices or state agencies. Supporting information 

includes, for example, owner name, county, aquifer extent, 

eight-digit HUC, well location, well depth, and well diameter. 

Water-use and ground-water data used to assign withdrawals 

to aquifers were obtained from USGS water-use specialists 

in states in the study area. Sources and details of the data 

provided by the specialists are listed in appendix 1. Additional 

data for selected states were obtained from the USGS National 

Water Information System Ground-Water Site-Inventory 

System (GWSI) data base (U.S. Geological Survey, 1998). 

Potential sources of water-use information and guidelines for 

estimating water use for the 2000 compilation are described by 

Kenny (2004).

Maps in the atlas show the areal extent of streamvalley aquifers from which withdrawals could be estimated. 

USGS HUC maps (Seaber and others, 1987) and state 

watershed maps were used to assign stream-valley aquifer 

withdrawals to river basins and water-resources regions. In 

general, if the information was available, the smallestsize tributary name was used to designate a stream-valley 

aquifer. 

The estimation of stream-valley aquifer withdrawals 

required the collecting, assessing, and joining of water-use, 

ground-water, and surface-water data. Water-use data typically 

included withdrawal rate, water source (ground water 

or surface water), category (irrigation, public supply, or 

self-supplied industrial), and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code (Office of Management and Budget, 1987). 

Ground-water data typically included well identifier, well 

location, aquifer unit of the screened interval, well use, well 

owner, well depth, well status, and well permit number. 

Surface-water data typically included river name, HUC’s, and 

state watershed name. Because this was a multistate study, all 

data characterization had to be equivalent across state lines. In 

states where water-use data were assigned a SIC code, the SIC 

code was used to separate industrial from commercial water 

use, and to make comparable the self-supplied industrial water 

use throughout the study area. 

A combination of site-specific and aggregate (non-site 

specific) data were available. Site-specific data include locations of individual wells or facilities where water is withdrawn. Aggregate data do not include specific locations of 

wells or facilities. Data are grouped by area, such as a county 

or watershed. In some states, water-use data (withdrawal 

rate, source, and use) were aggregated at the county level, 

but ground-water data (wells and associated data) were site 

specific.

Two analytical methods were used to estimate streamvalley aquifer withdrawals. The site-specific method was 

used to link water-use, ground-water, and surface-water data 

sets to specific locations. Using this method, withdrawals 

from each well can be grouped by location or other attributes, 

and totaled to estimate stream-valley aquifer withdrawals. 

The locations of some wells were compared with maps of 

watersheds and aquifers to determine stream-valley aquifer 

withdrawals. 

An aggregate method was applied when site specific 

data were not available. The aggregate method typically 

was used to estimate withdrawals by making an assumption 

about the data and using knowledge of an area. In some 

states, a combination of both methods (aggregate and site 

specific) was used to estimate withdrawals. For example, 

withdrawal rates at individual irrigation wells in a county 

were not known, but ground-water withdrawals for irrigation 

were estimated based on county crop acreage and irrigation 

application rates (aggregate data) (Kenny, 2004). If the 

atlas indicates that only one stream-valley aquifer is present 

and no other alluvial deposits are present in the county, 

and well data indicate all irrigation wells are shallow and 

screened in alluvial material, the decision was made to assign 

all irrigation withdrawals in the county to the stream-valley 

aquifer. 

Approach and Estimation Methods 5
Summary of Refined Estimated 

Withdrawals from Selected Aquifers in 

the United States, 2000

The analysis and disaggregation of ground-water 

withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers, selected principal aquifers, 

and Other aquifers as published in Maupin and Barber (2005) 

resulted in the identification of withdrawals of 1,560 Mgal/d 

from stream-valley aquifers in 20 states (table 1). This withdrawal rate is comparable to withdrawals from the 10th most 

productive principal aquifer in the United States (Maupin 

and Barber, 2005). Of the withdrawals attributed to streamvalley aquifers, 1,240 Mgal/d were disaggregated from 

Alluvial aquifers, 150 Mgal/d from glacial sand and gravel 

aquifers, 116 Mgal/d from Other aquifers, 28.1 Mgal/d from 

Pennsylvanian aquifers, and 24.9 Mgal/d from the Mississippi 

River Valley alluvial aquifer. 

Ground-water withdrawals from stream-valley 

aquifers for each state are listed in table 2, which indicates 

that Colorado (552 Mgal/d), Kansas (384 Mgal/d), Oklahoma 

(126 Mgal/d), Kentucky (102 Mgal/d), and Ohio (100 Mgal/d) 

accounted for most (81 percent) of the total withdrawals from 

stream-valley aquifers. Of this total, 984 Mgal/d (63 percent) 

was for irrigation, 400 Mgal/d (26 percent) for public supply, 

and 177 Mgal/d (11 percent) for self-supplied industrial uses. 

The largest estimated water withdrawals were from streamvalley aquifers associated with the South Platte (404 Mgal/d), 

Arkansas (395 Mgal/d), and Ohio (221 Mgal/d) Rivers.

Estimated Withdrawals from StreamValley Aquifers

States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

Withdrawals for irrigation, public supply, and selfsupplied industrial uses from Alluvial and Other aquifers in 

each state in the study area were analyzed and, where applicable, assigned to stream-valley aquifers (table 3). Twenty states 

were determined to have withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers. In some states, such as Louisiana, a portion of withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were determined to be attributable to 

other principal aquifers, and the withdrawals were reassigned 

(table 1). Where possible, withdrawals from Other aquifers 

were disaggregated to withdrawals from specific aquifers or 

aquifer systems. The results of the disaggregation of Other

aquifers are tabulated in table 4, by state, aquifer or waterbearing unit, and water-use category.

Arizona

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories of use in Arizona were about 3,420 Mgal/d (Hutson 

and others, 2004). About 95 percent of the withdrawals 

(3,240 Mgal/d) were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation uses, and were assigned to three principal 

and Other aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). 

No withdrawals were assigned to Alluvial aquifers in Arizona 

in 2000. Withdrawals from Other aquifers (88.2 Mgal/d) 

accounted for about 3 percent of the withdrawals from principal and Other aquifers in Arizona and were used for public 

supply (58.3 Mgal/d) and irrigation (29.9 Mgal/d) (appendix 

2). No withdrawals from Other aquifers could be attributed to 

stream-valley aquifers in Arizona. All Other aquifer withdrawals were attributed to withdrawals in the Central Highlands 

Province (fig. 3).

Arkansas

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories of use in Arkansas were 6,920 Mgal/d (Hutson and 

others, 2004). About 97 percent (6,710 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, 

and irrigation uses, and were assigned to four principal aquifers, including the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer 

(Maupin and Barber, 2005) (fig. 4, appendix 2). Estimated 

withdrawals from the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer 

were 6,370 Mgal/d, including 6,320 Mgal/d for irrigation, 

40.5 Mgal/d for public-supply, and 5.74 Mgal/d for selfsupplied industrial uses (appendix 2). No withdrawals were 

assigned to Alluvial or Other aquifers in Arkansas in 2000 

(Maupin and Barber, 2005). 

Withdrawals of 24.9 Mgal/d in Arkansas were reassigned from the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer to 

stream-valley aquifers associated with the Red (17.5 Mgal/d), 

Arkansas (7.22 Mgal/d), and Ouachita-Saline Rivers (0.21 

Mgal/d) (fig. 4, table 3). About 77 percent (19.1 Mgal/d) of 

the withdrawals were for irrigation. The reassignment reduced 

withdrawals from the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer 

for the three water-use categories by less than 1 percent to 

6,350 Mgal/d (table 1). 

Colorado 

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories of use in Colorado were about 2,320 Mgal/d (Hutson and 

others, 2004). About 96 percent (2,230 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and 

irrigation uses, and were assigned to five principal and Other

aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). Withdrawals from Alluvial (496 Mgal/d) and Other (114 Mgal/d) 

aquifers accounted for 27 percent of the withdrawals from 

principal aquifers and Other aquifers (appendix 2). Withdrawals were mostly for irrigation from Alluvial aquifers 

(482 Mgal/d), and to a lesser degree from Other aquifers 

(89.4 Mgal/d) (appendix 2).

A total of 552 Mgal/d, 478 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers 

and about 73.9 Mgal/d from Other aquifers (table 1), were 

6 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 7

State Principal aquifer or aquifer group

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day

Original total withdrawals 

(Maupin and Barber, 2005)

Revised total 

withdrawals Difference

Withdrawals 

attributed to streamvalley aquifers

Arkansas Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer 6,370 6,350 -24.9 24.9

Colorado Other aquifers 114 40.5 -73.9

Alluvial aquifers 496 17.8 -478

Sum of previous two differences -552 552

Illinois Glacial sand and gravel aquifers 413 403 -9.58

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer .00 2.44 +2.44

Sum of previous two differences -7.14 7.14

Indiana Glacial sand and gravel aquifers 455 416 -38.5 38.5

Kansas Alluvial aquifers 435 51.0 -384 384

Kentucky Alluvial aquifers 123 21.6 -102 102

Louisiana Alluvial aquifers 6.78 .00 -6.78

Coastal Lowlands aquifer system 1,040 1,040 +2.35

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer 283 284 +1.51

Sum of previous three differences -2.93 2.93

Missouri Alluvial aquifers 176 122 -54.4 54.4

Montana Alluvial aquifers 33.6 26.3 -7.24 7.24

Nebraska Alluvial aquifers 150 147 -2.61 2.61

New York Glacial sand and gravel aquifers 263 259 -4.07 4.07

Ohio Glacial sand and gravel aquifers 421 321 -100 100

Alluvial aquifers 53.0 53.0 .0

Oklahoma Alluvial aquifers 128 1.62 -126 126

Pennsylvania Other aquifers 109 67.2 -42.1

Pennsylvanian aquifers 43.6 15.5 -28.1

Sum of previous two differences -70.2 70.2

South Dakota Alluvial aquifers 40.2 26.6 -13.6 13.6

Tennessee Alluvial aquifers 2.43 0.13 -2.30 2.30

Texas Alluvial aquifers 12.6 .00 -12.6 12.6

Utah Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers 679 678 -0.77

Alluvial aquifers1 31.6 7.5 -24.1

Sum of previous two differences -24.8 24.8

West Virginia Alluvial aquifers 21.5 .16 -21.3 21.3

Wyoming Alluvial aquifers 67.1 57.5 -9.59 9.59

Total estimated withdrawals attributed to stream-valley aquifers 1,560

1

 Withdrawals of 0.77 Mgal/d from Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers were reassigned to Alluvial aquifers in Utah.

Table 1. Summary of original (Maupin and Barber, 2005) and revised estimated withdrawals from principal and Other aquifers, and 

estimated withdrawals attributed to stream-valley aquifers.

[Values have been rounded]
attributed to stream-valley aquifers associated with the South 

Platte (404 Mgal/d) and Arkansas (134 Mgal/d) Rivers, and 

miscellaneous rivers in mountainous areas (14.6 Mgal/d) 

(fig. 5, table 3). The withdrawals were used mostly for irrigation (526 Mgal/d). The revised total Alluvial aquifers withdrawals (17.8 Mgal/d, table 1) were attributed to eolian sands 

and isolated terrace deposits, and were used mostly for irrigation (15.2 Mgal/d, table 3).

The reassignment reduced withdrawals from Other aquifers by about 65 percent to 40.5 Mgal/d (table 1). The withdrawals were attributed to seven bedrock aquifers and were 

used mostly for irrigation (30.1 Mgal/d, table 4). 

Illinois

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories 

of use in Illinois were about 813 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 

2004). About 78 percent (634 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals were 

for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation uses, 

and were assigned to five principal aquifers, including glacial 

sand and gravel aquifers and Other aquifers (Maupin and 

Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). Withdrawals from glacial sand 

and gravel aquifers (413 Mgal/d) accounted for 65 percent 

of total withdrawals from principal and Other aquifers, and 

included 181 Mgal/d for public-supply, 140 Mgal/d for irrigation, and 91.9 Mgal/d for self-supplied industrial uses (appendix 2). No withdrawals were assigned to the Mississippi River 

Valley alluvial aquifer (fig. 6) or Alluvial aquifers in Illinois 

in 2000 (Maupin and Barber, 2005). Total withdrawals from 

Other aquifers were 10.9 Mgal/d (appendix 2). No withdrawals from Other aquifers could be attributed to stream-valley 

aquifers.

Withdrawals of 7.14 Mgal/d for irrigation and publicsupply uses in Illinois were reassigned from glacial sand and 

gravel aquifers to stream-valley aquifers (table 3). The withdrawals were 5.52, 1.19, and 0.43 Mgal/d from stream-valley 

aquifers associated with the Ohio River, the Mississippi River 

below St. Louis, and the Wabash River, respectively (fig. 6, 

table 3).

Withdrawals of 2.44 Mgal/d were reassigned from glacial sand and gravel aquifers to the Mississippi River Valley 

alluvial aquifer (fig. 6, table 1). The withdrawals included 

1.63 Mgal/d for irrigation and 0.81 Mgal/d for public-supply 

uses (table 3). The reassignments of withdrawals reduced total 

withdrawals from glacial sand and gravel aquifers in Illinois 

by 9.58 Mgal/d, about 2 percent (table 1). 

Indiana

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories of use in Indiana were 656 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 

2004). About 76 percent (500 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals 

were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation 

uses, and were assigned to four principal and Other aquifers 

(Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). No withdrawals 

were assigned to Alluvial aquifers in Indiana in 2000. Withdrawals from glacial sand and gravel aquifers (455 Mgal/d) 

accounted for 91 percent of total withdrawals from principal 

and Other aquifers, and included 309 Mgal/d for public-supply, 94.9 Mgal/d for self-supplied industrial, and 50.6 Mgal/d 

for irrigation uses. Total withdrawals from Other aquifers were 

0.10 Mgal/d. No withdrawals from Other aquifers were attributed to stream-valley aquifers.

Withdrawals of 38.5 Mgal/d were reassigned from 

glacial sand and gravel aquifers to stream-valley aquifers 

in Indiana (table 1). The withdrawals were 37.0, 1.19, and 

0.37 Mgal/d from stream-valley aquifers associated with the 

Ohio River, the Lower East Fork White River, and the Wabash 

River, respectively (fig. 7, table 3). The withdrawals included 

33.0 Mgal/d for public-supply, 4.98 Mgal/d for self-supplied 

industrial, and 0.51 Mgal/d for irrigation uses. The reassignment of withdrawals reduced withdrawals from glacial 

sand and gravel aquifers in Indiana by about 8 percent, to 

416 Mgal/d (table 1).

Table 2. Total estimated withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers 

associated with major rivers, by state, 2000.

[Values have been rounded]

State Total estimated withdrawals, 

in million gallons per day

Arkansas 24.9

Colorado 552

Illinois 7.14

Indiana 38.5

Kansas 384

Kentucky 102

Louisiana 2.93

Missouri 54.4

Montana 7.24

Nebraska 2.61

New York 4.07

Ohio 100

Oklahoma 126

Pennsylvania 70.2

South Dakota 13.6

Tennessee 2.30

Texas 12.6

Utah 24.8

West Virginia 21.3

Wyoming 9.59

Total 1,560

8 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Table 3. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial uses from stream-valley aquifers associated 

with major rivers and principal aquifers in 20 States, 2000—Continued. 

Aquifer or water-bearing unit

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day (Mgal/d), 

by water-use category 

Irrigation Public 

supply

Self-supplied 

industrial Total 

Arkansas 

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river 

Arkansas River 3.60 3.60 0.02 7.22

Ouachita-Saline River .05 .14 .02 .21

Red River 15.4 1.81 .24 17.4

Subtotal 19.1 5.55 .28 24.9

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer1 6,300 35.0 5.46 6,350

Total 6,320 40.6 5.74 6,370

Colorado

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river 

Arkansas River 129 3.48 1.25 134

South Platte River 387 5.87 10.8 404

Miscellaneous rivers in mountainous areas 9.85 3.86 .94 14.6

Subtotal 526 13.2 13.0 552

Eolian sands and isolated terrace deposits 15.2 1.86 .74 17.8

Total2 541 15.1 13.7 570

Illinois3

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river (disaggregated 

from glacial sand and gravel aquifers) 

Mississippi River below St. Louis .41 .78 .00 1.19

Ohio River 2.47 3.05 .00 5.52

Wabash River .00 .43 .00 .43

Subtotal 2.88 4.26 .00 7.14

Withdrawal disaggregated from glacial sand and gravel aquifers 

to the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer

1.63 .81 .00 2.44

Total 4.51 5.07 .00 9.58

Indiana

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river (disaggregated 

from glacial sand and gravel aquifers) 

Lower East Fork White River .00 1.09 .10 1.19

Ohio River .14 32.0 4.88 37.0

Wabash River .37 .00 .00 .37

Total .51 33.0 4.98 38.5

Kansas

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river 

Arkansas River 184 26.3 17.8 228

Big Blue River .31 2.91 .00 3.22

Cimarron River 5.08 .51 .00 5.59

Kansas River 3.01 1.53 3.04 7.58

Marais des Cygnes River .00 .05 .00 .05

Neosho River .21 .33 .01 .55

Republican River 64.3 9.40 .10 73.8

Saline River 2.74 .55 .00 3.29

Smoky Hill River 21.2 8.56 .02 29.8

Solomon River 18.9 3.31 .00 22.2

Verdigris River .00 .13 .00 .13

Walnut River 8.90 .57 .05 9.52

Subtotal 309 54.1 21.0 384

Withdrawal disaggregated from areas north of the line of 

Quaternary continental glaciation

18.2 27.2 6.09 51.0

Total 327 81.3 27.1 435

Table 3. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial uses from stream-valley aquifers associated 

with major rivers and principal aquifers in 20 States, 2000. 

[Values have been rounded]

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 9
Table 3. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial uses from stream-valley aquifers associated 

with major rivers and principal aquifers in 20 States, 2000—Continued. 

[Values have been rounded]

Aquifer or water-bearing unit

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day (Mgal/d), 

by water-use category 

Irrigation Public 

supply

Self-supplied 

industrial Total 

Kentucky

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river (disaggregated 

from Alluvial aquifers) 

Ohio River 0.00 40.8 60.9 102

Alluvial aquifers, withdrawals may be from areas north of the 

line of Quaternary continental glaciation

.00 6.35 15.2 21.6

Total .00 47.2 76.1 123

Louisiana

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river 

Red River 2.77 .16 .00 2.93

Alluvial aquifers withdrawals reassigned to a principal aquifer 

Coastal lowlands aquifer system 2.35 .00 .00 2.35

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer 1.51 .00 .00 1.51

Subtotal 3.85 .00 .00 3.85

Total 6.62 .16 .00 6.78

Missouri

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river 

Mississippi River below St. Louis .00 3.24 .29 3.53

Missouri River 1.23 46.6 2.27 50.1

South Grand River .21 .19 .00 .40

Osage River .33 .07 .00 .40

Subtotal 1.77 50.1 2.56 54.4

Withdrawal disaggregated from areas north of the line of Quaternary continental glaciation57.2 55.8 8.52 122

Total 59.0 106 11.1 176

Montana

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river 

Little Missouri River .32 .08 .00 .40

Yellowstone River 5.20 1.54 .10 6.84

Subtotal 5.52 1.62 .10 7.24

Alluvial aquifers, withdrawal not disaggregated 16.2 9.48 .67 26.3

Total 21.7 11.1 .77 33.6

Nebraska

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river 

Big Blue River .00 .00 1.67 1.67

Missouri River .07 .80 .07 .94

Subtotal .07 .80 1.74 2.61

Alluvial aquifers, withdrawal not disaggregated 92.1 49.2 5.94 147

Total 92.2 50.0 7.68 150

New York

Stream-valley aquifer associated with the following river 

Allegheny River .00 4.07 .00 4.07

Withdrawal from Cattarougus County not disaggregated .00 3.37 2.68 6.05

Total .00 7.44 2.68 10.1

10 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Table 3. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial uses from stream-valley aquifers associated 

with major rivers and principal aquifers in 20 States, 2000—Continued. 

[Values have been rounded]

Aquifer or water-bearing unit

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day (Mgal/d), 

by water-use category 

Irrigation Public 

supply

Self-supplied 

industrial Total 

Ohio 

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river (disaggregated 

from glacial sand and gravel aquifers) 

Hocking River 0.00 4.32 0.00 4.32

Miscellaneous rivers and creeks .00 .24 .00 .24

Muskingum River .00 15.7 1.98 17.7

Ohio River .00 23.4 6.73 30.1

Sandy Creek .00 1.32 .28 1.60

Scioto River .00 6.60 .01 6.61

Tuscarawas River .12 17.4 14.2 31.6

Walhonding River .00 8.18 .00 8.18

Total .12 77.1 23.2 100

Oklahoma

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river 

Arkansas River 11.7 11.3 3.03 26.0

Canadian River 8.27 4.59 .01 12.9

Cimarron River 12.7 12.4 .06 25.1

North Canadian River 12.4 11.4 .44 24.3

Red River 23.7 7.81 .02 31.5

Washita River 5.43 .95 .00 6.38

Subtotal 74.2 48.4 3.55 126

Alluvial aquifers, withdrawal disaggregated to isolated terrace deposit 

Enid isolated terrace deposits .29 .58 .00 .87

Gerty Sands .06 .14 .00 .20

Isolated terrace deposits south of the Canadian River .00 .16 .00 .16

Isolated terrace deposits south of the Washita River .00 .03 .00 .03

Odee Formation .36 .00 .00 .36

Subtotal .70 .92 .00 1.62

Total 74.9 49.3 3.55 128

Pennsylvania

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river 

Allegheny River .00 13.0 26.3 39.4

Beaver River .00 1.13 .30 1.43

Delaware River .00 .10 .00 .10

Miscellaneous Rivers .00 .01 .00 .01

Monongahela River .00 .91 2.44 3.35

Ohio River .00 10.4 15.5 25.9

Total .00 25.6 44.6 70.2

South Dakota

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river or creek 

Bear Butte Creek .08 .00 .00 .08

Belle Fourche River .01 .00 .00 .01

Cheyenne River .05 13.2 .14 13.4

White River .05 .05 .00 .10

Subtotal .19 13.3 .14 13.6

Withdrawal in areas north of the line of Quaternary continental 

glaciation (Missouri River) 

24.5 1.88 .07 26.5

Alluvial aquifers, withdrawal not disaggregated .10 .00 .00 .10

Total 24.9 15.1 .21 40.2

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 11
Table 3. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial uses from stream-valley aquifers associated 

with major rivers and principal aquifers in 20 States, 2000—Continued. 

[Values have been rounded]

Aquifer or water-bearing unit

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day (Mgal/d), 

by water-use category 

Irrigation Public 

supply

Self-supplied 

industrial Total 

Tennessee

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river 

Tennessee River 0.00 2.30 0.00 2.30

Alluvial aquifers, withdrawal not disaggregated .03 .10 .00 .13

Total .03 2.40 .00 2.43

Texas

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river 

Brazos River 12.6 .01 .00 12.6

Utah

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river 

Bear River .89 .00 .00 .89

Duchesne River .89 .00 .00 .89

Fremont River 3.12 .00 .00 3.12

Provo River .89 .53 .00 1.42

San Pitch River .00 .22 .47 .69

Sevier River 14.0 3.30 .00 17.3

Weber River .09 .43 .00 .52

Subtotal 19.9 4.48 .47 24.8

Alluvial aquifers, withdrawal not disaggregated but identified 

Box Elder County .00 1.02 .00 1.02

Multiple counties 2.12 .35 .00 2.47

Spring flows from glacial deposits other glacial sand and gravel 

aquifers (Uintah County)

.89 3.12 .00 4.01

Subtotal 3.01 4.49 .00 7.50

Total4 22.9 8.97 .47 32.3

West Virginia

Stream-valley aquifer associated with major river 

Kanawha River .00 .00 .09 .09

Monongahela River .00 .00 .03 .03

Ohio River .00 20.8 .39 21.2

Potomac River .00 .00 .01 .01

Subtotal .00 20.8 .52 21.3

Alluvial aquifers, withdrawal not disaggregated .00 .00 .16 .16

Total .00 20.8 .68 21.5

Wyoming

Stream-valley aquifers associated with major river or creek 

Belle Fourche River 1.15 .00 .00 1.15

Niobrara River 5.77 .00 .00 5.77

Sand Creek 2.66 .00 .01 2.67

Subtotal 9.58 .00 .01 9.59

Alluvial aquifers, withdrawal not disaggregated 40.8 15.7 1.01 57.5

Total 50.4 15.7 1.02 67.1

1

 Total withdrawals from Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer do not equal total in appendix 1 because about 25 Mgal/d were identified to be from streamvalley aquifers associated with the listed rivers. 2

 Total withdrawals are greater than total Alluvial aquifers withdrawals in appendix 2 because withdrawals from Other aquifers are assigned to stream-valley 

aquifers associated with rivers or eolian sand and isolated terrace deposits. 3

 Illinois State Water Survey’s Public-Industrial-Commercial Database was a source of water-use data. 

4

 Total public-supply withdrawals in this table are greater than total public-supply withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers (appendix 2) because 0.77 Mgal/d from 

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers were assigned to Alluvial aquifers. Total withdrawals also are greater.

12 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Table 4. Distribution of estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial uses from aquifers and waterbearing units disaggregated from withdrawals from Other aquifers in 10 States, 2000—Continued.

State Aquifer or water-bearing unit

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day, 

by water-use category

Irrigation Public 

supply

Self-supplied 

industrial Total 

Colorado1 Colorado group 8.38 0.27 0.08 8.70

Dakota-Cheyenne aquifer 11.4 1.93 .20 13.5

Fractured crystalline-rock aquifers 4.08 4.92 .47 9.50

Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer (outside Denver ground-water 

basin)

2.43 .11 .08 2.60

Leadville Limestone group 1.30 .78 .20 2.30

North, Middle, and South Park Basins .57 .33 .08 1.00

Raton Basin 1.92 .55 .39 2.90

Total 30.1 8.90 1.50 40.5

Kansas Admine Group .00 .11 .00 .11

Bedrock .00 .35 .00 .35

Belleville Formation .00 .00 .02 .02

Belleville/Meade/Grand Formation 3.29 .00 .00 3.29

Carlile Shale .00 .02 .01 .03

Chase Group .04 .12 .00 .16

Cheyenne-Jurassic-Triassic .78 .00 .00 .78

Colorado Group .44 .00 .00 .44

Council Grove Group .00 .03 .00 .03

Cretaceous System .00 .06 .00 .06

Douglas Group .00 .01 .00 .01

Glacial Deposits (State defined) 12.3 .49 .00 12.8

Kansas Stage .21 .29 .00 .50

Meade Formation .00 .54 .00 .54

Morrision Formation .24 .00 .00 .24

Neppewalla Group .05 .03 .00 .08

Permian System .14 .00 .00 .14

Stranger Formation .00 .18 .00 .18

Sumner Group .11 .00 .00 .11

Unknown 65.7 2.87 .38 69.0

Wellington Formation .13 .00 .07 .20

Total 83.5 5.10 .48 89.0

Nebraska Pliocene-Pleistocene aquifers 4.12 10.3 1.08 15.5

North Dakota Variously named aquifers, some in counties coincident with 

glaciated regions

2.34 4.28 .44 7.06

Ohio Cambrain-Ordovician and unknown aquifers .06 4.35 1.40 5.81

Oklahoma Atoka Formation .00 .26 .00 .26

Bison Shale .00 .13 .00 .13

Boggy Formation .04 .35 .00 .39

Cambrian System .00 .05 .00 .05

Cedar Hills Sandstone .23 .98 .00 1.21

Chickasha Formation .01 .18 .00 .19

Table 4. Distribution of estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial uses from aquifers and waterbearing units disaggregated from withdrawals from Other aquifers in 10 States, 2000.

[Values have been rounded. Names and descriptions of aquifers and geologic units listed in this table are those used by various U.S. Geological Survey offices or 

supplied by other agencies for water-use accounting purposes and do not necessarily correspond to officially recognized names or denote any official acceptances of these names and descriptions. However, the names and descriptions are included here to provide more detailed information of aquifers and aquifer units 

disaggregated from Other]

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 13
Table 4. Distribution of estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial uses from aquifers and waterbearing units disaggregated from withdrawals from Other aquifers in 10 States, 2000—Continued. 

[Values have been rounded. Names and descriptions of aquifers and geologic units listed in this table are those used by various U.S. Geological Survey offices or 

supplied by other agencies for water-use accounting purposes and do not necessarily correspond to officially recognized names or denote any official acceptances of these names and descriptions. However, the names and descriptions are included here to provide more detailed information of aquifers and aquifer 

units disaggregated from Other]

State Aquifer or water-bearing unit

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day, 

by water-use category

Irrigation Public 

supply

Self-supplied 

industrial Total 

Oklahoma—Continued Cloud Chief Group 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.39

Cretaceous System 8.02 .00 .00 8.02

Dees Formation .00 .01 .00 .01

Dockum Group .09 .00 .00 .09

Doxey Shale .35 .00 .03 .38

Duncan Sandstone .00 .23 .00 .23

El Reno Group .00 .22 .00 .22

El Reno Group .03 .00 .00 .03

Elk City Sandstone 1.03 .91 .00 1.94

Flowerpot Shale .09 .00 .00 .09

Hennessey Group .61 .10 .10 .81

Hoxbar Formation .00 .00 .04 .04

Marlow Formation .77 .53 .00 1.30

Mcalester Formation .00 .04 .00 .04

Post Oak Conglomerate .00 .32 .00 .32

Purcell Sandstone .00 .32 .00 .32

Purgatoire Formation .34 .00 .00 .34

Senore Formation .00 .08 .00 .08

Union Valley Formation .00 .07 .00 .07

Vanoss Group .00 .18 .00 .18

Wellingon Formation .00 .06 .00 .06

Wewoka Formation .57 .02 .00 .59

Whitehorse Group .68 .34 .00 1.02

Wichita Formation .00 .22 .00 .22

Woodbine Formation .00 .23 .00 .23

Total 13.3 5.83 .17 19.3

Tennessee Knox Dolomite .04 .00 .01 .05

Texas Blossom Sand .00 .86 .00 .86

Bone Spring Limestone 204 .04 .00 204

Captain Reef Complex 3.30 .01 .00 3.31

Dockum Group 22.9 4.12 .14 27.2

Ellenburger Group and San Saba aquifer .45 3.75 .00 4.20

Hickory Sandstone 11.7 4.10 .00 15.8

Igneous Rocks .78 4.85 .00 5.63

Leona and Anacacho Formations 22.1 .92 .00 23.0

Marathon Limestone .00 .11 .00 .11

Marble Falls Limestone .20 .95 .02 1.17

Other Undifferentiated 11.4 4.16 2.62 18.2

Rustler Formation 1.26 .00 .00 1.26

Upper Jurassic Series 4.86 .22 .00 5.08

Total 283 24.1 2.80 310

Utah Unspecified bedrock units or basin-fill alluvial aquifers .00 31.7 .01 31.7

West Virginia Appalachian Plateau aquifers and unnamed aquifers .00 1.58 .14 1.72

1

 Total withdrawals from Other aquifers in Colorado do not equal Other aquifers in appendix 1 because some withdrawals were assigned to stream-valley 

aquifers (see tables 1 and 3). 

14 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Kansas

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories of use in Kansas were 3,790 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 

2004). More than 96 percent (3,650 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, 

and irrigation uses, and were assigned to five principal and 

Other aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). Withdrawals from Alluvial (435 Mgal/d) and Other (89.0 Mgal/d) 

aquifers accounted for 14 percent of the withdrawals from 

principal aquifers and Other aquifers (appendix 2). Withdrawals were used mostly for irrigation from Alluvial (327 Mgal/d) 

and Other (83.5 Mgal/d) aquifers. 

Figure 3. Extent of alluvial deposits in Arizona where stream-valley aquifer withdrawals were investigated (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 18, 

p. C7). 

37°

113° 112° 110° 114° 111°

100 KILOMETERS

0

0 25 50 75

25 50 75 100 MILES

32°

34°

35°

36°

33°

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -96°00'

Gila River Santa Cruz Wash

Mormon

Lake

Black

River

Salt

Gila

River

River

Santa

San

Cruz

Pedro

River

River

Plateau

Uplands

Province

Central

Highlands

Province

Basin and

Range

Province

COCONINO

YAVAPAI

NAVAJO

GILA

PINAL

MARICOPA

PIMA

YUMA

LA PAZ

COCHISE

SANTA

CRUZ

GRAHAM

GREENLEE

APACHE

MOHAVE

Little

Little

Colorado

Colorado Colorado

River

Paria

River

River

River

Bouse Wash

Centennial Wash

Virgin River

River Gila

Hassayampa

River

Bill Williams Santa Maria River

Aqua Fria River

Extent of alluvial or eolian deposits

 Mountainous area

 Basin and range area

 Boundary of geographic province

 Approximate southwestern extent of Colorado Plateaus aquifers

EXPLANATION

A R I Z O N A

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 15
Withdrawals of 384 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers 

in Kansas were attributed to stream-valley aquifers associated with 12 major rivers (table 3). Withdrawals from a streamvalley aquifer associated with the Arkansas River (228 Mgal/d, 

fig. 8) accounted for more than half of the total stream-valley 

aquifer withdrawals. About 80 percent of withdrawals from 

stream-valley aquifers in Kansas were used for irrigation 

(309 Mgal/d). The revised total Alluvial aquifers withdrawals 

(51.0 Mgal/d, table 1) were attributed to withdrawals disaggregated from areas north of the line of Quaternary continental glaciation, and were used mostly for public supply 

(27.2 Mgal/d, table 3).

Withdrawals from Other aquifers could not be attributed 

to stream-valley aquifers. The withdrawals were attributed 

to (1) various bedrock units, (2) deposits that are locally 

recognized as glacial deposits, but are located south of the 

Figure 4. Extent of the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer and other surficial alluvial aquifers along major rivers in Arkansas 

where withdrawals were associated with stream-valley aquifers (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 23, p. F8). Withdrawals from stream-valley 

aquifers were identified from a subset of the alluvial deposits along the Red, Arkansas, and Ouachita-Saline Rivers. These withdrawals 

had been attributed to the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer. 

16 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals

l

BENTON CARROLL

BOONE

MARION

BAXTER FULTON

SHARP IZARD

STONE INDEPENDENCE

JACKSON

POINSETT

CRAIGHEAD

LAWRENCE

RANDOLPH

CLAY

GREENE

MISSISSIPPI

NEWTON SEARCY

WASHINGTON MADISON

CRAWFORD

FRANKLIN JOHNSON

POPE

VAN BUREN CLEBURNE

WHITE

WOODRUFF

CROSS

CRITTENDEN

ST. FRANCIS

LEE

PHILLIPS

MONROE

PRAIRIE

LONOKE

PULASKI

GARLAND SALINE

MONTGOMERY POLK

HOWARD

SEVIER

HEMPSTEAD

LITTLE

RIVER

MILLER

LAFAYETTE

COLUMBIA

NEVADA

OUACHITA

DALLAS

UNION

CALHOUN

BRADLEY

CLEVELAND LINCOLN

DREW

ASHLEY

CHICOT

DESHA

PIKE CLARK

HOT SPRING

GRANT

JEFFERSON ARKANSAS

FAULKNER

CONWAY

YELL PERRY

LOGAN SEBASTIAN

SCOTT

A r k a n s a s R

A R K A N S A S i v e r

O u a c h i t a R i v e r

S a l i n e R i v e r

R i v e r

Fort Smith

Little Rock

Surficial aquifer system

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer

Arkansas River alluvial aquifer

Ouachita–Saline Rivers alluvial aquifer

Red River alluvial aquifer

EXPLANATION

36°

35°

34°

94° 93° 92° 91°

90°

75 KILOMETERS

0

0 25 50

25 50 75 MILES Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00'

R e d R i v e r
Figure 5. Extent of alluvial deposits in Colorado where withdrawals from Alluvial and Other aquifers were associated with streamvalley aquifers (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 18, p. C7). Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers were identified from a subset of the alluvial 

deposits. (See fig. 1 for full extent of the High Plains aquifer.) 

River

0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 100 MILES

109° 108° 107° 106° 105° 104° 103° 41°

40°

39°

38°

37°

Colorado

Gunnison

Dolores

River

Yampa

White

River

River

River

Platte

Platte

South

South

River

River

Big

Sandy

Creek

Huerfano

Arkansas

Apishapa

Purgatoire

River

River

River

River

MOFFAT ROUTT

JACKSON

MOFFAT

EAGLE SUMMIT

PITKIN

GUNNISON

LAKE

CHAFFEE

PARK

CLEAR

CREEK

GILPIN

BOULDER

LARIMER

DOUGLAS

JEFFERSON

RIO BLANCO

GARFIELD

MESA

DELTA

MONTROSE

SAN MIGUEL OURAY

SAN

JUAN

LA PLATA

MONTEZUMA

DOLORES

FREMONT

TELLER

EL PASO

ELBERT

PUEBLO CUSTER

SAGUACHE

HINSDALE

MINERAL

RIO GRANDE

CONEJOS ARCHULETA COSTILLA

ALAMOSA HUERFANO

LAS ANIMAS

OTERO

CROWLEY

LINCOLN

ARAPAHOE

ADAMS

BROOMFIELD

WELD

MORGAN

LOGAN

PHILLIPS

YUMA

WASHINGTON

KIT CARSON

CHEYENNE

KIOWA

BENT PROWERS

BACA

SEDGWICK

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -96°00'

Extent of alluvial or eolian deposits

 Mountainous area

 South Platte River Valley area

 Arkansas River Valley area

 Upland plains area

 Rio Grande basin area

 Extent of High Plains aquifer in Colorado

EXPLANATION

C O L O R A D O

extent of Quaternary continental glaciation (fig. 8), and 

(3) unknown (table 4). No withdrawals from Other aquifers 

were attributed to stream-valley aquifers.

Kentucky

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories of use in Kentucky were about 189 Mgal/d (Hutson 

and others, 2004). About 88 percent (167 Mgal/d) were for 

public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation uses, and 

were assigned to five principal and Other aquifers (Maupin 

and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). Withdrawals from Alluvial 

aquifers totaled 123 Mgal/d, mostly for self-supplied industrial 

(76.1 Mgal/d) and public-supply (47.1 Mgal/d) uses. Withdrawals from Other aquifers were 1.24 Mgal/d and used for 

irrigation (appendix 2). 

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 17
Figure 6. Extent of alluvial deposits and the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer in Illinois that were evaluated for possible 

withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 4, p. K3). Some of the withdrawals from glacial sand and gravel 

aquifers were attributed to stream-valley aquifers in a subset of the sediments in the non-glaciated area. 

90o

91o

89o 88o

42o

41o

40o

39o

38o

37o

M ICH IGAN

LAKE

LAKE

MCHENR Y

OGLE CARROLL

WHITESIDE

L E E

PUTNAM

BUREA U

HENR Y

MERCE R

STAR K MARSHAL L

KNOX

HENDERSON

PEORIA WOODFOR D

LIVINGSTON

KANKAKEE

WILL

IROQUOIS

FORD

MCLEA N TAZEWEL L

FULTO N

H ANCOC K

SCHUYLE R

MASO N

ADAM S BROW N CASS

MENAR D

LOGAN

D E WITT

MACO N

PIAT T

CHAMPAIGN VERMILIO N

EDGAR

DOUGLAS

COLES

CLAR K

CRAWFORD JASPER

EFFINGHA M

CLAY LAWRENCE

EDWAR DS

RICHLAND

WAYN WABASH

E

MARION

CLINTON

BOND

MOULTRIE

CHRISTIA N

S ANGAMON

MORGA N PIKE

SCOT T

GREEN E C A L H O U N

JERSE Y

MACOUPIN

M ONTGOMER Y

MADISO N

FAYETT E

S T C LAI R

MONRO E

F RANKLIN

JACKSO N

RANDOLP H PERRY

UNIO N

ALEXANDER

POPE

WHIT E

HARDIN

PULASK I MASSAC

COOK

K ANE

D E KALB

D U PAGE

BOON E

WINNEBAG O J O DAVIESS STEPHENSON

KENDAL L

L A SALLE

GRUNDY

WARREN

MCDONOUG H

SHELBY

CUMBERLAND

WASHINGTON JEFFERSON

HAMILTON

SALINE WILLIAMSON

ROCK ISLAND

l

l

l

H

l

Rockford

Chicago

Peoria

Springfield

Cairo

I L L I N O I S

F o x R i v e r

 

D e s P l a i n e s R i v e

R

r

o c k

R i v e r

W a b a s h

R i v e r

E m b a r a s

R i v e r

K a s k a s k i a

R i v e r

R i v e r

I l l i n o i s

M a c k n a w R i v e r

S a n g a m o n

R i v e r

S p o o n

M i s s i s s i p p i

R i v e r

O h i o

R i v e r

R i v e r

R i v e r

JOHNSO N

GALLATIN

Driftless Area 

0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1972 

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection 

Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian 96°00'

Surficial aquifer system

Sand and gravel aquifers at or near land

 surface, and alluvium along streams and

 rivers

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer

Sand and gravel aquifers buried beneath

 finer grained material

Surficial deposits generally less than 100 feet

 thick, and the occurrence of sand and gravel

 aquifers difficult to locate

Southern extent of Quaternary continental

 glaciation

EXPLANATION

St Louis

18 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Figure 7. Extent of alluvial deposits in Indiana that were evaluated for possible withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers (source: 

Miller, 2000, fig. 4, p. K3). Some of the withdrawals from glacial sand and gravel aquifers were attributed to stream-valley aquifers in a 

subset of the sediments in the non-glaciated area.

LAK E PORTER

L A PORT E S T JOSEPH

D E KALB

NOBLE

A LLE N

STARKE

FULTON

P ULASKI J ASPER

NEWTON

BENTON

CASS

MIAM I

WABASH

WARREN

CARROL L

HOWARD

J A Y

MADISON T IPTON

CLINTON

FOUNTAIN

BOON E

WAYN E

HENRY

MARION HANCOC K

PUTNAM

V E R M I L L I O N

PARK E

VIGO

CLA Y

OWEN

MORGAN

RUSH FAYETT E

GREENE

SULLIVAN

K NOX

DAVIESS

M ARTIN

JACKSON

JENNINGS

RIPLE Y

DEARBORN

SWITZERLAND

JEFFERSO N

SCOTT

ORANGE

DUBOIS

PIKE

GIBSON

POSE Y

VANDERBURGH

WARRIC K

SPENCE R

PERRY

CRAWFOR D

HARRISON

CLARK

GRAN T

OHIO

DECATUR

FLOYD

STEUBE N

ELKHAR T

LAGRANGE

MARSHALL KOSCIUSKO

WHITLEY

HUNTINGTON

BLACKFORD

ADAM S

WELL S

WHITE

T IPPECANOE

MONTGOMERY

HAMILTON

DELAWAR E

RANDOLPH

HENDRICKS

S HELBY

J OHNSO N

MONROE

BROW N

UNIO N

BARTHOLOMEW

LAWRENC E

WASHINGTON

FRANKLIN

l

l

H

l

l

South Bend

Fort 

Wayne

Indianapolis

Evansville

T i p p e c a n o e

R i v e r

M i s s i s s i n e w a R i v e r

R i v e r

W a b a s h

W h i t e

R i v e r

W h i t e

R i v e r

W a b a s h

R i v e r

O h i o

R i v e r

INDIAN A

F o r k

LAKE

MICHIGAN

Surficial aquifer system

Sand and gravel aquifers at or near land

 surface, and alluvium along streams and

 rivers

Sand and gravel aquifers buried beneath

 finer grained material

Surficial deposits generally less than 100 feet

 thick, and the occurrence of sand and gravel

 aquifers difficult to locate

Southern extent of Quaternary continental

 glaciation

EXPLANATION

87o

86o 85o

41o

40o

39o

38o

0 25 50 75 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 MILES

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00'

E a s t

Alluvial aquifers withdrawals of 102 Mgal/d in counties 

south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation 

were assigned to stream-valley aquifers associated with the 

Ohio River (fig. 9, table 3). The withdrawals were for selfsupplied industrial uses (60.9 Mgal/d) and public-supply 

uses (40.8 Mgal/d). The revised total Alluvial aquifers withdrawals (21.6 Mgal/d, table 1) were attributed to Alluvial aquifer withdrawals that may be from areas north of the southern 

extent of Quaternary continental glaciation, and were used 

mostly for self-supplied industrial use (15.2 Mgal/d, table 3). 

Withdrawals from Other aquifers could not be attributed to 

stream-valley aquifers in Kentucky.

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 19
Louisiana

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories of use in Louisiana were about 1,630 Mgal/d (Hutson 

and others, 2004). About 88 percent (1,430 Mgal/d) of 

the withdrawals were for public-supply, self-supplied 

industrial, and irrigation uses, and were assigned to four 

principal aquifers, including Alluvial aquifers, the Coastal 

lowlands aquifer system, the Mississippi embayment aquifer 

system, and the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer 

(Maupin and Barber, 2005) (fig. 10, appendix 2). No withdrawals were from Other aquifers in Louisiana in 2000 

(Maupin and Barber, 2005). Withdrawals from the Coastal 

lowlands aquifer system accounted for about 73 percent of the 

water withdrawals from principal aquifers in Louisiana. 

Withdrawals of 2.93 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers were 

attributed to a stream-valley aquifer associated with the Red 

River (fig. 10, table 3). The withdrawals were for irrigation 

(2.77 Mgal/d) and public-supply (0.16 Mgal/d). Additional 

withdrawals of 3.85 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers were reassigned to the Coastal lowlands aquifer system (2.35 Mgal/d) 

and the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer (1.51 Mgal/d) 

(fig. 10, table 1). All the reassigned withdrawals were for 

irrigation (table 3).

Missouri

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories 

of use in Missouri were 1,780 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 

2004). About 95 percent (1,690 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals 

were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation 

uses, and were assigned to six principal aquifers (Maupin and 

Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). Withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were 176 Mgal/d, accounting for 10 percent of withdrawals from principal aquifers. Withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers 

were for public-supply (106 Mgal/d), irrigation (59.0 Mgal/d), 

and self-supplied industrial (11.1 Mgal/d) uses (appendix 2). 

No withdrawals were from Other aquifers in Missouri in 2000 

(Maupin and Barber, 2005). 

102o 101o 100o 99o 98o 97o 96o

39o

40o

38o

37o

100 KILOMETERS

0

0 25 50 75

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1972 25 50 75 100 MILES

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection 

Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian 96°00'

Topeka

Wichita Dodge 

City

l

l

H l

C i m a r r o n R i v e r

P a w n e e R i v e r

A r k a n s a s

R i v e r

R i v e r

W a l n u t

Ve r d i g r i s R i v e r

N e o s h o

R i v e r

Smoky Hill River

Saline

River

S o l o m o n

R i v e r

R e p u b l i c a n R i v e r

R i v e r

B l u e

B i g

K a n s a s

 R i v e r

Ma ri as de s Cy gn e s R

CHEYENNE RAWLINS

MORTON

STANTON

HAMILTON

GREELEY

WALLACE

SHERMAN THOMAS SHERIDAN

DECATUR

NORTON PHILLIPS

GRAHAM

ROOKS

LOGAN

GOVE

TREGO

ELLIS

WICHITA SCOTT LANE

NESS

KEARNY FINNEY

GRAY

GRANT

HASKELL

FORD

HODGEMAN 

RUSH

SMITH JEWELL

REPUBLIC

CLOUD

OSBORNE MITCHELL

LINCOLN

RUSSELL

BARTON RICE

ELLSWORTH

OTTAWA

SALINE

MCPHERSON

RENO

STAFFORD

PAWNEE

EDWARDS

KIOWA PRATT

BARBER COMANCHE HARPER

KINGMAN SEDGWICK

HARVEY

SUMNER COWLEY

BUTLER

MARION

CLAY

DICKINSON

RILEY

GEARY

MORRIS

CHASE

ELK

CHAUTAUQUA

LYON

POTTAWATOMIE

JACKSON

NEMAHA

MARSHALL BROWN

OSAGE

COFFEY

GREENWOOD WOODSON

WILSON

MONTGOMERY LABETTE

NEOSHO

ALLEN

ANDERSON

FRANKLIN

DOUGLAS

SHAWNEE

WABAUNSEE

DONIPHAN

ATCHISON

JEFFERSON

JOHNSON

MIAMI

LINN

BOURBON

CRAWFORD

CHEROKEE

LEAVENWORTH

WYANDOTTE

STEVENS SEWARD MEADE

WASHINGTON

CLARK

K A N S A S

Coarse-grained glacial deposits, and stream-

 valley alluvium

Till, loess, and fine-grained glacial-lake deposits

Southern extent of Quaternary continental glaciation

Extent of High Plains aquifer in Kansas

EXPLANATION

Figure 8. Extent of alluvial deposits in Kansas where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were associated with stream-valley aquifers 

(source: Miller, 2000, fig. 4, p. D3). Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers were identified from a subset of the alluvial deposits east of 

the High Plains aquifer and outside the glaciated region. (See fig. 1 for full extent of the High Plains aquifer.)

20 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Figure 9. Extent of alluvial deposits in Kentucky where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were associated with stream-valley aquifers 

(source: Miller, 2000, fig. 4, p. K3). Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers were identified from a subset of the alluvial deposits along 

the Ohio River. 

Withdrawals of 54.4 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers 

were attributed to stream-valley aquifers associated with 

the Missouri (50.1 Mgal/d), Mississippi (3.53 Mgal/d), 

Osage (0.40 Mgal/d), and South Grand (0.40 Mgal/d) 

Rivers (fig. 11, table 3). About 92 percent (50.1 Mgal/d) of the 

withdrawals were for public-supply. The revised total Alluvial 

aquifers withdrawals (122 Mgal/d, table 1) were attributed to 

withdrawals disaggregated from areas north of the line of 

Quaternary continental glaciation, and were used mostly for 

irrigation (57.2 Mgal/d) and public supply (55.8 Mgal/d, 

table 3).

Montana

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories of use in Montana were 188 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 

2004). About 91 percent (171 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals 

were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation 

uses and were assigned to five principal aquifers, including 

Alluvial aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). 

Alluvial aquifers withdrawals (33.6 Mgal/d) accounted for 

about 20 percent of total principal aquifer withdrawals. Most 

of the Alluvial aquifers withdrawals (21.7 Mgal/d), which 

originated in alluvium in the eastern half of the state, were 

used for irrigation purposes. No withdrawals were from Other

aquifers in Montana in 2000 (Maupin and Barber, 2005) 

(appendix 2).

Withdrawals of 7.24 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers were 

attributed to stream-valley aquifers associated with the Yellowstone River (6.84 Mgal/d) and the Little Missouri River 

(0.40 Mgal/d) in southeastern Montana (fig. 12, table 3). 

Most of the withdrawals (5.52 Mgal/d) from the stream-valley 

aquifers were for irrigation. Withdrawals of 26.3 Mgal/d from 

Alluvial aquifers could not be disaggregated and assigned to a 

specific aquifer or aquifer system; therefore, the withdrawals 

remained assigned to Alluvial aquifers (table 1). 

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 21
Nebraska

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals in Nebraska 

were about 7,860 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 2004). About 

98 percent (7,720 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals were for 

public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation uses, 

and assigned to four principal and Other aquifers (Maupin 

and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). Withdrawals from Alluvial 

(150 Mgal/d) and Other (15.5 Mgal/d) aquifers accounted 

for about 2 percent of withdrawals from principal and Other

aquifers (appendix 2). Most of the withdrawals from Alluvial 

aquifers were used for irrigation (92.2 Mgal/d); most of the 

withdrawals from Other aquifers (10.3 Mgal/d) were for public-supply use (appendix 2).

Only about 2 percent (2.61 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals 

from Alluvial aquifers in Nebraska were disaggregated 

and assigned to a specific stream-valley aquifer. The other 

approximately 98 percent of withdrawals (147 Mgal/d) 

remained assigned to Alluvial aquifers (table 1). Withdrawals 

from stream-valley aquifers were associated with the 

Big Blue (1.67 Mgal/d) and the Missouri (0.94 Mgal/d) 

Rivers (fig. 13, table 3). Most of the withdrawals were for 

Figure 10. Extent of the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer and the Red River alluvial aquifer in Louisiana where withdrawals 

from Alluvial aquifers were associated with stream-valley aquifers and other principal aquifers (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 23, p. F8). 

Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers were identified from a subset of the alluvial deposits along the Red River.

l

l l

BOSSIER

CADDO

WEBSTER

CLAIBORNE UNION

LINCOLN

BIENVILLE JACKSON

OUACHITA

MOREHOUSE

WEST

CARROLL

EAST

CARROLL MADISON

TENSAS

CALDWELL FRANKLIN

WINN

RED

RIVER DE SOTO

SABINE

NATCHITOCHES

GRANT

VERNON

BEAUREGARD

ALLEN

WEST

FELICIANA EAST

FELICIANA ST.

HELENA

TANGIPAHOA

WASHINGTON

ST.

TAMMANY

ORLEANS

LIVINGSTON

EAST

BATON

ROUGE WEST

BATON

ROUGE

POINTE

COUPEE

IBERVILLE

ST.

JAMES ST. CHARLES

ST. MARTIN

ST. MARY

IBERIA

TERREBONNE

LAFOURCHE

PLAQUEMINES

ST. BERNARD

JEFFERSON

ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST

ASCENSION

ASSUMPTION

EVANGELINE ST.

LANDRY

ACADIA

VERMILION

JEFFERSON

CALCASIEU DAVIS

CAMERON

LAFAYETTE

RAPIDES AVOYELLES

LA SALLE

CATAHOULA

CONCORDIA

RICHLAND

L O U I S I A N A

Mississi pp i Ri v e r

New Orleans

Baton Rouge

Shreveport

Monroe

R e d

R i v e r

Gu lf of Mex i co

Surficial aquifer system

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer

Red River alluvial aquifer

EXPLANATION

94° 93° 92°

91°

90° 91°

89°

33°

29°

32°

31°

30°

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -96°00'

0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 100 MILES

Approximate northern extent of the Coastal lowlands aquifer system

22 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
self-supplied industrial (1.74 Mgal/d) and public-supply 

(0.80 Mgal/d) uses. No withdrawals from Other aquifers 

were attributed to stream-valley aquifers. All Other aquifer 

withdrawals (15.5 Mgal/d) were attributed to undifferentiated Pliocene-Pleistocene aquifers in southeastern Nebraska 

(table 4).

New Jersey

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories 

of use in New Jersey were 584 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 

2004). About 84 percent (489 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals 

were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation 

uses, and were assigned to seven principal aquifers (Maupin 

and Barber, 2005) (fig. 14, appendix 2). No withdrawals were 

assigned to Alluvial or Other aquifers in New Jersey in 2000 

(Maupin and Barber, 2005), and no withdrawals were attributed to stream-valley aquifers.

New Mexico 

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories 

of use in New Mexico were 1,540 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 

2004). About 97 percent (1,500 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals 

Figure 11. Extent of alluvial deposits in Missouri where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were associated with stream-valley 

aquifers (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 4, p. D3). Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers were identified from a subset of the alluvial 

deposits in the non-glaciated area north of the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer, and also from small, unmapped stream-valley 

aquifers in Henry and St. Clair Counties. 

Springfield

Jefferson City

Kansas City

St Louis

H

l

·

l

Osag e

S o u t h G r a n d R i v e r

M i s s o u r i R i v e r

R i v e r

M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r

M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r

O s a g e R

Current

Black R i v e r

M e r a m e c R i v e r

G a s c o n a d e R i v e r

R i v e r

G r a n d

P

R i v e r

l a t t e R i v e r

C h a r i t o n R i v e r

R

CLARK

LEWIS KNOX

SCOTLAND

SHELBY MARION

RALLS MONROE

AUDRAIN

PIKE

CALLAWAY

OSAGE

MONTGOMERY

LINCOLN

WARREN

FRANKLIN

ST

CHARLES

ST LOUIS

GASCONADE

JEFFERSON

WASHINGTON CRAWFORD

IRON DENT

PHELPS

ST

FRANCOIS

STE

GENEVIEVE

PERRY

MADISON

CAPE GIRARDEAU

BOLLINGER

WAYNE

SCOTT

STODDARD

BUTLER

MISSISSIPPI

NEW

MADRID

PEMISCOT

DUNKLIN

RIPLEY

OREGON

CARTER

SHANNON

TEXAS

HOWELL

REYNOLDS

MARIES

MILLER

COLE

BOONE

HOWARD

CHARITON

MACON

LINN

SULLIVAN

ADAIR

PUTNAM SCHUYLER

MERCER

GRUNDY

LIVINGSTON

RAY CARROLL

CALDWELL

DAVIESS

DE KALB

CLINTON

CLAY

HARRISON

WORTH

GENTRY

NODAWAY

ANDREW

ATCHISON

HOLT

BUCHANAN

PLATTE

JACKSON

LAFAYETTE

CASS JOHNSON PETTIS

BENTON HENRY

ST CLAIR HICKORY

CEDAR

POLK

CAMDEN

MORGAN

MONITEAU

COOPER

SALINE

RANDOLPH

BATES

VERNON

BARTON DADE

DALLAS LACLEDE

PULASKI

WRIGHT

WEBSTER

GREENE

DOUGLAS

STONE TANEY OZARK

CHRISTIAN

BARRY

LAWRENCE

JASPER

NEWTON

MCDONALD

M I S S O U R I

Coarse-grained glacial deposits, and stream-

 valley alluvium

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer

Till, loess, and fine-grained glacial-lake deposits

Southern extent of Quaternary continental glaciation

EXPLANATION

92o

91o

90o

95o 94o 93o

40o

39o

38o

37o

36o

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1972

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -98o00'

0 25 50 75 MILES

0 25 50 75 KILOMETERS

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 23
Figure 12. Extent of alluvial deposits in Montana where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were associated with stream-valley aquifers (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 6, p. I3). 

Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers were identified from a subset of the alluvial deposits outside of the glacial region, along the Yellowstone and Little Missouri Rivers.

Great 

Falls

Helena

Butte

Billings

l

l

l

LINCOLN

FLATHEAD

GLACIER

SANDERS

LAKE

PONDERA

TETON

MISSOULA

MINERAL

TOOLE HILL

BLAINE

CHOUTEAU

PHILLIPS

FERGUS

CASCADE

POWELL

GRANITE

WHEATLAND

MEAGHER

RAVALLI

PARK

CARBON

YELLOWSTONE

MADISON

BIG HORN

MUSSELSHELL

ROSEBUD

GARFIELD

DA

WSON

PRAIRIE

CUSTER FALLON

TREASURE

PETROLEUM

VALLEY

DANIELS

SHERIDAN

ROOSEVELT

RICHLAND

SWEET GRASS

POWDER

RIVER

CARTER

LIBERTY

DEER LODGE

JEFFERSON

GALLATIN

BEAVERHEAD STIL WA L TER

MCCONE

WIBAUX JUDITH BASIN

BROADWATER

LEWIS AND CLARK

SILVER

BOW

GOLDEN

VALLEY

Ennis

Lake

Flathead Lake Noxon Reservoir

Tiber

 Reservoir

Holter 

Lake

Canyon Ferry Lake

Fresno

 Reservoir Nelson Reservoir

Fort Peck

 Lake

Tongue River Res

Lake Koocanusa

River Madison

River Gallatin

Je ferson f

Bitterroot er Riv

Fork

River Blackfoot

Clark

Kootenai

River

Flathead

River

Milk R

Marias

Teton

River

Sun

River

Missouri

Smith

River

Missouri

River

Yellowstone

River

River

Milk

River

River

Missouri

Judith

River

River

Bighorn

Riv re

Musselshell

Frenchman Cr

Milk

River

River

River

Tongue

der w Po

River

R. Missouri L.

Yellowstone

River

Redwater

er Riv

Missouri

River

River West

Fork

Poplar

W

Fork

ork F

E

Fork

Clark

River

0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS0 25 50 75 100 MILES

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994Albers Equal-Area Conic projectionStandard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00'

Coarse-grained glacial deposits, stream-valley  alluvium, or basin fillTill and fine-grained glacial-lake depositsSouthern extent of Quaternary continental glaciation

EXPLANATIO

N

M O N T A N 

A

110o 109o 108o 107o 106o 105o 116o 115o 114o 113o 112o 111o 49o

48o

47o

46o

45o

24 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation 

uses, and were assigned to six principal and Other aquifers

(Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). The use category 

with the largest withdrawals was irrigation (1,230 Mgal/d), 

mostly from the High Plains aquifer system (498 Mgal/d), 

the Roswell Basin aquifer system (364 Mgal/d), the Basin 

and Range basin-fill aquifers (164 Mgal/d), and the Rio 

Grande aquifer system (136 Mgal/d) (fig. 15, appendix 2). 

No withdrawals were assigned to Alluvial aquifers in New 

Mexico in 2000 (Maupin and Barber, 2005). Withdrawals 

from Other aquifers were 83.9 Mgal/d and accounted for 

about 6 percent of withdrawals from principal and Other

aquifers for the three uses. No withdrawals from Other

aquifers could be attributed to stream-valley aquifers in New 

Mexico. 

New York

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories of use in New York were 893 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 

2004). About 84 percent (752 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals 

were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation 

uses and were assigned to five principal and Other aquifers 

(Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). No withdrawals 

were assigned to Alluvial aquifers in New York in 2000 

(Maupin and Barber, 2005). Withdrawals from Other aquifers 

(25.2 Mgal/d) accounted for about 3 percent of total withdrawals from principal and Other aquifers (appendix 2). Withdrawals from Other aquifers were mostly for self-supplied 

industrial (15.8 Mgal/d) and public-supply (9.20 Mgal/d) uses 

(appendix 2).

In Cattaraugus County, New York, withdrawals of 

4.07 Mgal/d in an area of glacial sand and gravel aquifers 

were assigned to a stream-valley aquifers associated with 

the Allegheny River (fig. 16). All of the withdrawals were 

for public-supply uses (table 3) and resulted in an estimated 

reduction of withdrawals from glacial sand and gravel aquifers 

by less than 2 percent, to 259 Mgal/d (table 1). No withdrawals from Other aquifers were attributed to stream-valley 

aquifers. 

Lincoln 

Omaha

Scottsbluff

H

l

l

R i v e r

B l u e

B i g

N o r t h P l a t t e

P l a t t e

R i v e r

P l a t t e R i v e

Lr

o u p

R i v e r

E l k h o r n R i v e r

N

S n a k e R i v e r i o b r a r a

R i v e r

M i s s o u r i

R i v e r

Lodgepole Creek

SIOUX

DAWES

SHERIDAN

BOX

BUTTE

MORRILL

GARDEN

DEUEL

CHEYENNE

KIMBALL

BANNER

SCOTTS BLUFF

CHERRY

GRANT HOOKER

ARTHUR MCPHERSON

KEITH

LINCOLN

THOMAS BLAINE

BROWN

KEYA PAHA

ROCK

LOUP

CUSTER

LOGAN

PERKINS

CHASE HAYES FRONTIER

DUNDY HITCHOCK RED

WILLOW

BOYD

HOLT

KNOX

GARFIELD WHEELER

VALLEY GREELEY

SHERMAN HOWARD

DAWSON

BUFFALO HALL

GOSPER

PHELPS KEARNEY ADAMS CLAY

FURNAS

HARLAN

FRANKLIN WEBSTER NUCKOLLS

CEDAR

PIERCE WAYNE

MADISON

STANTON

CUMING

BURT

THURSTON

DIXON

DAKOTA

BOONE

PLATTE

NANCE

MERRICK

POLK

BUTLER

COLFAX DODGE WASHINGTON

DOUGLAS

SARPY

CASS

SAUNDERS

HAMILTON YORK

FILLMORE

THAYER

SEWARD

SALINE

GAGE

JEFFERSON

OTOE

JOHNSON

PAWNEE

NEMAHA

RICHARDSON

LANCASTER 

ANTELOPE

N E B R A S K A

Coarse-grained glacial deposits and stream-

 valley alluvium

Till, loess, and fine-grained glacial-lake deposits

Western extent of Quaternary continental glaciation 

 in Nebraska

Extent of High Plains aquifer in Nebraska 

EXPLANATION

104o 103o 102o 101o 100o 99o

98o 97o

96o

43o

42o

41o

40o

0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 100 MILES Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00'

Figure 13. Extent of alluvial deposits in Nebraska where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were associated with stream-valley 

aquifers (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 4, p. D3). Stream-valley aquifer withdrawals were identified from a subset of the alluvial deposits east 

of the High Plains aquifer and outside the glaciated region. (See fig. 1 for full extent of the High Plains aquifer.)

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 25
North Dakota

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories 

of use in North Dakota were 123 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 

2004). About 91 percent (112 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals were 

for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation uses, 

and were assigned to three principal and Other aquifers

(Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). Most of the withdrawals (76.0 Mgal/d) in North Dakota were derived from 

glacial sand and gravel aquifers (appendix 2). Withdrawals 

from Alluvial (23.2 Mgal/d) and Other (7.06 Mgal/d) aquifers accounted for approximately 27 percent of withdrawals 

from principal aquifers and Other aquifers (appendix 2). 

Alluvial aquifer withdrawals were used mostly for irrigation (15.6 Mgal/d), and Other aquifer withdrawals were used 

mostly for public supply (4.28 Mgal/d).

Withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers in North Dakota 

could not be attributed to stream-valley aquifers. However, 

all withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were disaggregated 

to aquifers and aquifer units that were north of the extent 

of Quaternary continental glaciation and, in some instances, 

identified as being a buried stream channel (appendix 3). 

The relatively small amount of withdrawals attributed to 

Other aquifers (7.06 Mgal/d) was attributed to aquifers and 

aquifer units in areas north of the southern extent of Quaternary continental glaciation (fig. 17, appendix 2). No withdrawals from Other aquifers were assigned to stream-valley 

aquifers.

Ohio

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories 

of use in Ohio for 2000 were 878 Mgal/d (Hutson and 

others, 2004). About 77 percent (676 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and 

irrigation uses, and were assigned to five principal and Other

Figure 14. Extent of alluvial deposits in New Jersey where stream-valley aquifer withdrawals were investigated (source: Miller, 2000, 

fig. 6, p. L3). 

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,1:2,000,000, 1972 

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 2930' and 4530', central meridian 9600'

0 25 50 75 MILES

0 25 50 75 KILOMETERS

l

Trenton

l

Newark

Delaware

River

Hudson R

SALE M

GLOUCESTERCAMDE N

BURLINGTON

A T LANTI C

CUMBERLAND

OCEA N

MONMOUT H

MERCER

HUNTERDON

SOMERSET

W A RREN MORRIS

MIDDLESEX

SUSSEX

UNION

ESSE X

HUDSON

BERGEN

C APE

M A Y

Delaware Bay

Camden

P A SSAI C

 EXPLANATION

Surficial aquifer system

Sand and gravel aquifers at or near land surface and

 alluvium along streams and rivers

Till and glacial-lake deposits—Discontinuous where patterned

Southern extent of Quaternary continential glaciation

75o

41o

40o

81o

N E W

J

E

R

S

E

Y

26 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Figure 15. Extent of alluvial deposits in New Mexico where stream-valley aquifer withdrawals were investigated (source: Miller, 2000, 

fig. 18, p. C7). (See fig. 1 for full extent of the High Plains aquifer.) 

Extent of alluvial or eolian deposits

 Mountainous area

 Upland plains area

 Basin and Range area

 Rio Grande basin area

 Roswell Basin area

 Extent of High Plains aquifer in New Mexico

EXPLANATION

SAN JUAN

RIO ARRIBA

TAOS

COLFAX

UNION

MORA

HARDING

QUAY

GUADALUPE

DEBACA

CURRY

SAN MIGUEL

TORRANCE

LINCOLN

CHAVES

LEA

EDDY

OTERO

ROOSEVELT

SANTA

FE

LOS

ALAMOS

MCKINLEY

SANDOVAL

VALENCIA

CIBOLA

CATRON

SOCORRO

SIERRA

LUNA

GRANT

HIDALGO

DONA ANA

River

Rio

Rio

Grande

Grande

Chaco

Zuni

Res. Bluewater

Lake

Navajo Res.

El Vado Res.

Canadian

River

River

River

Pecos

Pecos

109o 108o 107o 106o 105o 104o 103o

37o

36o

35o

34o

33o

32o

0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 100 MILES

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00'

N E W M E X I C O

BERNALILLO

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 27
BROOME

TIOG A STEUBEN

ALLEGANY

ERIE

LIVINGSTON

W A Y N E

C A Y U G A

S E N E C A

Y A T E S

OSWEGO

ONEIDA

OTSEGO

ALBANY

GREENE

C O L U M B I A

SULLIV A N

ORANGE

Bronx

Kings

Queen s

Richmond

FUL T O N

W ARREN

FRANKLIN

ESSE X

CLINTO N

CHAUT AUQU A

C A T T ARAUGUS

WYOMING

GENESE E

NIAGAR A

SCHUYLER

TOMPKINS

ONONDAGA

HERKIMER

SARA TOGA

R E N S S E L A E R

SCHOHARIE

D ELA W ARE

ULSTER

S T L A WRENCE

SCHE -

NECT A D Y

ORLEAN S

MONROE

JEFFERSON

MONTGOMERY

ROCK- LAND

WESTCHESTER

PUTNAM

W A

S H I N G T O N

HAMIL TON

MADISON

ONT A RIO

CORTLAND C HENANGO

CHEMUN G

D U T C H E S S

LEWI S

Manhattan

Coarse-grained, stratified and ice-contact

 deposits—Includes coarse-grained glacial

 lake sediment and coarse and fine-grained

 alluvium

Fine-grained and unstratified glacial 

 deposits—Includes glacial till and fine-grained

 glacial lake sediments. Glacial deposits locally 

 thin or missing

Southern extent of Quaternary continental

 glaciation

EXPLANATION

L a k e O n t a r i o

L a k e

E r i e

Sacandaga

Reservoir

Seneca Lake

Cayuga Lake

Oneida L

Lake Champlain

S UFFOL K

NASSAU

Long Island Sound

Block

Island

Fire Island

Long Island

l

Buffalo

l Rochester

Alban H

y

l Utica

York City

New

N E W

Y O

R

K

River Genesee

Cohocton R Chemung R

Susquehanna River

Susquehanna River

Chenango R

Erie Canal

River

Mohawk

Hudson River

Hudson

Delaware River

Black

River St Lawrence River

Niagara R

R

Canisteo R

Tioga R

Irondequoit

Bay

Allegheny River

75o 45o

76o

77o

78o

79o

74o

73o

72

44o

43o

42o

41o

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00'

0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 100 MILES

Figure 16. Extent of alluvial deposits in New York that were evaluated for possible withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers (source: 

Miller, 2000, fig. 9, p. M4). Some of the withdrawals from glacial sand and gravel aquifers were attributed to stream-valley aquifers in a 

subset of the sediments in the non-glaciated area.

aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). Withdrawals from Alluvial (53.0 Mgal/d) and Other (5.81 Mgal/d) 

aquifers accounted for about 9 percent of the total withdrawals from principal and Other aquifers. Withdrawals were used 

mostly for public supply from Alluvial aquifers (39.4 Mgal/d), 

and to a similar degree from Other aquifers (4.35 Mgal/d) 

(appendix 2). About 62 percent (421 Mgal/d) of withdrawals 

from principal and Other aquifers in Ohio were attributed to 

the glacial sand and gravel aquifers (appendix 2).

Alluvial aquifers withdrawals (53.0 Mgal/d) could 

not be attributed to stream-valley aquifers in Ohio (table 1). 

Withdrawals of 100 Mgal/d from glacial sand and gravel 

aquifers were disaggregated to stream-valley aquifers 

associated with various streams south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation (fig. 18, table 3). The reassignment 

reduced withdrawals from glacial sand and gravel aquifers 

in Ohio about 24 percent, from 421 to 321 Mgal/d (table 1). 

No withdrawals from Other aquifers were attributed to 

stream-valley aquifers in Ohio. Total withdrawals of 

5.81 Mgal/d from the Other aquifers were attributed to 

Cambrian-Ordovician and unknown aquifers in Ohio 

(table 4).

28 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Figure 17. Extent of alluvial deposits in North Dakota where stream-valley aquifer withdrawals were investigated (source: Miller, 2000, 

fig. 6, p. I3). These sediments were evaluated for possible withdrawals associated with stream-valley aquifers. Although withdrawals 

from stream-valley aquifers may occur in North Dakota, no withdrawals could be definitively attributed to stream-valley aquifers.

Grand Forks l

Fargo l

Bismark H

River

of

the

North

Red

DIVIDE

WILLIAMS

BOWMAN

ADAMS

SIOUX

SLOPE

HETTINGER

STARK

GRANT

MORTON

EMMONS

LOGAN

BURLEIGH

KIDDER

OLIVER

DUNN MERCER

SHERIDAN

MOUNTRAIL

BURKE

WARD

RENVILLE

PIERCE

WELLS

EDDY

BENSON

FOSTER

CAVALIER PEMBINA

WALSH

GRIGGS STEELE

TRAILL

STUTSMAN

BARNES CASS

LA MOURE RANSOM

DICKEY SARGENT

BILLINGS

MCKENZIE

MCLEAN

MCHENRY

BOTTINEAU

ROLETTE

TOWNER

RICHLAND

MCINTOSH

RAMSEY

GOLDEN VALLEY

NELSON

GRAND

FORKS

N O R T H D A K O T A

Lake Tschida

Lake Sakakawea

Lake 

Darling

 Lake

Ashtabula

Jamestown

 Reservoir

Long

Lake

James

River

River

Cedar

Creek

Cannonball

River

River

Heart

Knife

River

Souris

River

River

River

Maple

Sheyenne

Goose

R

Forest R

Park R

R

P

R

embina

Tongue

Missouri L.

Coarse-grained glacial deposits, stream-

 valley alluvium, or basin fill

Till, loess, and fine-grained glacial-lake deposits

Southern extent of Quaternary continental glaciation

EXPLANATION

104o 103o 102o 101o 100o 99o 98o

97o

49o

48o

47o

46o

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00' 0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 100 MILES

Oklahoma

In 2000, total fresh ground-water withdrawals for all 

categories of use in Oklahoma were 771 Mgal/d (Hutson and 

others, 2004). About 89 percent (686 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation uses, and were assigned to nine principal and Other aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). Withdrawals 

from Alluvial (128 Mgal/d) and Other (19.3 Mgal/d) aquifers 

accounted for about 21 percent of withdrawals from principal 

aquifers and Other in Oklahoma in 2000 (appendix 2). Withdrawals were used mostly for irrigation from Alluvial aquifers 

(74.9 Mgal/d), and to a greater degree from Other aquifers 

(13.3 Mgal/d) (appendix 2).

All the withdrawals assigned to Alluvial aquifers in 

Oklahoma were disaggregated (tables 1 and 3). Withdrawals 

of 126 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers were attributed to six 

stream-valley aquifers associated with the Red (31.5 Mgal/d), 

Arkansas (26.0 Mgal/d), Cimarron (25.1 Mgal/d), North 

Canadian (24.3 Mgal/d), Canadian (12.9 Mgal/d), and Washita 

(6.38 Mgal/d) Rivers (fig. 19, table 3). About 97 percent of 

the withdrawals were for irrigation (74.2 Mgal/d) and publicsupply (48.4 Mgal/d) uses (fig. 19, table 3). Withdrawals of 

1.62 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers were disaggregated to 

five isolated, elevated terrace deposits that are disconnected 

from surface-water features but are still classified as Alluvial

aquifers (table 3).

No withdrawals from Other aquifers in Oklahoma were 

attributed to stream-valley aquifers, but withdrawals were 

disaggregated to 31 aquifers or water-bearing units (table 4). 

Most of the withdrawals from Other aquifers were for 

public-supply (5.83 Mgal/d) and irrigation (13.3 Mgal/d) uses 

(table 4). About 42 percent (8.02 Mgal/d) of withdrawals 

from Other aquifers were attributed to the water-bearing unit, 

Cretaceous System.

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 29
Figure 18. Extent of alluvial deposits in Ohio that were evaluated for possible withdrawals associated with stream-valley aquifers 

(source: Miller, 2000, fig. 4, p. K3). Some of the withdrawals from glacial sand and gravel aquifers were attributed to stream-valley 

aquifers in a subset of the sediments in the non-glaciated area.

WILLIAM S FULTON

LUCA S

OTTAWA

WOOD SANDUSK Y

SENECA HURO N

ERIE L ORAI N

CUYAHOG A GEAUGA

LAK E

M AHONIN G

SUMMI T

MEDINA

STAR K

ASHLAN D W AYNE

RICHLAN D

HANCOC K

HARDIN

ALLE N

CARROLL

HOLMES

KNO X

MARION

COSHOCTO N HARRISON

COLUMBIANA

UNIO N

LOGA N

CHAMPAIGN

SHELBY

MIAMI

CLAR K

MADISON

LICKIN G

GREEN E

F AYETT E

PICKAWAY

FAIRFIEL D

PERRY MORGAN

MUSKINGUM

NOBLE

GUERNSEY BELMONT

MONRO E

ATHENS

MEIG S

HOCKIN G

ROSS VINTON

PIKE JACKSO N

GALLIA

LAWRENCE

ADAMS SCIOTO

BROW N

HAMILTON

PAULDIN G

MERCE R

AUGLAIZE

PUTNA M

V A N W ERT

DEFIANCE HENR Y

WYANDOT

CRAW FORD

MORROW

DELAWARE

FRANKLIN

MONTGOMERY

CLERMONT

BUTLER WARRE N CLINTO N

HIGHLAND

ASHTABULA

TRUMBUL L

PORTAG E

TUSCARAWA S

DARK E

PREBLE

JEFFERSON

WASHINGTON

l

l

l

H

l

l

Toledo

Cleveland

Youngstown

Dayton

Columbus

Cincinnati

O H I O

R i v e r

R i v e r

G r e a t M i a m i R i v e r

M a d

R i v e r

R i v e r

R

Creek

River

Sandy

Walhonding

S c i o t o

H o c k i n g

R i v e r

M u s k i n g u m

R i v e r T u s c a r a w a s

LAKE

ERIE

83o 82o

81o

84o

39o

40o

41o

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00' 0 25 50 75 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 MILES

Surficial aquifer system

Sand and gravel aquifers at or near land

 surface, and alluvium along streams and

 rivers

Surficial deposits generally less than 100 feet

 thick, and the occurrence of sand and gravel 

 aquifers difficult to locate

Southern extent of Quaternary continental

 glaciation

EXPLANATION

O h i o

Maume e

30 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Figure 19. Extent of alluvial deposits along major streams in Oklahoma where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were associated with 

stream-valley aquifers (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 11, p. E6). Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers were identified from a subset of the 

alluvial deposits east of the High Plains aquifer. (See fig. 1 for full extent of the High Plains aquifer.)

R e d R i v e r

W a s h i t a R i v e r

N o r t h

Fo r k

C a n a d i a n

R i v e r

N o r t h

C a n a d i a n

R i v e r

B e a v e r

R i v e r

C i m a r r o n

R i v e r

S a l t Fo r k

A r k a n s a s

R i v e r

Ve r d i g r i s R i v e r

N e o s h o R i v e r

O K L A H O M A

l

l

CIMARRON TEXAS

BEAVER

HARPER

WOODWARD

DEWEY

WOODS

ALFALFA

MAJOR

BLAINE LOGAN

CADDO

GRADY

STEPHENS

COTTON JEFFERSON

LOVE

PONTOTOC COAL

JOHNSTON

MARSHALL BRYAN

ATOKA PUSHMATAHA

MCCURTAIN CHOCTAW

CARTER

MURRAY

GARVIN

MCCLAIN

CLEVELAND OKLAHOMA

CANADIAN

KINGFISHER

GARFIELD NOBLE

GRANT KAY

OSAGE

PAWNEE

WASHINGTON

NO

WATA

CRAIG

OTTAWA

DELAWARE

MAYES

ROGERS

CREEK WAGONER

PAYNE

LINCOLN

POTTAWATOMIE

SEMINOLE

HUGHES

OKFUSKEE

OKMULGEE

TULSA

CHEROKEE

ADAIR

SEQUOYAH

HASKELL MCINTOSH

MUSKOGEE

PITTSBURG

LATIMER LE FLORE

CUSTER

WASHITA

KIOWA

TILLMAN

COMANCHE

ROGER MILLS

ELLIS

BECKHAM

GREER

JACKSON

HARMON

Tulsa

Oklahoma City

Norman

1

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

5

6

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

7

6

Alluvium aquifers along major streams

 Salt Fork Arkansas and Arkansas Rivers

 Cimarron River

 North Canadian River

 Canadian River

 Washita River

 North Fork Red and Red Rivers

 Neosho River

Extent of High Plains aquifer in Oklahoma

EXPLANATION

103o 102o 101o 100o 99o 98o 97o 96o 95o

37o

36o

35o

34o

0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 100 MILES

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00'

Pennsylvania

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories of use in Pennsylvania were 666 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 2004). About 55 percent (368 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals 

were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation 

uses, and were assigned to nine principal aquifers, including Pennsylvanian aquifers and Other aquifers (Maupin and 

Barber (2005) (appendix 2). No withdrawals were assigned 

to Alluvial aquifers in Pennsylvania in 2000. Withdrawals 

from Other aquifers were about 30 percent (109 Mgal/d) of 

total withdrawals from principal and Other aquifers, and were 

81.0 Mgal/d for public-supply, 28.2 Mgal/d for self-supplied 

industrial, and 0.10 Mgal/d for irrigation uses (appendix 2).

Withdrawals from Pennsylvanian (28.1 Mgal/d) and

Other (42.1 Mgal/d) aquifers were disaggregated to streamvalley aquifers associated with the Allegheny (39.4 Mgal/d), 

Ohio (25.9 Mgal/d), Monongahela (3.35 Mgal/d), Beaver 

(1.43 Mgal/d), and Delaware (0.1 Mgal/d) Rivers, and other 

miscellaneous rivers (0.01 Mgal/d) (fig. 20, table 3). Withdrawals from all of these rivers were mostly for self-supplied 

industrial (44.6 Mgal/d) and public-supply (25.6 Mgal/d) uses. 

The disaggregation of withdrawals to stream-valley aquifers 

reduced withdrawals from the Pennsylvanian aquifers in Pennsylvania by 64 percent to 15.5 Mgal/d, and withdrawals from 

Other aquifers in Pennsylvania by 39 percent to 67.2 Mgal/d 

(table 1).

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 31
Puerto Rico

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories 

of use in Puerto Rico were 137 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 

2004). About 99 percent (135 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals were 

for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation 

uses, and were assigned to two principal (fig. 21) and Other

aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). No withdrawals were assigned to Alluvial aquifers in Puerto Rico in 

2000. Withdrawals from Other aquifers were 33.2 Mgal/d, 

which accounted for about 25 percent of withdrawals from 

principal and Other aquifers for the three uses (appendix 2). 

Withdrawals from Other aquifers included 16.2 Mgal/d for 

public-supply, 14.4 Mgal/d for irrigation, and 2.60 Mgal/d 

for self-supplied industrial uses. No withdrawals could be 

attributed to stream-valley aquifers in Puerto Rico (fig. 21).

South Dakota

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories 

of use in South Dakota were 222 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 

2004). About 88 percent (195 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals 

were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation 

uses, and were assigned to five principal aquifers, including glacial sand and gravel aquifers, Alluvial aquifers, and 

Other aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). 

Withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers accounted for 21 percent 

(40.2 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals from principal aquifers and 

l Philadelphia

l

Allentown

l

Scranton

H Harrisburg

l

Pittsburgh

l

Erie

ERIE

C R A W FORD W A RRE N

FOREST

MERCER

VENANG O

CLARIO N

J EFF ERSON ELK

BUTLER

ARMSTRONG

B E A V E R

INDIAN A

CAMBRI A

ALLEGHEN Y

WASHINGTON

WESTMORELAND

GREENE F A YETTE

MCKEAN POTTE R TIOGA

C AM E R O N

CLINTO N

L Y COMING SULLIV A N

MONTOUR

CLEARFIELD

CENTRE

UNIO N

SNYDER NORTHUMBERLAND

CO LUMBIA

B LAIR HUN TINGDON

MIFFLIN

JUNI ATA

PERR Y

DAUPHI N

CUMBERLAN D

LEBANO N

SOMERSE T BEDFORD

F U L T O

N

FRANKLIN ADAM S YORK

LANCASTE R

CHESTER

DELAWAR E

MONTGOME R Y

PHILADELPHIA

BERK S

BUCKS

SCHUYLKIL L

LEHIGH

CARBON NORTHAMPTON

MONROE

PIKE

W A Y N E

L UZERNE

WYOMING LACKAWANNA

B RADFORD SUSQUEHANNA

L A WRENCE

River

Juniata River

West Branch

River

River Susquehanna

River

Delaware

River

Lake Erie

Ohio

Monongahela R

Youghiogheny River

Allegheny

Kiskiminetas

Beaver River

Susquehanna River

Schuylkill River

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

Surficial aquifer system

Sand and gravel aquifers at or near land

 surface, and alluvium along streams and

 rivers

Till and glacial-lake deposits

Southern extent of Quaternary continental

 glaciation

Pennsylvanian aquifers

EXPLANATION

80o

79o 78o 77o 76o

75o

42o

41o

40o

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00' 100 KILOMETERS

0

0 25 50 75

25 50 75 100 MILES

Figure 20. Extent of alluvial deposits in Pennsylvania that were evaluated for possible withdrawals associated with stream-valley 

aquifers (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 6, p. L3). Some of the withdrawals previously associated with Other and Pennsylvanian aquifers in the 

non-glaciated area were attributed to stream-valley aquifers. 

32 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Figure 21. Extent of aquifers in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico where stream-valley aquifer withdrawals were investigated (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 71, p. N24). 

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

● ●

●

★

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Puerto Rico

18o30'

18o

67o 30' 66o

0 10 5 15 20 25 30 MILES

0 20 25 15 10 5 30 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital dataAlbers Equal-Area Conic projectionStandard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00'

CARIBBEAN SEA

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Principal aquifers

Alluvial-valley aquifer

South Coast aquifer

North Coast Limestone 

aquifer system

 Upper aquifer

Lower aquifer

Kingshill aquifer

Minor aquifers

Coastal embayment aquifersVolcaniclastic-, igneous-, and

sedimentary-rock aquifers

Confining unitNot a principal aquifer

EXPLANATION

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 33
Angostura Res

Lake Sharpe

Lake

Oahe

Lake Oahe

Mud Lake Res

Columbia Road Res

FALL RIVER

SHANNON

CUSTER

BENNETT TODD

MELLETTE

JACKSON

PENNINGTON JONES

HAAKON

LAWRENCE

MEADE

BUTTE

LYMAN

STANLEY

ZIEBACH

HUGHES

SULLY

DEWEY POTTER

WALWORTH

CORSON

HARDING PERKINS

FAULK

EDMUNDS

BROWN

MARSHALL

DAY

GRANT

HAMLIN

DEUEL CLARK

SPINK

HYDE

HAND BEADLE

KINGSBURY BROOKINGS

MOODY LAKE MINER

BRULE AURORA MINNEHAHA

DOUGLAS

HUTCHINSON TURNER GREGORY

TRIPP

CLAY

ROBERTS

CAMPBELL MCPHERSON

CODINGTON

SANBORN

DAVISON HANSON MCCOOK

YANKTON

LINCOLN

BUFFALO JERAULD

UNION

BON

HOMME

CHARLES

MIX

Rapid City

Pierre

Sioux Falls

l

l

H

Cheyenne

White

Bad

River

River

River

River

River

Big

Sioux

James

River

River Moreau

Grand

Fork

Fork

S

N

R

Fourche

Belle

Bear Butte Creek

River

Missouri

S O U T H D A K O T A

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00' 0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 100 MILES

Coarse-grained glacial deposits, stream-

 valley alluvium, or basin fill

Till and fine-grained glacial-lake deposits

Southern extent of Quaternary continental glaciation

Extent of High Plains aquifer in South Dakota

EXPLANATION

43°

44°

45°

103° 104° 102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97°

Figure 22. Extent of coarse-grained glacial deposits, stream-valley alluvium, and basin fill in South Dakota where withdrawals from 

Alluvial aquifers were associated with stream-valley aquifers (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 6, p. I3). Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers 

were identified from a subset of the alluvial deposits north of the High Plains aquifer and outside of the glaciated region. (See fig. 1 for 

full extent of the High Plains aquifer.)

Other aquifers (appendix 2). About 62 percent (24.9 Mgal/d) 

of withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were for irrigation 

uses. Glacial sand and gravel aquifers provided about 60 percent (118 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals from principal and 

Other aquifers for the three uses. Withdrawals from Other

aquifers were only 1.90 Mgal/d in South Dakota in 2000 

(appendix 2). 

Withdrawals of 13.6 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers

were disaggregated to stream-valley aquifers associated 

with the Cheyenne River (13.4 Mgal/d), White River 

(0.10 Mgal/d), Bear Butte Creek (0.08 Mgal/d), and Belle 

Fourche River (0.01 Mgal/d) (fig. 22, table 3). Most of 

the withdrawals were from stream-valley aquifers associated with the Cheyenne River, mostly for public-supply 

(13.2 Mgal/d) and self-supplied industrial (0.14 Mgal/d) uses 

(table 3).

About 66 percent of Alluvial aquifers withdrawals 

(26.6 Mgal/d) remained assigned to Alluvial aquifers (table 1). 

Nearly all of the revised total Alluvial aquifers withdrawals 

(26.5 Mgal/d) were attributed to Alluvial aquifer withdrawals 

in areas north of the line of Quaternary continental glaciation 

which generally follows the Missouri River (fig. 22, table 3). 

Most of these withdrawals (24.5 Mgal/d) were for irrigation. 

Irrigation withdrawals of 0.1 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers 

could not be disaggregated and assigned to a specific aquifer 

or aquifer system (table 3). 

34 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
S U L L I V A N

JOHN SON

WASHINGTON

G R E E N E UNICOI

H A W K I N S

COCK E

HAMBLE N

JEF F E R S O N

G R A I N G E R

H A N C O C K

C L A I B O R N E

U N I O N

KNOX

SCOT T C A M P B E L L

M O R G A N A N D E R S O N

S E V I E R

B L O U N T

ROAN E

P I C K E T T

F E N T R E S S

J A C K S O N

CLAY

OVERT O N

P U T N A M

W H I T E

S M I T H

L O U D O N

C U M B E R L A N D

M O N R O E

MEIGS

R H E A

BLEDS O E

W A R R E N

POLK

CANNON

C O F F E E

GRUND Y

V A N B U R E N

H A M I L T O N BRAD L E Y

BEDFORD

L I N C O L N

FRANKLIN M A R I O N

MARSHALL

GILE S

W I L L I A M S O N R U T HERF O R D

MAUR Y

H I C K M A N

L E W I S

LAWREN C E

W A Y N E

HARDIN

P E R R Y DECATUR

M C N A I R Y

C H E S T E R

M A D I S O N

H A R D E M A N F A Y E TTE

S H E L B Y

T I P T O N

H A Y W O O D

C R O C K E T T

CARRO L L

H E N R Y O B I O N

G I B S O N

D Y E R

L A K E

B E N T O N

HUMPHREYS

HOUST O N

DICKSON

STEWAR T M O N T G O M E R Y R O B ERTS O N

CHEATHAM

DAVIDS O N

SUMNER TROUSDALE

WILSO N

M A C O N

L A U D E R D A L E H ENDERSON

SEQUATCHIE

CART E R

MCMINN

D E KALB

MOORE

W E A K L E Y

l

H

l

l

Memphis

Nashville

Knoxville

Chattanooga

T E N N E S S E E D u c k

R i v e r

H o l s t o n R i v e r

Lake Barkle y

Kentucky Lak e

M issi ssip p i R i v e r

T e n n e s s e e

R i v e r

C u m b e r l a n d

R i v e r

T e n n e s s e e R i v e r

C l i n c h

L T e n n e s s e e R

French

B r o u d

E l k R i v e r

R i v e r

Surficial aquifer system

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer

EXPLANATION

89o

88o 87o 86o 85o 84o 83o 82o

90o

36o

35o 0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 100 MILES

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00'

Figure 23. The surficial aquifer system in Tennessee that consists mainly of the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer. No 

withdrawals from the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer were disaggregated to stream-valley aquifers. Some withdrawals from 

Alluvial aquifers were disaggregated to stream-valley aquifers associated with the Tennessee River (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 4, p. K3).

Tennessee 

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories of use in Tennessee were 417 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 

2004). About 92 percent (385 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals 

were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation 

uses, and were assigned to eight principal and Other aquifers 

(Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). Withdrawals from 

Alluvial and Other aquifers totaled 2.48 Mgal/d, representing less than 1 percent of total withdrawals from principal 

and Other aquifers (appendix 2). Withdrawals were used 

mostly for public supply (2.40 Mgal/d) from Alluvial aquifers 

and mostly for irrigation (0.04 Mgal/d) from Other aquifers 

(appendix 2). 

Public supply withdrawals of 2.30 Mgal/d from Alluvial 

aquifers were attributed to a stream-valley aquifer associated 

with the Tennessee River (fig. 23, table 3). Withdrawals of 

0.13 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers could not be disaggregated 

and assigned to a specific aquifer or aquifer system (tables 1 

and 3). No withdrawals from Other aquifers could be assigned 

to stream-valley aquifers, but withdrawals were attributed to 

the Knox Dolomite (table 4).

Texas

In 2000, total fresh ground-water withdrawals for all categories of use in Texas were 8,470 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 

2004). About 95 percent (8,010 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals 

were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation 

uses, and were assigned to nine principal and Other aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). Withdrawals 

from Alluvial (12.6 Mgal/d) and Other (310 Mgal/d) aquifers 

accounted for about 4 percent of withdrawals from principal and Other aquifers. Withdrawals were used mostly for 

irrigation from Alluvial aquifers (12.6 Mgal/d) and, to a lesser 

degree, from Other aquifers (283 Mgal/d) (appendix 2).

Alluvial aquifers supplied a small fraction (0.16 percent) 

of total withdrawals from aquifers in Texas (appendix 2). All 

withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers in Texas (12.6 Mgal/d) 

were attributed to a stream-valley aquifer associated with 

the Brazos River (fig. 24, table 1), and were used mostly for 

irrigation (table 3). No withdrawals from Other aquifers were 

attributed to stream-valley aquifers, but all withdrawals from 

Other aquifers were disaggregated to 13 aquifers and waterbearing units, (table 4). About 66 percent of the withdrawals from Other aquifers were attributed to the Bone Spring 

Limestone (204 Mgal/d). About 91 percent (283 Mgal/d) of 

withdrawals from Other aquifers were for irrigation use.

Utah

In 2000, total fresh ground-water withdrawals for all categories of use in Utah were 1,020 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 

2004). About 85 percent (868 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals were 

for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation uses, 

and were assigned to five principal aquifers, including Alluvial 

aquifers, Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers, and Other aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005). Withdrawals from Alluvial 

and Other aquifers accounted for 7 percent (63.3 Mgal/d) of 

withdrawals from principal and Other aquifers for the three 

categories of use (appendix 2). About 78 percent (679 Mgal/d) 

of the withdrawals were from Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers and were mostly for irrigation (439 Mgal/d) and publicsupply (208 Mgal/d) uses. Withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers 

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 35
were used mostly for irrigation (22.9 Mgal/d). Withdrawals 

from Other aquifers were used mostly for public-supply 

(31.7 Mgal/d) (appendix 2). 

Withdrawals of 24.8 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers in 

Utah were disaggregated to stream-valley aquifers associated 

with seven major rivers (fig. 25, table 3). Stream-valley aquifer 

withdrawals were mostly for irrigation (19.9 Mgal/d) and 

public-supply (4.48 Mgal/d) uses. About 82 percent of streamvalley aquifer withdrawals were from the Sevier (17.3 Mgal/d) 

and Fremont (3.12 Mgal/d) Rivers and were used mostly for 

irrigation. 

Withdrawals of 0.77 Mgal/d from the Basin and Range 

basin-fill aquifers (fig. 25, table 1) were reassigned to Alluvial 

aquifers. The reassignment increased withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers for public-supply use from 8.20 to 8.97 Mgal/d 

in Utah in 2000, and decreased withdrawals from Basin and 

Range basin-fill aquifers for public-supply use from 208 to 

207 Mgal/d. Consequently, the revised total withdrawals for 

B r a z o s R i v e r

R e d R i v e r

R e d

R i v e r

P r a i r i e D o g Fo r k

DALLAM

OLDHAM POTTER CARSON GRAY WHEELER

COLLINGSDONLEY WORTH

ARM- STRONG

RANDALL DEAF SMITH

PARMER

BAILEY LAMB HALE FLOYD MOTLEY WILBARGER WICHITA

CLAY MONTAGUE COOKE GRAYSON FANNIN LAMAR RED

RIVER BOWIE

CASS MORRIS

TITUS

CAMP

FRANKLIN

HOPKINS

DELTA

RAINS WOOD UPSHUR MARION

HARRISON

GREGG

SMITH

CHEROKEE

RUSK PANOLA

SHELBY

SABINE

SAN

AUGUSTINE

NACOGDOCHES

ANGELINA

TRINITY

SAN JACINTO

POLK TYLER

JASPER

NEWTON

HOUSTON

DENTON COLLIN WISE

PARKER TARRANT DALLAS

ROCK- WALL

HUNT

ELLIS JOHNSON HOOD

ERATH

HAMILTON

HILL NAVARRO

KAUFMAN

VAN

ZANDT

HENDERSON

ANDERFREE- SON

LIME- STONE

MCLENNAN STONE

CORYELL

LAMPPASAS

BURNETT

WILLAMSON MILAM

BELL

FALLS

ROBERTSON

LEON

MADISON

WALKER

MONTGOMERY LIBERTY

HARRIS

HARDIN

ORANGE JEFFERSON

CHAMBERS

GALVESTON

GRIMES

BRAZOS

BURLESON

LEE

BASTROP

TRAVIS BLANCO

HAYS

COMAL CALDWELL FAYETTE

WA SH ING TO N WALLER

COMANCHE

SOMER- VELL

BOSQUE

ARCHER KING KNOX BAYLOR DICKENS HOCKLEY LUBBOCK CROSBY

YOAKUM

TERRY LYNN GARZA KENT STONE- WALL HASKELL THROCKMORTON YOUNG JACK

PALO

STEP- PINTO

HENS SHACKELFORD FISHER JONES BORDEN SCURRY DAWSON GAINES

ANDREWS

EL

PASO

HUDSPETH CULBERSON

REEVES

JEFF

DAVIS

PECOS

LOVING WINKLER

WARD CRANE

ECTOR

MIDLAND

UPTON

GLASSCOCK

REAGAN

CROCKETT

VAL VERDE

SCHLEICHER

SUTTON

EDWARDS

REAL

KERR

BANDERA

KENDALL

BEXAR GUADALUPE

WILSON

KARNES

LIVE

OAK

BEE

GOLIAD

REFUGIO

ARANSAS

CALHOUN

VICTORIA

DE WITT

GONZALES

LAVACA

COLORADO

WHARTON

FORT

BEND

MATAGORDA JACKSON

BRAZORIA

AUSTIN

KINNY UVALDE MEDINA

MAVERICK ZAVALA FRIO

LA

SALLE

ATASCOSA

MCMULLEN DIMMIT

WEBB DUVALL

JIM

WELLS

BROOKS JIM

HOGG ZAPATA

STARR

HIDALGO

CAMERON

WILLACY

KENEDY

KIEBERG

NUECES

SAN PATRICIO

KIMBLE

MENARD MASON LIANO

GILLESPIE

IRION TOM

GREENE

CONCHO MCCULLOCH

COLEMAN

BROWN

MILLS

SAN

SABA

RUNNELS COKE

STERLING

TERRELL

BREWSLER PRESIDIO

MARTIN HOWARD MITCHELL NOLAN TAYLOR CALLAHAN

EASTLAND

COCHRAN

COTTLE FOARD

HARDE- MAN

CASTRO SWISHER BRISCOE HALL CHILDRESS

HARTLEY MOORE HUTCHINSON ROBERTS HEMPHILL

SHERMAN

HANSFORD

OCHILTREE

LIPSCOMB

T E X A S

G u l f o f M e x i c o

l

l l

l

l

l

H

1

1

2

1

2

Alluvium aquifers along major streams

 North Fork Red and Red Rivers

 Brazos River

Extent of High Plains aquifer in Texas

EXPLANATION

100o 101o 102o

97o 98o

99o

94o

96o 95o

103o

104o 105o 106o

33o

34o

35o

36o

31o

32o

30o

29o

28o

27o

26o

0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 100 MILES

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00'

Amarillo

Dallas Fort Worth

Houston

Austin

San Antonio

El Paso

Figure 24. Extent of alluvial deposits along major streams in Texas where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were associated with 

stream-valley aquifers (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 11, p. E6). Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers were identified from a subset of the 

alluvial deposits east of the High Plains aquifer. (See fig. 1 for full extent of the High Plains aquifer.)

36 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Figure 25. Extent of alluvial deposits in Utah where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were associated with stream-valley aquifers 

(source: Miller, 2000, fig. 18, p. C7). Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers were identified from a subset of the mountainous area 

alluvial deposits, and also from small, unmapped stream-valley aquifers along the Bear and Weber Rivers. 

114o 113o 112o

111o 110o

37o

38o

39o

40o

41o

42o

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00' 0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 100 MILES

Duchesne

River

River

San

Pitch

River

Provo

Bear

River

River

Fremont

River

Sevier

R.

R.

River

River

Colorado

Green

San Rafael

Dirty

San Juan

Lake Powell

Great Salt

Lake

Utah

Lake

R.

R.

Paria

Escalante

Creek

Muddy

River

Weber River

BOX ELDER

TOOELE

JUAB

MILLARD

BEAVER

IRON

WASHINGTON KANE

SAN JUAN

GARFIELD

WAYNE

PIUTE

SEVIER

SANPETE

GRAND

EMERY

CARBON

UINTAH

DUCHESNE

WASATCH

DAGGETT

CACHE

RICH

WEBER

DAVIS

SALT LAKE

UTAH

MORGAN

SUMMIT

Extent of alluvial or eolian deposits

 Mountainous area

 Basin and range area

 Colorado Plateaus aquifers

EXPLANATION

U T A H

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 37
Figure 26. Extent of alluvial deposits in West Virginia where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were associated with stream-valley 

aquifers (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 6, p. L3). Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers were identified from a subset of the alluvial 

deposits.

Potomac River

HANCOCK BROOK E

OHIO

MARSHALL

M O N O N G A LIA W E T ZEL

TYLER M A R I O N

P R E S TON

T A Y L O R

PLEASANTS

WOOD

W I R T

RITCHIE DODDRIDGE

HARRISON

BARBOUR

JACKSON

ROANE

M

A S O N

CALHOUN

GIL M E R

LEW I S

BRAX T O N

U P S H U R

CABEL L

PUTNAM

KANA W H A

CLA Y

NICHOLAS

W A Y N E L I N C O L N

B O O N E F A Y ETTE

M I N G O

LOGAN

WYOMIN G

RALEIG H

SUMM ERS G R E ENBRIE R

MONROE

POCAHONT A S

W E B S T E R

RAND OLPH

PENDLE T O N

TUCKER GRAN T

HARD Y

MINERA L

HAMPS HIRE

MORGAN

JEFFERSON

BERKELEY

MCDO W E L L

M ERCER

VIRGINIA

North Branch

Ohio River

Big Sandy R

Tug

Fork

Kanawha

River New

Greenbrier

River

River

Guyandotte R

Monongahela

River

W E S T

H

l Charleston

Huntington

l

Parkersburg

l

80o

81o

82o

39o

38o

40o

79o

78o

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00'

0 25 50 75 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 MILES

Surficial aquifer system

Sand and gravel aquifers at or near land

 surface, and alluvium along streams and

 rivers

EXPLANATION

Alluvial aquifers in Utah, excluding withdrawals assigned to 

stream-valley aquifers, increased from 6.73 to 7.50 Mgal/d 

(tables 1 and 3), and total Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers withdrawals decreased from 679 Mgal/d to 678 Mgal/d 

(table 1). No withdrawals from Other aquifers in Utah in 2000 

were attributed to stream-valley aquifers, but withdrawals generally were attributed to unspecified bedrock units or basin-fill 

alluvial aquifers (table 4). 

West Virginia

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories of use in West Virginia were 90.9 Mgal/d (Hutson 

and others, 2004). About 56 percent (51.3 Mgal/d) of the 

withdrawals were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, 

and irrigation uses, and were assigned to five principal and 

Other aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). 

Withdrawals from Alluvial and Other aquifers were 

23.2 Mgal/d and accounted for 45 percent of withdrawals 

from principal and Other aquifers for the three uses (appendix 

2). Withdrawals were used mostly for public supply from 

Alluvial (20.8 Mgal/d) and Other (1.58 Mgal/d) aquifers 

(appendix 2).

About 99 percent (21.3 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals 

from Alluvial aquifers in West Virginia were attributed to 

stream-valley aquifers associated with the Ohio (21.2 Mgal/d), 

Kanawha (0.09 Mgal/d), Monongahela (0.03 Mgal/d), and 

Potomac (0.01 Mgal/d) Rivers (fig. 26, table 3). All withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers for public-supply (20.8 Mgal/d) 

were attributed to the Ohio stream-valley aquifer. Withdrawals 

of 0.16 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers could not be disaggregated and assigned to a specific aquifer or aquifer system 

(table 1). Withdrawals of 1.72 Mgal/d from Other aquifers 

(table 4) were not attributed to stream-valley aquifers, but 

38 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Figure 27. Extent of stream-valley alluvium and basin-fill deposits in Wyoming where withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were 

associated with stream-valley aquifers (source: Miller, 2000, fig. 6, p. I3). Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers were identified from a 

subset of the alluvial deposits along Sand Creek and the Belle Fourche Rivers and from unmapped sediments along the Niobrara River. 

(See fig. 1 for full extent of the High Plains aquifer.)

Cheyenne

Casper l

SHERIDAN

BIG HORN

PARK

TETON

WASHAKIE

HOT SPRINGS

FREMONT

SUBLETTE

NATRONA

LINCOLN

UINTA

SWEETWATER

CARBON

ALBANY

LARAMIE

PLATTE

GOSHEN

CONVERSE

NIOBRARA

JOHNSON

CAMPBELL

WESTON

CROOK

Flaming Gorge Reservoir

Seminoe Reservoir Wheatland

Res No 2

Guernsey Reservoir

Glendo

Reservoir

Pathfinder Reservoir

Fontenelle Reservoir

Boysen Reservoir

Keyhole Res

Yellowtail

Reservoir

Buffalo Bill

Yellowstone Reservoir

 Lake

Jackson Lake

R

Bear

Blacks

Fork

Green

River

Laramie

River

River

River

Niobrara

Platte

North

River

Sweetwater

Wind

Snake

River

River

River

River

Belle

Sand

Creek

Fourc

Nowood

he

Bighorn

River

Greybull

River

N

S

Fork

Fork

Shoshone

W Y O M I N G

Stream-valley alluvium or basin fill

Extent of High Plains aquifer in Wyoming

EXPLANATION

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29o30' and 45o30', central meridian -96o00'

111o 110o 109o 108o 107o 106o 105o

45o

44o

43o

42o

41o

0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 100 MILES

were attributed to Appalachian Plateau aquifers along the eastern side of the State and to unnamed aquifers in areas labeled, 

“not a principal aquifer” in the atlas (Trapp and Horn, 1997).

Wyoming

In 2000, total ground-water withdrawals for all categories 

of use in Wyoming were about 541 Mgal/d (Hutson and others, 2004). About 88 percent (475 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals 

were for public-supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation 

uses, and were assigned to six principal and Other aquifers 

(Maupin and Barber, 2005) (appendix 2). Withdrawals from 

Alluvial aquifers accounted for 14 percent (67.1 Mgal/d) of the 

withdrawals from principal and Other aquifers in Wyoming. 

Withdrawals from the Alluvial aquifers were mostly for irrigation (50.4 Mgal/d), public-supply (15.7 Mgal/d), and 

self-supplied industrial (1.02 Mgal/d) uses. Withdrawals 

(3.30 Mgal/d) from Other aquifers accounted for less than 

1 percent of the total principal and Other aquifer withdrawals, 

and were used mostly for irrigation (2.42 Mgal/d) (appendix 2).

About 14 percent (9.59 Mgal/d) of withdrawals from 

Alluvial aquifers were disaggregated to stream-valley 

aquifers associated with the Niobrara River (5.77 Mgal/d), 

Sand Creek (2.67 Mgal/d), and Belle Fourche River 

(1.15 Mgal/d) (fig. 27, table 3). The withdrawals were 

used mostly for irrigation (9.58 Mgal/d). Withdrawals of 

57.5 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers could not be disaggregated 

and assigned to a specific aquifer or aquifer system (tables 1 

and 3). No withdrawals from Other aquifers were attributed to 

stream-valley aquifers.

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 39
Water-Resources Regions

The 21 water-resources regions in the United States are 

geographic areas (hydrologic areas based on surface topography) that contain either the drainage area of a major river, 

such as the Missouri region, or the combined drainage areas 

of a series of rivers, such as the Texas-Gulf Region, which 

includes a number of rivers draining into the Gulf of Mexico 

(fig. 28) (Seaber and others, 1987). The regions were defined 

to provide a standardized base for use by water-resources 

organizations in locating, storing, retrieving, and exchanging 

hydrologic data.

Analysis of withdrawals from Alluvial, selected principal, 

and Other aquifers assigned 1,560 Mgal/d to stream-valley 

aquifers associated with major rivers, creeks, and areas 

where multiple streams are present. Stream-valley aquifer 

withdrawals were identified in eight water-resources regions 

(table 5).

Arkansas-White-Red Region

Withdrawals of 532 Mgal/d were assigned to streamvalley aquifers associated with 10 major rivers (table 5) in five 

states in the Arkansas-White-Red Region. Withdrawals from 

stream-valley aquifers associated with the Arkansas River in 

Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma accounted for 

about 74 percent (395 Mgal/d) of withdrawals from streamvalley aquifers in the region. About 19 percent (100 Mgal/d) 

of the withdrawals were from stream-valley aquifers associated with rivers in Oklahoma. About 80 percent (423 Mgal/d) 

of the withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers in the region 

were used for irrigation (table 5).

Figure 28. Water-resources regions of the United States (Seaber and others, 1987).

40 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals

70o

0 500 KILOMETERS

0 500 MILES 

100o

90o

0 20 MILES

0 20 KILOMETERS

18o

67o 66o 65o 18o30' 30'

120o

110o

30o

0 100 KILOMETERS

0 100 MILES

40o

160o

155o

22o

20o

80o

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

Caribbean

Sea

PACIFIC OCEAN 160o 150o

140o

130o

180o

60o

70o

170o

0 500 KILOMETERS

0 500 MILES

Bering

Sea

Gulf of

Alaska

Boundary of water-resources region

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 

 1:2,000,000, 1972 

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection 

Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian 96°00'

Water-resources region and number TEXAS–GULF

(12)

PACIFIC

NORTHWEST

(17)

GREAT

BASIN

(16)

TEXAS–GULF

(12)

SOUTH

ATLANTIC–

GULF

(03)

LOWER

MISSISSIPPI

(08)

ALASKA

(19) HAWAII

(20)

CARIBBEAN (21)

MISSOURI

(10)

UPPER

MISSISSIPPI

(07)

SOURIS–RED–

RAINY (09)

OHIO (05)

TENNESSEE

(06)

MID–

ATLANTIC

(02)

NEW

ENGLAND

(01)

GREAT

LAKES

(04)

ARKANSAS–WHITE–RED

(11)

UPPER

COLORADO

(14)

LOWER

COLORADO

(15)

RIO

GRANDE

(13)

CALIFORNIA

(18)
Table 5. Estimated withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers associated with major rivers, creeks, and areas by waterresources region, 2000—Continued. 

Major river, creek, or area

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day, by water-use category

Irrigation Public supply Self-supplied industrial Total 

Arkansas-White-Red Region

Arkansas River 328 44.6 22.1 395

Canadian River 8.27 4.59 .01 12.9

Cimarron River 17.8 12.9 .06 30.7

Neosho River .21 .33 .01 .55

North Canadian River 12.4 11.4 .44 24.3

Ouachita-Saline River .05 .14 .02 .21

Red River 41.9 9.78 .26 51.9

Verdigris River .00 .13 .00 .13

Walnut River 8.90 .57 .05 9.52

Washita River 5.43 .95 .00 6.38

Total 423 85.4 22.9 532

Mid-Atlantic Region

Delaware River .00 .10 .00 .10

Potomac River .00 .00 .01 .01

Total .00 .10 .01 .11

Missouri Region

Bear Butte Creek .08 .00 .00 .08

Belle Fourche River 1.16 .00 .00 1.16

Big Blue River .31 2.91 1.67 4.89

Cheyenne River .05 13.2 .14 13.4

Kansas River 3.01 1.53 3.04 7.58

Little Missouri River .32 .08 .00 .40

Marais des Cygnes River .00 .05 .00 .05

Missouri River 1.30 47.4 2.34 51.0

Niobrara River 5.77 .00 .00 5.77

Osage River .33 .07 .00 .40

Republican River 64.3 9.40 .10 73.8

Saline River 2.74 .55 .00 3.29

Sand Creek 2.66 .00 .01 2.67

Smoky Hill River 21.2 8.56 .02 29.8

Solomon River 18.9 3.31 .00 22.2

South Grand River .21 .19 .00 .40

South Platte River 387 5.87 10.8 404

White River .05 .05 .00 .10

Yellowstone River 5.20 1.54 .10 6.84

Total 515 94.7 18.2 628

Ohio Region

Allegheny River .00 17.1 26.3 43.5

Beaver River .00 1.13 .30 1.43

Hocking River .00 4.32 .00 4.32

Kanawha River .00 .00 .09 .09

Lower East Fork White River .00 1.09 .10 1.19

Miscellaneous rivers and creeks .00 .25 .00 .25

Monongahela River .00 .91 2.47 3.38

Muskingum River .00 15.7 1.98 17.7

Ohio River 2.61 130 88.4 221

Sandy Creek .00 1.32 .28 1.60

Scioto River .00 6.60 .01 6.61

Tuscarawas River .12 17.4 14.2 31.7

Wabash River .37 .43 .00 .80

Walhonding River .00 8.18 .00 8.18

Total 3.1 205 134 342

Table 5. Estimated withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers associated with major rivers, creeks, and areas by waterresources region, 2000.

[Values are rounded]

Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers 41
Table 5. Estimated withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers associated with major rivers, creeks, and areas by waterresources region, 2000—Continued. 

[Values are rounded]

Major river, creek, or area

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day, by water-use category

Irrigation Public supply Self-supplied industrial Total 

Tennessee Region

Tennessee River 0.00 2.30 0.00 2.30

Texas-Gulf Region

Brazos River 12.6 .01 .00 12.6

Upper Colorado Region

Bear River .89 .00 .00 .89

Duchesne River .89 .00 .00 .89

Fremont River 3.12 .00 .00 3.12

Provo River .89 .53 .00 1.42

San Pitch River .00 .22 .47 .69

Sevier River 14.0 3.30 .00 17.3

Miscellaneous rivers in mountainous areas9.85 3.86 .94 14.7

Weber River .09 .43 .00 .52

Total 29.7 8.34 1.41 39.5

Upper Mississippi Region

Mississippi River below St. Louis .41 4.02 .29 4.72

Grand Total 984 400 177 1,560

Mid-Atlantic Region

Withdrawals of 0.11 Mgal/d were assigned to streamvalley aquifers in the Mid-Atlantic Region (table 5). Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers were associated with 

the Delaware River (0.10 Mgal/d) in Pennsylvania and 

the Potomac River (0.01 Mgal/d) in West Virginia. About 

91 percent (0.10 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals were used for 

public-supply uses (table 5).

Missouri Region

Withdrawals of 628 Mgal/d were assigned to streamvalley aquifers associated with 20 rivers or creeks (table 5) 

in seven states in the Missouri Region. Withdrawals from 

stream-valley aquifers associated with the South Platte River 

in Colorado were 404 Mgal/d and accounted for about 64 percent of withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers in the region. 

About 82 percent (515 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals were used 

for irrigation (table 5). 

Ohio Region

Withdrawals of 342 Mgal/d were assigned to streamvalley aquifers associated with 13 rivers and creeks (table 5) 

and a group of three rivers and creeks (miscellaneous rivers 

and creeks) in seven states in the Ohio Region. Withdrawals 

from stream-valley aquifers associated with the Ohio River 

in six states accounted for about 65 percent (221 Mgal/d) of 

withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers in the region. About 

59 percent (202 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals were from streamvalley aquifers in Kentucky and Ohio. About 60 percent 

(205 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers 

in the region were used for public supply (table 5).

Tennessee Region

Withdrawals of 2.30 Mgal/d were assigned to streamvalley aquifers (table 5) associated with the Tennessee River in 

the Tennessee Region. All of the withdrawals were for publicsupply uses in Tennessee.

Texas-Gulf Region

Withdrawals of 12.6 Mgal/d were assigned to streamvalley aquifers (table 5) associated with the Brazos River in 

the Texas-Gulf Region. Almost all of the withdrawals were for 

irrigation uses in Texas.

Upper Colorado Region

Withdrawals of 39.5 Mgal/d were assigned to streamvalley aquifers in the Upper Colorado Region (table 5). Only 

the states of Colorado and Utah have stream-valley aquifer 

withdrawals in this region. The stream-valley aquifers were 

associated with seven major rivers in Utah and miscellaneous rivers in mountainous areas in Colorado. Withdrawals 

42 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
from stream-valley aquifers associated with the Sevier River 

accounted for about 44 percent (17.3 Mgal/d) of withdrawals 

from stream-valley aquifers in the region. About 75 percent 

(29.7 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers 

in the region were used for irrigation (table 5).

Upper Mississippi Region

Withdrawals of 4.72 Mgal/d were assigned to streamvalley aquifers associated with the Mississippi River below 

St. Louis in Illinois and Missouri in the Upper Mississippi 

Region (table 5). About 85 percent (4.02 Mgal/d) of the withdrawals were for public-supply uses (table 5).

Summary

The U.S. Geological Survey National Water Use Information Program compiles estimates of fresh ground-water 

withdrawals in the United States on a 5-year interval. In the 

year-2000 compilation, withdrawals were reported from 

principal aquifers and aquifer systems, including two general 

aquifers—Alluvial and Other aquifers. Withdrawals from

Alluvial and Other aquifers were the 10th and 11th largest 

within the ranking of total withdrawals from principal aquifers 

and aquifer systems. Further differentiation and identification 

of water-use data categorized by Alluvial and Other aquifers 

was needed to determine whether another potentially important group of aquifers—stream-valley aquifers—provides 

substantial amounts of water for public-supply, self-supplied 

industrial, and irrigation uses. In 2004, an investigation 

was initiated to estimate withdrawals from stream-valley 

aquifers. In addition to examining Alluvial and Other aquifers, 

the investigation examined selected principal aquifers where 

appropriate. 

Stream-valley aquifers are alluvial aquifers located in 

the valleys of major streams and rivers. Stream-valley 

aquifers are long but narrow aquifers that are in direct hydraulic connection with associated streams; they have limited 

extent compared to most principal aquifers, but are important 

sources of ground water. Withdrawals from this widespread 

aquifer group were not specifically identified in the year-2000 

compilation. 

Based in large part on information published in U.S. 

Geological Survey reports, preliminary analysis of withdrawal 

data and hydrogeologic and surface-water information indicated areas in the United States where possible stream-valley 

aquifers were located. The report focused on 24 states and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Withdrawals reported from 

Alluvial aquifers and (or) Other aquifers in 22 states and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico were investigated. Two additional states—Arkansas and New Jersey—were investigated 

because withdrawals reported from other principal aquifers in 

these two states may be from stream-valley aquifers.

States in the study area were selected by generally 

excluding areas that lie completely within the maximum extent 

of Quaternary continental glaciation, areas west of the Rocky 

Mountain/Colorado Plateau region, and areas coincident with 

the North Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer systems, Basin and 

Range basin-fill aquifers, and Northern Rocky Mountains 

Intermontane Basins aquifer system. In these excluded areas, 

stream-valley aquifers and their withdrawals typically cannot 

be differentiated from other principal aquifers consisting of the 

same types of materials.

Twenty states were determined to have withdrawals 

from stream-valley aquifers. The results of the analysis 

indicate that stream-valley aquifer withdrawals (about 

1,560 Mgal/d) are comparable to withdrawals from the 10th 

most productive principal aquifers in the United States. Of 

the 1,560 Mgal/d of withdrawals attributed to stream-valley 

aquifers, 1,240 Mgal/d were disaggregated from Alluvial aquifers, 116 Mgal/d from Other aquifers, 150 Mgal/d from glacial 

sand and gravel aquifers, 28.1 Mgal/d from Pennsylvanian 

aquifers, and 24.9 Mgal/d from the Mississippi River Valley 

alluvial aquifer.

Five states, including Colorado (552 Mgal/d), Kansas (384 Mgal/d), Oklahoma (126 Mgal/d), Kentucky 

(102 Mgal/d), and Ohio (100 Mgal/d), accounted for 81 

percent of estimated stream-valley aquifer withdrawals. Of 

the total withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers, about 

63 percent (984 Mgal/d) were used for irrigation, 26 percent 

(400 Mgal/d) were used for public-supply, and 11 percent 

(177 Mgal/d) were for self-supplied industrial uses. The largest estimated water withdrawals were from stream-valley aquifers associated with the South Platte (404 Mgal/d), Arkansas 

(395 Mgal/d), and Ohio (221 Mgal/d) Rivers.

The estimates of stream-valley aquifer withdrawals 

presented in this report represent an approximation of the 

minimum rate of withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers 

in the United States; nevertheless, this estimate provides a 

quantitative assessment on their importance. As such, this 

estimate may be useful for researchers evaluating groundwater resources at regional and national scales.

References Cited

Agnew, A. F., Tipton, M.J., and Steece, F.V., 1962, South 

Dakota’s ground water needs and supplies: South Dakota 

State Geological Survey, MI-04, accessed December 3, 

2004, at URL http://jurassic2.sdgs.usd.edu/pubs/pdf/

MI-04%20-%2024%20pages.pdf. 

Bowman, J.A., and Collins, M.A., 1987, Impacts of irrigation 

and drought on Illinois ground-water resources: Illinois 

State Water Survey, Report of Investigation 109, 31 p. 

Burden, C.B., 2001, Ground-water conditions in Utah, spring 

of 2001: Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division 

of Water Resources, Cooperative Investigations Report 

no. 42, 120 p.

References Cited 43
Fenelon, J.M., Bobay, K.E., Greeman, T.K., Hoover, M.E., 

Cohen, D.A., Fowler, K.K., Woodfield, M.C., Doss, P.K., 

and Durbin, J.M., 1994, Hydrogeologic atlas of aquifers 

in Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 92–4142, 197 p.

Heath, R.C., 1984, Ground-water regions of the United States: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2242, 78 p.

Hutson, S.S., Barber, N.L., Kenny, J.F., Linsey, K.S., Lumia, 

D.S., and Maupin, M.A., 2004, Estimated use of water in 

the United States in 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1268, 46 p., accessed October 5, 2004, at URL http://water.

usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268

Kenny, J.F., ed., 2004, Guidelines for preparation of state 

water-use estimates for 2000: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques and Methods 4-4A, 49 p., accessed February 9, 

2006, at URL http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/tm4a4/

Lapham, W.W., Hamilton, P.A., and Myers, D.N., 2005, 

National Water-Quality Assessment Program—Cycle II 

Regional Assessments of Aquifers: U.S. Geological Survey 

Fact Sheet 2005-3013, 4 p., accessed September 28, 2006, 

at URL http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3013 

Lloyd, O.B. Jr., and Lyke, W.L., 1995, Ground water atlas of 

the United States, Segment 10, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, 

Ohio, and Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic 

Investigations Atlas 730-K, 30 p.

Maupin, M.A., and Barber, N.L., 2005, Estimated withdrawals from principal aquifers in the United States, 2000: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1279, 46 p., accessed September 13, 2006, at URL http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1279

Miller, J.A., ed., 2000, Ground water atlas of the United 

States: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations 

Atlas 730, 404 p.

Miller, J.A., and Appel, C.L., 1997, Ground water atlas of the 

United States, Segment 3, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska: 

U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 

730-D, 24 p.

Miller, J.A., Whitehead, R.L., Gingerich, S.B., Oki, D.S., and 

Olcott, P.G., 1999, Ground water atlas of the United States, 

Segment 13, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-N, 36 p.

Molina-Rivera, W.L., 2005, Estimated water use in Puerto 

Rico, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2005-1201, 26 p., accessed September 13, 2006, at URL

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1201/

Nebraska Department of Economic Development, 2004, 

2004 Nebraska Manufacturers Directory, accessed September 14, 2006, at URL http://pio.neded.org/manufacture/

index.htm 

North Dakota State Water Commission, 2007, Reports 

and Publications: accessed December 5, 2007, at 

URL http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcgi/

GetSubCategoryRecord/Reports%20and%20Publications/

County%20Ground%20Water%20Studies

Northern Arizona University, 1999, Arizona Regional Geology: accessed June 22, 2006, at URL http://dana.ucc.nau.

edu/~are-p/road_map/eco/geology.html 

Office of Management and Budget, 1987, Standard industrial 

classification manual: Washington D.C., Executive Office 

of the President, U.S. Government Printing Office, 64 p.

Ohio State University, 2008, Ohioline—Environment: College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, 

accessed January 7, 2008, at URL http://ohioline.osu.edu/

lines/ennr.html

Olcott, P.G., 1995, Ground water atlas of the United States—

Segment 12, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont: U.S. 

Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-M, 

28 p.

Renken, R.A., 1998, Ground water atlas of the United States, 

Segment 5, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi: U.S. 

Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-F, 

28 p.

Robson, S.G., and Banta, E.R., 1995, Ground water atlas of 

the United States, Segment 2, Arizona, Colorado, New 

Mexico, and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic 

Investigations Atlas 730-C, 32 p.

Rosenshein, J.S., 1988, Chapter 21: Region 18, Alluvial 

valleys, in Back, William, Rosenshein, J.S., and Seaber, 

P.R., eds., Hydrogeology-The geology of North America, 

Volume O-2: Boulder, Colorado, The Geological Society of 

America, 524 p.

Ryder P.D., 1996, Ground water atlas of the United States, 

Segment 4, Oklahoma and Texas: U.S. Geological Survey 

Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-E, 30 p.

Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1987, Hydrologic unit maps: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2294, 63 p., 1 pl. accessed October 12, 2006, at URL 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/wsp2294/pdf/wsp_2294.pdf

Trapp, Henry, Jr., and Horn, M.A., 1997, Ground water atlas 

of the United States, Segment 11, Delaware, Maryland, New 

Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West 

Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations 

Atlas 730-L, 24 p.

U.S, Department of Agriculture, 1987, Photo gallery: Natural Resources Conservation Service, accessed January 14, 

2008, at URL http://photogallery.nrcs.usda.gov/Detail.asp

44 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
U.S, Department of Agriculture, 2002, Photo gallery: Natural Resources Conservation Service, accessed January 14, 

2008, at URL http://photogallery.nrcs.usda.gov/Detail.asp

U.S. Geological Survey, 1998, National Water Information 

System (NWIS): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 

FS-027-98, 2 p., accessed February 6, 2007, at URL 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/FS-027-98

U.S. Geological Survey, 2003, Principal aquifers of the 48 

conterminous United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands: U.S. Geological Survey 1:2,500,000 

digital data, accessed February 7, 2007, at URL http://www.

nationalatlas.gov/wallmaps.html#aquifers

Utah Division of Water Rights, 2003, Utah water use program: 

accessed February 7, 2007, at URL http://waterrights.utah.

gov/distinfo/wuse.asp 

Utah Geological Survey, 2005, Utah Geological Survey: 

accessed September 22, 2006, at URL http://geology.utah.

gov/ 

Whitehead, R.L., 1996, Ground water atlas of the United 

States, Segment 8, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota 

and Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-I, 24 p.

References Cited 45
Blank Page
Appendix 1 Appendix 1
Blank Page
Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state—Continued. 

[Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

State Sources of information Methods of analysis

Arizona No information. Arizona is typical of most southwestern states with principal aquifers that are generally thick and continuous. Aquifers with these characteristics may offer sufficient supplies from deep levels, but locally may be 

under declining and stressed conditions. Ground-water withdrawals were assigned to principal aquifers using a method that compared the boundaries of HUC’s, or river basin boundaries with the boundaries of the aquifers. The boundaries of the two compared relatively well, and ground-water withdrawals were assigned to the respective aquifers. Parts of some river basins were located within the extent of more than one aquifer, which required sites to be closely examined to determine which aquifer was the source of water. Arizona did not report withdrawals for Alluvial aquifers because the Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers are 

composed of unconsolidated sand and gravel material and would make the distinction of withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers impossible to identify (fig. 3). Parts of Arizona are illustrated in the atlas as mountainous area (fig. 3). In other states, mountainous area was associated with a stream-valley aquifer; however, the mountainous area deposits in Arizona are coincident with the Colorado Plateaus aquifers, a sandstone principal aquifer. No disaggregation of stream-valley aquifers was made from this principal aquifer. 

A substantial amount of ground water (88.2 Mgal/d), most of which was used for public-supply (58.3 Mgal/d), 

was reported from Other (appendix 2). No conclusive data were present that indicated that withdrawals from Other aquifers could be attributed to a stream-valley aquifer. Arizona has been defined by two geographic provinces, the Plateau Uplands Province, and the Basin and Range Province (Robson and Banta, 1995, p. C6, fig. 1). A transitional region called the Central Highlands Province is located between the two Provinces. This transitional region contains similar features to the two other provinces such as mountain ranges separated by basins (Northern Arizona University, 1999). Ground-water withdrawals from Other

aquifers (88.2 Mgal/d) (fig. 3, appendix 2) were determined to be from the Central Highlands Province and not associated with a stream-valley aquifer (table 4) (Saeid Tadayon, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2005). 

Arkansas The Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission 

(ASWCC) monitors water-use data in Arkansas in cooperation with the USGS. Water users that withdraw more than 0.05 Mgal/d from ground water must report their water use to ASWCC by completing a wateruse registration form. Public supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation users complete these forms. In addition, the Arkansas Department of Health, Division of Engineering, supplements the public-supply information, and the Arkansas Industrial Development Foundation supplements the information about selfsupplied industries. 

The atlas lists and illustrates three stream-valley aquifers in addition to the Mississippi River Valley alluvial

aquifer (Renken, 1998, p. F8, fig. 23). Alluvial aquifers associated with the Arkansas, Ouachita-Saline, and Red Rivers have characteristics that typify stream valley aquifers, and for this study withdrawals were assigned to them from the total reported for the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer. Twenty-eight of 75 counties in Arkansas were identified as having potential stream-valley aquifer withdrawals. The Red stream-valley aquifer is present in Lafayette, Miller, Columbia, Little River, Hempstead, Sevier, and Howard counties (fig. 4). The Ouachita-Saline stream-valley aquifer is present in Pike, Hempstead, Hot Springs, Clark, Nevada, Dallas, Ouachita, Calhoun, Union, Saline, Grant, Cleveland, Bradley, Lincoln, and Drew counties. The Arkansas stream-valley aquifer is present in Crawford, Sebastian, Franklin, Logan, Johnson, Pope, Yell, Perry, Conway, Pulaski, and Faulkner counties. In Pulaski County, site-specific data were used to disaggregate withdrawals from the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer to stream-valley aquifers associated with the Arkansas River. Withdrawals originally attributed to the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer in counties where the Arkansas, the Ouachita-Saline, and the Red Rivers are present (and the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer is absent), were considered for reassignment to stream-valley aquifers associated with the Arkansas, Ouachita-Saline, and Red Rivers. The ages of deposits (Recent, Holocene, and Pleistocene) also were used to identify and separate wells screened in potential stream-valley aquifer deposits. In certain instances, withdrawals were evaluated from specific wells to determine whether the source was from a stream-valley aquifer or an isolated alluvial deposit. Eight-digit HUC information associated with each well was used to verify that wells were located within watersheds associated with stream-valley aquifers.

Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state.[Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

Appendix 1 49
Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state—Continued. 

[Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

State Sources of information Methods of analysis

Colorado In Colorado, water-use data for all categories of the 2000 

compilation were provided by the Colorado Division of Water Resources, the Colorado Geological Survey, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Public-supply data also were provided by the USEPA, the Castle Pines Metropolitan District, Castle Rock, the Centennial Water and Sanitation District, the Cherokee Metropolitan District, the East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District, the Greenwood Plaza Water District, the Bell Mountain Ranch Water and Sanitation District, the Stonegate Metropolitan District, the Parker Water and Sanitation District, and the Willows Water District. Irrigation data were provided by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, and the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District. The Office of the State Engineer in the Colorado Department of Natural Resources provided pumpage data for irrigation, public-supply, and selfsupplied industrial wells. 

Alluvial and eolian deposits along the South Platte River are thick and continuous (fig. 5). Well records in 

the area typically have an aquifer designation that reflects either the surface eolian material or the surface or underlying alluvium. In Colorado, a portion of the withdrawals assigned to Alluvial aquifers were later determined to be in eolian sands. Withdrawals from these deposits are specifically identified as not being from a stream-valley aquifer but belonging to Alluvial aquifers as defined in the 2000 compilation. For this report, USGS differentiated wells that are screened in eolian material from those screened in alluvium. The availability of more detailed information enabled the determination of withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers associated with the South Platte River (Rick Arnold, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2005). Withdrawals that were assigned to Other aquifers in Maupin and Barber (2005) were disaggregated to stream-valley aquifers associated with the South Platte and Arkansas Rivers (table 3) and to miscellaneous bedrock aquifers (table 4).

50 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state—Continued. 

[Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

State Sources of information Methods of analysis

Illinois The Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) has had a comprehensive program to inventory water use throughout 

the State since 1978; its Public-Industrial-Commercial Survey Database was a source of water-use data used in this report. The Illinois Water Inventory Program (IWIP) data base of water-using facilities includes locations and amounts of water withdrawn from surface- and ground-water sources, facility types, SIC codes, HUC’s, and aquifer codes. Location information is stored by principal meridian, township, and range. For this investigation, the ISWS provided public-supply and self-supplied industrial withdrawals for 2000 from the principal aquifer, glacial sand and gravel aquifers. Irrigation data were obtained from the 2000 compilation. 

Glacial sand and gravel aquifers accounted for 65 percent of total aquifer withdrawals (appendix 2). However, 

some of these withdrawals were from wells located south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation and hence, may represent withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers. Total withdrawals from Other aquifers were 10.9 Mgal/d. No further aquifer information was available about Other aquifers that would indicate there were any qualifying stream-valley aquifer withdrawals included in this amount (P.C. Mills, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2005).

Most of Illinois lies north of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation; therefore, only 16 of 102 counties were of interest for this study (fig. 6). Withdrawals from the sand and gravel aquifers, where located 

south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation, primarily represent production from stream-valley aquifers. Information about public supply and self-supplied industrial withdrawals were provided by township-range blocks that provided greater detail than county data, but not as much detail as site-specific information. There are 139 township-range blocks south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation. Blocks containing sand and gravel aquifers buried beneath finer grained material were identified and excluded from this analysis because such deposits do not meet the requisite criteria for stream-valley aquifers. In addition, blocks within the extent of the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer were identified in this analysis and withdrawals were assigned accordingly (table 3).

Ground-water irrigation withdrawal information from the 2000 compilation data base was examined for the 

following counties whose total land area is south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation: Alexander, Johnson, Massac, Pope, Pulaski, Union, and Hardin. Withdrawal data from Pulaski County were not used because pumpage from sand and gravel aquifers buried beneath finer grained material could not be differentiated from stream-valley aquifers associated with either the Mississippi or the Ohio Rivers. Alexander County is within the extent of the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer and also was excluded from this analysis. To assign pumpage, the withdrawal information was combined with irrigation well inventory data. In Massac and Union Counties, the well inventory data showed that 100 percent of the wells were screened in stream-valley aquifer deposits. Well inventory data for the other three counties were not available. 

Overall, 92 percent of irrigation wells in Illinois are screened in sand and gravel deposits (Bowman and Collins, 1987). For wells north of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation, sand and gravel deposits 

were classified as glacial sand and gravel aquifers. Sand and gravel deposits located south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation were classified as either stream-valley aquifer deposits or buried valley deposits. Counties with buried valley deposits were excluded from the analysis. In Johnson and Pope Counties, which are south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation and do not contain outwash deposits, 92 percent of the irrigation wells are assumed to be screened in stream-valley aquifer deposits. Thus, the total county irrigation withdrawals for glacial sand and gravel aquifers was reduced by 8 percent (a conservative estimate) and assigned to stream-valley aquifers associated with either the Mississippi (below St. Louis) or the Ohio Rivers.

Appendix 1 51
Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state—Continued. 

[Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

State Sources of information Methods of analysis

Indiana Water users in Indiana that withdraw over 0.1 

Mgal/d must register by reporting monthly withdrawals on an annual basis with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), Division of Water, Section of Water Use. Although the IDNR does not require flow meters, nearly all the public suppliers and some of the industrial facilities use flow meters. The IDNR data base has information about each facility with regards to SIC code, county, HUC, and aquifer. SIC codes are critical for facility classification because a facility that is labeled as “industrial” by one agency may be labeled as “commercial” by another and the facility can only be correctly categorized by using SIC code. For Indiana, data for 2000 were obtained from the IDNR, which had recently upgraded its data base information system, rather than use data from the 2000 compilation. 

Parts of sand and gravel aquifers in Indiana that are south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation 

have the characteristic string-like shape of a stream-valley aquifer and do not appear to represent outwash deposits (fig. 7). Buried glacial deposits underlie much of the northern two-thirds of Indiana where they are typically embedded with till deposits that can be 10 to 400 ft deep. Discontinuous sand and gravel deposits are present as isolated lenses, also in glaciated areas (Fenelon and others, 1994). South of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation, stream-valley aquifers are generally the most reliable source of ground water (P.M. Buszka, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2005). Eight out of 92 counties are located south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation: Crawford, Harrison, Lawrence, Orange, Perry, Spencer, Vanderburgh, and Warrick. Parts of Brown, Clark, Dubois, Floyd, Gibson, Greene, Martin, Monroe, Pike, Posey, and Washington Counties are bisected by the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation. All 19 counties listed were considered eligible to have withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers (fig. 7). Site-specific information was developed by mapping well locations and aquifer boundaries. South of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation, withdrawals were assigned to a stream-valley aquifer for wells that were screened in units defined as glacial sand and gravel in IDNR data bases and located in areas shown in the atlas as alluvium along streams and rivers. 

Evansville, which is the third largest city in Indiana, is located along the Ohio River, and its primary source of 

water supply is from surface water. However, most of the other communities along the Ohio River withdrew ground water, which explains the relatively large amount of public-supply withdrawals (P.M. Buszka, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2005).

Kansas The Kansas Department of Agriculture-Division of Water Resources (DWR) requires users with water rights 

to report withdrawals annually to establish and enforce water appropriations; DWR is the source of irrigation and public-supply withdrawals data used by the USGS for the 2000 compilation and this report. The Kansas Water Office (KWO) requires public suppliers to report withdrawals annually; KWO is the source for public supply and self-supplied industrial withdrawals data. The USGS assists these State agencies with water-use data collection, evaluation, and publication. Together these three agencies maintain data bases with site-specific information on water use in Kansas. 

Withdrawals were assigned to a specific stream-valley aquifer by using HUC and KWO basin information 

available for individual wells. As an illustration, at the 8-digit HUC level, a well might be identified as being in the Prairie Dog basin. A review of the basin name at the 6-digit HUC level or the KWO basin name shows that withdrawals from this well should be assigned to the Republican stream-valley aquifer. 

Kansas is one of the eight States that depends heavily upon the High Plains aquifer for water that is mostly 

used for irrigation. In the western part of Kansas, stream-valley aquifers are embedded with the High Plains aquifer, and withdrawals from one are indistinguishable from the other. Glaciated areas in the northeastern part of Kansas are outside the study area and were not investigated for stream-valley aquifer withdrawals. In the eastern part of Kansas, wells that are screened in alluvium and located in close proximity to, and in hydraulic connection with, the near-by rivers were assigned to the appropriate stream-valley aquifers (C.V. Hansen, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2005) (fig. 8).

52 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state—Continued. 

[Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

State Sources of information Methods of analysis

Kentucky By statute, Kentucky has authority to regulate withdrawals from public waters. The Kentucky Natural 

Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Division of Water (KDOW), Water Quantity Section, administers the water-withdrawal-permit program. Industrial and public suppliers that withdraw over 0.01 Mgal/d are required to have a permit. Irrigation withdrawals are exempt from the permit requirement. Site-specific data were provided by 267 public watersupply facilities and 120 industrial facilities to the USGS. 

Irrigation estimates for crop and non-crop (golf courses) were developed at the state level. Ground-water withdrawals were computed as 4 percent of the total estimated withdrawals. The estimated 4 percent groundwater withdrawal allocation is not spatially referenced, and the aquifer systems in Kentucky have not been 

extensively delineated. Therefore, the entire irrigation estimate of 1.24 Mgal/d ground-water withdrawals for crop and non-crop irrigation remains in Other aquifers as presented in Maupin and Barber (2005). Sitespecific data for public water-supply and industrial facilities were aggregated at the county level.

The northern border of Kentucky is defined by the Ohio River (fig. 9). Alluvial deposits along the Ohio River 

are the most intensively used in Kentucky. The towns of Owensboro, Hawesville, Brandenburg, Louisville, and Carrollton are located along the Ohio River and depend upon large surface-water supplies from the river and on ground-water supplies from shallow wells screened in the alluvium adjacent to the river. A dependable supply is ensured by constructing wells near the river to induce infiltration. In Kentucky, alluvium is mapped in a narrow band along the Ohio River. This band corresponds to the area shown as a stream-valley aquifer in the atlas (Lloyd and Lyke, 1995, p. K3, fig. 4). 

From the 2000 compilation, Alluvial aquifers withdrawals (123 Mgal/d) were assigned to alluvial aquifers 

located along the Ohio River. The southern extent of the Quaternary continental glaciation extends into Kentucky in places along the Ohio River. Boone, Carroll, Gallatin, Kenton, Oldham, and Trimble Counties are bisected by the southern glacial extent. Because withdrawals in bisected counties could not be differentiated as north or south of the line, the combined ground-water withdrawals (21.6 Mgal/d) from these counties were not assigned to a stream-valley aquifer (table 3). The remaining Alluvial aquifers withdrawals (102 Mgal/d, entirely south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation) were assigned to stream-valley aquifers associated with the Ohio River (table 3), and likely represent a conservative estimate because of the omission of withdrawals from the bisected counties.

Louisiana Wells are assigned to aquifers and aquifer systems, and 

the data are stored as part of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development’s (DOTD) waterresources program. Information about well location, ground-water source (aquifer name), and withdrawals are made available as part of the cooperative wateruse program in Louisiana. The DOTD aquifer names are not similar to the aquifer names that are defined by the USGS in the atlas, but they do correspond to aquifer names within GWSI. A cross-reference of the 145 State aquifer names to the five principal aquifers located in Louisiana was built to facilitate the association of withdrawals from each well to the appropriate principal aquifer in the USGS water-use data set. 

Louisiana aquifer withdrawal data were derived from site-specific information. Withdrawals were segregated 

on the basis of the local aquifer names that correspond to stream-valley aquifers mapped in the atlas (Renken, 1998, p. F8, fig. 23).

Following the convention defined in the atlas, a portion of the withdrawals assigned by DOTD to the Red 

River alluvial aquifer (2.35 Mgal/d) were located within the extent of and, therefore, assigned to the Coastal Lowlands aquifer system (table 1). Withdrawals from alluvial aquifers associated by DOTD with the Ouachita River (1.51 Mgal/d) and grouped with Alluvial aquifers were confirmed to be within the extent of and reassigned to the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer. This refinement reduced the total withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers in 2000 by 3.85 Mgal/d. The refinement increased withdrawals to the Coastal Lowlands aquifer system and the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer by 2.35 and 1.51 Mgal/d, respectively (table 1).

Appendix 1 53
Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state—Continued. 

[Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

State Sources of information Methods of analysis

Missouri The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 

is the source for most of the water-use data collected for Missouri. Typically the DNR sends questionnaires to major users with facilities capable of pumping or diverting at least 100,000 gal/d. For public supply, the DNR, Division of Environmental Quality, provides information gathered as part of the Public Drinking Water Program and the Water Pollution Control Program. The data from these two programs are also the source of data for self-supplied industrial water use. The Missouri Agricultural Statistical Service and an irrigation specialist from the Missouri University Agricultural Extension Agency helped in the estimation of irrigation water use. 

In Missouri, the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation divides the State roughly along the Missouri River 

(fig. 11). Although coarse-grained glacial deposits exist in the glaciated part of the State, withdrawals were not assigned to the glacial sand and gravel aquifers for the 2000 compilation (appendix 2); all withdrawals from alluvial deposits (either of glacial origin or otherwise) were assigned to the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer and Alluvial aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005). Fifty-five of 115 counties in Missouri had withdrawals from wells screened in alluvial deposits. In general, the 55 counties are located in the northern half of the State. Withdrawals were not disaggregated to stream-valley aquifers in 39 of the 55 counties, as these counties are coincident with the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation. Withdrawals from these counties represent the majority of withdrawals that were assigned to Alluvial aquifers (122 Mgal/d).

Withdrawals from alluvial aquifers associated with the Missouri River are an important source of water for 

users between the Iowa-Missouri state line and the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. The atlas provides a more complete description of the fluvial deposits along the Missouri River (Miller and Appel, 1997, p. D9). Several counties along the Missouri River, especially in the vicinity of Kansas City (Jackson County), were identified as having substantial withdrawals from alluvial aquifers associated with the Missouri River.

Sixteen counties with potential stream-valley aquifer withdrawals are located along or south of the extent of 

Quaternary continental glaciation. These counties are Boone, Callaway, Cole, Cooper, Franklin, Gasconade, Henry, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson, Moniteau, Osage, Perry, Pettis, St. Genevieve, and St. Clair. Stream-valley aquifer withdrawals from these counties were identified based on the knowledge gained from site-specific studies (Rich Huizinga, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2005). Two counties with minor withdrawals, Henry and St. Clair, are not shown as having stream-valley aquifer deposits in the atlas. Alluvial deposits of local extent are not shown in the atlas, and some stream-valley aquifers are only delineated on smaller-spatial-scale maps.

54 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state—Continued. 

[Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

State Sources of information Methods of analysis

Montana The Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation provided most of the water-use data collected for the 2000 compilation. Public-supply information was obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Information System database maintained by the USEPA. Irrigation data were compiled from the USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the Montana Department of Agriculture, Montana Agricultural Statistics Service.

The extent of the Quaternary continental glaciation in Montana crosses the northern third of the State, and, in 

general, unconsolidated coarse-grained deposits from glacial or unknown origin are difficult to differentiate from stream-valley alluvium (fig. 12). Withdrawals from glacial sand and gravel aquifers (33.9 Mgal/d) were nearly equal to those from Alluvial aquifers (33.6 Mgal/d; Maupin and Barber, 2005). The Northern 

Rocky Mountains Intermontane Basins aquifer system (NRMIB) had withdrawals of 92.7 Mgal/d in 2000, and this principal aquifer consists of unconsolidated sand and gravel deposits that occur in similar geographic settings as the Alluvial aquifers and the glacial sand and gravel aquifers. During examination of the unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers of Montana, no withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were disaggregated to the NRMIB aquifer system or the glacial sand and gravel aquifers. 

Sixteen of the 57 counties in Montana are clearly located south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation, but not within the extent of the NRMIB aquifer system. These counties had withdrawals reported 

from Alluvial aquifers that could be defined as from a stream-valley aquifer. The 16 counties are Big Horn, Carbon, Carter, Custer, Fallon, Golden Valley, Judith Basin, Musselshell, Powder River, Prairie, Rosebud, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Treasure, Wheatland, and Yellowstone. Ten of these counties contain either unconsolidated sand and gravel deposits clearly not associated with a river or possibly associated with multiple stream-valley aquifer units, making the disaggregation difficult. The remaining six counties (Carter, Fallon, Prairie, Rosebud, Sweet Grass, and Treasure) had withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers that were successfully disaggregated to a stream-valley aquifer. The majority of withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were not disaggregated because of inconclusive data, or because withdrawals were from unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers in mountain valleys or erosional basin areas.

Nebraska Sources of information for public-supply data in Nebraska were the Nebraska Department of Health, the 

Nebraska Department of Water Resources, the City of Lincoln Water System, and the Metropolitan Utilities District in Omaha, Nebraska. Industrial information was provided by the Directory of Nebraska Manufacturers, published by the Nebraska Department of Economic Development (Nebraska Department of Economic Development, 2004). Both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service provided irrigation information. The Nebraska Department of Water Resources maintains a data base of registered well data.

In Nebraska, the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation generally is north to south in the eastern one-fifth 

of the State. Coarse-grained glacial deposits are present in this glacial area, and withdrawals totaled 202 Mgal/d from glacial sand and gravel aquifers, mostly for irrigation uses. Fluvial deposits along rivers in the western three-fifths of the State overlie sand and gravel deposits of the High Plains aquifer, and withdrawals from the two deposits could not be differentiated. All withdrawals there were reported as from the High Plains aquifer. Stream-valley aquifer withdrawals were determined for an area just west of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation and east of the High Plains aquifer boundary (approximately one-fifth of the State in size) as well as some areas directly contiguous with the Missouri River (fig. 13). 

Appendix 1 55
Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state—Continued. 

[Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

State Sources of information Methods of analysis

New Jersey No information. New Jersey withdrawals were evaluated because the atlas (Miller, 2000) showed the presence of a narrow 

band of alluvium along the Delaware River near the western edge of New Jersey and the eastern edge of Pennsylvania (Trapp and Horn, 1997, p. L6, fig. 12). No New Jersey withdrawals were attributed to Alluvial

or Other aquifers in 2000 (Maupin and Barber, 2005), and thus stream-valley aquifer withdrawals, if present in New Jersey, would have to be disaggregated from aquifers other than these. The only geologically reasonable candidate for any such withdrawals would be the surficial aquifer system. However, withdrawals from the surficial aquifer system were minor (0.22 Mgal/d, appendix 2) and were for irrigation. The area of interest is composed of New York bedroom communities that are unlikely to have withdrawals from irrigation wells. Furthermore, wells in this area typically are cased to bedrock to protect against ground water contamination (John Nawyn, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2005). On the basis of this information, no withdrawals were attributed to stream-valley aquifers in New Jersey.

New Mexico Site-specific and spatial data were provided by the New 

Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE). Data for public supply also were provided by the New Mexico Environment Department’s Drinking Water Bureau, but not all of the facilities were required to report annual withdrawals. 

Water-use estimates for New Mexico in 2000 were compiled using site-specific and spatial data. Data were 

lacking for areas not declared as a ground-water basin of concern or for facilities with pre-basin water rights. Survey questionnaires were sent to facilities to gather withdrawal data for public-supply and selfsupplied industrial uses. Irrigation water-use estimates were derived by the OSE using data for irrigated cropping areas, including tabulated gross irrigated acreage for each individual crop, cropping patterns, source of water, and information about irrigation systems that are used on the crops.

New York The New York Department of Health, Bureau of Public 

Water Supply Protection, was the source for publicsupply data for 2000. The Bureau has information such as the public supplier name, city served, primary water sources, average daily populations, mean daily withdrawals in gallons per day, and locations of wells or intakes. Crop irrigation source agencies include the USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Cornell University, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. Industrial data were obtained from Harris InfoSource and Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. 

The southern half of Long Island, New York, is south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation (Olcott, 1995, p. M4, fig. 9), and this area is blanketed by coarse-grained, stratified glacial outwash deposits. In 

this area alluvium cannot be differentiated from the underlying glacial material. In the western part of New York, two counties (Cattaraugus and Allegany) are dissected by the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation (fig. 16). In Allegany County, the area south of the extent is so small that identification of stream-valley aquifers would be difficult. Cattaraugus County has the Allegheny River entering from Pennsylvania and then leaving the county to the south, making a “half” circle. Public-supply wells withdraw water along the Allegheny River in this reach. Estimates of public-supply withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers associated with the Allegheny River in Cattaraugus County were made using corresponding data for population served and New York’s public-supply per-capita water-use coefficient. Corresponding well construction information was not available for the categories of self-supplied industrial and irrigation, so estimates of water use could not be made for these two categories.

56 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state—Continued. 

[Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

State Sources of information Methods of analysis

North Dakota North Dakota aquifer data were derived from county 

estimates from the 2000 compilation. Public-supply and self-supplied industrial withdrawals were obtained from the purveyors and facility operators; irrigation withdrawals were estimated using permit data and reported pumpage data where available, and coefficients and ancillary data as necessary. The county groundwater withdrawals were subdivided between aquifers using documentation and information from reports completed as a product of a cooperative study between the USGS, North Dakota State Water Commission, and the North Dakota Geological Survey. This 25-year study of the ground-water resources in North Dakota was finished in the late 1980’s and produced a threepart series for each of the 53 counties in the State. Each series describes the geology and ground-water resources at the county level. A listing of the county reports can be viewed from the North Dakota State Water Commission website under the topic of Reports and Publications (North Dakota State Water Commission, 2007). Some differences in terminologies and definitions of aquifers exist between the three-part series publications and USGS principal aquifer names. The differences were resolved prior to the allocation of total county ground-water withdrawals for publicsupply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation uses to the principal aquifers.

Almost all of North Dakota is north of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation; only the southwestern corner is outside of this area (fig. 17). The counties that are entirely south of the extent of Quaternary 

continental glaciation and have delineations of coarse-grained alluvium in figure 6 of the atlas (Whitehead, 1996, p. I3) are Adams, Billings, Bowman, Golden Valley, Hettinger, and Slope. Nearly every other county in North Dakota that is north of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation contains some part of a delineation of coarse-grained alluvium in figure 6 of the atlas. 

Some ground-water withdrawals in some parts of North Dakota were assigned to the Alluvial aquifers and 

are derived from deposits where ancient rivers once flowed and are now buried beneath glacial and shallow stream-valley deposits. There were several large ancient rivers which originated in the Rocky Mountains and flowed through North Dakota generally in a west to east and northeast direction. These “mega” rivers and their tributaries produced large deposits of stream-valley alluvium in a number of places. For example, a Little Missouri River aquifer in McKenzie County was identified in a three-part series document (North Dakota State Water Commission, 2007). These ancient stream-valley alluvial aquifers are not included in this compilation because they are not in direct hydrologic contact with present-day streams or rivers.

Based on the dynamics of deposition of alluvial materials in North Dakota, and results of intensive 25-year 

ground-water studies in all counties, most of the withdrawals in 2000 from Alluvial aquifers were in counties that are within the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation (appendix 3). It was not possible to subdivide the 23.2 Mgal/d of withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers into specific stream-valley aquifer withdrawals in areas that are entirely outside of the glacial region.

Appendix 1 57
Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state—Continued. 

[Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

State Sources of information Methods of analysis

Ohio In Ohio, water users that withdraw over 0.1 Mgal/d must 

register their withdrawals with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Water. Through the Water Withdrawal Facility Registration Program, facilities provide information on withdrawal capacity, ground- or surface-water sources, location and type of water use, and location of discharge points. Registered users file annual reports of their water use. In addition, Ohio State University (2008) has created Extension Fact Sheets on the water resources of every county in the State (http://ohioline.osu.edu/lines/ennr.html). In the fact sheets, there are sections on surface-water resources, ground-water resources, and water use. Public suppliers provide information on the population served, source (ground or surface water), estimated daily usage, and treatment plant capacity for their facilities. 

In the 2000 compilation, withdrawals both within and south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation 

were attributed to glacial sand and gravel aquifers, and it was for this principal aquifer that some streamvalley aquifer withdrawals were identified. Thus, for this study, withdrawals from glacial sand and gravel aquifers in that part of the State, located south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation, were disaggregated to specific stream-valley aquifers where supported by site-specific data. The Ohio counties located south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation illustrated in figure 18 as having alluvium along streams and rivers are Athens, Belmont, Carroll, Coshocton, Gallia, Jefferson, Lawrence, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, Pike, Scioto, Tuscarawas, Vinton, and Washington Counties. 

Site-specific information used to disaggregate withdrawals included data from the ODNR, Division of Water. 

The Division has produced statewide maps for the unconsolidated aquifers of Ohio. These maps depict the approximate yield, in gallons per minute, with additional attributes for drift thickness, hydrogeologic settings, local names, and lithology. In these maps, buried valley deposits are differentiated from more shallow (surficial) alluvial deposits. The alluvial deposits generally coincide with the shallow sand and gravel aquifers and alluvium along streams and rivers, as shown in figure 18. The ODNR maps were used to select wells within the extent of alluvium along streams and rivers. In addition, county maps of flood prone areas were used as a quality assurance check to ensure that the aquifers were associated with an existing river and not a historic river valley.

Oklahoma The Oklahoma Water Resources Board mails an annual 

water-use survey to collect withdrawal data from public supply, self-supplied industrial, and irrigation users. This information was used by the USGS for the 2000 compilation. In addition, Oklahoma City, the City of Tulsa and the Grand River Authority provided public-supply and self-supplied industrial water-use data directly to the USGS.

In most instances, the Oklahoma aquifer names corresponded exactly to the stream-valley aquifers mapped 

in the atlas, and withdrawals could be assigned accordingly. In other instances, ground-water withdrawals were assigned to stream-valley aquifers by using HUC information available from individual wells. Oklahoma aquifer names or knowledge about individual rock units were used to assign withdrawals to isolated terrace deposits when necessary (S.C. Christenson, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2005).

Withdrawals from stream-valley aquifers in Oklahoma were associated with the Red, Arkansas, Cimarron, 

North Canadian, Canadian, and Washita Rivers (fig. 19). The atlas (Ryder, 1996) identified a potential stream-valley aquifer along the Neosho River, but no withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were identified for this stream-valley aquifer.

Pennsylvania For the 2000 compilation, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) provided 

withdrawal data from public-water systems. If data for the population served were available but water-use data were missing, withdrawals were estimated using a coefficient of 60 gallons per person per day. For some small counties, withdrawal data from the 1995 compilation were used. The PADEP, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission provided data about self-supplied industrial use. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture provided irrigation data. The PADEP provided irrigation data for selected golf courses, which are classified as a commercial activity in Pennsylvania.

 Withdrawals from Other and the principal aquifer, Pennsylvanian aquifers, were disaggregated and associated 

with six stream-valley aquifers (table 3). Some wells within the extent of the Pennsylvanian aquifers were constructed with openings in the casings that were completed in unconsolidated sand and gravel deposits, which could potentially be assigned to a stream-valley aquifer (fig. 20). Wells were mapped to identify the appropriate river for an associated stream-valley aquifer, and all wells were south of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation. Well construction information, including aquifer and depth, was used to confirm that a well met the criteria for consideration as a source of withdrawal from a stream-valley aquifer. 

58 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state—Continued. 

[Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

State Sources of information Methods of analysis

Puerto Rico Data were provided from the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and 

Sewer Authority (PRASA), the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, and the Puerto Rico Department of Health (PRDOH). 

Ground-water withdrawals for public supply and industrial uses were assigned to aquifers based on site-specific data; they also are summarized by “municipios,” which are generally the equivalent to counties in the 

United States. Records that contained facility names and monthly production values were used to aggregate the withdrawals. Not all public-supply facilities were reported by PRASA, so estimates for smaller non-reporting facilities were estimated using data from PRDOH and a public-supply per-capita daily use coefficient of 68 gallons per person per day. Estimated irrigation withdrawals were compiled based on irrigated crop types, crop consumptive-use coefficients, sprinkler types, and acres irrigated.

Locations of the principal aquifers, including Alluvial-valley aquifers, in Puerto Rico are shown in fig. 21. 

The 2000 compilation database did not afford Puerto Rico the opportunity to store withdrawals for Alluvial aquifers; therefore, Puerto Rico reported withdrawals for these types of aquifers in Other. The North Coast Limestone aquifer system provided the most ground water (58.9 Mgal/d) and the South Coast aquifer provided 43.3 Mgal/d. Both aquifers were relied upon mostly for public supply uses.

Puerto Rico is divided into three physiographic areas: a northern area of karst topography, a central mountainous area and a southern coastal plain. The central mountainous area, called the Cordillera Central, contains 

rocks that consist of volcaniclastic igneous and sedimentary materials. The northern parts of Puerto Rico are underlain by gently sloping limestone deposits overlain with shallow Quaternary unconsolidated alluvial deposits. The southern areas have sedimentary deposits of the South Coast aquifer with few to no Quaternary unconsolidated alluvial deposits except in the most southwestern part of the island. Alluvial deposits consist of unconsolidated and weathered materials that originate from the underlying formations. Ground water mostly is unconfined in the alluvial valleys and in hydrologic contact with the surface-water features. Streams have gaining and losing reaches, expressed by flow conditions in sections that either contribute to, or gain from, the adjacent aquifer deposits (Miller and others, 1999, p. N24, fig. 71).

The South Coast aquifer consists of alluvial and fan-delta deposits derived from erosion of the volcanic and 

sedimentary rocks of the Cordillera Central. The fan deltas have coalesced to form a continuous fan-delta plain that averages about 4 to 5 mi in width and 40 mi in length. The alluvial sediments in the South Coast aquifer do not fit the definition of a stream-valley aquifer; no withdrawals from the South Coast aquifer were disaggregated to stream-valley aquifers.

Withdrawals for ground-water users (including self-supplied domestic) were reported in detail by municipio 

and aquifers (Molina-Rivera, 2005); figure 4 of that report illustrates ground-water provinces and aquifers of Puerto Rico and specifically those alluvial deposits that are composed of unconsolidated Quaternary age deposits. These deposits as seen in Molina-Rivera (2005, fig. 4) are located along the western and eastern coastline of the island, as well as in interior areas, and correspond generally with Quaternary Alluvial-valley aquifers shown in the atlas (fig. 20). Molina-Rivera (2005) further tabulates withdrawals by the groundwater provinces and by aquifer names, but does not expand on the physical properties of the aquifers. Descriptions of the Quaternary alluvial deposits in the atlas are generalized and do not specifically mention stream-valley aquifers. Therefore, deposits noted in Molina-Rivera (2005) with corresponding withdrawals could potentially be considered stream-valley aquifer withdrawals, and as such would be appropriate reductions from withdrawals reported from Other aquifers, North Coast Limestone aquifers, or South Coast aquifer systems. However, no stream-valley aquifer withdrawals were estimated for Puerto Rico for 2000 because of the lack of conclusive data.

Appendix 1 59
Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state—Continued. 

[Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

State Sources of information Methods of analysis

South Dakota South Dakota 2000 compilation data were collected and 

compiled through the cooperative effort of the USGS and the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, (SDDENR), Water Rights Program. The SDDENR mailed a water-use questionnaire to each permitted water user requesting total withdrawals, acres (for irrigation sites), and the sources of withdrawals. The completed questionnaires were sent back to the State Office, where the irrigation data were compiled. The digital irrigation data were sent to USGS, along with the hard copy forms of the other types of water use, these data were then entered into the USGS Site-Specific Water Use Database System by USGS personnel.

Eastern South Dakota has plentiful shallow ground-water supplies, all of which are associated with counties 

east of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation (fig. 22) and reported in Maupin and Barber (2005) as part of the glacial sand and gravel aquifers. The western half of South Dakota has fewer occurrences of shallow ground water in sufficient quantities for most purposes. Ground water is not a major source of water in most of western South Dakota (Agnew and others, 1962).

The 2000 water-use data in South Dakota included owner name, water-use category, source, county, HUC, 

aquifer code, and withdrawal amount. Water use estimates by river basin were developed using aquifer code and county information. Withdrawals from alluvial deposits along the Missouri River were considered part of Alluvial aquifers in the 2000 compilation. However, sites that obtain water from these deposits are mostly within the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation, and, do not meet the definition of a streamvalley aquifer. For this report, withdrawals of 26.5 Mgal/d were determined to be from areas north of the line of Quaternary continental glaciation and were disaggregated from Alluvial aquifers (table 3). Only withdrawals of 0.1 Mgal/d from Alluvial aquifers were not disaggregated (table 3). Most of the remaining withdrawals that had been attributed to Alluvial aquifers were attributed to specific stream-valley aquifers (tables 1 and 3).

Tennessee Public-supply data for the 2000 compilation were 

obtained from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Division of Water Supply. The TDEC regulates public-supply withdrawals and usage within Tennessee. The USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, collected site-specific data on irrigation withdrawals in Tennessee. The USGS collected industry withdrawal data for the 2000 compilation.

Withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were disaggregated with site-specific data. Public-supply facilities provided well logs and location information that made it possible to identify the lithology of the aquifer that 

provides water to wells (J.K. Carmichael, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2005). Along the western border of Tennessee, alluvial deposits compose the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer (fig. 23). Although not shown in the atlas, additional alluvial deposits of Holocene age are present in Hardin County along the Tennessee-Alabama border (J.K. Carmichael, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2005). 

Texas Most water use reported by the USGS in the 2000 compilation is collected by the Texas Water 

Development Board (TWDB). Definitions for categories of water use that are used by the TWDB differ slightly from those used by the USGS. Differences were resolved by requesting specific reports from TWDB along with information from a TWDB data base that maintains specific data about county and river basin withdrawals, water sources, and consumptive use. The TWDB tabulates all water-use data by consumptive use. Definitions that differ between TWDB and USGS include municipal (public supply), manufacturing (self-supplied industrial), and power (thermoelectric) water-use categories. 

All withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers were assigned to stream-valley aquifers associated with the Brazos 

River (Dana Barbie, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2005) (fig. 24). The stream-valley aquifer associated with the Red River (on the Texas-Oklahoma border) is not utilized in Texas; water withdrawals in this area of Texas are obtained from surface-water sources (Dana Barbie, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2005).

60 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state—Continued. 

[Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] 

State Sources of information Methods of analysis

Utah For the 2000 compilation, public-supply and self-supplied industrial data were obtained from either water 

purveyors or the State of Utah (Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights). Public water suppliers and self-supplied industrial users are required to submit yearly information about withdrawals and the source of ground water to the Division of Water Rights. Data also were obtained through oral communication with water system managers, industrial users, and county extension agents. Additional data about water suppliers is available on the World Wide Web (Utah Division of Water Rights, 2003). Information about geology and ground-water resources is available from the Utah Geological Survey (Utah Geological Survey, 2005).

Ground-water withdrawals for irrigation were determined from pumpage inventories done annually by 

USGS. Withdrawals were determined directly from pumping wells during the irrigation season or by using electrical records to determine quantities of water pumped in areas where Utah conducts annual groundwater studies. These data were compiled from all of the major irrigated valleys in Utah (almost all are in the Basin and Range area) and published annually in “Ground-Water Conditions in Utah” (Burden, 2001). Water withdrawn from wells in less significant irrigation areas in the State were estimated from previously published data and current knowledge of irrigation practices in the area. 

Most counties in Utah rely upon surface-water withdrawals for irrigation, and ground water is a relatively 

minor source of water. Coefficients of water use were used to estimate withdrawals only for surface-water irrigation withdrawals; ground-water withdrawals were reported to the State. In Utah, water from springs that flow over the land surface for a significant distance before entering canals and ditches is considered surface water. This definition has implications on the determination of stream-valley aquifer withdrawals in areas where springs are near rivers or streams, and flow for some distance before being diverted. They may be reported as surface-water diversions when in fact they are from a spring (ground-water) source. It is impractical to try to describe where all of these situations exist or determine the volumes of water that are affected by such conditions, but some ground-water withdrawals may be included with surface-water estimates to some extent. This situation does not have implications for withdrawals that were reported for wells, because they clearly represent a ground-water withdrawal and were assigned to an aquifer based on the 2000 compilation guidelines.

Where possible, aquifers in areas delineated as “not a principal aquifer” (Robson and Banta, 1995, p. C4, fig. 

11) were identified and classified in one of the principal aquifers. Stream-valley aquifer withdrawals were disaggregated from Alluvial aquifers that are depicted in the atlas as “Mountainous Areas” (fig. 25) located east of the Basin and Range area (Robson and Banta, 1995, p. C7, fig. 18). Withdrawals reported for Alluvial aquifers were identified in areas coincident with the Colorado Plateaus aquifers area, but were compiled separately and do not include withdrawals from the Colorado Plateaus aquifers (fig. 25). During this investigation, public-supply ground-water withdrawals (0.77 Mgal/d) were identified that were reported in Maupin and Barber (2005) as being from the Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers, but could also be reported as from Alluvial aquifers, and, therefore, were considered in this study. This adjustment increased the 2000 

Alluvial aquifers withdrawals for public-supply uses from 8.20 Mgal/d to 8.97 Mgal/d, and reduced the Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers from 208 Mgal/d to 207 Mgal/d (appendix 2 shows original data from Maupin and Barber, 2005). No withdrawals from Other aquifers were identified as from stream-valley aquifers. Withdrawals from Other aquifers generally were from unspecified bedrock units or basin-fill alluvial aquifers (table 4) (Larry Spangler, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2005).

West Virginia In West Virginia, data for public-supply uses were available from the West Virginia Bureau of Health, Office 

of Environmental Health Services. The West Virginia Bureau of Employment provided county facility and employment data by SIC code. This information was used with a directory of West Virginia manufacturers to develop self-supplied industrial water use estimates. The USDA Census of Agriculture provided data that were used to determine irrigation water use. The West Virginia Geologic and Economic Survey provided legacy information that provided a quality check for all categories.

The atlas (Trapp and Horn, 1997) shows 25 counties that possibly could have stream-valley aquifer withdrawals, and seven of those counties could possibly have multiple stream-valley aquifer withdrawals. River 

basin delineations were used with the withdrawal data to differentiate between two different stream-valley aquifers within a county. All the public-supply withdrawals that were disaggregated were assigned to stream-valley aquifers associated with the Ohio River. The Ohio River Valley is generally long and narrow, and streamvalley aquifer deposits in alluvium along the River are well defined (fig. 26). Only in counties that contained a single stream-valley aquifer and no isolated alluvium could withdrawals for self-supplied industrial uses be assigned to a stream-valley aquifer with confidence.

Withdrawals of 1.72 Mgal/d from Other aquifers (table 4) were attributed to Appalachian Plateau aquifers 

along the eastern side of the State, and to unnamed aquifers in areas labeled, “not a principal aquifer,” as seen in the atlas (Trapp and Horn, 1997, p. L4, fig. 7).

Appendix 1 61
62 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals Appendix 1. Sources of water-use and related information and methods of analysis, by state—Continued. [Noted figures and tables are included in the report. HUC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; SIC, Standard Industrial Classification; GWSI, Ground Water Site Inventory; gals/d, gallons per day; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture] State Sources of information Methods of analysis Wyoming The Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service and the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) provide information on the number of acres that are in irrigation and the crop type. Data about public-supply water use were gathered by survey forms that were mailed by the WWDC. Public-water systems that had at least 15 service connections or serve at least 25 peo- ple for 60 days received the forms. The Wyoming Sate Engineer’s Office provided geologic log information, which was used to assign aquifer units to wells. The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, provided county-level industrial information. About 14 percent (9.59 Mgal/d) of total Alluvial aquifers withdrawals were disaggregated to stream-valley aquifers associated with the Niobrara River, Sand Creek, and Belle Fourche River (table 3) (fig. 27). The Niobrara stream-valley aquifer is not shown in the atlas; however, the small withdrawals associated with this river (5.77 Mgal/d) are consistent with the presence of a small stream-valley aquifer that could easily be overlooked in a regional analysis. 
Appendix 2 Appendix 2
Blank Page
Appendix 2. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial uses from principal and Other aquifers in 

24 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 2000—Continued.

[Values have been rounded. Source: Maupin and Barber (2005)]

State Aquifer or aquifer system

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day, by water-use category

Irrigation Public supply Self-supplied 

industrial Total 

Arizona Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers 2,680 372 7.60 3,060

Colorado Plateaus aquifers 37.6 38.6 12.2 88.4

Other 29.9 58.3 .00 88.2

Total 2,750 469 19.8 3,240

Arkansas Edwards-Trinity aquifer system .00 7.31 .23 7.54

Mississippi embayment aquifer system 184 77.2 61.0 322

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer 6,320 40.5 5.74 6,370

Ozark Plateaus aquifer system 1.23 7.16 .05 8.44

Total 6,510 132 67.0 6,710

Colorado Alluvial aquifers 482 5.55 8.77 496

Colorado Plateaus aquifers 16.9 6.10 .28 23.2

Denver Basin aquifer system 11.9 16.9 7.44 36.3

High Plains aquifer 837 3.39 .71 841

Other 89.4 18.4 6.44 114

Rio Grande aquifer system 719 3.39 .02 723

Total 2,160 53.7 23.6 2,230

Illinois Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system 3.79 116 29.8 149

Glacial sand and gravel aquifers 140 181 91.9 413

Mississippian aquifers .00 1.20 3.18 4.38

Other .00 6.70 4.24 10.9

Pennsylvanian aquifers .00 1.09 .00 1.09

Silurian-Devonian aquifers 5.77 47.6 2.51 55.9

Total 150 353 132 634

Indiana Glacial sand and gravel aquifers 50.6 309 94.9 455

Mississippian aquifers .37 1.16 1.35 2.88

Other .00 .08 .02 .10

Pennsylvanian aquifers .00 .09 .02 .11

Silurian-Devonian aquifers 4.53 33.8 3.37 41.7

Total 55.5 345 99.7 500

Kansas Alluvial aquifers 327 81.3 27.1 435

Glacial sand and gravel aquifers .33 4.69 .07 5.09

High Plains aquifer 2,830 70.2 17.4 2,920

Lower Cretaceous aquifers 184 4.11 1.19 189

Other 83.5 5.10 .48 89.0

Ozark Plateaus aquifer system .06 6.77 .29 7.12

Total 3,430 172 46.6 3,650

Kentucky Alluvial aquifers .00 47.1 76.1 123

Mississippi embayment aquifer system .00 10.8 10.3 21.1

Mississippian aquifers .00 9.06 8.3 17.4

Ordovician aquifers .00 1.94 .38 2.32

Other 1.24 .00 .00 1.24

Pennsylvanian aquifers .00 2.01 .03 2.04

Total 1.24 71.0 95.2 167

Appendix 2. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial uses from principal and Other aquifers in 

24 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 2000.

[Values have been rounded. Source: Maupin and Barber (2005)]

Appendix 2 65
Appendix 2. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial uses from principal and Other aquifers in 

24 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 2000—Continued.

[Values have been rounded. Source: Maupin and Barber (2005)]

State Aquifer or aquifer system

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day, by water-use category

Irrigation Public supply Self-supplied 

industrial Total 

Louisiana Alluvial aquifers 6.62 0.16 0.00 6.78

Coastal Lowlands aquifer system 557 280 199 1,040

Mississippi embayment aquifer system 6.26 64.9 30.9 102

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer 221 7.27 54.3 282

Total 791 352 285 1,430

Missouri Alluvial aquifers 59.0 106 11.1 176

Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system 3.29 18.7 .48 22.5

Mississippi embayment aquifer system .00 10.2 .09 10.3

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer 1,300 11.7 3.68 1,310

Mississippian aquifers 3.29 18.7 .48 22.5

Ozark Plateaus aquifer system 19.2 113 13.4 145

Total 1,380 278 29.2 1,690

Montana Alluvial aquifers 21.7 11.1 .77 33.6

Glacial sand and gravel aquifers 28.4 5.34 .11 33.9

Northern Great Plains aquifer system 4.55 5.84 .58 11.0

Northern Rocky Mountains Intermontane Basins 

aquifer systems

28.3 33.9 30.5 92.7

Total 83.0 56.1 31.9 171

Nebraska Alluvial aquifers 92.2 50.0 7.68 150

Glacial sand and gravel aquifers 200 2.04 .01 202

High Plains aquifer 7,050 191 25.2 7,270

Lower Cretaceous aquifers 73.2 12.8 1.47 87.5

Other 4.12 10.3 1.08 15.5

Total 7,420 266 35.4 7,720

New Jersey Early Mesozoic basin aquifers 1.62 55.6 10.2 67.4

Glacial sand and gravel aquifers .47 80.5 3.37 84.4

Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system 20.3 248 48.3 317

Piedmont and Blue Ridge crystalline-rock aquifers .01 5.45 .26 5.72

Surficial aquifer system .22 .00 .00 .22

Valley and Ridge aquifers .05 .92 .16 1.13

Valley and Ridge carbonate-rock aquifers .12 9.66 3.07 12.8

Total 22.8 400 65.3 489

New Mexico Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers 164 16.6 .08 181

Colorado Plateaus aquifers .59 12.0 .95 13.5

High Plains aquifer 498 23.1 1.06 522

Other 66.5 17.0 .38 83.9

Pecos River Basin alluvial aquifer .11 2.02 1.36 3.49

Rio Grande aquifer system 136 171 3.75 311

Roswell Basin aquifer system 364 21.1 1.17 386

Total 1,230 262 8.75 1,500

New York Glacial sand and gravel aquifers 16.4 175 71.6 263

New England crystalline-rock aquifers .17 7.40 .58 8.15

New York and New England carbonate-rock aquifers 1.34 30.6 8.29 40.3

New York Sandstone aquifers .87 34.3 20.8 55.9

Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system 4.28 326 28.3 359

Other .25 9.20 15.8 25.2

Total 23.3 583 145 752

66 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Appendix 2. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial uses from principal and Other aquifers in 

24 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 2000—Continued.

[Values have been rounded. Source: Maupin and Barber (2005)]

State Aquifer or aquifer system

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day, by water-use category

Irrigation Public supply Self-supplied 

industrial Total 

North Dakota Alluvial aquifers 15.6 4.29 3.25 23.2

Glacial sand and gravel aquifers 52.6 20.6 2.83 76.0

Northern Great Plains aquifer system 1.59 3.42 .34 5.35

Other 2.34 4.28 .44 7.06

Total 72.2 32.6 6.86 112

Ohio Alluvial aquifers .87 39.4 12.8 53.0

Glacial sand and gravel aquifers 8.20 312 101 421

Mississippian aquifers .00 119 38.6 158

Other .06 4.35 1.40 5.81

Pennsylvanian aquifers .00 2.00 .65 2.65

Silurian-Devonian aquifers 4.79 23.2 7.55 35.6

Total 13.9 500 162 676

Oklahoma Ada-Vamoosa aquifer .06 3.99 .02 4.07

Alluvial aquifers 74.9 49.3 3.55 128

Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer 1.19 2.38 .61 4.18

Blaine aquifer 19.7 .00 .69 20.4

Central Oklahoma aquifer 5.25 25.6 .82 31.7

Edwards-Trinity aquifer system 1.96 2.12 .18 4.26

High Plains aquifer 400 13.5 .12 414

Other 13.3 5.83 .17 19.3

Ozark Plateaus aquifer system .00 4.02 .28 4.30

Rush Springs aquifer 49.7 6.20 .37 56.2

Total 566 113 6.81 686

Pennsylvania Early Mesozoic basin aquifers .25 35.6 6.07 41.9

Mississippian aquifers .06 3.74 1.56 5.36

New York and New England carbonate-rock aquifers .00 2.04 .09 2.13

Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system .00 2.56 .10 2.66

Other .10 81.0 28.2 109

Pennsylvanian aquifers .13 12.2 31.3 43.6

Piedmont and Blue Ridge carbonate-rock aquifers .10 17.0 9.93 27.0

Piedmont and Blue Ridge crystalline-rock aquifers .20 13.2 7.26 20.7

Valley and Ridge aquifers .37 18.5 26.8 45.6

Valley and Ridge carbonate-rock aquifers .16 25.7 44.0 69.9

Total 1.37 212 155 368

Puerto Rico North Coast Limestone aquifer system (Puerto Rico) 5.71 46.8 6.41 58.9

Other 14.4 16.2 2.60 33.2

South Coast (Puerto Rico) aquifer 15.6 25.5 2.15 43.3

Total 35.7 88.5 11.2 135

South Dakota Alluvial aquifers 24.9 15.1 .21 40.2

Glacial sand and gravel aquifers 90.9 26.4 .17 118

High Plains aquifer 16.7 2.46 .00 19.2

Northern Great Plains aquifer system .95 5.26 .07 6.28

Other .00 .51 1.39 1.90

Paleozoic aquifers 3.40 4.35 1.32 9.07

Total 137 54.1 3.16 195

Appendix 2 67
Appendix 2. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial uses from principal and Other aquifers in 

24 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 2000—Continued.

[Values have been rounded. Source: Maupin and Barber (2005)]

State Aquifer or aquifer system

Withdrawals, in million gallons per day, by water-use category

Irrigation Public supply Self-supplied 

industrial Total 

Tennessee Alluvial aquifers 0.03 2.40 0.00 2.43

Mississippi embayment aquifer system 3.49 258 46.8 309

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer 1.34 .00 .00 1.34

Mississippian aquifers .47 17.3 6.35 24.1

Ordovician aquifers .56 2.91 .00 3.47

Other .04 .00 .01 .05

Pennsylvanian aquifers .26 .52 .00 .78

Valley and Ridge aquifers .00 10.4 .00 10.4

Valley and Ridge carbonate-rock aquifers 1.17 28.7 3.19 33.0

Total 7.36 321 56.4 385

Texas Alluvial aquifers 12.6 .01 .00 12.6

Blaine aquifer 23.5 .30 .00 23.8

Coastal Lowlands aquifer system 356 531 86.3 973

Edwards-Trinity aquifer system 280 402 46.8 729

High Plains aquifer 5,080 75.2 52.8 5,200

Other 283 24.1 2.80 310

Pecos River Basin alluvial aquifer 109 10.0 1.10 120

Rio Grande aquifer system 11.8 65.5 8.40 85.7

Seymour aquifer 162 7.40 .60 170

Texas coastal uplands aquifer 188 148 45.0 381

Total 6,500 1,260 244 8,010

Utah Alluvial aquifers 22.9 8.20 .47 31.6

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers 439 208 31.8 679

Basin and Range carbonate-rock aquifers .00 70.4 1.92 72.3

Colorado Plateaus aquifers 7.23 42.5 .13 49.8

Other .00 31.7 .01 31.7

Pacific Northwest volcanic-rock aquifers .00 3.31 .00 3.31

Total 469 364 34.3 868

West Virginia Alluvial aquifers .00 20.8 .68 21.5

Mississippian aquifers .00 .69 .19 .88

Other .00 1.58 .14 1.72

Pennsylvanian aquifers .00 9.98 8.30 18.3

Valley and Ridge aquifers .01 1.47 .23 1.71

Valley and Ridge carbonate-rock aquifers .01 7.08 .14 7.23

Total .02 41.6 9.68 51.3

Wyoming Alluvial aquifers 50.4 15.7 1.02 67.1

Colorado Plateaus aquifers 19.6 2.76 .38 22.7

High Plains aquifer 281 9.89 1.94 293

Northern Great Plains aquifer system 59.5 18.5 .63 78.6

Other 2.42 .63 .25 3.30

Paleozoic aquifers .15 8.51 .00 8.66

Upper Tertiary aquifers .60 .92 .09 1.61

Total 413 57.2 4.31 475

68 Estimated Withdrawals from Stream-Valley Aquifers and Refined Estimated Withdrawals
Appendix 3

Appendix 3
Blank Page
Appendix 3. Estimated withdrawals for irrigation, public-supply, and self-supplied industrial uses for aquifers and aquifer units 

disaggregated from withdrawals from Alluvial aquifers north of the extent of Quaternary continental glaciation in North Dakota, 2000. 

[Values have been rounded]

Stream, river, or aquifer name Withdrawals, in million gallons per day, by water-use category 

Total Irrigation Public supply Self-supplied industrial

Lower Apple Creek 0.16 0.05 0.00 0.11

Burlington .04 .00 .04 .00

Cattail .00 .00 .00 .00

Denbigh .94 .59 .20 .15

Ellendale .14 .00 .14 .00

Elliot .19 .19 .00 .00

Glencoe Channel .00 .00 .00 .00

Guelph 1.07 .76 .31 .00

Heart River aquifer .01 .00 .01 .00

Hofflund .13 .13 .00 .00

Inkster .68 .68 .00 .00

Jamestown .00 .00 .00 .00

Kenmare .14 .00 .14 .00

Knife River 2.69 .00 .03 .00

Little Knife River .38 .38 .00 .00

Lower Souris .11 .11 .00 .00

Martin .43 .43 .00 .00

McVille .01 .00 .00 .01

Midway 7.47 6.32 1.15 .00

Milnor Channel .02 .02 .00 .00

Missouri River .07 .07 .00 .00

Napoleon .16 .16 .00 .00

Northeast Missouri Buried Channel .83 .00 .83 .00

New Rockford 4.90 4.90 .00 .00

New Town .54 .53 .01 .00

Oakes .05 .00 .05 .00

Oberon (Sheyenne River) .10 .00 .00 .10

Shell Creek .69 .17 .51 .01

Shell Valley .04 .00 .03 .01

Sheyenne Channel .52 .00 .32 .20

Strasburg .42 .00 .42 .00

Strawberry Lake .03 .03 .00 .00

Tobacco Garden Creek .07 .00 .07 .00

Wahpeton Buried Valley .13 .13 .00 .00

Windsor .03 .00 .03 .00

Total 23.2 15.6 4.29 .59

Appendix 3 71
Publishing support provided by:

Lafayette Publishing Service Center