U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Data Series 1110

Prepared in cooperation with the City of Cedar Rapids Utilities Water Division

Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and 

Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17
Cover. Photograph showing river as looking upstream from CRM–4A in Seminole well field, Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa, during high flows, June 4, 2018. Photograph taken by Shannon Meppelink, 

U.S. Geological Survey.

Back cover. Photograph showing Edgewood Ranney 3 pumps in the wellhouse, Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa, 2003 (upper left). Photograph showing a vertical well in Seminole well field, Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa, August 24, 2015 (right). Photograph showing Seminole Ranney 4 in Seminole well field, Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa, October 8, 2003 (lower left). Photographs by U.S. Geological Survey.
Selected Water-Quality Data from the 

Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, 

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

By Shannon M. Meppelink, Erin A. Stelzer, Emilia L. Bristow, and Gregory R. Littin

Prepared in cooperation with the City of Cedar Rapids Utilities Water Division

Data Series 1110

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

DAVID BERNHARDT, Acting Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

James F. Reilly II, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2019

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

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit https://store.usgs.gov.

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

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Meppelink, S.M., Stelzer, E.A., Bristow, E.L., and Littin, G.R., 2019, Selected water-quality data from the Cedar River 

and Cedar Rapids well fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1110, 49 p., 

https://doi.org/10.3133/ds1110.

ISSN 2327-638X (online)
iii

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the City of Cedar Rapids Utilities Water Division that 

provides support for this long-term (more than 20 years) project. 

Water-quality samples were collected by personnel from the U.S. Geological Survey. Data tables 

were reviewed by Shelby Sterner of the U.S. Geological Survey. This report was reviewed by 

Kristin Romanok and Jessica D. Garrett of the U.S. Geological Survey.

v

Contents

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

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

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

Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................................3

Methods of Study...........................................................................................................................................3

Well Construction and Nomenclature...............................................................................................4

Water-Quality Sampling.......................................................................................................................4

Chemical Laboratory Analysis............................................................................................................7

Sample Concentration for Viral Pathogens......................................................................................7

DNA/RNA Extraction and qPCR or qRT–PCR ...................................................................................7

Standard Curves for qPCR or qRT–PCR ..........................................................................................12

Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Water Samples.........................................................14

Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Viral Pathogens........................................................16

Water-Quality Data for Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields.....................................................16

Physical Characteristics, Major Ions, and Nutrients....................................................................16

Pesticides.............................................................................................................................................19

Total Coliforms, Escherichia coli, and Viral Pathogens................................................................19

Summary........................................................................................................................................................19

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................20

Tables 9–19....................................................................................................................................................23

Figures

1. Map showing sudy area with alluvial well fields and locations of wells, stream

sampling sites, and water treatment plants, Cedar Rapids, Iowa........................................2

Tables

1. Information on water-quality data-collection sites, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17 ...........5

2. Carbon, nutrients, major ions, dissolved solids, and physical characteristics

analyzed for in water-quality samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.................................8

3. Select pesticides, degradates, and intermediates analyzed for in water-quality

samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17 .....................................................................................9

4. Characteristics of viral pathogen analyses, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17 ......................12

5. Standard curve characteristics for quantitative polymerase chain reaction and

quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction viral pathogen

assays, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17......................................................................................13

6. Replicate water-quality data for nutrients, carbon, ions, dissolved solids, physical

characteristics, and pesticides in groundwater and surface-water samples, Cedar

Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17................................................................................................................15
vi

7. Surrogate pesticide data for groundwater and surface-water samples with

minimum, maximum, and median percent recovery, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17........17

8. Summary statistics for physical characteristics of groundwater and surface-water

samples, for all sites, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17 .............................................................18

9. Summary statistics for major ions and dissolved solids in groundwater and

surface-water samples, by site, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17...........................................24

10. Summary statistics for nutrients and dissolved organic carbon in groundwater and

surface-water samples, by site, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17...........................................26

11. Summary statistics for nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, and physical

characteristics by treatment plant and the wells valved to them, Cedar Rapids,

Iowa, 2011–17 ..............................................................................................................................27

12. Summary statistics for physical characteristics, major ions, and dissolved solids 

by treatment plant and the wells valved to them, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17 .............28

13. Description of parent compound pesticides in water-quality samples, Cedar

Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17................................................................................................................30

14. Description of pesticide degradates and intermediates in water-quality samples,

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17 ....................................................................................................33

15. Pesticides sampled for but not detected in water-quality samples, Cedar Rapids,

Iowa, 2011–17 ..............................................................................................................................34

16. Selected pesticides detected and frequency of detections in groundwater and

surface-water samples, by site, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17...........................................35

17. Selected pesticides detected and frequency of detections in groundwater and

surface-water samples, by treatment plant and the wells valved to them, Cedar

Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17................................................................................................................39

18. Summary statistics for total coliform and Escherichia coli in groundwater and

surface-water samples, by site, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17...........................................43

19. Results for quantitative polymerase chain reaction and quantitative reversetranscription polymerase chain reaction viral pathogen samples, Cedar

Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17................................................................................................................44
vii

Conversion Factors

U.S. customary units to International System of Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Volume

million gallons (Mgal) 3,785 cubic meter (m3)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

 °F = (1.8 × °C) + 32.

Supplemental Information

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 

25 °C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in either milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).
viii

Abbreviations

CAS Chemical Abstracts Service

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

LoB limit of blank

LoD limit of detection

LoQ limit of quantification

LRL laboratory reporting limit

OWML Ohio Water Microbiology Laboratory

PCR polymerase chain reaction

QA quality assurance

QC quality control

qPCR quantitative polymerase chain reaction

qRT–PCR quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction

RNA ribonucleic acid

RPD relative percent difference

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 
Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and 

Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

By Shannon M. Meppelink, Erin A. Stelzer, Emilia L. Bristow, and Gregory R. Littin

Abstract

The Cedar River alluvial aquifer is the primary source of 

municipal water in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Municipal wells are 

completed in the alluvial aquifer about 40 to 80 feet below 

land surface. The City of Cedar Rapids and the U.S. Geological Survey have led a cooperative study of the groundwaterflow system and water quality of the aquifer since 1992. 

Cooperative reports between the City of Cedar Rapids and 

the U.S. Geological Survey have documented hydrologic and 

water-quality data, geochemistry, and groundwater models. 

Water-quality samples were collected for studies involving 

well field monitoring, trends, source-water protection, groundwater geochemistry, surface-water–groundwater interaction, 

and pesticides in groundwater and surface water. Water-quality 

analyses were completed for major ions (boron, bromide, 

calcium, chloride, fluoride, iron, magnesium, manganese, 

potassium, silica, sodium, and sulfate), nutrients (ammonia as 

nitrogen, ammonia plus organic nitrogen as nitrogen, nitrite 

plus nitrate as nitrogen, nitrite as nitrogen, orthophosphate 

as phosphorus, and phosphorus), dissolved organic carbon, 

selected pesticides, bacteria, and viral pathogens. Physical 

characteristics (alkalinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, and water temperature) were measured onsite and 

recorded for each water sample collected. This report presents 

the results of routine water-quality data-collection activities 

from water years 2010 through 2017, and additional viral 

pathogen data from May 2008 to August 2017. A water year is 

the period from October 1 to September 30 and is designated 

by the year in which it ends; for example, water year 2015 

was from October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015. Methods of 

data collection, quality assurance, water-quality analyses, and 

statistical procedures are presented. Data include the results of 

water-quality analyses from quarterly sampling from monitoring wells, municipal wells, two water treatment plants, and the 

Cedar River, as well as monthly nutrient sampling from the 

Cedar River.

Introduction

The City of Cedar Rapids, in Linn County, Iowa (fig. 1), 

obtains its municipal water supply from a shallow alluvial 

aquifer adjacent to the Cedar River. A total of 45 vertical wells 

and 5 horizontal collector wells are completed at about 40 to 

80 feet (ft) below land surface. Vertical wells gradually are 

being replaced by higher-yielding horizontal collector wells, 

but many of the vertical wells are used regularly or are in 

standby operation. Adequate quantities of generally high-quality potable water have been obtained from the alluvial aquifer 

since the resource was developed in 1962. Cedar Rapids 

pumped an average of 37.3 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 

from the alluvial aquifer in 2011, 39.6 Mgal/d in 2012, 

37.3 Mgal/d in 2013, 36.9 Mgal/d in 2014, 37.0 Mgal/d in 

2015, 36.8 Mgal/d in 2016, and 37.7 Mgal/d in 2017. A record 

high daily demand was 53.7 Mgal/d on July 25, 2012, and the 

month of July 2012 had record production at 1,538.6 Mgal/d 

(T. Baloch, City of Cedar Rapids Water Department, written 

commun., January 2018). The higher demands in 2012 are 

most likely due to the drought of 2012 (Mallya and others, 

2013). To document the quality of water available from the 

Cedar River and the alluvial aquifer, the City of Cedar Rapids 

and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have led a cooperative study of the groundwater-flow system, surface-water system, and water quality in and near the well fields since 1992.

Previous Investigations

Results from the long-term cooperative study have been 

documented in several reports. Schulmeyer (1995) analyzed 

the effect of contributions from the Cedar River on the quality 

of groundwater near the municipal well fields. Schnoebelen 

and Schulmeyer (1996) documented hydrogeologic data 

collected and compiled from October 1992 to March 1996. 

Schulmeyer and Schnoebelen (1998) described the hydrogeology near the municipal well fields, documented a groundwater-flow model constructed to simulate regional groundwater 

flow under steady-state conditions, identified sources of water 

to the municipal well fields, and assessed temporal and spatial 

variations of selected water-quality constituents and properties. Boyd (1998) characterized groundwater flow near the 
2 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

IO

W

A

BLAIRS FERRY ROAD

COVINGTON ROAD

E AVENUE NORTHWEST

J Avenue Water Treatment Plant

Northwest Water 

Treatment Plant

Palo 05454420

Palo

Palo 05464420

ELLIS ROAD

Cedar River

Bear Creek

McLoud Run

42°06’ 42°04’ 

42°02’

42°00’ 41°58’ 41°56’ 

91°48’ 

91°48’ 

91°46’ 

91°46’ 

91°44’ 91°42’ 91°40’ 91°38’ 

EDGEWOOD ROAD

INTERSTATE 380

Cedar Rapids Cedar Rapids 05464500

Ranney 6

Ranney 4

Ranney 2

Seminole 18 Seminole 17 !!

##

IOWA

LINN COUNTY

Study area

Cedar 

River 

Basin

Ranney 1

Ranney 3

Edgewood 05464480

Mohawk Park

CRM–6A

CRM–4A

CRM–3A

CRM–22

West Well Field

East Well Field

EXPLANATION

Stream sampling site

Water treatment plant

Municipal well

Alluvial well fields

Observation wellU.S. Geological Survey

streamgaging stationand identifier

05464480

Cedar River

Seminole Well Field

00

5 MILES

5 KILOMETERS

2.5

2.5

##

05464420

Figure 1. Study area with alluvial well fields and locations of wells, stream sampling sites, and water treatment plants, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Methods of Study 3

municipal well fields using selected environmental isotopes 

and tracers. Boyd (2000) evaluated the occurrence and distribution of concentrations of selected pesticides in the alluvial 

aquifer and Cedar River after springtime application of these 

pesticides to upstream cropland areas. Boyd and others (1999) 

further documented hydrogeologic data collected in the Cedar 

Rapids area from April 1996 to March 1999. Water-quality 

data collected in the Cedar Rapids area from calendar years 

1999 to 2005 was documented by Littin and Schnoebelen 

(2010) and from calendar years 2006 to 2010 by Littin (2012). 

Most recently, a report by Kalkhoff (2018) documents the 

changes in nutrient transport in the Cedar River Basin from 

water years 2000–15, as well as the variable transport from 

subbasins.

Purpose and Scope

This report presents the results of water-quality datacollection activities from May 2008 through August 2017 for 

a study completed by the USGS, in cooperation with the City 

of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Data presented in this report include 

results of water-quality analyses and physical characteristics 

of water samples measured from samples collected from 

the Cedar River, the 2 Cedar Rapids water treatment plants, 

4 monitoring wells, and 11 municipal wells in the Cedar Rapids municipal well fields. This report is the third data report 

in a series. Previous reports documented water-quality data 

collected in the Cedar Rapids area from calendar years 1999 

to 2005 by Littin and Schnoebelen (2010) and calendar years 

2006 to 2010 by Littin (2012).

Description of the Study Area

Cedar Rapids is located in Linn County in east-central 

Iowa. Municipal water for the city of Cedar Rapids is supplied 

from three well fields (Seminole, East, and West) along the 

Cedar River (fig. 1). The city of Cedar Rapids had a population of about 126,300 in 2010, and the U.S. Census Bureau 

projected it to be 131,127 in July 2016 (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2018). The Cedar River Basin drains an area of 6,510 square 

miles (mi2) upstream from the streamgaging station at Cedar 

Rapids (Cedar River at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, USGS station 05464500, fig. 1). Upstream land use is more than 80 percent agriculture, mostly corn and soybean production with 

some pasture land, hay, and small grains (Iowa Department 

of Natural Resources, 2006). Median annual precipitation for 

2011 to 2017 was 37.13 inches (in.) per year at the Cedar Rapids Municipal Airport (Midwestern Regional Climate Center, 

2018). Extreme daily mean flows recorded at the streamgaging 

station during this reporting period were 80,700 cubic feet per 

second (ft3/s) on September 27, 2016, and 268 ft3/s on December 22, 2012 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2018). Extreme daily 

mean flows recorded during 1903–2010 were 138,000 ft3/s on 

June 13, 2008, and 140 ft3/s on November 18, 1989 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2018).

Hydrogeologic units in and near the Cedar Rapids well 

fields include unconsolidated surficial sediment layers of loess, 

glacial till, and Cedar River alluvium (alluvial aquifer), underlain by carbonate bedrock composed of several formations 

ranging from Silurian to Devonian in age (Iowa Department 

of Natural Resources, 2004). The Cedar River flood plain 

ranges from about 1,000 to 3,300 ft wide in the study area 

and is bounded by steep bluffs that rise nearly 200 ft above 

the river valley, exposing carbonate bedrock in some places. 

The upland topography is characterized by rolling hills of low 

relief typically formed in loess and glacial till. The alluvial 

aquifer ranges from 5 to 95 ft thick near the well fields, with 

the thickest parts nearest to the present-day location of the 

Cedar River and the thinnest alluvium adjacent to the valley 

walls. The alluvial aquifer is characterized by a sequence of 

coarse sand and gravel at the base, grading upward to fine 

sand, silt, and clay near the surface. The carbonate bedrock in 

the study area consists primarily of jointed and fractured limestone and dolomite, with interbeds of chert and shale (Schulmeyer and Schnoebelen, 1998). The 22 lithologic formations 

ranging from Silurian to Devonian in age have a maximum 

thickness of about 700 ft in the study area, and although no 

municipal wells have been completed in this aquifer, it is used 

locally for private and industrial water supply (University 

of Iowa, 2013; Tucci and McKay, 2005; Iowa Department 

of Natural Resources, 2004). The unconsolidated surficial 

layers of the Cedar River Valley, underlying Devonian and 

Silurian carbonate bedrock, and deeper hydrogeologic units 

are described in detail by Hansen (1970), Wahl and Bunker 

(1986), and Schulmeyer and Schnoebelen (1998).

The Cedar River is in direct hydraulic connection with 

the alluvial aquifer (Turco and Buchmiller, 2004), and the 

alluvial aquifer is recharged by infiltration from the river, as 

well as by precipitation and seepage from underlying and 

adjacent hydrogeologic units. In areas affected by municipal 

pumping, groundwater flows from the Cedar River toward 

the well fields, whereas in other areas, groundwater generally 

flows toward the river (Hansen, 1970; Schulmeyer, 1995; R. 

Hesemann, Cedar Rapids Water Department, oral commun., 

March 2007; Littin and Schnoebelen, 2010).

Methods of Study

Samples for water-quality analysis were collected from 

the Cedar River, observation wells within the alluvial well 

fields, municipal wells, and the two Cedar Rapids water treatment plants. Data include results of water-quality analyses 

and physical characteristics measured at the time of sample 

collection. Well locations used for sampling are shown in figure 1. Summary statistics (minimum, maximum, and median) 

were compiled for all water-quality samples. Data in this 

report were retrieved from the USGS National Water Information System database (U.S. Geological Survey, 2018) and 

were complete as of August 15, 2018. In addition, methods of 
4 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

quality assurance (QA) of samples are discussed, and data on 

quality-control (QC) samples are presented.

Well Construction and Nomenclature

Wells sampled during the study included 2- and 4-in. 

diameter monitoring wells. The monitoring wells were 

installed using hollow-stem auger drilling techniques (Hackett, 

1987) and completed with polyvinyl-chloride (PVC) flushjoint casing. Bentonite grout was installed around the casing 

6 to 8 ft below land surface, and the wells were capped with a 

cement pad at the surface. Well depths ranged from 18 to 97 ft. 

Well-construction information for all monitoring wells is listed 

in table 1.

Monitoring wells are named according to a convention 

that includes the year the well was installed (for example, 

1993), the agency identifier (USGS), the local project identifier, (CRM, for Cedar Rapids Municipal), and a unique 

incremental number (beginning with 1). For example, well 

1993USGS CRM–3 is the third monitoring well installed by 

the USGS for the CRM project. For convenience in this report, 

the year and agency identifier typically will not be included 

when referring to a site name. With the exception of Edgewood Ranney 3, municipal wells used by the City of Cedar 

Rapids are identified by the well field name (Seminole), then 

the well number (for example, Seminole 17). In addition, horizontal collector wells are identified as “Ranney” wells.

Water-Quality Sampling

Water-quality samples were collected from the Cedar 

River, 2- and 4-in. diameter observation wells, municipal 

wells, and the two Cedar Rapids water treatment plants (multiple municipal wells per treatment plant were composited 

for raw-water composites) on a quarterly basis from October 

2010 through August 2017. Quarterly samples consisted of 

field parameters, nutrients, carbon, common ions, and pesticides. Beginning in May 2008, routine viral pathogen samples 

and bacteria (total coliform and Escherichia coli) were 

also included in the quarterly sampling at 12 of the 17 sites 

included in this report.

This reporting period was one of transition for many of 

the sites sampled. For most of this period, water-quality samples were collected from the Cedar River downstream from 

the Seminole wellfield at either the Cedar River at Edgewood 

Road at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, (USGS station 05464480) or 

downstream at a jetty at Mohawk Park. Mohawk Park is about 

1 river mile downstream from the Edgewood Road Bridge. 

Starting in September 2016, the sample collection location 

was moved about 11 miles (mi) upstream from the city to the 

Cedar River at Blairs Ferry Road at Palo, Iowa, streamgaging station (USGS station 05464420, hereafter referred to as 

“Palo”). The first sample collected at Palo was a flood sample, 

which included the full suite of quarterly sample compounds, 

plus suspended sediment and bacteria; subsequent samples 

were either the full suite of compounds regularly collected for 

the quarterly sample or monthly nutrient-only samples. For the 

Palo site, there was 1 single flood sample, 4 quarterly samples, 

and 7 nutrient-only samples. Samples at the Edgewood site 

ceased when sampling at Palo started. Other changes include 

the cessation of sampling at CRM–22 because the well was 

lost to the river during high flows in 2011; CRM–4 was also 

lost in high flows and was replaced with CRM–4A, near the 

original well. During quarterly sampling, a single alluvial 

monitoring well was sampled; for consistency, CRM–4A is the 

preferred well for sampling, but CRM–3A is sampled if CRM–

4A is either inaccessible or physically impaired. Seminole 18 

is a municipal well that was regularly offline for the City of 

Cedar Rapids and unavailable to sample, so sampling ceased 

there in 2016. During the period covered in this report, three 

sites were added into the quarterly sampling effort. A monitoring well finished in the Silurian-Devonian aquifer was added 

in 2010, and Ranney 6 came online in 2014. Both have been 

regularly sampled since; however, CRM–6A is only sampled 

annually. Also added into the project was the Northwest Water 

Treatment Plant. As with the treatment plant on J Avenue, 

Northwest Water Treatment Plant raw water is sampled for 

physical properties, nutrients, pesticides, carbon, major ions, 

and pathogens; finished water is only sampled for pathogens.

The two treatment plants have different operating capacities, and the number of wells sampled by the USGS per plant 

is not equal. The Northwest Water Treatment Plant operates at 

roughly half the capacity of the J Avenue plant. The J Avenue 

plant has a maximum daily output capacity of 40 Mgal/d; 

the Northwest Water Treatment Plant maximum daily output 

capacity is 20 Mgal/d. Of the municipal wells sampled for 

this project, Ranney 1, 2, and 6, and Seminole 17 and 18 are 

valved to the Northwest Water Treatment Plant. Ranneys 3 and 

4 are valved to the J Avenue plant. As necessary, Ranney 6 can 

be valved to the J Avenue plant instead of the Northwest Water 

Treatment Plant for water-quality or water quantity issues 

(J. Donaghy, City of Cedar Rapids Water Department, written 

commun., February 2018). For the purposes of this report, as 

Ranney 6 is typically valved to the Northwest Water Treatment 

Plant, data for Ranney 6 are included in the aggregated data 

tables for the Northwest Water Treatment Plant.

Before collecting water-quality samples, monitoring 

wells were pumped to remove about three borehole volumes 

of water. Water samples were collected using a stainless-steel 

submersible Fultz pump and chemically inert fluoropolymer 

tubing. Onsite measurements of air temperature, air pressure, alkalinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, 

and water temperature were collected at the time of sample 

collection. Dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, and 

water temperature were measured in a flow-through chamber 

for all sites except Palo. Field measurements at Palo were 

collected at multiple equidistant points across the width of 

the river using a multiparameter sonde suspended into the 

river from the bridge. All field measurements were taken 

using a multiparameter Yellow Springs Incorporated 6920, 

YSI EXO2, Eureka Manta 2, or a Eureka Manta 35 sonde. 
Methods of Study 

5

Table 1. Information on water-quality data-collection sites, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.[S, surface water; C, common ions and trace elements; N, nutrients; P, pesticides; Vi, virus; --, no data or not applicable; H, municipal multiple-horizontal collector well; A, alluvial; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; U, U.S. Geological Survey monitoring well; SD, Silurian-Devonian; V, vertical well; M, municipal multiple-well composite]

Site identifier Site name Map site 

name

Site 

type

Type of 

water-quality 

samples 

collected

Number of 

quarterly 

samples 

collected

Monthly 

nutrient 

samples

Period of 

record

Total depth 

(feet below 

land surface)

Casing 

diameter

Screened 

interval 

top/bottom 

(feet below 

land surface)

Landsurface 

elevation 

(feet above 

mean sea 

level)

Aquifer

Water 

treatment 

plant 

valved to

05464420 Cedar River at 

Blairs Ferry Road at Palo, Iowa

Palo S C, N, P, Vi 4 8 2016–17 -- -- -- -- -- --

05464480 Cedar River at 

Edgewood Road at Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Edgewood S C, N, P, Vi 28 -- 2011–16 -- -- -- -- -- --

415952091440400 083N08W13CBCB 

1994Cedar Rapids Ranney 1

Ranney 1 H C, N, P 25 -- 2011–17 59.5 -- -- 722.6 A NWWTP

420004091442300 083N08W14ADCC 

1995Cedar Rapids Ranney 2

Ranney 2 H C, N, P 20 -- 2011–17 49.6 -- -- 724.9 A NWWTP

420035091422301 083N07W07DCBC 

56470 2002Cedar Rapids West Ranney 3

Ranney 3 H C, N, P 27 -- 2011–17 67 -- -- 734.61 A J Avenue

420010091431801 083N08W13ACAD 

56471 2002Cedar Rapids SeminoleRanney 4

Ranney 4 H C, N, P, Vi 23 -- 2011–17 64 -- -- 720.63 A J Avenue

420036091444001 083N08W11DCBC 

2013Cedar Rapids Ranney 6

Ranney 6 H C, N, P, Vi 13 -- 2014–17 74.3 -- -- 726.8 A NWWTP

415953091435003 083N08W13CBDA 

2009USGS CRM–3A

CRM–3A U C, N, P, Vi 5 -- 2011–13 42.5 2 40.0/42.5 727.06 A --

415953091435302 083N08W13CBDA 

2009USGS CRM–4A

CRM–4A U C, N, P, Vi 18 -- 2011–17 42.5 2 40.0/42.5 726.2 A --
6 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17 Table 1. Information on water-quality data-collection sites, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.—Continued [S, surface water; C, common ions and trace elements; N, nutrients; P, pesticides; Vi, virus; --, no data or not applicable; H, municipal multiple-horizontal collector well; A, alluvial; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; U, U.S. Geological Survey monitoring well; SD, Silurian-Devonian; V, vertical well; M, municipal multiple-well composite] Site identifier Site name Map site name Site type Type of water-quality samples collected Number of quarterly samples collected Monthly nutrient samples Period of record Total depth (feet below land surface) Casing diameter Screened interval top/bottom (feet below land surface) Land- surface elevation (feet above mean sea level) Aquifer Water treatment plant valved to 415954091435302 083N08W13ADBC 2010USGS CRM–6A CRM–6A

U C, N, P 5 -- 2011–17 97 2 90.0/95.0 727.88 SD --

420013091431001 083N08W13AACC 

1998USGS CRM–22

CRM–22

U C, N, P, Vi 1 -- 2011 22.5 4 20.0/22.5 720.77

A --

420013091442000 083N08W14ADBB 

43186 1991Cedar Rapids Seminole 17

Seminole 

17

V C, N, P, Vi 25 -- 2011–17 58 30 34.0/54.0 723.52

A NWWTP

420013091442501 083N08W14ACAA 

43187 1991Cedar Rapids Seminole 18

Seminole 

18

V C, N, P 21 -- 2011–16 52 30 32.0/52.0 723.95

A NWWTP

420002091403200 Cedar Rapids Water 

Division (raw composite water)

J Avenue

M C, N, P, Vi 33 -- 2011–17 -- -- -- -- -- --

415956091461701 Cedar Rapids 

Northwest Water Treatment Plant

NWWTP

M C, N, P, Vi 8 -- 2016–17 -- -- -- -- -- --
Methods of Study 7

Water samples for analysis of nutrients and major ions were 

filtered through a 0.45-micrometer (μm) pore size polycarbonate disk or capsule filter in the field. Water samples for 

pesticide analysis were filtered through a 142-millimeter (mm) 

or 47-mm diameter, 0.7-μm pore size, borosilicate glassfiber filter baked at 450 degrees Celsius (oC) and placed in a 

stainless-steel or fluoropolymer filter unit. After collection, 

water samples were kept chilled until shipping by overnight 

air express to the USGS National Water-Quality Laboratory in 

Denver, Colorado, for analysis.

Samples were collected according to USGS protocols 

(U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated), with the following 

adaptations. Groundwater samples and Cedar River samples 

collected at Mohawk Park were processed with exposure to 

the atmosphere without a sampling chamber by one person to 

maintain sampling consistency across the history of the project. Cedar River samples collected at Palo were collected and 

processed using clean hands/dirty hands techniques requiring 

two individuals with assigned operations to minimize potential 

sources of contamination. As indicated in the “Quality Assurance and Quality Control” section of this report, the adaptation 

for groundwater sampling did not adversely affect the samples.

Chemical Laboratory Analysis

Nutrient concentrations were analyzed by colorimetric 

methods (Patton and Kryskalla, 2011) for dissolved species 

and alkaline persulfate digestion (Patton and Kryskalla, 2003) 

for unfiltered samples. Analytical methods used for major 

ions are described by Fishman (1993). Inductively coupled 

plasma-atomic emission spectrometry was used to determine boron concentrations (Struzeski and others, 1996). The 

high-temperature combustion method was used to determine 

the total organic carbon concentration in samples (Standard 

Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 2018). 

Pesticide samples collected from 2008 to 2016 were analyzed 

for 25 compounds including select degradates and intermediates (USGS schedule 1379) with solid-phase extraction and 

capillary-column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry 

methods (Sandstrom and others, 1992). A newer C–18 solidphase extraction and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry 

method (Sandstrom and others, 2001) that resulted in lower 

reporting limits for more than 80 compounds (USGS schedule 2033) was used for analysis of pesticide samples collected in 2017. Select constituents tested for in water-quality 

samples are listed in table 2 for carbon, nutrients, physical 

characteristics, and major ions and table 3 for pesticides and 

select degradates and intermediates. The National Water 

Information System parameter codes, the Chemical Abstracts 

Service (CAS) Registry Number®, laboratory reporting limits 

(LRL), and reporting units are listed in tables 2 and 3. This 

report contains CAS Registry Numbers, which are registered 

trademarks of the American Chemical Society. CAS recommends the verification of the CAS Registry Numbers through 

CAS Client ServicesSM. The LRL is used to specify the lowest 

quantifiable value for constituents listed in tables 2 and 3. The 

LRLs for many of the constituents varied during the period 

of record covered by this report; the range per constituent is 

listed in table 2. In this period of record, the pesticide schedule, or grouping of analytes, routinely used for this project was 

discontinued by the USGS National Water-Quality Laboratory, 

necessitating the change in June 2016 to a schedule with a 

broader range of constituents. The overlap in pesticide schedules and change in LRLs are noted in table 3.

Sample Concentration for Viral Pathogens

Water samples collected from May 2008 to August 2015 

for viral pathogen analyses were filtered through a ViroCap 

encapsulated filter (Scientific Methods, Granger, Indiana). 

Samples collected from September 2015 to September 2017 

were filtered through a REXEED–25S ultrafilter (Asahi Kasei 

Medical Company, Tokyo, Japan). Sample filters were capped 

and shipped overnight on ice to the USGS Ohio Water Microbiology Laboratory (OWML) in Columbus, Ohio, for analysis.

Upon arrival at the OWML, filters were eluted 

and eluates were concentrated before deoxyribonucleic 

acid/ribonucleic acid (DNA/RNA) extraction. Samples 

received between May 2008 and September 2012 were eluted 

using an OptimaRE elution solution (Scientific Methods, 

Granger, Ind.) and were concentrated using a precipitation 

protocol described by Lambertini and others (2008). Samples 

received between October 2012 and May 2016 were eluted 

using 1.5-percent Beef Extract (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey) at pH 9.0 and concentrated 

via organic flocculation according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 1615 (Fout and others, 2014). 

Samples received between June 2016 and August 2017 were 

eluted using a 0.075-percent Tween 20/25 millimolar (mM) 

Tris High Volume Elution foam canister (InnovaPrep LLC, 

Drexel, Missouri) and concentrated using a Centricon Plus-70 

centrifugal filter (EMD Millipore, Billerica, Massachusetts). 

See table 4 for all changes to viral pathogen analyses by 

sample date.

DNA/RNA Extraction and qPCR or qRT–PCR

Viral DNA and RNA were extracted from sample concentrates using the QIAamp® DNA Blood Mini Extraction 

Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, California) according to manufacturer’s 

instructions, except the AVL viral lysis buffer with the addition 

of carrier RNA (Qiagen, Valencia, Calif.) was used instead 

of the AL general lysis buffer. Sample extracts were stored at 

−70°C until batch analysis was performed.

For analysis of adenovirus DNA by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), the primers/probe and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conditions described by Jothikumar and others (2005a) were followed. For analysis of 

enterovirus and norovirus (GIA and GII) RNA by quantitative 

reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT–PCR) 
8 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

Table 2. Carbon, nutrients, major ions, dissolved solids, and physical characteristics analyzed for in water-quality samples, Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.

[This report contains Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers®, which are a registered trademark of the American Chemical Society. The Chemical 

Abstracts Service recommends the verification of the Registry Numbers through Chemical Abstracts Service Client ServicesSM. CASRN, Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number®; LRL, laboratory reporting level; --, not applicable; mg/L, milligram per liter; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; μg/L, microgram per liter; 

C, Celsius; mmHg, millimeter mercury; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter]

Parameter name Parameter code CASRN LRL Unit

Carbon and nutrients

Dissolved organic carbon 00681 -- 0.23–0.66 mg/L

Nitrogen, ammonia 00608 -- 0.02–0.01 mg/L as N

Ammonia plus organic 

nitrogen

00625 -- 0.07–0.14 mg/L as N

Nitrogen, nitrite 00613 14797-65-0 0.001–0.002 mg/L as N

Nitrate plus nitrite 00631 -- 0.04–0.08 mg/L as N

Phosphorus 00665 7723-14-0 0.02–0.04 mg/L as P

Orthophosphate 00671 14265-44-2 0.004–0.008 mg/L as P

Major ions, dissolved solids, and physical characteristics

Boron 01020 7440-42-8 2 μg/L

Alkalinity 39086 -- -- mg/L as calcium 

carbonate

Bicarbonate 00453 71-52-3 -- mg/L

Bromide 71870 24959-67-9 0.01 mg/L

Calcium 00915 7440-70-2 0.022 mg/L

Carbonate 00452 3812-32-6 -- mg/L

Chloride 00940 16887-00-6 0.02 mg/L

Dissolved oxygen 00300 7782-44-7 -- mg/L

Fluoride 00950 16984-48-8 0.01 mg/L

Iron 01046 7439-89-6 10 μg/L

Magnesium 00925 7439-95-4 0.011 mg/L

Manganese 01056 7439-96-5 0.2 μg/L

pH 00400 -- -- standard units

Potassium 00935 7440-09-7 0.1 mg/L

Silica 00955 7631-86-9 0.018 mg/L

Sodium 00930 7440-23-5 0.1 mg/L

Specific conductance 00095 -- -- μS/cm at 25 degrees C

Sulfate 00945 14808-79-8 0.02 mg/L

Temperature, water 00010 -- -- degrees C

Total dissolved solids 70300 -- 20 mg/L
Methods of Study 9

Table 3. Select pesticides, degradates, and intermediates analyzed for in water-quality samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.

[This report contains Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers®, which are a registered trademark of the American Chemical Society. The Chemical 

Abstracts Service recommends the verification of the Registry Numbers through Chemical Abstracts Service Client ServicesSM. CASRN, Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number®; LRL, laboratory reporting level; μg/L, microgram per liter; --, not applicable]

Parameter name Parameter code CASRN

LRL (μg/L)

Schedule 2033 Schedule 1379

Parent compounds

Acetochlor 49260 34256-82-1 0.010 0.05

Alachlor 46342 15972-60-8 0.008 0.05

Ametryn 38401 834-12-8 -- 0.05

Atrazine 39632 1912-24-9 0.008 0.05

Azinphos-methyl 82686 86-50-0 0.120 --

Benfluralin 82673 1861-40-1 0.014 --

Bromacil 04029 314-40-9 -- 0.05

Butachlor 04026 23184-66-9 -- 0.05

Butylate 04028 2008-41-5 -- 0.05

Carbaryl 82680 63-25-2 0.060 --

Carbofuran 82674 1563-66-2 0.060 --

Carboxin 04027 5234-68-4 -- 0.05

Chlorpyrifos 38933 2921-88-2 0.010 --

Chlorthal-dimethyl 

(DCPA)

82682 1861-32-1 0.008 --

cis-Permethrin 82687 61949-76-6 0.010 --

Cyanazine 04041 21725-46-2 0.022 0.2

Cycloate 04031 1134-23-2 -- 0.05

Cyfluthrin 61585 68359-37-5 0.016 --

Cypermethrin 61586 52315-07-8 0.020 --

Diazinon 39572 333-41-5 0.006 --

Dichlorvos 38775 62-73-7 0.040 --

Dicrotophos 38454 141-66-2 0.080 --

Dieldrin 39381 60-57-1 0.012 --

Dimethoate 82662 60-51-5 0.010 --

Diphenamid 04033 957-51-7 -- 0.05

Disulfoton 82677 298-04-4 0.040 --

Ethion 82346 563-12-2 0.005 --

Ethoprop 82672 13194-48-4 0.016 --

Fenamiphos 61591 22224-92-6 0.030 --

Fipronil 62166 120068-37-3 0.018 --

Fonofos 04095 944-22-9 0.005 --

Hexazinone 04025 51235-04-2 0.012 0.05

Iprodione 61593 36734-19-7 0.014 --

Isofenphos 61594 25311-71-1 0.014 --

λ-Cyhalothrin 61595 91465-08-6 0.014 --

Malathion 39532 121-75-5 0.016 --

Metalaxyl 61596 57837-19-1 0.014 --
10 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

Table 3. Select pesticides, degradates, and intermediates analyzed for in water-quality samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.—

Continued

[This report contains Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers®, which are a registered trademark of the American Chemical Society. The Chemical 

Abstracts Service recommends the verification of the Registry Numbers through Chemical Abstracts Service Client ServicesSM. CASRN, Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number®; LRL, laboratory reporting level; μg/L, microgram per liter; --, not applicable]

Parameter name Parameter code CASRN

LRL (μg/L)

Schedule 2033 Schedule 1379

Methidathion 61598 950-37-8 0.012 --

Methyl parathion 82667 298-00-0 0.008 --

Metolachlor 39415 51218-45-2 0.012 0.05

Metribuzin 82630 21087-64-9 0.012 0.05

Molinate 82671 2212-67-1 0.008 --

Myclobutanil 61599 88671-89-0 0.010 --

Oxyfluorfen 61600 42874-03-3 0.010 --

Pendimethalin 82683 40487-42-1 0.012 --

Phorate 82664 298-02-2 0.020 --

Phosmet 61601 732-11-6 0.140 --

Prometon 04037 1610-18-0 0.012 0.05

Prometryn 04036 7287-19-6 0.010 0.05

Propachlor 04024 1918-16-7 -- 0.05

Propanil 82679 709-98-8 0.010 --

Propargite 82685 2312-35-8 0.020 --

Propazine 38535 139-40-2 -- 0.05

Propyzamide 82676 23950-58-5 0.008 --

S-Ethyl 

dipropylthiocarbamate 

(EPTC)

82668 759-94-4 0.006 --

Simazine 04035 122-34-9 0.006 0.05

Simetryn 04030 1014-70-6 -- 0.05

Tebuconazole 62852 107534-96-3 0.020 --

Tebuthiuron 82670 34014-18-1 0.028 --

Tefluthrin 61606 79538-32-2 0.014 --

Terbacil 04032 5902-51-2 -- 0.05

Terbufos 82675 13071-79-9 0.018 --

Terbuthylazine 04022 5915-41-3 0.008 --

Thiobencarb 82681 28249-77-6 0.016 --

Tribufos 61610 78-48-8 0.018 --

Trifluralin 04023 1582-09-8 -- 0.05

Trifluralin 82661 1582-09-8 0.018 --

Vernolate 04034 1929-77-7 -- 0.05

Degradates

1-Naphthol 49295 90-15-3 0.050 --

2-Chloro-2,6-diethylacetanilide61618 6967-29-9 0.010 --

2-Chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-S-triazine 

(CIAT)

04040 6190-65-4 0.010 0.05
Methods of Study 11

Table 3. Select pesticides, degradates, and intermediates analyzed for in water-quality samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.—

Continued

[This report contains Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers®, which are a registered trademark of the American Chemical Society. The Chemical 

Abstracts Service recommends the verification of the Registry Numbers through Chemical Abstracts Service Client ServicesSM. CASRN, Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number®; LRL, laboratory reporting level; μg/L, microgram per liter; --, not applicable]

Parameter name Parameter code CASRN

LRL (μg/L)

Schedule 2033 Schedule 1379

Degradates—Continued

2-Chloro-6-ethylamino4-amino-S-triazine 

(CEAT)

04038 1007-28-9 -- 0.05

3,5-Dichloroaniline 61627 626-43-7 0.006 --

4-Chloro-2-methylphenol 61633 1570-64-5 0.008 --

α-Endosulfan 34362 959-98-8 0.010 --

Azinphos-methyl oxygen 61635 961-22-8 0.042 --

Chlorpyrifos oxygen 

analog

61636 5598-15-2 0.080 --

cis-Propiconazole 79846 112721-87-6 0.008 --

Desulfinylfipronil 62170 -- 0.012 --

Desulfinylfipronil amide 62169 -- 0.029 --

Diazoxon 61638 962-58-3 0.012 --

Disulfoton sulfone 61640 2497-06-5 0.010 --

Endosulfan sulfate 61590 1031-07-8 0.016 --

Ethion monoxon 61644 17356-42-2 0.021 --

Fenamiphos sulfone 61645 31972-44-8 0.054 --

Fenamiphos sulfoxide 61646 31972-43-7 0.080 --

Fipronil sulfide 62167 120067-83-6 0.016 --

Fipronil sulfone 62168 120068-36-2 0.024 --

Malaoxon 61652 1634-78-2 0.022 --

Methyl paraoxon 61664 950-35-6 0.014 --

Phorate oxygen analog 61666 2600-69-3 0.027 --

Phosmet oxygen analog 61668 3735-33-9 0.051 --

Terbufos oxygen analog 

sulfone

61674 56070-15-6 0.045 --

trans-Propiconazole 79847 120523-07-1 0.018 --

Intermediates

2,6-Diethylaniline 82660 579-66-8 0.006 --

2-Ethyl-6-methylaniline 61620 24549-06-2 0.010 --

3,4-Dichloroaniline 61625 95-76-1 0.006 --
12 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17 Table 4. Characteristics of viral pathogen analyses, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17. [qPCR, quantitative polymerase chain reaction; qRT–PCR, quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction; EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; N/A, not applicable; RT–PCR, reverse- transcription polymerase chain reaction] Sample dates Filter type Elution method Extraction method Adenovirus assay Enterovirus assay Norovirus GIA assay Norovirus GIB assay Norovirus GII assay qPCR reagents qRT–PCR reagents Type of standard May 2008– June 2011 ViroCap charged filter OptimaRE QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Jothikumar and others, 2005a Gregory and others, 2006 EPAMethod 1615 N/A Jothikumar and others, 2005b TaqMan Universal Master Mix TaqMan One-Step RT–PCR Master Mix Culture/ stool July 2011– Sept. 2012 Two-Step RT–PCR with Super- Script II and Lightcycler 480 Master Mix Oct. 2012– Aug. 2015 Beef Extract EPA Method 1615 EPA Method 1615 EPA Method 1615 Plasmid Sept. 2015– May 2016 Rexeed–25S ultrafilter June 2016– Aug. 2017 InnovaPrep Foam

from May 2008 to September 2012, the primers/probe and 

PCR conditions described in Gregory and others (2006) and 

Jothikumar and others (2005b), respectively, were followed. 

From October 2012 to August 2017, the primers/probe and 

PCR conditions described in EPA Method 1615 (Fout and 

others, 2014) were followed for the analysis of enterovirus 

and norovirus GIA and GII by qRT–PCR. A norovirus GIB 

assay described in EPA Method 1615 was also added at this 

time. All samples were run in duplicate on an Applied Biosystems® 7500, StepOne PlusTM, or Quant StudioTM 3 (Foster 

City, Calif.) thermal cycler. TaqMan® Universal Master Mix 

(Applied Biosystems, Foster City, Calif.) was used for all 

qPCR reactions. From May 2008 to June 2011, TaqMan® 

One-Step RT–PCR Master Mix (Applied Biosystems, Foster 

City, Calif.) was used for all qRT–PCR reactions. Starting in 

July 2011, a two-step reverse-transcription reaction was used 

for all qRT–PCR reactions: the first step used SuperScriptTM 

II Reverse Transcriptase (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, Calif.), and 

the second step used Lightcycler® 480 Master Mix (Roche 

Diagnostics, Risch-Rotkreuz, Switzerland) with the addition 

of ROXTM reference dye (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, 

Calif.).

Sample inhibition for qPCR was determined by seeding 

an aliquot of the sample extract with an extracted positive control target in a duplicate qPCR reaction. Sample inhibition for 

qRT–PCR was determined by seeding an aliquot of the sample 

extract with hepatitis G virus armored RNA® (Asuragen, Inc, 

Austin, Texas). The concentration of target in the sample was 

then compared to the concentration of target in a clean matrix 

control (molecular grade water) that was seeded with the same 

extracted positive control/hepatitis G virus target. Sample 

extracts were considered inhibited and were diluted if the 

seeded test sample was more than two threshold cycles higher 

than that of the seeded clean matrix control.

Standard Curves for qPCR or qRT–PCR

For qPCR and qRT–PCR methods, standard curves are 

required to assign test samples with a relative quantity of an 

analyte. From May 2008 to September 2012, standard curves 

for adenovirus and enterovirus viral pathogen targets were 

created using virus stocks treated with Benzonase® (Novagen, 

Madison, Wisconsin) as described previously (Francy and 

others, 2011). Human noroviruses are not culturable; therefore, standard curves for norovirus GIA and GII viral pathogen 

targets were created using a positive stool sample obtained 

from the Ohio Department of Health in Reynoldsburg, 

Ohio. Stool was treated with Vertrel XF (Miller-Stephenson, 

Danbury, Connecticut) and concentrated via centrifugation. 

Norovirus GII was in the stool sample at high enough concentrations to create a six-point standard curve; however, the stool 

sample contained low concentrations of GIA, and a complete 

curve was not obtained until the OWML changed to the more 

sensitive two-step reverse-transcription reaction. Starting 

in October 2012, plasmid standards for all viral pathogen 
Methods of Study 13

targets were used to create standard curves. Plasmids were 

constructed by insertion of PCR-amplified target sequences 

into a pCR4 TOPO® Escherichia coli (E. coli) plasmid vector 

(Invitrogen, Carlsbad, Calif.). Plasmid DNA was extracted and 

purified from E. coli cells using the QuickLyseTM Miniprep Kit 

(Qiagen, Valencia, Calif.). Plasmid sequences were verified by 

DNA sequencing at the Ohio State University Plant-Microbe 

Genomics Facility. The copy number was calculated from 

DNA concentration measured using the PicoGreen® assay 

(Invitrogen, Carlsbad, Calif.) and the molecular weight of the 

plasmid.

Guidelines for interpreting standard curve data are available in the Applied Biosystems® StepOneTM and StepOne 

PlusTM Real-Time PCR Systems Reagent Guide (Applied 

Biosystems, 2010). Standard curve characteristics are listed in 

table 5. The dynamic range describes the lowest and highest 

standards analyzed by the laboratory for each assay in copies 

per PCR reaction. The amplification efficiency of the PCR 

should be 90–110 percent; an efficiency of 100 percent means 

an exact doubling of the target DNA sequence at each cycle.

The limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD), and 

limit of quantification (LoQ) were calculated for each assay. 

The LoB is the lowest concentration that can be reported 

with 95-percent confidence to be above the concentrations 

of blanks, and it is used because low-level cross contamination may exist during sample manipulation. Also, anecdotal 

evidence of the occurrence of autofluorescence for some of the 

assays has been documented. The LoD is the lowest concentration that can be detected with 95-percent confidence that 

it is a true detection and can be distinguished from the LoB. 

The LoD was determined by running a series of dilutions of 

the target with a minimum of 10 replicates per dilution (except 

for the norovirus GIA stool LoD, which only had 4 replicates 

because of the problems with the stool mentioned previously). 

The dilutions used varied depending on the magnitude of the 

lowest standard concentration used in the standard curve for 

that target. The dilution with the lowest concentration of target 

that met the following requirements was chosen as the LoD: 

(1) standard deviation of the replicates was less than 1 and 

(2) the number of replicates with detections was greater than 

95 percent. If the LoB is higher than the calculated LoD, then 

the LoB is used as the LoD. The LoQ is the lowest concentration of a target that can be accurately quantified. The LoQ 

is calculated from the standard deviation of the LoD and is, 

therefore, higher than the LoD. LoB, LoD, and LoQ values are 

initially threshold cycle values, converted to and reported as 

copies per reaction volume by use of an assay-specific standard curve. Sample results are reported as estimated (denoted 

with an “E”) when duplicate reaction results for a sample did 

not agree. Sample results less than the LoQ but greater than 

the LoD are reported as estimated with the additional qualifier of “b,” meaning concentration is extrapolated below the 

LoQ. The qualifier “t” is reported when the analyte is detected 

and the concentration is greater than the LoB but less than 

the LoD. Results qualified with a “t” have greater uncertainty 

than those qualified with a “b.” If an analyte is detected but 

less than one copy per reaction, it is reported as less than the 

sample reporting limit. Because original sample volumes and 

dilutions to overcome inhibition were often different for each 

sample or set of samples, the LoD was applied on a sampleby-sample basis to sample reporting limits. The sample reporting limits are the “less-than values” for each sample and assay 

and are reported as copies per liter.

Table 5. Standard curve characteristics for quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and quantitative reverse-transcription 

polymerase chain reaction viral pathogen assays, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17.

[Dynamic range and limit of detection are reported in copies per reaction; R2, coefficient of determination; N/A, not applicable]

qPCR assay Total number of 

curves run Dynamic range

Amplification 

efficiency 

(percent)

R2 value Limit of detection

(culture, plasmid)

Limit of 

quantification

(culture, plasmid)

Adenovirus 13 3.20–8.29×107 90–101 0.993–1.00 6.4, 36 10, 100

Enterovirus 24 1.83–4.26×107 91–109 0.992–1.00 11, 38 22, 66

Norovirus GIA 19 1.90–4.26×107 96–110 0.991–1.00 16, 24 25, 59

Norovirus GIB 18 3.08–4.26×107 92–105 0.990–1.00 N/A, 29 N/A, 74

Norovirus GII 21 3.54–4.26×107 91–104 0.990–1.00 25, 35 41, 110
14 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Water 

Samples

To properly interpret water-quality data and to verify 

that these data are reliable and accurate, QA procedures and 

QC samples are needed. In general, QA includes using correct 

procedures and protocols, proper documentation (log books 

and field sheets), and approved USGS analytical methods, as 

documented in the “Chemical Laboratory Analysis” section, 

excepting for the experimental viral methods whose QA/QC 

are detailed further below. The QC samples typically are used 

in the estimation of the magnitude of bias and variability of 

the environmental samples. Bias is systematic error that can 

“skew” results in either a positive or negative direction. The 

most common source of positive bias in water-quality studies 

is contamination of samples from airborne gases and particulates, or inadequate cleaning of sampling equipment between 

uses and locations. Variability is the degree of random error of 

independent measurements of the sample quantity. Variability 

may be the result of errors in laboratory analytical procedures 

or in collection of samples in the field. The QA/QC procedures 

are required to ensure that the data collected meet standards of 

reliability and accuracy.

The QA/QC procedures for the study followed USGS 

protocols (U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated) and other 

USGS guidelines (Mueller and others, 1997). About 10 percent of the environmental samples collected for the study were 

analyzed for QC including equipment blanks, field blanks, and 

replicates. Generally, blanks are used to estimate sample bias 

whereas replicates are used to estimate sample variability.

A blank is a water sample that is intended to be free of 

the analytes of interest. Two types of commercially available 

blank waters were used for equipment and field blanks. The 

water is considered to be organic blank water or inorganic 

blank water and is certified by the manufacturer (Ricca) to 

be free of either organic compounds (organic blank water) 

or inorganic compounds (inorganic blank water). For equipment blanks, blank water was passed through all sampling 

equipment in a “clean environment,” such as the laboratory, 

to examine the cleanliness of the equipment before sampling. 

A field blank is a specific type of blank sample collected in 

the field and is used to demonstrate that (1) equipment has 

been adequately cleaned to remove contamination introduced 

by samples obtained at the previous site; (2) sample collection and processing have not resulted in contamination; and 

(3) sample handling, transport, and laboratory analysis have 

not introduced contamination (Mueller and others, 1997). 

Field blank samples of the organic blank water and inorganic 

blank water were collected by passing the water through all 

pumps, filter plates, and filters to verify the cleanliness of sampling equipment and technique. Field blanks were collected by 

water type on separate dates.

Replicates are two or more samples collected or processed so that the samples are almost identical in composition. 

All replicate samples were collected as sequential samples in 

that they were collected one after the other, using the same 

techniques and filters as necessary. For the purposes of this 

report, the terms “environmental sample” and “replicate 

sample” are used to identify a particular sample in a replicate 

pair.

One objective of collecting replicate pairs was to estimate the precision of constituent concentrations determined 

by sample processing and analysis. Analytical results of 

organic constituents generally are more variable than those of 

inorganic constituents. Replicate pairs were compared using 

relative percent differences (RPDs). The RPD between sample 

pairs was calculated using the following:

RPD=|S1−S2|/(S1+S2/2)×100 (1)

where

S1 is equal to the concentration of a single 

detected constituent in the environmental 

sample, in micrograms per liter or 

milligrams per liter; and

S2 is equal to the concentration of a single 

detected constituent in the replicate 

sample, in the same units as S1.

A large RPD indicates greater variability between the 

environmental and replicate samples. Where detections were 

in both samples, variability for constituents in the replicate 

samples was generally within 10 percent of the environmental 

samples. As shown in table 6, the RPD for nutrients and dissolved organic carbon ranged from 0 to 77.3 percent; the RPD 

for common ions, dissolved solids, and physical characteristics 

ranged from 0 to 42.4 percent; and the RPD for pesticides 

ranged from 0 to 117 percent. It should be noted that when 

comparing low concentrations (within about 10 times the 

detection limit) between replicate pairs, the RPD can seem 

large because slight differences (common at the lowest detection levels) can result in higher RPDs. This was the case for 

individual RPDs that had the largest percentage (10 percent 

or greater) for this period of record. For nutrients, four RPDs 

larger than 10 percent all had absolute values of less than 

0.013 milligram per liter (mg/L). For pesticides, five RPDs 

larger than 10 percent all had absolute values of less than 

0.05 microgram per liter (μg/L). When one of the pairs had 

analytical results less than the reporting limit (considered a 

nondetect) and the other had a value greater than the reporting 

limit, the value of the nondetect was considered to be one-half 

that of the reporting limit and the RPD was calculated as such. 

The RPDs for these cases were much greater than all other 

RPDs and were included in the data table.

Surrogates were added to all environmental and QC 

samples for pesticide analysis before sample preparation in the 

laboratory. A surrogate has physical and chemical properties 

similar to those of the analytes of interest but is not normally 

in environmental samples. Surrogates provide QC by monitoring matrix effects and gross processing errors (Wershaw 

and others, 1987) and help control for bias, either positive 

or negative. Surrogate recoveries of organic chemicals are 

expressed in percent and for this data set range from 33.2 to 
Methods of Study 15

Table 6. Replicate water-quality data for nutrients, carbon, ions, dissolved solids, physical characteristics, and pesticides in 

groundwater and surface-water samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.

[mg/L, milligram per liter; N, nitrogen; μg/L, microgram per liter; P, phosphorus; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; SiO2,silicon dioxide]

Constituent (unit) Parameter code Number of 

replicate pairs

Relative percent difference

Minimum Maximum Median

Nutrients and carbon

Ammonia (mg/L as N) 00608 14 0 25.1 2.88

Dissolved organic carbon 

(mg/L)

00681 4 0.02 4.19 1.33

Nitrate plus nitrite (mg/L 

as N)

00631 14 0 2.48 0.42

Nitrite (mg/L as N) 00613 14 0 77.3 4.28

Orthophosphate (mg/L as P) 00671 14 0.02 31.5 2.21

Ions, dissolved solids, and physical characteristics

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 39086 3 0.42 1.73 1.04

Bicarbonate (mg/L) 00453 3 0.45 1.63 0.98

Boron (μg/L) 01020 4 0.64 2.98 1.96

Bromide (mg/L) 71870 6 2.40 8.70 4.15

Calcium (mg/L) 00915 6 0.17 2.31 1.17

Carbonate (mg/L) 00452 3 0 40.0 22.2

Chloride (mg/L) 00940 6 0.04 0.37 0.13

Fluoride (mg/L) 00950 6 0 6.93 1.62

Iron (μg/L) 01046 6 0 42.4 0.96

Magnesium (mg/L) 00925 6 0.12 1.34 0.81

Manganese (μg/L) 01056 6 1.32 4.78 1.99

Potassium (mg/L) 00935 6 0.20 7.34 2.06

Silica (mg/L as SiO2) 00955 6 0.40 1.82 0.92

Sodium (mg/L) 00930 6 0.20 2.74 1.60

Sulfate (mg/L) 00945 6 0.03 0.34 0.14

Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 70300 6 0.77 6.66 1.56

Pesticides

2-Chloro-4-isopropylamino6-amino-S-triazine (μg/L)04040 7 0.34 9.39 5.61

2-Chloro-6-ethylamino4-amino-S-triazine (μg/L)04038 6 0 3.28 0

Acetochlor (μg/L) 49260 7 0 1.48 0

Atrazine (μg/L) 39632 7 0 10.4 5.93

Chlorthal-dimethyl (DCPA) 

(μg/L)

82682 1 -- 117 --

Metolachlor (μg/L) 39415 7 1.12 107 4.29

Prometon (μg/L) 04037 7 0 1.83 0
16 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

140.1 percent and are listed in table 7. Surrogate recoveries 

that consistently are less than 70 percent may indicate that 

many targeted compounds may be in greater concentrations 

than reported. Median surrogate percent recoveries (ranging 

from 52.0 to 100.7 percent) are listed in table 7. Analyte concentrations are not adjusted for surrogate recoveries.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Viral 

Pathogens

Laboratory analytical QC samples included filtered positive and negative controls, extraction negative controls, as well 

as separate PCR positive and negative controls run on each 

qPCR or qRT–PCR plate. Filtered positive control samples 

were spiked with enterovirus. Each sample was assayed in 

duplicate by qPCR or qRT–PCR. All filtered negative controls, 

extraction negative controls, and PCR negative controls were 

less than the detection limit except for one extraction negative 

control. Samples analyzed at the same time as this extraction 

negative control were reextracted and reanalyzed later, with 

the exception of one sample, which did not have sufficient 

volume to reanalyze, so the LoB was used as the LoD for 

this sample. Enterovirus was detected in all filtered positive 

controls, and the appropriate target was detected in all PCR 

positive controls.

Field QC samples for viral pathogens consisted of 1 field 

blank, 3 replicates, and 1 seeded matrix control. The field 

blank sample consisted of 10 liters (L) of sterile, deionized 

water treated in the same manner as a regular filtered sample 

at the sampling location and was negative for all viruses. 

Replicates were collected concurrently using a Y-valve and a 

second filtration apparatus. There were no detections for any 

of the targets in any of the replicate samples; therefore, an 

RPD could not be determined. The seeded matrix control was 

collected from a representative groundwater well to determine 

the recovery of viruses through all processing and analytical 

steps. The sample was filtered onsite, but the last 10 L were 

collected in a cubitainer and shipped with the filter to the 

OWML. At the OWML, the 10-L cubitainer was seeded with 

enterovirus to achieve a target seed amount of 106 viruses, 

estimated by the OWML by use of a RiboGreen assay. The 

seeded 10-L cubitainer was then filtered through the same filter that was used onsite for that sample and eluted as described 

above. An unseeded control was analyzed in conjunction with 

the seeded matrix control to determine background concentrations of enteroviruses. Enterovirus was recovered from the 

spiked sample at 6.40 percent, which is within the acceptance 

criterion according to EPA Method 1615 section 14.2.5 (Fout 

and others, 2014).

Water-Quality Data for Cedar River and 

Cedar Rapids Well Fields

The results of the water-quality samples collected from 

October 2010 through August 2017 are summarized in tables 8 

to 19 at the back of this report. Data compiled are from 

samples collected from the Cedar River, municipal wells, 

observation wells, and the two water treatment plants with 

quarterly monitoring. Other water-quality data were obtained 

from monthly nutrient sampling on the Cedar River.

Water-quality data were used to assess the quality of 

water in the alluvial aquifer, Silurian-Devonian aquifer, and 

the Cedar River. The Cedar River is the primary influencer 

on water quality in the alluvial aquifer because of induced 

infiltration from the river as a result of the pumping of wells 

(Schulmeyer and Schnoebelen, 1998; Boyd, 2000; Turco 

and Buchmiller, 2004). Agricultural chemicals (nutrients and 

pesticides) are of concern because of the predominance of 

agricultural land use (90 percent and greater) in the Cedar 

River Basin. An 11.6-mi reach of the Cedar River between the 

confluence with Bear Creek, which is upstream from Palo, and 

the confluence with McLoud Run in Cedar Rapids is identified 

on the Iowa Department of Natural Resources Water Quality 

Assessments Impaired Waters List for nitrate, pH, and E. coli

impairment (Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 2006; 

fig. 1). For this segment of the Cedar River, a Total Maximum 

Daily Load limit was established for nitrate by Iowa Department of Natural Resources and approved by the EPA in January 2007 (Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 2006); a 

bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load was approved by the EPA 

in February 2010 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2010). Water-quality data were also evaluated for nutrients, 

pesticides, selected major ions, selected viruses, and physical 

characteristics.

Physical Characteristics, Major Ions, and 

Nutrients

Physical characteristics were measured at each sampling 

site when a water-quality sample was collected. Physical 

characteristics generally obtained for samples include dissolved oxygen (in milligrams per liter), pH (in standard pH 

units), specific conductance (in microsiemens per centimeter 

at 25 oC), water temperature (in degrees Celsius), alkalinity 

(in milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate), bicarbonate (in 

milligrams per liter), carbonate (in milligrams per liter), air 

pressure (in millimeters of mercury), and air temperature (in 

degrees Celsius). Summary statistics for dissolved oxygen, 

pH, specific conductance, water temperature, alkalinity, bicarbonate, and carbonate of sample water from individual sites 

are listed in table 8.

Major ion data were compiled for boron, bromide, 

calcium, chloride, fluoride, iron, magnesium, manganese, 

potassium, silica, sodium, and sulfate in milligrams per liter, 
Water-Quality Data for Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields 17

Table 7. Surrogate pesticide data for groundwater and surface-water samples with minimum, maximum, and median percent recovery, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.[For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; HCH, Hexachlorocyclohexane; sch, schedule; --, not applicable]

Summary 

statistic Palo Edgewood Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 3 Ranney 4 Ranney 6 CRM–3A CRM–4A CRM–6A CRM–22 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 J Avenue NWWTP

α-HCH-d6, sch 1379 (parameter code 90505)

Minimum -- 66.0 69.1 64.3 69.6 65.4 53.8 83.3 70.8 66.7 -- 67.8 67.8 53.7 --Maximum -- 134.4 130.9 114.7 111.8 140.1 89.8 96.9 96.7 88.4 89.0 133.5 137.1 102.6 68.2Median -- 84.0 84.1 85.8 83.6 84.8 77.7 90.9 83.7 82.3 -- 81.7 83.2 81.6 --

α-HCH-d6, sch 2003 (parameter code 99995)

Minimum 96.2 87.0 85.2 82.9 79.2 87.6 77.4 -- 88.6 80.6 -- 87.9 -- 87.8 78.5Maximum 105.3 95.3 102.0 103.6 93.4 93.1 93.0 -- 100.6 96.1 -- 105.4 82.7 99.2 95.6Median 100.7 -- 94.8 83.5 85.7 92.5 86.0 -- 95.5 -- -- 91.8 -- 92.2 92.6

Diazinon-d10, sch 1379 (parameter code 90670)

Minimum -- 42.5 39.7 41.5 37.7 33.2 38.1 55.7 37.2 44.9 -- 38.7 37.6 36.9 --Maximum -- 106.1 118.2 119.1 94.8 106.9 64.3 89.1 106.2 63.6 101.5 110.5 102.9 97.8 50.7Median -- 62.6 65.2 66.3 65.3 64.8 52.0 78.3 60.1 61.1 -- 63.8 64.3 60.0 --

Diazinon-d10, sch 2003 (parameter code 99994)

Minimum 89.9 91.5 84.1 73.3 62.2 63.8 66.4 -- 77.0 73.7 -- 78.9 -- 81.7 79.4Maximum 101.7 99.1 95.6 86.4 92.9 81.6 92.8 -- 92.2 83.8 -- 91.9 73.4 94.4 93.4Median 94.4 -- 90.9 84.2 79.9 77.6 79.7 -- 90.5 -- -- 83.8 -- 86.6 85.4
18 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17 Table 8. Summary statistics for physical characteristics of groundwater and surface-water samples, for all sites, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17. [For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; <, actual value is known to be less than value shown; --, not applicable; E, estimated] Summary statistic Palo Edgewood Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 3 Ranney 4 Ranney 6 CRM–3A CRM–4A CRM–6A CRM–22 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 J Avenue NWWTP Alkalinity, in milligrams per liter as CaCO3 (parameter code 39086) Minimum 99.6 94.5 174 129 152 170 166 185 151 217 -- 184 165 169 179 Maximum 254 245 239 226 226 233 242 493 452 243 202 248 217 250 226 Median 193 164 213 207 201 207 215 213 192 240 -- 215 201 213 213 Bicarbonate, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00453) Minimum 121 115 211 157 184 207 202 225 184 264 -- 224 201 206 217 Maximum 306 296 291 276 276 284 294 601 551 295 245 302 265 305 275 Median 232 197 260 250 244 252 261 259 233 291 -- 262 244 259 258 Carbonate, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00452) Minimum 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 -- 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 Maximum 6.1 4.3 1.4 0.9 1.7 1 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.1 2 1.7 0.8 Median 1.7 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 -- 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 Dissolved oxygen, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00300) Minimum 5.6 6.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 -- 0.1 0.1 0.1 8.3 Maximum 15.5 18 8.7 7.5 6.9 5.7 6.2 4.3 7.1 4 1.6 15.6 21.3 3.8 11.7 Median 10.5 11.5 1.4 1.4 0.6 1.3 2 E 0.50 0.6 0.4 -- 0.5 0.9 0.5 9.1 pH, in standard units (parameter code 00400) Minimum 7.5 6 6.9 7.1 6.8 6.5 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.9 -- 6.8 6.7 6 7.2 Maximum 8.9 9.3 7.4 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.3 7.6 8.8 7.8 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.8 Median 8.2 8.3 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.4 -- 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.5 Specific conductance, in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (parameter code 00095) Minimum 255 350 466 413 433 459 471 460 449 432 -- 488 452 489 484 Maximum 641 697 659 688 647 709 674 936 876 445 514 602 616 638 597 Median 528 491 551 552 553 548 548 532 534 441 -- 545 524 554 555 Water temperature, in degrees Celsius (parameter code 00010) Minimum −0.1 0.2 3.8 2.8 5.1 4.4 4.8 11.7 1.4 10.4 -- 3.8 4.5 5.3 6.6 Maximum 26.1 26.1 21.6 24.1 23.2 22.8 20.7 14.8 24.1 14.6 9.6 20.2 20.1 21.5 20.8

Median 13.8 15.8 14.5 15.1 15.2 14.9 14.6 12.2 12.7 11.3 -- 14 14.2 14.1 14.8
Summary 19

except for boron, iron, and manganese, which were collected 

in micrograms per liter. Major ion data are required for characterization of the water chemistry and geochemical modeling. Summary statistics for major ions for all sites are listed in 

table 9 (at the back of this report).

Nutrient data, in milligrams per liter, were compiled for 

ammonia as nitrogen, ammonia plus organic nitrogen as nitrogen, nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen, nitrite as nitrogen, orthophosphate as phosphorus, and phosphorus. Dissolved organic 

carbon data, in milligrams per liter, are summarized with 

nutrient data. Nutrient summary statistics for groundwater and 

surface water from all sites are shown in table 10 (at the back 

of this report).

Summary statistics for nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, and physical characteristics for the treatment plants and 

the wells valved to them are summarized in table 11 (at the 

back of this report). Summary statistics for physical characteristics, major ions, and dissolved solids for the treatment plants 

and the wells valved to them are summarized in table 12 (at 

the back of this report).

Pesticides

Pesticides are used to control unwanted vegetation, 

insects, and other pests in agricultural and urban areas. Typically, large amounts (thousands of pounds per year) of common herbicides are applied during the growing season in the 

Cedar River Basin to corn and soybean crops (Schnoebelen 

and others, 2003). In 2012, the most recent pesticide use data 

available, glyphosate, acetochlor, atrazine, and metolachlor 

were the most commonly used herbicides in Iowa (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017). Insecticides are detected less often in 

water, most likely because they are used in smaller amounts 

than herbicides, have short persistence, and are applied during 

periods of reduced runoff (Schnoebelen and others, 2003). 

Pesticide degradates are formed when a parent pesticide compound breaks down or degrades. Pesticide degradates often 

have been detected at higher concentrations than their parent 

compounds (Kolpin and others, 2000, 2004; Schnoebelen and 

others, 2003). The pesticide degradates of atrazine, 2-Chloro4-ethylamino-6-amino-S-triazine (CEAT) and 2-Chloro4-amino-6-isopropyl-amino-S-triazine (CIAT), were among 

the 24 degradates analyzed. Degradates are included in the 

tables listing pesticides analyzed. Parent compound pesticides 

sampled during the study period and their uses are listed in 

table 13 (at the back of this report). Pesticide degradates and 

intermediates sampled during the study period are listed in 

table 14 (at the back of this report). Pesticides that were tested 

for but not detected are listed in table 15 (at the back of this 

report). Pesticides detected in water samples from individual 

sites are listed in table 16 (at the back of this report). Summary 

statistics for pesticides for the treatment plants and the wells 

valved to them are summarized in table 17 (at the back of this 

report).

Total Coliforms, Escherichia coli, and Viral 

Pathogens

Of the sites sampled during this period of record, 12 were 

sampled for enteric viruses, total coliforms, and E. coli. Those 

sites were CRM–4A, CRM–3A, CRM–22, Seminole 17, Ranney 4, Ranney 6, J Avenue Water Treatment Plant (raw and 

finished waters), Northwest Water Treatment Plant (raw and 

finished waters), Cedar River at Edgewood Road, and Palo. 

Results for total coliform and E. coli for these sites are listed 

in table 18 (at the back of this report). Results for viral pathogens are listed in table 19 (at the back of this report).

Summary

The Cedar River alluvial aquifer is the primary source of 

municipal water in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Municipal wells are 

completed in the alluvial aquifer about 40 to 80 feet below 

land surface. The City of Cedar Rapids and the U.S. Geological Survey have led a cooperative study of the groundwaterflow system and water quality of the aquifer since 1992. 

Cooperative reports between the City of Cedar Rapids and 

the U.S. Geological Survey have documented hydrologic and 

water-quality data, geochemistry, and groundwater models. 

Water-quality samples were collected for studies involving 

well field monitoring, trends, source-water protection, groundwater geochemistry, surface-water–groundwater interaction, 

and pesticides in groundwater and surface water. Water-quality 

analyses were completed for major ions (boron, bromide, 

calcium, chloride, fluoride, iron, magnesium, manganese, 

potassium, silica, sodium, and sulfate), nutrients (ammonia as 

nitrogen, ammonia plus organic nitrogen as nitrogen, nitrite 

plus nitrate as nitrogen, nitrite as nitrogen, orthophosphate 

as phosphorus, and phosphorus), dissolved organic carbon, 

selected pesticides, bacteria, and viral pathogens. Physical 

characteristics (alkalinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, and water temperature) were measured onsite and 

recorded for each water sample collected. This report presents 

the results of routine water-quality data-collection activities 

from water years 2010 through 2017, and additional viral 

pathogen data from May 2008 to August 2017. A water year is 

the period from October 1 to September 30 and is designated 

by the year in which it ends; for example, water year 2015 

was from October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015. Methods of 

data collection, quality assurance, water-quality analyses, and 

statistical procedures are presented. Data include the results of 

water-quality analyses from quarterly sampling from observation wells, municipal wells, two water treatment plants, and 

the Cedar River, as well as monthly nutrient sampling from the 

Cedar River.
20 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

References Cited

Applied Biosystems, 2010, Applied Biosystems StepOne 

and StepOne Plus real-time PCR systems: Applied Biosystems Reagent Guide, accessed February 26, 2019, at 

https://assets.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/LSG/manuals/

cms_046739.pdf.

Boyd, R.A., 1998, Characterizing ground water flow in the 

municipal well fields of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, with selected 

environmental tracers: Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association, v. 34, no. 3, p. 507–518. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb00950.x.]

Boyd, R.A., 2000, Herbicides and herbicide degradates in 

shallow groundwater and the Cedar River near a municipal well field, Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Science of the Total 

Environment, v. 248, no. 2–3, p. 241–253. [Also available at 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00546-X.]

Boyd, R.A., Kuzniar, R.L., and Schulmeyer, P.M., 1999, 

Selected hydrologic data from the Cedar Rapids area, 

Linn County, Iowa, April 1996 through March 1999: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open File Report 99–461, 214 p. [Also 

available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr99461.]

Fishman, M.J., ed., 1993, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—

Determination of inorganic and organic constituents in 

water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 93–125, 217 p. [Also available at https://doi.

org/10.3133/ofr93125.]

Fout, S., Brinkman, N., Cashdollar, S., Griffin, S., McMinn, 

B., Rhodes, E., Varughese, E., Karim, M., Grimm, A., Spencer, S., and Borchardt, M., 2014, Method 1615 measurement of enterovirus and norovirus occurrence in water by 

culture and RT–qPCR (ver. 1.3, Sept. 2014): Washington 

D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 99 p.

Francy, D.S., Stelzer, E.A., Bushon, R.N., Brady, A.M.G., 

Mailot, B.E., Spencer, S.K., Borchardt, M.A., Elber, A.G., 

Riddell, K.R., and Gellner, T.M., 2011, Quantifying viruses 

and bacteria in wastewater—Results, interpretation, methods, and quality control: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2011–5150, 44 p. [Also available at 

https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20115150.]

Gregory, J.B., Litaker, R.W., and Noble, R.T., 2006, Rapid 

one-step quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR assay 

with competitive internal positive control for detection of 

enteroviruses in environmental samples: Applied and Environmental Microbiology, v. 72, no. 6, p. 3960–3967. [Also 

available at https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02291-05.]

Hackett, G., 1987, Drilling and constructing monitoring wells 

with hollow-stem augers, part 1—Drilling considerations: 

Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, v. 7, no. 4, p. 

51–62.

Hansen, R.E., 1970, Geology and groundwater resources of 

Linn County, Iowa: Iowa Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Bulletin no. 10, 66 p.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 2004, Stratigraphic 

column of Iowa: Geological Survey Iowa Department of 

Natural Resources, accessed October 23, 2018, at http://

publications.iowa.gov/4862/1/EM-40.pdf.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 2006, Total maximum 

daily load for nitrate, Cedar River, Linn County, Iowa: Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources, Watershed Improvement 

Section, 55 p., accessed April 2018 at http://www.iowadnr.

gov/portals/idnr/uploads/water/watershed/tmdl/files/final/

cedarriver.pdf.

Jothikumar, N., Cromeans, T.L., Hill, V.R., Lu, X., Sobsey, 

M.D., and Erdman, D.D., 2005a, Quantitative real-time 

PCR assays for detection of human adenoviruses and identification of serotypes 40 and 41: Applied and Environmental 

Microbiology, v. 71, no. 6, p. 3131–3136. [Also available at 

https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.6.3131-3136.2005.]

Jothikumar, N., Lowther, J.A., Henshilwood, K., Lees, D.N., 

Hill, V.R., and Vinjé, J., 2005b, Rapid and sensitive detection of noroviruses by using TaqMan-based one-step reverse 

transcription-PCR assays and application to naturally 

contaminated shellfish samples: Applied and Environmental 

Microbiology, v. 71, no. 4, p. 1870–1875. [Also available at 

https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.4.1870-1875.2005.]

Kalkhoff, S.J., 2018, Transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in 

the Cedar River Basin, Iowa and Minnesota, 2000–15: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2018–

5090, 44 p., accessed July 2018 at https://doi.org/10.3133/

sir20185090.

Kolpin, D.W., Thurman, E.M., and Linhart, S.M., 2000, Finding minimal herbicide concentrations in ground water? Try 

looking for their degradates: Science of the Total Environment, v. 248, no. 2–3, p. 115–122. [Also available at https://

doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00535-5.]

Kolpin, D.W., Schnoebelen, D.J., and Thurman, E.M., 

2004, Degradates provide insight to spatial and temporal trends of herbicides in ground water: Groundwater, 

v. 42, no. 4, p. 601–608. [Also available at https://doi.

org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004.tb02628.x.]
References Cited 21

Lambertini, E., Spencer, S.K., Bertz, P.D., Loge, F.J., Kieke, 

B.A., and Borchardt, M.A., 2008, Concentration of enteroviruses, adenoviruses, and noroviruses from drinking water 

by use of glass wool filters: Applied and Environmental 

Microbiology, v. 74, no. 10, p. 2990–2996. [Also available 

at https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02246-07.]

Littin, G.R., 2012, Selected water-quality data from the Cedar 

River and Cedar Rapids well fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 

2006–10: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 657, 32 p. 

[Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ds657.]

Littin, G.R., and Schnoebelen, D.J., 2010, Selected waterquality data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids well 

fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1999–2005: U.S. Geological 

Survey Data Series 494, 52 p. [Also available at https://doi.

org/10.3133/ds494.]

Mallya, G., Zhao, L., Song, X.C., Niyogi, D., and Govindaraju, R.S., 2013, 2012 Midwest drought in the United 

States: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 18, no. 7, p. 

737–745.

Midwestern Regional Climate Center, 2018, Annual data 

summary Cedar Rapids Municipal AP (IA) USW00014990: 

Midwestern Regional Climate Center digital data, accessed 

January 2018 at https://mrcc.illinois.edu/.

Mueller, D.K., Martin, J.D., and Lopes, T.J., 1997, Qualitycontrol design for surface-water sampling in the National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 97–223, 17 p. [Also available at 

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr97223.]

Patton, C.J., and Kryskalla, J.R., 2003, Methods of analysis 

by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality 

Laboratory—Evaluation of alkaline persulfate digestion 

as an alternative to Kjeldahl digestion for determination of 

total and dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus in water: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

2003–4174, 33 p. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.

gov/publication/wri034174.] 

Patton, C.J., and Kryskalla, J.R., 2011, Colorimetric determination of nitrate plus nitrite in water by enzymatic reduction, automated discrete analyzer methods: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques and Methods, book 5, chap. B8, 34 p. 

[Also available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/05b08/.]

Sandstrom, M.W., Stroppel, M.E., Foreman, W.T., and Schroeder, M.P., 2001, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of moderate-use pesticides and selected degradates in 

water by C-18 solid-phase extraction and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 2001–4098, 70 p. [Also 

available at https://doi.org/10.3133/wri20014098.]

Sandstrom, M.W., Wydoski, D.S., Schroeder, M.P., Zamboni, 

J.L., and Foreman, W.T., 1992, Methods of analysis by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of organonitrogen herbicides in water 

by solid-phase extraction and capillary-column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry with selected-ion monitoring: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 91–519, 26 p. 

[Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr91519.]

Schnoebelen, D.J., Kalkhoff, S.J., Becher, K.D., and Thurman, 

E.M., 2003, Water-quality assessment of the Eastern Iowa 

Basins—Selected pesticides and pesticide degradates in 

streams, 1996–98: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 2003–4075, 62 p. [Also available at 

https://doi.org/10.3133/wri034075.]

Schnoebelen, D.J., and Schulmeyer, P.M., 1996, Selected 

hydrogeologic data from the Cedar Rapids area, Benton and 

Linn Counties, Iowa, October 1992 through March 1996: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 96–471, 172 p. 

[Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr96471.]

Schulmeyer, P.M., 1995, Effect of the Cedar River on the quality of ground-water supply for Cedar Rapids, Iowa: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

94–4211, 68 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/

wri944211.]

Schulmeyer, P.M., and Schnoebelen, D.J., 1998, Hydrogeology and water quality in the Cedar Rapids area, Iowa, 

1992–96: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4261, 77 p. [Also available at https://

pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1997/4261/report.pdf.]

Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 2018, 5310 total organic carbon (TOC) (2017): Standard 

Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater web 

page, accessed October 2018 at https://smww.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/SMWW.2882.104.

Struzeski, T.M., DeGiacomo, W.J., and Zayhowski, E.J., 

1996, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey 

National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of dissolved aluminum and boron in water by inductively coupled 

plasma-atomic emission spectrometry: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 96–149, 17 p. [Also available at 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr96149.]

Tucci, P., and McKay, R.M., 2006, Hydrogeology and simulation of ground-water flow in the Silurian-Devonian aquifer 

system, Johnson County, Iowa: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5266, 73 p.

Turco, M.J., and Buchmiller, R.C., 2004, Simulation of 

ground-water flow in the Cedar River alluvial aquifer flow 

system, Cedar Rapids, Iowa: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5130, 39 p. [Also available 

at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20045130.]
22 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

University of Iowa, 2013, Iowa Stratigraphic Column: 

University of Iowa, IIHR—Hydroscience & Engineering, 

accessed October 29, 2018, at https://www.iihr.uiowa.edu/

igs/files/2014/04/Text-stratographic-coloumn-of-Iowa.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2018, QuickFacts, Cedar Rapids city, 

Iowa: U.S. Census Bureau web page, accessed January 

2018 at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/cedarrapidscityiowa/PST045216.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010, Cedar River 

watershed total maximum daily load for indicator bacteria, 

Escherichia coli (E. coli): U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 463 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 

9, chaps. A1–A9, accessed February 2018 at https://pubs.

water.usgs.gov/twri9A.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, Pesticide National Synthesis 

Project: U.S. Geological Survey web page, accessed February 2018 at https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2018, USGS water data for the 

Nation: U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System database, accessed February 2018 at https://doi.

org/10.5066/F7P55KJN.

Wahl, K.D., and Bunker, B.J., 1986, Hydrology of carbonate 

aquifers in southwestern Linn County and adjacent parts of 

Benton, Iowa, and Johnson Counties, Iowa: Iowa Geological Survey Water Supply Bulletin no. 15, 56 p.

Wershaw, R.L., Fishman, M.J., Grabbe, R.R., and Lowe, 

L.E., eds., 1987, Methods for the determination of organic 

substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 

5, chap. A3, 80 p.
Tables 9–19
24 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17 Table 9. Summary statistics for major ions and dissolved solids in groundwater and surface-water samples, by site, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17. [For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; CaCO3, calcium carbon- ate; --, not applicable; <, actual value is known to be less than value shown; E, estimated] Summary statistic Palo Edgewood Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 3 Ranney 4 Ranney 6 CRM–3A CRM–4A CRM–6A CRM–22 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 J Avenue NWWTP Boron, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 01020) Minimum 16.2 9.77 14.4 19.9 17.0 19.1 18.0 21.3 12.3 37.9 -- 18.6 18.5 27.9 17.3 Maximum 30.1 39.7 37.0 38.6 37.8 42.0 33.0 33.7 42.1 42.7 25.1 30.7 30.9 62.5 27.6 Median 18.3 25.9 27.4 26.5 25.9 28.5 25.6 27.3 25.8 40.7 -- 25.9 26.7 34.4 23.0 Bromide, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 71870) Minimum <0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 -- <0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 Maximum 0.03 0.04 0.05 E0.05 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.09 <0.03 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.04 Median 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 <0.01 -- 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 Calcium, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00915) Minimum 37.9 24.1 59.3 47.1 50.8 58.5 59.3 59.0 52.4 55.8 -- 63.3 57.7 57.8 66.0 Maximum 86.8 90.1 82.8 78.0 81.9 79.3 87.1 138 138 65.2 69.5 82.5 80.7 81.0 84.2 Median 72.4 63.7 74.0 68.8 73.2 72.8 75.7 70.2 72.3 58.4 -- 75.2 69.9 70.0 79.7 Chloride, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00940) Minimum 5.79 14.7 17.8 20.1 19.0 20.1 17.3 11.0 15.4 0.45 -- 17.3 18.6 18.3 17.8 Maximum 24.6 34.8 39.0 47.3 42.5 40.5 42.4 21.7 33.8 0.57 21.8 31.6 39.6 42.0 25.6 Median 18.5 23.5 23.7 24.5 26.7 24.8 23.7 20.3 21.7 0.54 -- 23.6 24.3 26.8 20.6 Fluoride, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00950) Minimum 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.08 0.25 -- 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 Maximum 0.20 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.23 0.25 0.31 0.30 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.28 0.24 Median 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.22 0.21 0.28 -- 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.19 Iron, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 01046) Minimum 7.48 3.20 <3.20 <3.20 <3.2 <3.20 46.2 <3.20 3.63 16.6 -- 32.7 46.2 4.10 14.1 Maximum 171 83.8 <10.00 <10.0 57.5 38.2 685 <4.00 54.2 110 <3.20 95.7 101 329 110 Median 59.0 7.02 <4.00 <4.00 <4.00 <4.00 259 <3.20 4.97 25.7 -- 49.4 66.8 73.4 30.5 Magnesium, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00925) Minimum 8.11 11.1 15.8 15.0 14.6 16.0 17.0 17.9 14.9 22.6 -- 17.6 15.5 18.2 17.3 Maximum 24.0 25.9 28.2 27.7 25.7 26.6 25.2 46.2 41.5 25.0 21.7 23.7 24.3 26.4 24.4

Median 20.1 21.4 21.1 22.9 21.7 21.1 21.5 21.5 22.7 23.0 -- 21.2 20.6 21.7 21.2
Tables 9–19 25

Table 9. Summary statistics for major ions and dissolved solids in groundwater and surface-water samples, by site, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.—Continued[For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; --, not applicable; <, actual value is known to be less than value shown; E, estimated]

Summary 

statistic Palo Edgewood Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 3 Ranney 4 Ranney 6 CRM–3A CRM–4A CRM–6A CRM–22 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 J Avenue NWWTP

Manganese, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 01056)

Minimum 4.28 2.70 <0.20 0.73 92.4 11.0 63.1 <0.16 <0.20 4.14 -- 98.3 69.9 109 27.2Maximum 66.9 31.1 51.6 38.9 732 262 248 2380 638 6.36 <0.16 264 279 888 126Median 7.37 7.77 18.7 18.7 212 85.4 146 883 24.7 5.96 -- 184 156 336 60.9

Potassium, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00935)

Minimum 1.57 1.55 1.51 1.72 2.01 1.64 2.18 1.65 1.51 1.22 -- 1.96 1.81 2.04 2.28Maximum 5.64 5.45 3.47 3.19 3.34 3.61 4.04 3.74 3.86 1.35 2.04 3.32 3.17 3.33 2.64Median 2.32 2.48 2.41 2.34 2.49 2.56 2.45 2.42 2.62 1.27 -- 2.56 2.59 2.51 2.39

Silica, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00955)

Minimum 2.16 <0.03 8.64 7.00 10.0 8.68 7.03 9.07 6.82 12.2 -- 7.87 7.58 9.40 10.5Maximum 14.7 15.0 16.1 12.8 15.5 14.9 13.8 12.3 16.3 13.9 9.51 14.4 12.6 16.3 14.5Median 12.5 8.64 11.9 9.59 12.2 12.3 10.8 9.58 11.9 13.5 -- 11.3 10.3 12.5 12.9

Sodium, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00930)

Minimum 2.50 4.11 8.20 8.70 8.68 8.56 7.98 5.76 7.88 3.97 -- 8.69 8.00 8.48 8.17Maximum 12.50 21.9 21.5 26.4 21.1 20.3 23.9 17.5 22.0 4.53 9.87 15.6 21.2 21.1 11.1Median 7.30 9.71 11.1 12.0 12.2 12.0 11.1 9.73 9.71 4.25 -- 11.0 11.1 12.5 8.93

Sulfate, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00945)

Minimum 6.00 13.6 21.5 24.0 18.2 20.5 23.9 28.2 21.0 7.02 -- 22.1 22.8 16.4 23.6Maximum 34.0 47.1 49.6 47.9 46.8 56.0 47.4 47.1 43.7 7.48 29.4 47.8 51.9 41.7 33.2Median 20.8 28.6 28.7 30.9 31.4 28.5 32.4 34.1 24.6 7.11 -- 29.7 30.8 31.2 26.2

Total dissolved solids, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 70300)

Minimum 154 197 281 242 257 276 269 214 252 212 -- 269 271 269 275Maximum 342 410 377 398 381 401 385 579 524 254 299 360 359 368 343Median 299 281 319 313 324 309 314 304 309 223 -- 310 310 319 314
26 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17 Table 10. Summary statistics for nutrients and dissolved organic carbon in groundwater and surface-water samples, by site, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17. [For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; <, actual value is known to be less than value shown; --, not applicable] Summary statistic Palo Edgewood Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 3 Ranney 4 Ranney 6 CRM–3A CRM–4A CRM–6A CRM–22 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 J Avenue NWWTP Ammonia (NH3

+ NH4

+), in milligrams per liter as nitrogen (parameter code 00608)

Minimum <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 0.27 -- 0.04 0.01 <0.01 0.01Maximum 0.25 0.46 0.16 0.21 0.95 0.45 0.28 0.03 0.19 0.29 0.01 0.37 0.70 1.30 0.04Median 0.02 0.02 0.04 <0.01 0.18 0.05 0.06 <0.01 <0.01 0.28 -- 0.08 0.03 0.22 0.02

Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, in milligrams per liter as nitrogen (parameter code 00625)

Minimum 0.54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Maximum 2.36 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Median 1.02 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Dissolved organic carbon, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00681)

Minimum 2.70 1.50 1.16 1.25 1.38 1.26 1.31 1.35 1.34 0.28 -- 1.49 1.59 1.63 1.56Maximum 6.60 7.40 2.71 2.51 3.88 3.03 2.29 2.13 3.34 0.49 2.01 3.01 2.65 3.40 2.20Median 3.05 3.05 1.66 1.68 1.81 1.67 1.70 1.76 1.81 0.35 -- 1.85 1.76 1.86 1.77

Nitrite plus nitrate, in milligrams per liter as nitrogen (parameter code 00631)

Minimum 0.91 <0.04 0.65 0.37 0.21 0.25 2.41 <0.04 <0.04 <0.02 -- 0.74 0.11 0.17 2.94Maximum 10.9 11.7 8.16 10.3 11.4 8.91 7.34 4.76 11.8 <0.04 3.72 6.19 6.95 6.36 7.06Median 6.24 5.46 4.00 4.56 3.41 3.64 4.92 1.81 4.83 <0.04 -- 2.81 3.29 2.97 4.94

Nitrite, in milligrams per liter as nitrogen (parameter code 00613)

Minimum 0.006 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.003Maximum 0.028 0.085 0.006 0.015 0.047 0.026 0.043 0.100 0.018 <0.001 0.001 0.055 0.021 0.061 0.010Median 0.018 0.019 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.003 0.004 <0.001 -- 0.008 0.006 0.015 0.007

Orthophosphate, in milligrams per liter as phosphorus (parameter code 00671)

Minimum <0.004 <0.004 0.034 0.047 0.051 0.048 0.013 0.012 0.075 <0.004 -- 0.025 0.021 0.039 0.036Maximum 0.213 0.400 0.093 0.087 0.107 0.110 0.065 0.018 0.183 0.006 0.199 0.065 0.042 0.114 0.068Median 0.072 0.087 0.062 0.067 0.080 0.071 0.039 0.014 0.125 0.005 -- 0.037 0.031 0.063 0.065

Phosphorus, in milligrams per liter as phosphorus (parameter code 00665)

Minimum 0.089 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Maximum 0.344 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Median 0.199 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Tables 9–19 27

Table 11. Summary statistics for nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, and physical characteristics by treatment plant and the wells 

valved to them, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.

[For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; <, actual value known to be less 

than value shown]

Summary 

statistic Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 6 Seminole 17

Seminole 

18 NWWTP Ranney 3 Ranney 4 J Avenue

Ammonia (NH3

+

 NH4

+

), in milligrams per liter as nitrogen (parameter code 00608)

Minimum <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.05 <0.01 <0.01

Maximum 0.16 0.21 0.28 0.37 0.70 0.04 0.95 0.45 1.30

Median 0.04 <0.01 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.18 0.05 0.22

Dissolved organic carbon, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00681)

Minimum 1.16 1.25 1.31 1.49 1.59 1.56 1.38 1.26 1.63

Maximum 2.71 2.51 2.29 3.01 2.65 2.20 3.88 3.03 3.40

Median 1.66 1.68 1.70 1.85 1.76 1.77 1.81 1.67 1.86

Dissolved oxygen, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00300)

Minimum 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 8.3 0.1 0.1 0.1

Maximum 8.7 7.5 6.2 15.6 21.3 11.7 6.9 5.7 3.8

Median 1.4 1.4 2 0.5 0.9 9.1 0.6 1.3 0.5

Nitrite plus nitrate, in milligrams per liter as nitrogen(parameter code 00631)

Minimum 0.65 0.37 2.41 0.74 0.11 2.94 0.21 0.25 0.17

Maximum 8.16 10.3 7.34 6.19 6.95 7.06 11.4 8.91 6.36

Median 4.00 4.56 4.92 2.81 3.29 4.94 3.41 3.64 2.97

Nitrite, in milligrams per liter as nitrogen (parameter code 00613)

Minimum <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 0.001 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 0.002

Maximum 0.006 0.015 0.043 0.055 0.021 0.010 0.047 0.026 0.061

Median 0.002 0.003 0.007 0.008 0.006 0.007 0.005 0.006 0.015

Orthophosphate, in milligrams per liter as phosphorus (parameter code 00671)

Minimum 0.034 0.047 0.013 0.025 0.021 0.036 0.051 0.048 0.039

Maximum 0.093 0.087 0.065 0.065 0.042 0.068 0.107 0.110 0.114

Median 0.062 0.067 0.039 0.037 0.031 0.065 0.080 0.071 0.063

pH, in standard units (parameter code 00400)

Minimum 6.9 7.1 6.8 6.8 6.7 7.2 6.8 6.5 6

Maximum 7.4 7.7 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.5

Median 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2

Specific conductance, in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (parameter code 00095)

Minimum 466 413 471 488 452 484 433 459 489

Maximum 659 688 674 602 616 597 647 709 638

Median 551 552 548 545 524 555 553 548 554

Water temperature, in degrees Celsius (parameter code 00010)

Minimum 3.8 2.8 4.8 3.8 4.5 6.6 5.1 4.4 5.3

Maximum 21.6 24.1 20.7 20.2 20.1 20.8 23.2 22.8 21.5

Median 14.5 15.1 14.6 14 14.2 14.8 15.2 14.9 14.1
28 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

Table 12. Summary statistics for physical characteristics, major ions, and dissolved solids by treatment plant and the wells valved to 

them, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.

[For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, 

actual value is known to be less than value shown]

Summary 

statistic Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 6 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 NWWTP Ranney 3 Ranney 4 J Avenue

Alkalinity, in milligrams per liter as CaCO3 (parameter code 39086)

Minimum 174 129 166 184 165 179 152 170 169

Maximum 239 226 242 248 217 226 226 233 250

Median 213 207 215 215 201 213 201 207 213

Bicarbonate, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00453)

Minimum 211 157 202 224 201 217 184 207 206

Maximum 291 276 294 302 265 275 276 284 305

Median 260 250 261 262 244 258 244 252 259

Boron, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 01020)

Minimum 14.4 19.9 18.0 18.6 18.5 17.3 17.0 19.1 27.9

Maximum 37.0 38.6 33.0 30.7 30.9 27.6 37.8 42.0 62.5

Median 27.4 26.5 25.6 25.9 26.7 23.0 25.9 28.5 34.4

Bromide, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 71870)

Minimum 0.03 0.02 0.03 <0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03

Maximum 0.05 E0.05 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.06

Median 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04

Carbonate, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00452)

Minimum 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1

Maximum 1.4 0.9 0.6 1.1 2 0.8 1.7 1 1.7

Median 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2

Calcium, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00915)

Minimum 59.3 47.1 59.3 63.3 57.7 66.0 50.8 58.5 57.8

Maximum 82.8 78.0 87.1 82.5 80.7 84.2 81.9 79.3 81.0

Median 74.0 68.8 75.7 75.2 69.9 79.7 73.2 72.8 70.0

Chloride, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00940)

Minimum 17.8 20.1 17.3 17.3 18.6 17.8 19.0 20.1 18.3

Maximum 39.0 47.3 42.4 31.6 39.6 25.6 42.5 40.5 42.0

Median 23.7 24.5 23.7 23.6 24.3 20.6 26.7 24.8 26.8

Fluoride, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00950)

Minimum 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.17

Maximum 0.27 0.28 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.28

Median 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.21

Iron, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 01046)

Minimum <3.20 <3.20 46.2 32.7 46.2 14.1 <3.2 <3.20 4.10

Maximum <10.00 <10.0 685 95.7 101 110 57.5 38.2 329

Median <4.00 <4.00 259 49.4 66.8 30.5 <4.00 <4.00 73.4

Magnesium, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00925)

Minimum 15.8 15.0 17.0 17.6 15.5 17.3 14.6 16.0 18.2

Maximum 28.2 27.7 25.2 23.7 24.3 24.4 25.7 26.6 26.4

Median 21.1 22.9 21.5 21.2 20.6 21.2 21.7 21.1 21.7
Tables 9–19 29

Table 12. Summary statistics for physical characteristics, major ions, and dissolved solids by treatment plant and the wells valved to 

them, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.—Continued

[For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; <, 

actual value is known to be less than value shown]

Summary 

statistic Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 6 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 NWWTP Ranney 3 Ranney 4 J Avenue

Manganese, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 01056)

Minimum <0.20 0.73 63.1 98.3 69.9 27.2 92.4 11.0 109

Maximum 51.6 38.9 248 264 279 126 732 262 888

Median 18.7 18.7 146 184 156 60.9 212 85.4 336

Potassium, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00935)

Minimum 1.51 1.72 2.18 1.96 1.81 2.28 2.01 1.64 2.04

Maximum 3.47 3.19 4.04 3.32 3.17 2.64 3.34 3.61 3.33

Median 2.41 2.34 2.45 2.56 2.59 2.39 2.49 2.56 2.51

Silica, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00955)

Minimum 8.64 7.00 7.03 7.87 7.58 10.5 10.0 8.68 9.40

Maximum 16.1 12.8 13.8 14.4 12.6 14.5 15.5 14.9 16.3

Median 11.9 9.59 10.8 11.3 10.3 12.9 12.2 12.3 12.5

Sodium, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00930)

Minimum 8.20 8.70 7.98 8.69 8.00 8.17 8.68 8.56 8.48

Maximum 21.5 26.4 23.9 15.6 21.2 11.1 21.1 20.3 21.1

Median 11.1 12.0 11.1 11.0 11.1 8.93 12.2 12.0 12.5

Sulfate, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 00945)

Minimum 21.5 24.0 23.9 22.1 22.8 23.6 18.2 20.5 16.4

Maximum 49.6 47.9 47.4 47.8 51.9 33.2 46.8 56.0 41.7

Median 28.7 30.9 32.4 29.7 30.8 26.2 31.4 28.5 31.2

Total dissolved solids, in milligrams per liter (parameter code 70300)

Minimum 281 242 269 269 271 275 257 276 269

Maximum 377 398 385 360 359 343 381 401 368

Median 319 313 314 310 310 314 324 309 319
30 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

Table 13. Description of parent compound pesticides in water-quality samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.

[This report contains Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers®, which are a Registered Trademark of the American Chemical Society. The Chemical 

Abstracts Service recommends the verification of the Registry Numbers through Chemical Abstracts Service Client ServicesSM. CASRN, Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number®]

Parameter 

name

Parameter 

code Common names CASRN Chemical class

Fungicides

Carboxin 04027 Cadan, Padan, Sanvex, Thiobel, Vegetox 5234-68-4 Carboxanilide

Iprodione 61593 Kidon, Rovral, Chipco 26019, LFA 2043, NRC 910, DOP 500F, Verison36734-19-7 Dicarboximide

Metalaxyl 61596 Ridomil, Apron, Delta-Coat AD, Subdue 2E 57837-19-1 Benzenoid

Myclobutanil 61599 Eagle, Laredo, Dynasty Extreme, Chemisco 88671-89-0 Azole

Tebuconazole 62852 Absolute, Adament, Amtide, Clearwood, Dyna-Shield, Elite 45, Everlast, Evito, Follicur, Gaucho, Monsoon, Onset, Preventol, Proceed, 

Prosaro, Prosoy, Protim optimum, Raxil, Rotam, Sustain, Tegrol, 

Tide, Willowood, Wolman, Woodlife

107534-

96-3

Azole

Herbicides

Acetochlor 49260 Acenit, Guardian, Harness, Relay, Sacemid, Surpass, Top-Hand, Trophy, Winner34256-82-1 Chloroacetanilide

Alachlor 46342 Lasso, Lariat, Crop Star 15972-60-8 Chloroacetanilide

Ametryn 38401 Evik, Ametryne, Ametrex, Gesapax, G34162, Trinatox-D (w/2-4-D), 

Crisazina-Crisatrina Kombi (w/atrazine), Doruplant, Mebatryne, 

Amephyt

834-12-8 Triazine

Atrazine 39632 G-30027, Aatrex, Aktikon, Alazine, Atred, Atranex, Atrataf, Atratol, 

Azinotox, Crisazina, Farmco Atrazine, Gesaprim, Giffex 4L, Malermais, Primatol, Simazat, Zeaphos

1912-24-9 Triazine

Benfluralin 82673 Balan, Benefin, Excel-n-plus, Ferti-lome, Fortify, many others 1861-40-1 2,6-Dinitroaniline

Bromacil 04029 Borea, Bromax 4G, Bromax 4L, Borocil, Rout, Cynogan, Uragan, 

Isocil, Hyvar X, Hyvar XL, Urox B, Urox HX, Krovar

314-40-9 Uracil

Butachlor 04026 Machette 23184-66-9 Chloroacetanilide

Butylate 04028 Genate Plus, Anelda Plus, Aneldazin, Anelirox, Sutan, Sutan 6E, Butilate, Carbamic Acid, Ethyl N, N-Diisobutylthiocarbamate, R1910, 

Stauffer R-1, 910

2008-41-5 Thicarbamate

Cyanazine 04041 Bladex, DW3418, Fortrol, Payze 21725-46-2 Triazine

Cycloate 04031 Ro-Neet 1134-23-2 Thiocarbamate

Dacthal 82682 All in 1, Cornbelt, Dacthal, Ferti-lome, Heritage, many others 1861-32-1 Alkyl Phthalate

Diphenamid 04033 Dymid, Enide 957-51-7 Amide

Hexazinone 04025 Velpar, DPX 3674 51235-04-2 Triazinone

Metolachlor 39415 Bicep, CGA-24705, Dual, Pennant, Pimagram 51218-45-2 Chloroacetanilide

Metribuzin 82630 Bay 94337, Bay DIC 1468, Lexone, Sencor, Sencoral, Sencorex 21087-64-9 Triazinone

Molinate 82671 Molinate, Hydram, Ordram, Yalan 2212-67-1 Thiocarbamate

Oxyfluorfen 61600 Goal, Koltar, RH-2915 42874-03-3 Diphenyl Ether

Pendimethalin 82683 AC 92553, Accotab, Go-Go-San, Herbadox, Penoxalin, Prowl, Sipaxol, 

Stomp, Way-Up

40487-42-1 Dinitroaniline

Prometon 04037 Ontracic 800, Pramitol 25E 1610-18-0 Triazine

Prometryn 04036 Caparol, Gesagard, Prometrex, Primatol Q, Mercasin 7287-19-6 Triazine

Propachlor 04024 Ramrod, Bexton, CP 31393 1918-16-7 Chloroacetanilide
Tables 9–19 31

Table 13. Description of parent compound pesticides in water-quality samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.—Continued

[This report contains Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers®, which are a Registered Trademark of the American Chemical Society. The Chemical 

Abstracts Service recommends the verification of the Registry Numbers through Chemical Abstracts Service Client ServicesSM. CASRN, Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number®]

Parameter 

name

Parameter 

code Common names CASRN Chemical class

Herbicides—Continued

Propanil 82679 Bay 30130, Cekupropanil, Prop-Job, Chem-Rice, DPA, Strel, S 10145, 

Vertac, Dropaven, Propanilo, Supernox, Erban, FW-734, Herbax, 

Propanex, Riselect, Stampede, Stam-F-34, Stam M-4, Surcopur, 

Surpur, Wham EZ

709-98-8 Acetanilide

Propazine 38535 Gesamil, Milocep, Milogard, Primatol, Geigy 30028, Plantulin, Propazin, G-30028, Milo-Pro, Prozinex139-40-2 Triazine

Propyzamide 82676 Kerb, Propyzamide, RH-315, Benzamide 23950-58-5 Amide

Simazine 04035 Aquazine, Cekusan, Cekusima, Framed, G-27692, Gesatop, Primatol, 

Princep, Simadex, Simanex, Tanzine, Totazina

122-34-9 Triazine

Simetryn 04030 Gy-Bon, Simetryn 1014-70-6 Triazine

Tebuthiuron 82670 Spike, Brush Bullet, EL-103, Graslan, Perflan, Herbec, Herbic, Reclaim34014-18-1 Carbamate

Terbacil 04032 Sinbar, Compound 732, DuPont 732, Geonter 5902-51-2 Uracil

Terbuthylazine 04022 Gardoprim 5915-41-3 Triazine

Thiobencarb 82681 Bolero, Ricebeaux, Valent 28249-77-6 Thiocarbamate

Tribufos 61610 Folex, Tribufos, Butifos 6 78-48-8 Organophosphate

Trifluralin 04023 Flurene SE, Treflan, Tri-4, Trust, MTF, Trifluralina 600, Elancolan, Su 

Seguro Carpidor, Trefanocide, Treficon, Trim, L-36352, Crisalin, 

TR-10, Triflurex, Ipersan

1582-09-8 2,6-Dinitroaniline

Trifluralin 82661 Flurene SE, Treflan, Tri-4, Trust, MTF, Trifluralina 600, Elancolan, Su 

Seguro Carpidor, Trefanocide, Treficon, Trim, L-36352, Crisalin, 

TR-10, Triflurex, Ipersan

1582-09-8 2,6-Dinitroaniline

Vernolate 04034 Reward, Surpass, Vernam 1929-77-7 Thicarbamate

Insecticides

Cypermethrin 61586 Ammo, Arrivo, Barricade, Basathrin, CCN52, Cymbush, Cymperator, 

Cynoff, Cypercopal, Cyperguard 25 EC, Cyperhard Tech, Cyperkill, 

Cypermar, Demon, Flextron, Fligene CI, Folcord, Kafil, NRDC 149, 

Polytrin, PP383, Ripcord, Siperin, Stockade, Super

52315-07-8 Pyrethroid

Azinphos-methyl 82686 Cotnion-methyl, Gusathion, Guthion, Methyl-Guthion, Bay 17147, 

Carfene, Gusathion-M, Bay 9027

86-50-0 Organophosphate

Carbaryl 82680 Carbamine, Denapon, Dicarbam, Hexavin, Karbaspray, Nac, Ravyon, 

Septene, Sevin, Tercyl, Tricarnam, Union Carbide 7744

63-25-2 Carbamate

Chlorpyrifos 38933 Brodan, Detmol UA, Dowco 179, Dursban, Eradex, Lorsban, Piridane, 

Stipend

2921-88-2 Organophosphate

cis-Permethrin 82687 Ambush 61949-76-6 Pyrethroid

Cyfluthrin 61585 Baythroid, Baythroid H, Attatox, Contur, Laser, Responsar, Solfac, 

Tempo, Tempo H

68359-37-5 Pyrethroid

Diazinon 39572 Knox Out, Spectracide, Basudin 333-41-5 Organophosphate

Dichlorvos 38775 Apavap, Benfos, Cekusan, Cypona, Derriban, Derribante Devikol, 

Didivane, Duo-Kill, Duravos, Elastrel, Fly-Die, Fly-Fighter, Herkol, 

Marvex, No-Pest, Prentox, Vaponite, Vapona, Verdican, Verdipor, 

Verdisol

62-73-7 Organophosphate
32 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

Table 13. Description of parent compound pesticides in water-quality samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.—Continued

[This report contains Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers®, which are a Registered Trademark of the American Chemical Society. The Chemical 

Abstracts Service recommends the verification of the Registry Numbers through Chemical Abstracts Service Client ServicesSM. CASRN, Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number®]

Parameter 

name

Parameter 

code Common names CASRN Chemical class

Insecticides—Continued

Dicrotophos 38454 Bidrin, Carbicron, Diapadrin, Dicron, Ektafos 141-66-2 Organophosphate

Dieldrin 39381 Dieldrite, Dieldrex, Octalox, Panoram D-31 60-57-1 Organochlorine

Dimethoate 82662 Cekuthoate, Chimigor 40, Cygon 400, Daphene, De-Fend, Demos NF, 

Devigon, Dimate 267, Dimet, Dimethoat Tech 95 percent, Dimethopgen, Ferkethion, Fostion MM, Perfekthion, Rogodan, Rogodial, 

Rogor, Roxion, Sevigor, Trimetion

60-51-5 Organophosphate

Disulfoton 82677 Bay S276, Disyston, Disystox, Dithiodemeton, Dithiosystox, Frumin 

AL, Solvirex

298-04-4 Organophosphate

S-Ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate 

(EPTC)

82668 Eptam, Eradicane, Eradicane Extra, Shortstop, Genep, Genep PlusEPTC759-94-4 Carbamate

Ethion 82346 Ethanox, Ethiol, Hylemox, Nialate, Rhodiacide, Rhodocide, RP-Thion, 

Tafethion, Vegfru Fosmite

563-12-2 Organophosphate

Ethoprop 82672 Ethoprop, Holdem, Jolt, Mocap 13194-48-4 Organophosphate

Fenamiphos 61591 Bay 68138, Nemacur, Phenamiphos 22224-92-6 Organophosphate

Fipronil 62166 Amulet, Ceasefire, Certifect, Combat, Fipronil, Fleeject, Frontline 120068-

37-3

Pyrazole

Fonofos 04095 Difonate, Dy-fonate, Dyphonate, Stauffer N 2790 944-22-9 Organophosphate

Isofenphos 61594 Amaze, Oftanol, Pryfon 25311-71-1 Organophosphate

λ-Cyhalothrin 61595 Charge, Excaliber, Grenade, Hallmark, Icon, Karate, Matador, OMS 

0321, PP321, Saber, Samurai, Sentinel

91465-08-6 Pyrethroid

Malathion 39532 Celthion, Cythion, Dielathion, Karbofos, Maltox, El 4049, Emmaton, 

Fyfanon, Exathion

121-75-5 Organophosphate

Methidathion 61598 Somonic, Somonil, Supracide, Suprathion, Ultracide 950-37-8 Organophosphate

Methyl parathion 82667 Bladan M, Cekumethion, Dalf, Dimethyl Parathion, Devithion, E 601, 

Folidol-M, Fosferno M50, Gearphos, Kilex Parathion, Metacide, 

Metaphos, Metron, Nitrox 80, Partron M, Penncap-M, Tekwaisa

298-00-0 Organophosphate

Phorate 82664 AC 8911, Agromet, Geomet, Granutox, Phorate 10G, Rampart, Thimenox, Thirmet, Vegfru Foratox, Timet, Vegfru298-02-2 Organophosphate

Phosmet 61601 Appa, Decemthion, Imidan, Kemolate, Fesdan, Prolate, PMC, Safidon 732-11-6 Organophosphate

Propargite 82685 Antimite, Comite, Omite, Proparmite, Red-top 2312-35-8 Unclassified

Tefluthrin 61606 Force 79538-32-2 Pyrethroid

Carbofuran 82674 Furadan, Bay 70143, Curaterr, D 1221, ENT 27164, Yaltox, Furcarb 1563-66-2 Carbamate

Terbufos 82675 Contraven, Counter 13071-79-9 Organophosphate
Tables 9–19 33

Table 14. Description of pesticide degradates and intermediates in water-quality samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.

[This report contains Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers®, which are a registered trademark of the American Chemical Society. The Chemical 

Abstracts Service recommends the verification of the Registry Numbers through Chemical Abstracts Service Client ServicesSM. CASRN, Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number®; --, no data]

Parameter name Parameter code CASRN Parent compound

Degradates

1-Naphthol 49295 90-15-3 Breakdown product of carbaryl and 

naphthalene.

2-Chloro-2,6-diethylacetanilide 61618 6967-29-9 Breakdown product of alachlor.

2-Chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-S-triazine 

(CIAT)

04040 6190-65-4 Breakdown product of atrazine.

2-Chloro-6-ethylamino-4-amino-S-triazine (CEAT) 04038 1007-28-9 Breakdown product of atrazine.

3,5-Dichloroaniline 61627 626-43-7 Breakdown product of iprodione.

4-Chloro-2-methylphenol 61633 1570-64-5 Breakdown product of MCPA.

α-Endosulfan 34362 959-98-8 Breakdown product of endosulfan.

Azinphos-methyl oxon 61635 961-22-8 Breakdown product of azinphos-methyl.

Chlorpyrifos oxygen analog 61636 5598-15-2 Breakdown product of chlorpyrifos.

cis-Propiconazole 79846 112721-87-6 Breakdown product propiconazole.

Desulfinylfipronil 62170 -- Breakdown product of fipronil.

Desulfinylfipronil amide 62169 -- Breakdown product of fipronil.

Diazinon 61638 962-58-3 Breakdown product of diazinon.

Disulfoton sulfone 61640 2497-06-5 Breakdown product of disulfoton.

Endosulfan sulfate 61590 1031-07-8 Breakdown product of endosulfan.

Ethion monoxon 61644 17356-42-2 Breakdown product of ethion.

Fenamiphos sulfone 61645 31972-44-8 Breakdown product of fenamiphos.

Fenamiphos sulfoxide 61646 31972-43-7 Breakdown product of fenamiphos.

Fipronil sulfide 62167 120067-83-6 Breakdown product of fipronil.

Fipronil sulfone 62168 120068-36-2 Breakdown product of fipronil.

Malaoxon 61652 1634-78-2 Breakdown product of malathion.

Methyl paraoxon 61664 950-35-6 Breakdown product of parathion.

Phorate oxygen 61666 2600-69-3 Breakdown product of phorate.

Phosmet oxygen 61668 3735-33-9 Breakdown product of phosmet.

Terbufos oxygen analog sulfone 61674 56070-15-6 Breakdown product of terbufos.

trans-Propiconazole 79847 120523-07-1 Breakdown product propiconazole.

Intermediates

2,6-Diethylaniline 82660 579-66-8 Intermediate in prod of alachlor, butachlor, metolachlor.

2-Ethyl-6-methylaniline 61620 24549-06-2 Intermediate in prod of alachlor, butachlor, metolachlor.

3,4-Dichloroaniline 61625 95-76-1 Used to make propanil.
34 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

Table 15. Pesticides sampled for but not detected in water-quality samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.

Parameter name Parameter code Parameter name Parameter code

1-Naphthol 49295 Fipronil1 62166

2,6-Diethylaniline 82660 Fipronil sulfide1 62167

2-Chloro-2,6-diethylacetanilide 61618 Fipronil sulfone 62168

2-Ethyl-6-methylaniline 61620 Fonofos 04095

3,4-Dichloroaniline 61625 Hexazinone1 04025

3,5-Dichloroaniline 61627 Iprodione 61593

4-Chloro-2-methylphenol 61633 Isofenphos 61594

Alachlor1 46342 λ-Cyhalothrin 61595

α-Endosulfan 34362 Malaoxon 61652

Ametryn 38401 Malathion 39532

Azinphos-methyl 82686 Metalaxyl1 61596

Azinphos-methyl oxygen analog 61635 Methidathion 61598

Benfluralin 82673 Methyl parathion 82667

Butachlor 04026 Molinate 82671

Butylate 04028 Myclobutanil 61599

Carbaryl 82680 Oxyfluorfen 61600

Carbofuran 82674 Methyl paraoxon 61664

Carboxin 04027 Pendimethalin 82683

Chlorpyrifos 38933 Phorate 82664

Chlorpyrifos oxygen analog 61636 Phorate oxygen analog 61666

cis-Permethrin1 82687 Phosmet 61601

cis-Propiconazole1 79846 Phosmet oxygen analog 61668

Cyanazine 04041 Prometryn 04036

Cycloate 04031 Propachlor 04024

Cyfluthrin 61585 Propanil 82679

Cypermethrin 61586 Propargite 82685

Desulfinulfilpronil amide 62169 Propazine1 38535

Desulfinylfipronil1 62170 Propyzamide 82676

Diazinon 39572 S-Ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC) 82668

Diazoxon 61638 Simetryn 04030

Dichlorvos 38775 Tebuthiuron 82670

Dicrotophos 38454 Tefluthrin1 61606

Dieldrin 39381 Terbacil 04032

Dimethoate 82662 Terbufos 82675

Diphenamid 04033 Terbufos oxygen analog sulfone 61674

Disulfoton 82677 Terbuthylazine 04022

Disulfoton sulfone 61640 Thiobencarb 82681

Endosulfan sulfate 61590 trans-Propiconazole1 79847

Ethion 82346 Tribufos 61610

Ethion monoxon 61644 Trifluralin1 82661

Ethoprop 82672 Trifluralin1 04023

Fenamiphos 61591 Vernolate 04034

Fenamiphos sulfone 61645

Fenamiphos sulfoxide 61646

1

Denotes detections less than laboratory reporting level.
Tables 9–19 35

Table 16. Selected pesticides detected and frequency of detections in groundwater and surface-water samples, by site, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.[For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; E, estimated; <, actual value known to be less than value shown; --, not applicable]

Summary 

statistic Palo Edgewood Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 3 Ranney 4 Ranney 6 CRM–3A CRM–4A CRM–6A CRM–22 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 J Avenue NWWTP

2-Chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-S-triazine (CIAT), in micrograms per liter (parameter code 04040)

Minimum E 0.034 0.053 E 0.032 0.038 E 0.028 E 0.038 E 0.009 E 0.047 0.014 <0.010 -- E 0.026 0.040 0.034 E 0.031

Maximum E 0.091 0.312 0.109 0.108 0.108 E 0.149 E 0.114 0.090 0.382 <0.050 -- 0.142 0.106 0.094 E 0.068

Median E 0.047 0.073 0.060 0.071 0.060 0.059 0.060 <0.050 0.060 <0.050 0.093 0.060 0.060 0.059 E 0.051

Frequency of 

detections1

5/5 20/20 24/24 20/20 27/27 23/23 13/13 3/5 16/17 0/5 1/1 24/24 21/21 28/28 7/7

Percent of samples 

with detectable concentrations

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 60 94.1 0 100 100 100 100 100

2-Chloro-6-ethylamino-4-amino-S-triazine (CEAT), in micrograms per liter (parameter code 04038)

Minimum -- 0.025 E 0.019 E 0.020 E 0.017 0.012 0.040 E 0.034 0.037 <0.050 -- 0.036 E 0.018 E 0.019 --

Maximum -- 0.190 <0.050 <0.05 <0.05 0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.129 <0.050 -- 0.103 0.063 0.050 <0.050

Median -- <0.050 <0.050 <0.05 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 --

Frequency of 

detections1

-- 6/18 5/18 6/17 5/21 6/19 3/7 1/5 2/12 0/3 0/1 4/19 3/20 4/24 0/1

Percent of samples 

with detectable concentrations

-- 33.3 27.8 35.3 23.8 31.6 42.9 20 16.7 0 0 21.1 15.0 16.7 0

Acetochlor, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 49260)

Minimum 0.012 0.006 0.009 <0.010 0.006 <0.010 0.008 <0.050 0.006 <0.010 -- 0.005 <0.010 0.007 0.007

Maximum 0.817 1.861 <0.050 0.073 0.058 0.050 0.103 <0.050 0.067 <0.050 -- 0.069 <0.050 0.119 0.056

Median 0.050 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.010

Frequency of 

detections1

5/5 13/20 6/24 3/20 8/27 4/23 6/13 0/5 6/17 0/5 0/1 7/24 2/21 7/28 4/7

Percent of samples 

with detectable concentrations

100 65 25 15 29.6 17.4 46.2 0 35.3 0 0 29.2 9.5 25 57.1
36 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17 Table 16. Selected pesticides detected and frequency of detections in groundwater and surface-water samples, by site, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.—Continued [For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; E, estimated; <, actual value known to be less than value shown; --, not applicable] Summary statistic Palo Edgewood Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 3 Ranney 4 Ranney 6 CRM–3A CRM–4A CRM–6A CRM–22 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 J Avenue NWWTP Atrazine, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 39632) Minimum 0.036 0.042 0.041 0.036 0.040 0.042 0.049 0.034 0.018 <0.008 -- 0.043 0.049 0.042 0.062 Maximum 1.17 E 4.16 0.198 0.288 0.385 0.738 0.748 0.134 1.65 <0.050 -- 0.492 0.269 0.282 0.274 Median 0.086 0.102 0.087 0.130 0.109 0.100 0.114 0.043 0.099 <0.050 0.054 0.103 0.095 0.099 0.118 Frequency of detections1 5/5 20/20 24/24 20/20 27/27 23/23 13/13 5/5 16/17 0/5 1/1 24/24 21/21 28/28 7/7 Percent of samples with detectable concentrations 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 94.1 0 100 100 100 100 100 Chlorthal-dimethyl (DCPA), in micrograms per liter (parameter code 82682) Minimum 0.001 0.002 0.001 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 0.002 -- <0.008 <0.008 -- <0.008 -- 0.002 <0.008 Maximum <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 -- <0.008 <0.008 -- <0.008 0.002 <0.008 <0.008 Median <0.008 -- <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 -- <0.008 <0.008 -- <0.008 -- <0.008 <0.008 Frequency of detections1 1/4 1/2 2/6 0/3 0/6 0/4 1/6 -- 0/5 0/2 -- 0/5 1/1 1/6 0/6 Percent of samples with detectable concentrations 25 50 33.3 0 0 0 16.7 -- 0 0 -- 0 100 16.7 0 Metolachlor, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 39415) Minimum 0.045 E 0.024 0.008 0.023 0.019 0.013 0.026 E 0.013 0.011 0.002 -- 0.030 0.033 0.012 0.020 Maximum 0.777 E 2.72 0.140 0.128 0.318 0.465 0.592 0.057 0.620 <0.050 -- 0.243 0.106 0.222 0.138 Median 0.209 0.116 0.053 0.069 0.063 0.048 0.088 <0.050 0.064 <0.050 0.025 0.056 0.050 0.074 0.114 Frequency of detections1 5/5 20/20 24/24 20/20 27/27 23/23 13/13 3/5 15/17 1/5 1/1 24/24 21/21 28/28 7/7 Percent of samples with detectable concentrations 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 60 88.2 20 100 100 100 100 100
Tables 9–19 37

Table 16. Selected pesticides detected and frequency of detections in groundwater and surface-water samples, by site, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.—Continued[For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; E, estimated; <, actual value known to be less than value shown; --, not applicable]

Summary 

statistic Palo Edgewood Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 3 Ranney 4 Ranney 6 CRM–3A CRM–4A CRM–6A CRM–22 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 J Avenue NWWTP

Metribuzin, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 82630)

Minimum <0.012 <0.012 <0.012 <0.012 0.010 <0.012 0.007 <0.050 <0.010 <0.012 -- 0.010 <0.012 0.008 0.008Maximum 0.102 0.061 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Median <0.012 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.012Frequency of 

detections1

1/4 3/20 0/24 0/20 1/27 1/23 2/13 0/5 1/17 0/5 0/1 1/24 0/21 2/28 2/7

Percent of samples 

with detectable concentrations

25 15 0 0 3.7 4.3 15.4 0 5.9 0 0 4.2 0 7.1 28.6

Prometon, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 04037)

Minimum E 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 <0.050 0.004 <0.012 -- 0.006 0.009 0.005 0.005Maximum 0.020 0.121 0.061 <0.050 0.058 0.083 0.052 <0.050 0.102 <0.050 -- 0.061 0.051 0.070 <0.050Median <0.012 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.030 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 0.006Frequency of 

detections1

2/5 7/20 13/24 9/20 15/27 10/23 10/13 0/5 9/17 0/5 0/1 13/24 8/21 14/28 6/7

Percent of samples 

with detectable concentrations

40 35 54.2 45 55.6 43.5 76.9 0 52.9 0 0 54.2 38.1 50 85.7

Simazine, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 04035)

Minimum <0.006 0.013 <0.006 0.003 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.050 0.003 <0.006 -- <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006Maximum <0.006 0.098 0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Median <0.006 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.006Frequency of 

detections1

0/5 3/20 2/24 2/20 0/27 1/23 1/13 0/5 2/17 0/5 0/1 0/24 0/21 1/28 1/7

Percent of samples 

with detectable concentrations

0 15 8.3 10 0 4.3 7.7 0 11.8 0 0 0 0 3.6 14.3
38 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17 Table 16. Selected pesticides detected and frequency of detections in groundwater and surface-water samples, by site, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.—Continued [For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; E, estimated; <, actual value known to be less than value shown; --, not applicable] Summary statistic Palo Edgewood Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 3 Ranney 4 Ranney 6 CRM–3A CRM–4A CRM–6A CRM–22 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 J Avenue NWWTP Tebuconazole, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 62852) Minimum <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 -- <0.020 <0.020 -- <0.020 -- <0.020 <0.020 Maximum <0.020 E 0.023 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 -- <0.020 <0.020 -- <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 Median <0.020 -- <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 -- <0.020 <0.020 -- <0.020 -- <0.020 <0.020 Frequency of detections1 0/4 1/2 0/6 0/3 0/6 0/4 0/6 -- 0/5 0/2 -- 0/5 0/1 0/6 0/6 Percent of samples with detectable concentrations

0 50 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0
Tables 9–19 39

Table 17. Selected pesticides detected and frequency of detections in groundwater and surface-water samples, by treatment plant and the wells valved to them, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.[For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; E, estimated; --, not applicable; <, actual value known to be less than value shown]

Summary 

statistic Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 6 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 NWWTP Ranney 3 Ranney 4 J Avenue

2-Chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-S-triazine (CIAT), in micrograms per liter (parameter code 04040)

Minimum E 0.032 0.038 E 0.009 E 0.026 0.040 E 0.031 E 0.028 E 0.038 0.034Maximum 0.109 0.108 E 0.114 0.142 0.106 E 0.068 0.108 E 0.149 0.094Median 0.060 0.071 0.060 0.060 0.060 E 0.051 0.060 0.059 0.059Frequency of 

detections1

24/24 20/20 13/13 24/24 21/21 7/7 27/27 23/23 28/28

Percent of samples 

with detectable concentrations

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

2-Chloro-6-ethylamino-4-amino-S-triazine (CEAT), in micrograms per liter (parameter code 04038)

Minimum E 0.019 E 0.020 0.040 0.036 E 0.018 -- E 0.017 0.012 E 0.019Maximum <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.103 0.063 <0.050 <0.050 0.050 0.050Median <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Frequency of 

detections1

5/18 6/17 3/7 4/19 3/20 0/1 5/21 6/19 4/24

Percent of samples 

with detectable concentrations

27.8 35.3 42.9 21.1 15 0 23.8 31.6 16.7

Acetochlor, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 49260)

Minimum 0.009 <0.010 0.008 0.005 <0.010 0.007 0.006 <0.010 0.007Maximum <0.050 0.073 0.103 0.069 <0.050 0.056 0.058 0.050 0.119Median <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.010 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Frequency of 

detections1

6/24 3/20 6/13 7/24 2/21 4/7 8/27 4/23 7/28

Percent of samples 

with detectable concentrations

25 15 46.2 29.2 9.5 57.1 29.6 17.4 25
40 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17 Table 17. Selected pesticides detected and frequency of detections in groundwater and surface-water samples, by treatment plant and the wells valved to them, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.—Continued [For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; E, estimated; --, not applicable; <, actual value known to be less than value shown]Summary statistic Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 6 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 NWWTP Ranney 3 Ranney 4 J Avenue Atrazine, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 39632) Minimum 0.041 0.036 0.049 0.043 0.049 0.062 0.040 0.042 0.042 Maximum 0.198 0.288 0.748 0.492 0.269 0.274 0.385 0.738 0.282 Median 0.087 0.130 0.114 0.103 0.095 0.118 0.109 0.100 0.099 Frequency of detections1 24/24 20/20 13/13 24/24 21/21 7/7 27/27 23/23 28/28 Percent of samples with detectable concentrations 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Chlorthal-dimethyl (DCPA), in micrograms per liter (parameter code 82682) Minimum 0.0010 <0.008 0.002 <0.008 -- <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 0.002 Maximum <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 0.002 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 Median <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 -- <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 Frequency of detections1 2/6 0/3 1/6 0/5 1/1 0/6 0/6 0/4 1/6 Percent of samples with detectable concentrations 33.3 0 16.7 0 100 0 0 0 16.7 Metolachlor, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 39415) Minimum 0.008 0.023 0.026 0.030 0.033 0.020 0.019 0.013 0.012 Maximum 0.140 0.128 0.592 0.243 0.106 0.138 0.318 0.465 0.222 Median 0.053 0.069 0.088 0.056 0.050 0.114 0.063 0.048 0.074 Frequency of detections1 24/24 20/20 13/13 24/24 21/21 7/7 27/27 23/23 28/28 Percent of samples with detectable concentrations 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Tables 9–19 41

Table 17. Selected pesticides detected and frequency of detections in groundwater and surface-water samples, by treatment plant and the wells valved to them, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.—Continued[For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; E, estimated; --, not applicable; <, actual value known to be less than value shown]

Summary 

statistic Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 6 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 NWWTP Ranney 3 Ranney 4 J Avenue

Metribuzin, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 82630)

Minimum <0.012 <0.012 0.007 0.010 <0.012 0.008 0.010 <0.012 0.008Maximum <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Median <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.012 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Frequency of 

detections1

0/24 0/20 2/13 1/24 0/21 2/7 1/27 1/23 2/28

Percent of samples 

with detectable concentrations

0 0 15.4 4.2 0 28.6 3.7 4.3 7.1

Prometon, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 04037)

Minimum 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.009 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005Maximum 0.061 <0.050 0.052 0.061 0.051 <0.050 0.058 0.083 0.070Median <0.050 <0.050 0.030 <0.05 <0.050 0.006 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Frequency of 

detections1

13/24 9/20 10/13 13/24 8/21 6/7 15/27 10/23 14/28

Percent of samples 

with detectable concentrations

54.2 45 76.9 54.2 38.1 85.7 55.6 43.5 50

Simazine, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 04035)

Minimum <0.006 0.003 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006Maximum 0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Median <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.006 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Frequency of 

detections1

2/24 2/20 1/13 0/24 0/21 1/7 0/27 1/23 1/28

Percent of samples 

with detectable concentrations

8.3 10 7.7 0 0 14.3 0 4.3 3.6
42 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17 Table 17. Selected pesticides detected and frequency of detections in groundwater and surface-water samples, by treatment plant and the wells valved to them, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2011–17.—Continued [For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; NWWTP, Northwest Water Treatment Plant; E, estimated; --, not applicable; <, actual value known to be less than value shown]Summary statistic Ranney 1 Ranney 2 Ranney 6 Seminole 17 Seminole 18 NWWTP Ranney 3 Ranney 4 J Avenue Tebuconazole, in micrograms per liter (parameter code 62852) Minimum <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 -- <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 Maximum <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 Median <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 -- <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 Frequency of detections1 0/6 0/3 0/6 0/5 0/1 0/6 0/6 0/4 0/6 Percent of samples with detectable concentrations

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tables 9–19 43

Table 18. Summary statistics for total coliform and Escherichia coli in groundwater and surface-water samples, by site, Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa, 2011–17.

[For additional site information, refer to table 1. Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; NWWTP, Northwest 

Water Treatment Plant; MPN, most probable number; mL, milliliter; <, actual value is known to be less than value shown;]

Summary 

statistic Palo Edgewood Ranney 4 Ranney 6 CRM-3A CRM-4A Seminole 17 J Avenue NWWTP

Escherichia coli (MPN/100 mL; parameter code 50468)

Minimum 27 2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Maximum 387 20,300 28 <1 <1 <1 <1 3 1

Median 100 23 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Total coliforms (MPN/100 mL; parameter code 50569)

Minimum 3,600 390 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Maximum 25,000 110,000 68 42 41 54 8 190 820

Median 10,250 8,500 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 55
44 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

Table 19. Results for quantitative polymerase chain reaction and quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction viral 

pathogen samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17.

[E, result is estimated; t, result is greater than the limit of blank but less than the limit of detection; <, result is below the limit of detection; N/A, not applicable; 

b, result is extrapolated below the limit of quantification; Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; bold values 

are detections; molecular methods reported in copies per liter]

Sample date Liters sampled Adenovirus Enterovirus Norovirus GIA Norovirus GIB Norovirus GII

Cedar River at Palo, Iowa

2/21/2017 100 9.9 Et <2,400 <1,500 <1,800 <2,200

5/23/2017 100 <41 <270 <170 <210 <250

8/23/2017 92 <21 <700 <440 <530 <640

8/23/2017R 38 <48 <1,600 <1,000 <1,200 <1,500

Cedar River at Edgewood Road

8/13/2013 70 740 Et <8,200 <5,200 <6,200 <7,500

5/20/2008 200 <16 <140 <200 N/A 14 Et

8/5/2008 210 <15 <130 <190 N/A <300

4/2/2009 240 <13 <120 <170 N/A <260

6/3/2009 79 <24 <210 <300 N/A <480

9/9/2009 149 <32 <280 <400 N/A <630

3/23/2010 1,000 <38 <330 <480 N/A <750

6/14/2010 1,000 <64 <550 <800 N/A <1,200

9/8/2010 240 <40 <690 <1,000 N/A <1,600

10/20/2010 210 <18 <600 <880 N/A <1,400

3/29/2011 212 <150 <1,300 <1,900 N/A <3,000

6/7/2011 200 <74 <1,300 <1,800 N/A <2,900

3/15/2012 100 <18 <180 <260 N/A <410

5/30/2012 100 <21 <110 <160 N/A <240

8/29/2012 26 <110 <2,200 <3,200 N/A <5,000

11/29/2012 100 2,300 250 Et 89 Et 180 Et 1,700 Eb

5/30/2013 43 <2,100 <11,000 <7,000 <8,400 <10,000

11/19/2013 60 1,300 1,100 Et 7,100 Eb 520 Et 1,700 Et

4/9/2014 145 460 Et <23,000 <14,000 <17,000 <21,000

6/9/2014 58 <8,200 <67,000 <42,000 <51,000 <62,000

3/2/2015 50 8,500 910 Eb 1,500 E <440 3,600

6/24/2015 100 <880 <14,000 <9,200 <11,000 <13,000

8/25/2015 100 <600 <7,900 1,200 Et <6,000 <7,300

2/23/2016 42 <1,600 20,000 Et 100 Et 360 Et 160 Et

6/13/2016 79 <130 <8,500 <5,400 <6,500 <7,800

8/17/2016 100 10 Et <700 <440 <530 <640

Ranney 4

5/15/2008 1,100 <1.9 <3.2 <4.7 N/A <7.4

7/30/2008 1,000 <2.2 <19 <28 N/A <44

10/7/2009 1,000 <1.6 <14 <20 N/A <31

6/4/2009 1,000 <1.9 <16 <24 N/A <38

9/8/2009 1,040 <1.8 <16 <23 N/A <36

9/8/2009R 1,040 <1.8 <16 <23 N/A <36
Tables 9–19 45

Table 19. Results for quantitative polymerase chain reaction and quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction viral 

pathogen samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17.—Continued

[E, result is estimated; t, result is greater than the limit of blank but less than the limit of detection; <, result is below the limit of detection; N/A, not applicable; 

b, result is extrapolated below the limit of quantification; Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; bold values 

are detections; molecular methods reported in copies per liter]

Sample date Liters sampled Adenovirus Enterovirus Norovirus GIA Norovirus GIB Norovirus GII

Ranney 4—Continued

7/19/2010 1,020 <1.9 <16 <24 N/A <37

7/19/2010R 1,020 <1.9 <32 <47 N/A <74

8/30/2010 1,000 <1.6 <5.5 <8.0 N/A <12

11/1/2010 1,000 <1.9 <6.6 <9.6 N/A <15

3/15/2011 1,000 <1.3 <22 <32 N/A <50

6/7/2011 1,000 <0.32 <1.1 <1.6 N/A <2.5

1/21/2011 1,000 <1.0 <10 <15 N/A <24

3/29/2012 1,000 <0.99 1.3 Et <15 N/A <23

8/21/2012 1,000 <0.86 <8.9 <13 N/A <20

8/30/2012 1,014 <0.63 <6.5 <9.4 N/A <15

12/4/2012 1,000 <6.0 <31 <20 <24 2.0 Et

3/7/2013 1,000 <5.1 <27 <17 <20 <24

12/10/2013 1,000 <5.6 <29 <18 <22 <27

3/24/2014 1,000 2.5 Et 52 Et <75 2.3 Et <110

6/4/2014 1,000 <3.7 <120 <77 <93 <110

9/22/2014 1,000 3.4 Et <50 <32 <38 7.2 Et

11/17/2014 1,000 <4.8 <31 <20 <24 <29

2/24/2015 1,000 3.3 Et 2.6 Et <19 <23 <28

8/19/2015 1,000 <6.0 <39 <25 <30 <36

4/13/2016 1,003 <7.1 3,100 Eb <1,500 <1,800 <2,100

6/29/2016 1,000 <7.9 <520 <330 <400 <480

8/3/2016 1,010 <3.2 <210 <130 1.3 Et <190

5/17/2017 539 0.27 Et <170 <110 <130 <160

8/14/2017 762 0.72 Et <31 4.7 Et <23 2.2 Et

Ranney 6

3/12/2014 1,000 2.6 Et <38 <24 10 Et 5.6 Et

5/28/2014 1,000 <58 <190 <120 <150 <180

9/24/2014 480 64 <98 <62 <74 <90

12/17/2014 1,000 3.8 Et <33 <21 <26 <31

3/3/2015 1,000 <5.4 42 Et <110 <140 <160

8/26/2015 1,000 <30 <39 <25 <30 <36

2/9/2016 1,000 <5.6 520 Et <580 <700 <840

6/28/2016 1,000 0.18 Et <140 <86 <100 <130

8/2/2016 1,001 <4.3 <140 <89 9.3 Et 4.0 Et

10/25/2016 1,000 <4.0 <130 <83 5.0 Et <120

3/8/2017 1,000 <11 <370 <240 <280 <340

5/22/2017 1,000 <5.0 <160 <100 <130 <150

8/15/2017 1,000 <3.5 <46 <29 <35 <42
46 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

Table 19. Results for quantitative polymerase chain reaction and quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction viral 

pathogen samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17.—Continued

[E, result is estimated; t, result is greater than the limit of blank but less than the limit of detection; <, result is below the limit of detection; N/A, not applicable; 

b, result is extrapolated below the limit of quantification; Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; bold values 

are detections; molecular methods reported in copies per liter]

Sample date Liters sampled Adenovirus Enterovirus Norovirus GIA Norovirus GIB Norovirus GII

CRM–3

5/19/2008 1,000 <1.9 <16 <24 N/A <38

8/4/2009 1,000 <2.2 39 E <28 N/A <44

10/9/2008 1,000 <2.2 <19 <28 N/A <44

6/8/2009 1,000 <1.9 <16 <24 N/A <38

9/15/2009 1,000 <1.9 <16 <24 N/A <38

CRM–3A

3/8/2010 4 <8,000 <140,000 <200,000 N/A <310,000

6/6/2011 800 <0.80 <2.8 <4.0 N/A <6.2

3/15/2012 1,000 <1.8 <18 <27 N/A <42

8/19/2013 1,000 <5.3 <28 <17 <21 <25

11/7/2011 1,000 <0.93 <9.5 <14 N/A <22

CRM–4A

7/20/2010 1,000 <1.9 <33 <48 N/A <75

9/9/2010 1,000 <1.9 <33 <48 N/A <75

11/3/2010 1,000 <1.6 <14 <20 N/A <31

7/11/2012 1,000 <0.96 <9.8 <14 N/A <22

9/5/2012 107 <8.7 <89 <130 N/A <200

12/3/2012 1,000 0.64 Et 9.4 Et <81 <98 <120

8/20/2013 1,000 <5.6 <29 2.8 Et <22 5.2 Et

4/1/2014 520 16 Eb <390 <250 <300 <360

6/4/2014 1,000 <3.6 <120 60 Et <89 <110

4/1/2015 1,000 <4.2 <140 <88 <110 <130

8/24/2015 960 6.7 Et 10 Et <22 <27 <32

3/2/2016 588 <8.5 5.9 Et <880 3.0 Et <1,300

7/11/2016 1,007 0.56 Et <70 88 93 110

8/10/2016 689 150 9.0 Et 36 Eb 88 Et 11 Et

2/22/2017 737 <10 <68 <43 <52 <63

5/15/2017 720 <14 <470 <300 <360 <440

8/14/2017 429 4.2 Et <290 <180 <220 <270

CRM–22

5/14/2008 1,000 <1.9 <16 <24 N/A <38

7/31/2008 1,000 <2.2 <19 <28 N/A <44

10/14/2008 1,000 <2.2 <19 <28 N/A <44

4/2/2009 302 <11 <91 <130 N/A <210

6/9/2009 1,040 <1.8 <16 <23 N/A <36

9/9/2009 1,090 <2.9 <25 <37 N/A <57
Tables 9–19 47

Table 19. Results for quantitative polymerase chain reaction and quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction viral 

pathogen samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17.—Continued

[E, result is estimated; t, result is greater than the limit of blank but less than the limit of detection; <, result is below the limit of detection; N/A, not applicable; 

b, result is extrapolated below the limit of quantification; Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; bold values 

are detections; molecular methods reported in copies per liter]

Sample date Liters sampled Adenovirus Enterovirus Norovirus GIA Norovirus GIB Norovirus GII

Seminole 17

11/7/2011 1,000 <0.99 <10 <15 N/A <23

5/13/2008 1,006 <1.9 <3.3 <4.8 N/A <7.5

7/29/2008 1,000 <2.2 0.54 Et <28 N/A <44

10/6/2008 1,000 <1.6 <14 <20 N/A <31

4/6/2009 1,080 <3.0 <26 <37 N/A <58

4/6/2009R 1,080 <3.0 <26 <37 N/A <58

6/2/2009 1,000 <1.9 <16 <24 N/A <38

9/10/2009 1,000 <1.9 <16 <24 N/A <38

7/21/2010 1,000 <1.9 <3.3 <4.8 N/A <7.5

11/2/2010 1,000 <1.6 <5.5 <8.0 N/A <12

3/16/2011 1,000 <1.3 <11 <16 N/A <25

6/6/2011 1,000 <0.64 <5.5 <8.0 N/A <12

3/29/2012 1,000 <1.1 <11 <16 N/A <25

5/31/2012 1,010 <0.89 <9.1 <13 N/A <21

8/30/2012 1,000 <0.96 <9.8 <14 N/A <22

11/28/2012 1,000 <6.0 <31 <20 <24 <29

3/6/2013 1,000 0.20 Et 10 Et <13 <16 2.6 Et

8/12/2013 1,000 <4.7 <25 <16 <19 <23

11/18/2013 1,000 <4.9 <26 6.7 Et 1.9 Et <24

3/10/2014 1,000 <4.4 <150 <92 <110 <130

5/28/2014 1,000 <4.5 <150 <93 <110 <140

9/24/2014 1,000 37 E <36 <23 <27 <33

2/24/2015 1,000 <5.1 <33 <21 <26 <31

8/19/2015 1,000 <16 <51 <32 <39 <47

3/21/2016 1,000 <6.1 180 Et <630 <760 <920

6/28/2016 1,000 0.84 Et <570 <360 <430 <520

8/8/2016 1,058 0.89 Et <300 <190 <230 <280

10/25/2016 1,000 0.14 Et <27 <17 <21 <25

5/22/2017 1,000 0.90 Et <42 <27 <32 <39

8/15/2017 1,000 0.48 Et <140 <89 <110 <130

J Avenue Water Treatment Plant—Finished

3/15/2010 1,000 <2.2 <3.8 <5.6 N/A <8.8

6/15/2010 1,000 <1.9 <16 <24 N/A <38

8/30/2010 1,000 <1.6 <2.8 <4.0 N/A <6.2

11/3/2010 1,000 <1.3 <2.2 <3.2 N/A <5.0

2/23/2011 1,000 <1.9 <3.3 <4.8 N/A <7.5

6/7/2011 1,000 <0.64 <1.1 <1.6 N/A <2.5

9/19/2011 1,000 <1.8 <18 <26 N/A <41
48 Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17

Table 19. Results for quantitative polymerase chain reaction and quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction viral 

pathogen samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17.—Continued

[E, result is estimated; t, result is greater than the limit of blank but less than the limit of detection; <, result is below the limit of detection; N/A, not applicable; 

b, result is extrapolated below the limit of quantification; Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; bold values 

are detections; molecular methods reported in copies per liter]

Sample date Liters sampled Adenovirus Enterovirus Norovirus GIA Norovirus GIB Norovirus GII

J Avenue Water Treatment Plant—Finished—Continued

12/5/2011 1,000 <0.99 <10 <15 N/A <23

3/29/2012 1,000 <1.1 <11 5.6 Et N/A <25

6/7/2012 1,000 <0.96 <9.8 <14 N/A <22

8/28/2012 1,000 <0.90 1.5 Et 0.92 Et N/A <21

12/6/2012 1,000 <4.7 2.8 Et <16 3.0 Et 3.2 Et

2/20/2013 1,000 0.24 Et 12 Et <16 <20 <24

5/28/2013 1,000 <4.7 <25 <16 <19 <23

8/13/2013 1,000 <5.4 <29 <18 <22 <26

11/25/2013 1,000 <5.3 <28 <17 <21 <25

4/8/2014 1,000 <4.3 <28 <18 <22 <26

6/10/2014 1,000 <3.7 <24 <15 <19 <22

8/26/2014 1,000 <3.4 <22 <14 <17 <20

11/17/2014 1,000 2.7 Et <29 <19 22 <27

2/25/2015 1,000 <130 <220 <140 <170 <200

6/23/2015 1,000 1.6 Et <36 <22 <27 <33

8/26/2015 1,000 <24 <31 <20 <24 <29

2/10/2016 500 <9.7 1,900 Eb <1,000 <1,200 <1,500

6/20/2016 1,000 0.38 Et <39 <25 <30 <36

8/16/2016 1,040 0.70 Et 6.4 Et 22 Eb 26 Eb 32 Eb

10/24/2016 1,000 <3.7 <24 <15 <19 <22

3/1/2017 853 <9.0 <59 <37 <45 <55

5/23/2017 703 0.60 Et <20 <12 <15 <18

8/15/2017 1,000 0.48 Et 1.3 Et 1.8 Et 1.2 Et <16

J Avenue Water Treatment Plant—Raw

4/7/2009 550 <8.7 <75 <110 N/A <170

6/2/2009 1,439 <1.3 <12 <17 N/A <26

9/30/2009 2,480 <0.77 <13 <19 N/A <30

3/16/2010 1,000 <1.9 <16 <24 N/A <38

6/15/2010 1,590 <1.4 <12 <18 N/A <28

8/31/2010 1,000 <1.9 <6.6 <9.6 N/A <15

11/3/2010 1,132 <1.1 <3.9 <5.6 N/A <8.8

3/16/2011 100 <1.3 <44 <64 N/A <100

6/7/2011 100 <9.6 <82 <120 N/A <190

9/19/2011 200 <8.6 <89 <130 N/A <200

12/5/2011 200 <4.8 <49 <72 N/A <110

3/20/2012 500 <1.4 <14 <21 N/A <33

6/28/2012 100 <9.0 <92 <130 N/A <210

8/21/2012 100 <9.6 <98 <140 N/A <220
Tables 9–19 49

Table 19. Results for quantitative polymerase chain reaction and quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction viral 

pathogen samples, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17.—Continued

[E, result is estimated; t, result is greater than the limit of blank but less than the limit of detection; <, result is below the limit of detection; N/A, not applicable; 

b, result is extrapolated below the limit of quantification; Ranney, horizontal collector well; CRM, Cedar Rapids Municipal local project identifier; bold values 

are detections; molecular methods reported in copies per liter]

Sample date Liters sampled Adenovirus Enterovirus Norovirus GIA Norovirus GIB Norovirus GII

J Avenue Water Treatment Plant—Raw—Continued

12/6/2012 100 <49 <260 45 Et <200 34 Et

3/7/2013 100 <54 18 Et <180 <220 <260

5/28/2013 100 <50 70 Et <170 <200 <240

8/13/2013 100 <47 <250 <160 <190 <230

11/25/2013 200 2.0 Et <140 <90 <110 <130

4/8/2014 100 17 Et 420 Et <1,100 <1,300 <1,500

6/3/2014 100 <35 <230 <140 140 Et <210

8/26/2014 100 <38 <250 <160 <190 <230

11/17/2014 100 52 Et <360 <230 <270 <330

2/25/2015 100 <1,200 <2,000 <1,200 <1,500 <1,800

6/23/2015 100 <67 <440 <280 <340 <410

8/25/2015 100 <300 <390 <240 <300 <360

2/10/2016 100 <60 1,600 Et <6,200 <7,500 <9,100

6/8/2016 100 <27 35 Et <1,100 110 Et 130 Et

8/16/2016 100 83 Et <740 <470 <560 <680

10/24/2016 100 70 <600 <570 <680 <610

3/1/2017 100 <62 <2,000 <1,300 <1,600 <1,900

5/23/2017 100 <21 <270 <170 <210 <250

8/15/2017 100 <28 <370 <230 <280 <340

Northwest Treatment Plant—Finished

6/14/2016 1,000 <5.2 700 Et 5.1 Et <26 <32

8/15/2016 100 7.7 Et <190 <120 <150 <180

10/31/2016 1,000 <3.9 <26 <16 <19 <23

2/27/2017 1,000 1.4 Et <38 <24 <29 <35

5/22/2017 925 0.64 Et <20 <13 <15 <18

8/16/2017 1,000 1.8 Et 1.4 Et <11 3.7 Et 1.4 Et

Northwest Treatment Plant—Raw

2/22/2016 100 <24 6,000 Et <5,100 400 Et <7,400

6/14/2016 100 7.8 Et <910 <580 <700 <840

8/15/2016 141 <23 <300 <190 <230 <280

10/31/2016 100 5.7 Et <260 <170 <200 <240

2/27/2017 100 <86 <560 <360 <430 <520

5/22/2017 100 <34 <220 <140 <170 <210

8/16/2017 100 <32 <210 <130 <160 <190

R Replicate samples.
For more information about this publication, contact:

Director, USGS Central Midwest Water Science Center 

400 South Clinton Street, Suite 269

Iowa City, IA 52240

319–337–4191

For additional information, visit: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/cmwater

Publishing support provided by the 

Rolla Publishing Service Center

Meppelink and others—Selected Water-Quality Data from the Cedar River and Cedar Rapids Well Fields, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2008–17—Data Series 1110

ISSN 2327-638X (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/ds1110