Summary Appraisals of the 

Nation's Ground-Water 

Resources-Tennessee Region 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 813-L 

J-1 '' \ ,7', 

,.,.... , ... ........, I KENTUCKY ~ ... -- cr't2 I VIRGI,.A 

) ' , - , ) J \"------------------7flll#---r---- 'f-- J -~ ' 

~---·- F,t , 

) ! \ ~ ' ~ .~''' e,sse.e. ~v' ~J ' !. ~ I .<".('-r- .J I .. .# - ,, TENNESSEE ,~ I 

r I ,__ 1 ./,.. 1 

""' I - __ , !"' .. NORTH CAROLINA ~ , ~ r ,. I,J", ___ _ 

L------\-- --~-1--~, ' : - -- ~'"'\.,. S 0 U T H 'L .,. ~ ', cAR 0 LIN A 

M I S S I S S I P P I : ........ -- A L A B A M A \ G E 0 R G I A \, 

' ' 
• 

HAWAII 

~~ 

NEBR 

KANS 

PR VI 

Water Resources 

Regions 

M 

Letters indicate chapter 

designations 

Chapters are published or in press in U.S.G.S. 

Professional Paper 813 

series 

o ... 

~~~··' M{> r-----"1--» 

L--....r- ' 

Geographic Index to the Series, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 813, Summary Appraisals of the Nations Ground-Water Resources. 

Boundaries shown are those established by the United States Water-Resources Council for Water-Resources Regions in the United States. 
Summary Appraisals of the 

Nation's Ground-Water 

Resources-Tennessee Region 

by Ann Zurawski 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 813-L 

Ground-water development and management 

opportunities in the region 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON 1978 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

H. William Menard, Director 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

Zurawski, Ann 

Summary appraisals of the nation's ground-water resources-Tennessee region. 

(Geological Survey Professional Paper 813-L) 

Bibliography: p. L34-L35. 

1. Water, Underground-Tennessee River watershed. I. Title. II. Series: United States. Geological 

Survey. Professional Paper 813-L. 

GB1027.T46Z87 553'.79'09768 78-606195 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Go\'ernment Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 

Stock No. 024-001-03074-8 
CONTENTS 

Page Page 

Abstract ____________________________________________________ L1 Development of the ground-water resource ___________________ L23 

Introduction------------------------------------------------ 2 

The ground-water resource ---------------------------------- 5 

Ground-water use ___________________________ --- ___ ----- 23 

Potential for development ------------------------------ 23 

Ground water and streamflow____________________________ 5 

Major aquifers _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 

Availability ______________________ - _____ --- ___ ----- _ 25 

Dependability ______________________________________ 25 

Unconsolidated aquifers ____________ __ _____ _ ___ _ _ _ __ 7 

Carbonate aquifers__________________________________ 7 

Fractured noncarbonate aquifers _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7 

Aquifer productivity -------------------------------- 9 

Treatment needs __________________ - _____ ---- ___ ----- 25 

Cost of development -------------------------------- 25 

Temperature stability ------------------------------ 25 

Efficiency for small-scale development_ _______________ 26 

Occurrence of ground water------------------------------- 10 Supplemental and conjunctive use ____________________ 26 

Blue Ridge ________________________________________ 11 

Valley and Ridge ----------------------------------12 

Cumberland Plateau-------------------------------- 15 

Highland Rim ______________________________________ 15 

Central Basin ______________________________________ 16 

Coastal Plain ______________________________________ 19 

Underground storage ______________________ - _______ -_ 27 

Locating a ground-water supply-------------------------- 28 

Data needs -------------------------------------------- 30 

Water-resources management ________ ---- ____ --- __ ------- 32 

Conclusions ------------------------------------------------ 32 

References __________________________________________________ 34 

Quality of ground water ________________________________ 20 

FIGURE 

TABLE 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

1. Map showing Water Resources Council regions of the United States_ --------------------------------------------

2. Map showing physiographic subdivisions of the Tennessee Region ____________________ ---- _-- ---------------------

3. Map and graphs showing mean annual and monthly precipitation and mean monthly temperatures for the Tennessee 

Region _ ____ _ __ ------------------------------------------------------

4. Diagram showing hydrologic cycle with water budget for a typical stream ----------------------------------------

5. Diagram showing the effect of ground-water levels on streamflow ------------------------------------------------

6. Hydrograph showing base flow of Buffalo River near Lobelville during 1968 water year----------------------------

7. Graph of ground-water recharge in six drainage basins----------------------------------------------------------

Page 

L2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

8. Streamflow-duration curves for six gaging stations _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________________ - ______ - _ 11 

9. Diagram showing kinds of water-bearing openings in the three major types of aquifers in the Tennessee Region ____ 12 

10. Map showing distribution of major aquifer types ____________ ------------------------------------------------ 13 

11. Map showing ranges and median values of specific capacities of selected wells ------------------------------------ 14 

12-17. Sketches showing idealized geologic and hydrologic conditions in each of the physiographic subdivisions of the 

Tennessee Region. 

12. Blue Ridge __________ _ ----------------------------------------------- 16 

13. Valley and Ridge_ _ _ ________________ -------------------------------------------------------- 17 

14. Cumberland Plateau _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ ___ __ ____ __ _ _ _ ____ ___ __ _ ___ __ _ _ _________ 18 

15. Highland Rim_ __________ _ __________ ------------------------------------------------------ 19 

16. Central Basin ____________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------ 20 

17. Coastal Plain ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 R. Map showing results of chemical analyses of ground water from each physiographic subdivision of the Tennessee Region ___ _ 

19. Graphs showing ranges and medians of six chemical constituents in untreated ground water of the Tennesee Region and 

21 

22 

in the treated, finished water of the 100 largest cities in the United States ____________________________________ 24 

20. Hydrograph of water level in test well M-1, Manchester, Tenn., showing seasonal trends and response to rainfalL ___ 26 

21. Graphs of pumping rate and water levels in well M-157, Colbert County, Ala. during pumping test ---------------- 27 

22. Illustration showing some of the kinds of data used to derive criteria for locating test well sites-------------------- 29 

23. Map showing locations of wells in the U.S. Geological Survey observation well network ____________________________ 31 

TABLES 

Page 

1. Comparison of water budget of a typical stream in the Tennessee Region with water budgets for Pomperaug and 

Beaverdam Creek basins --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- L10 

2. 3-day 20-year low flows at six gaging stations ------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 

3. Probable yields from the major aquifer types of the Tennessee Region --------------------------------------------- 15 

4. Water use in the Tennessee Region in 1970 ________________________ -------------------------------------------- 24 

III 
IV 

acre-ft (acre-foot) 

ft (feet) 

English 

(ft3 /s)/mi2 (cubic feet per second per square mile) 

ft2/d (foot squared per day) 

gal/min (gallons per minute) 

(gal/min)/ft (gallons per minute per foot) 

in. (inches) 

in./yr (inches per year) 

Mgal/d (million gallons per day) 

mi (miles) 

mi2 (square miles) 

CONTENTS 

METRIC UNITS 

Multiply by 

1233 

3.048 x w-~ 

1.093 - w- 2 

9.29 x w- 2 

6.309 x w- 2 

2.070 x w-t 

2.540 x w+t 

2.540 X 10+1 

3.785 X 10+3 

1.609 

2.590 

m3 (cubic meter) 

m <meters) 

Metric 

(m3/sl/km2 (cubic meter per second per square kilometer) 

m2 /d (meter square per day) 

Lis (liters per second) 

<L/s)/m <liters per second per meter) 

mm (millimeters) 

mm/yr (millimeters per year) 

m3 /d (cubic meters per day) 

km <kilometers) 

km2 <square kilometers) 
SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S 

GROUND-WATER RESOURCESTENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF 

TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES 

By ANN ZURAWSKI 

ABSTRACT 

Ground water is an abundant and little-used resource in the Tennessee Region, a 41,000 square mile area dominated by the Tennessee River system and including parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Onefifth to one-fourth of the precipitation that falls on the region enters 

the ground-water reservoirs. During the year approximately the 

same amount of water leaves the ground-water system, sustaining 

the dry-weather flow of streams. Recharge for the region is about 

22,000 million gallons per day or 0.5 million gallons per day per 

square mile. 

The major types of aquifers in the region are unconsolidated material (including sand and regolith), carbonate rocks, and fractured 

noncarbonate rocks. One or more of these aquifer types occurs in 

each of the six physiographic subdivisions of the region. The productivity of these aquifers depends on their hydraulic properties and on 

the distribution of these properties. The unconsolidated sand aquifers are the most homogeneous in composition and most predictable in 

occurrence. These aquifers commonly yield 200 to 600 gallons per 

minute per well depending on the thickness of sand penetrated. 

The most difficult aquifers to predict in regard to depth and yield 

are the carbonate rocks. In these aquifers it is possible to drill dry 

holes within a few hundred feet of wells capable of producing several 

thousand gallons per minute. However, with an adequate reconnaissance study to determine the occurrence of ground water and a 

planned test drilling program, yields of up to 300 gallons per minute 

per well can be expected in the carbonate aquifers. Potential yields 

from the fractured noncarbonate aquifers are lower than in the carbonate rocks. 

The chemical and physical properties of ground water in the Tennessee Region are usually within the limits recommended by the 

Environmental Protection Agency for drinking water, and the 

ground water in all but some very shallow aquifers tends to be free of 

pathogenic microorganisms. Saline water is not known to occur in 

significant quantities in the region. 

In 1970, 173 million gallons per day of ground water were used in 

the Tennessee Region. This was less than 8 percent ofthe total quantity ofwater used in the region and only 0.8 percent of the estimated 

ground-water recharge. Ground water is used chiefly as a source of 

water supply for rural areas and small towns. A lesser amount is 

used by industries and commercial establishments located beyond 

the limits of municipal water-supply systems. However, there is potential for significantly increased use in order to augment surfacewater supplies and to utilize the total water resource more efficiently. 

Hydrologic studies and adequate test drilling would greatly increase the chances of locating large amounts of ground water, especially in the nine-tenths of the Tennessee Region that is underlain by 

either carbonate rocks or fractured noncarbonate rocks which have 

highly variable water-bearing properties. Collectively, such studies 

are useful in developing a concept of the hydrologic system which 

would permit the development of criteria for selecting well sites in 

other areas with a similar geological and hydrological setting. Hydrologic studies that include test drilling have been conducted in all 

parts of the region except the Cumberland Plateau. 

Some of the basic data necessary for hydrologic studies, such as 

geologic maps, well records, and streamflow records are available 

throughout the region. However, detailed information on groundwater levels, ground-water quality, and aquifer characteristics are 

not equally available throughout the region. This type of information 

cannot be obtained quickly when it is needed; it must be the product 

of a continuing program of studies designed to evaluate the Tennessee Region's ground-water resource. 

Because of the interdependence of ground water and surface water, 

water management efforts can be fully effective only if they involve 

the whole water resource. In the Tennessee Region, surface water is 

highly controlled, but there is at present no regionwide waterresources management plan that includes ground water. 

INTRODUCTION 

The significance of ground water as a resource is 

often not fully recognized in areas where surface water 

is abundant. Ground water is hidden from view, and 

requires special techniques to define its occurrence and 

availability. Planners and water managers who make 

decisions affecting development of water resources do 

not always have adequate information with which to 

evaluate ground water as an alternate or supplemental 

source of water. 

In order to demonstrate that the Nation's ground 

water is a large and important resource, the U.S. 

Geological Survey has undertaken a broad-perspective 

appraisal of the ground-water resources in each of the 

21 regions into which the United States has been divided by the Water Resources Council (fig. 1). The purpose of these regional appraisals is to show that in 

many parts of the Nation, ground water can play a 

significant role in regional water supply and that it 

warrants further study and consideration in regional 

developmental planning. 

L1 
L2 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

0 400MILES ..... .....&,__,jL..-,...__,, 

~ {)Kauai CARIBBEAN 

Oahu~ Molokai c:> c:> -p 

covirgin ~~Maul 

HAWAII • 

HawaiiD • Islands 

0._ . ..L,.,,I....I..' 4_,90 MILES 0 150MILES ~ 

0..._, -'--,__.._, _,ep MILES 

FIGURE I.-Water Resources Council regions of the United States. 

The Tennessee Region coincides with the Tennessee 

River basin, an area of 41,000 mi2 which lies mainly in 

Tennessee, Alabama, and North Carolina but includes 

small parts of Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky, and 

Mississippi. This diverse area includes parts of six 

physiographic provinces each having distinctive topography and geology (fig. 2). 

The Tennessee River system has played a major role 

in the region's development. Historically, severe flooding along the Tennessee River hindered industrialization of the region. The Tennessee Valley Authority, 

created by Congress in 1933 as a regional resource development agency, very early began to construct dams 

along the Tennessee to control flooding, promote navigation and produce electric power. The harnessing of 

the river was followed by industrialization, population 

growth, and a higher standard of living. 

The flow of the Tennessee River and its tributaries, 

however, is only a small part of the region's water resources. In July of 1973, a record 10.3 million acre-ft of 

useable water was stored in the Tennessee River's reservoir system (Tennessee Valley Authority, 1973). 

This is 450 billion ft3 of water. M. I. Kaufman (written 

commun. 1975) estimated that 25,800 billion ft3 of 

ground water was available from storage in the Tennessee Region. While that approximated figure is difficult to verify, it is indicative of the magnitude of 

difference between ground-water and surface-water 

storage even for a fully regulated river system. In 

many areas where surface water is not available, large 

quantities of ground water are available for development. Ground water has been a neglected resource in 

the Tennessee Region, but because of increasing pressure to utilize all resources in the most efficient and 
86° 84° 

KY 

-------- --------- TENNESSEE 

STATION 

~--

SCALE 

20 10 0 20 40 60 Miles I I I I I I I I 

>-3 

tr:l 

z 

z 

tr:l 

gs 

trj 

trj 

::0 

trj 

0 

0 

.z 

z 

('1 

36° ~ t::l 

z 

0 

'"0 

> 

~ 

~ 

0 

~ 

>-3 

tr:l 

z 

z 

trj 

r:n 

~ trj 

> z 

t::l 

> t::l 

~ 

> ('1 

3401 I I I .... - -- I v V'l ' I I I I '340 tr:l 

--- --- 84° 82° ~ 

FIGURE 2.-Physiographic subdivisions of the Tennessee Region (modified from Hunt, 1967; Miller, 1974; Adams and others, 1926; Butts, 1933; and LaForge and others, 1925). 

~ 

r:n 

~ 

t""' 

CJ,j 
860 

8r 8.4° 

I 

6 MEAN MONTHLY f/) 

88° af~s PRECIPITATION 

u IN THE TENNESSEE z 

83° 829 

~4 REGION, 1890-1959 

! 

379 r4 " ... I I ·Z3 

0 

i= ;:!2 KY ---~ ul 

w 

a: 

a.. 

JFMAMJJASOND 

VI "" I I •• 

'--

36° 

: '8 

35o t "' I I Q ,i<l 1/ ·'s?if??~ ~\J ) ~S3} ~ ' 

~ 

~ 

··v: \ ffl 

\ ~ 80 

\~ 7· 

z 

;:J-6 0 I I ALA I 34 MEAN MONTHLY 

EXPLANATION 

,........50, RAINFALL IN INCHES 

--- - STATE LINES 

,-• •- BASIN BOUNDARY 

TEMPERATURE 

IN THE TENNESSEE 

REGION, 1941-1970 

a: 

:::> tt 50 

~ 4 I GROWING~ ~ r- SEASON 

~ 30+-+--t-+--t---+-+--+-+-~-t JFMAMJJASOND 

MODIFIED FROM MAP BY 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

DIVISION OF WATER CONTROL PLANNING 

HYDRAULIC DATA BRANCH 

TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN 

MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION 

25 YEAR PERIOD I 935-59 

SCALE 0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES 

k el bse;l baa! 

FIGURE 3.-Mean annual and monthly precipitation and mean monthly temperatures for the Tennessee Region. 

~ 

*"'" 

C/). 

c 

~ 

~ 

> 

:::c 

~ 

> '"C 

'"C 

:::c 

> u.i 

> t""' 

C/). 

0 

'"%j 

o--3 

::r: 

tzj 

z 

> o--3 

0 

z 

r.h 

0 

:::c 

0 

c 

z 

t:l 

~ > o--3 

trj 

:::c 

:::c 

trj 

C/). 

0 

c 

:::c 

(1 

trj 

C/). 
TENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES L5 

productive manner, ground water is now being recognized as an integral part of the region's water resources. 

This report synthesizes the results of previous 

studies in the Tennessee Region and appraises the role 

of ground water in the hydrologic systems of the Tennessee Region. It provides an overview of the occurrence of ground water, its present and potential use, 

and the need for management of ground water as an 

integral part of the water resources of the region. 

THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCE 

GROUND WATER AND STREAMFLOW 

The source of both surface and ground water is precipitation. In an average year, precipitation in the 

Tennessee Region ranges from 40 in. in the northern 

Valley and Ridge province to 85 in. in the mountainous 

eastern part (fig. 3 ). The average for the region is 52 in. 

(Tennessee Valley Authority, 1975). In a normal year, 

most precipitation occurs in the winter and spring 

months, least in the summer and fall months. About 60 

percent of the yearly precipitation returns to the 

atmosphere by evaporation and the transpiration of 

plants. Rates of evapotranspiration are highest during 

the hot, dry months when plants are growing. Of the 

remaining 40 percent of the precipitation, a part flows 

overland into streams and a part percolates into the 

ground to replenish, or recharge, the ground-water reservoirs (fig. 4 ). 

Water entering the ground-water reservoirs is stored 

in the pore spaces in unconsolidated deposits and 

weathered rock, or in fractures and solution openings 

in the bedrock. Characteristically, all ground water in 

storage moves toward areas of discharge such as 

springs, streams, and wells. Water levels are related to 

the amount of water available to the base flow of 

streams and the volume of water that can be stored in 

the ground-water reservoir. 

The effect that water-level fluctuation has on 

streamflow in areas underlain by a limestone aquifer 

with a thin soil cover is shown in figure 5. Ground 

water in these areas is discharged rapidly during 

periods of little or no rainfall, causing a decline in 

ground-water levels in the aquifer which results in the 

depletion of streamflow. Streams that cut deeply into 

thick, unconsolidated aquifers have sustained 

streamflow even through long periods of dry weather 

because of the slow release of ground water from these 

aquifers. In most aquifers, the replenishment of ground 

water at times exceeds the outflow or vice versa, but 

over a long period the recharge and discharge are 

about equal, so that ground-water discharge in a normal year can be approximately equated with the average annual base flow of streams. 

The amount of ground-water recharge in the Tennessee Region was estimated using hydrographs of 

streamflow at six gaging stations during the 1968 

water year, a year of nearly average streamflow across 

the region. Hydrograph separations were made to obtain maximum and minimum estimates of base flow 

(fig. 6). The values obtained ranged from 5 to 16 in./yr 

or 13 to 33 percent of the year's precipitation (fig. 7). 

The average rate of recharge for the region as a whole 

is estimated to be between 10 to 13 in./yr or 19 to 25 

percent of the precipitation. This is about 0.5 (Mgal/ 

d)/mi2 or 22,000 Mgal/d for the entire region. The water 

budget shown in figure 4 is typical for the region. The 

numbers agree with previous water budget studies in 

the Pomperaug River basin in Connecticut, a basin 

underlain by fractured crystalline rocks and thin glacial drift (Meinzer and Stearns, 1929) and Beaverdam 

Creek basin in Maryland, underlain by coastal plain 

deposits (Rasmussen and Andreasen, 1957; table 1 ). 

Since the hydrologic properties of the aquifers in the 

Tennessee Region are intermediate between those of 

the other two basins, it is reasonable that the water 

budget figures for the Tennessee Region as a whole fall 

between those of the other two studies. Average recharge figures can serve only as a rough guide to the 

amounts of ground water available for withdrawal because they describe only the annual amount of water 

passing through the system, only part of which can be 

captured by wells. 

Flow-duration curves of streams are, in part, indicators of the water-storing properties of aquifers. A 

flow-duration curve is constructed by plotting specified 

streamflows against the percentage of time they are 

equalled or exceeded at a gaging station. The 

streamflow at any time depends on the climate, drainage area, topography, overburden, and geology of the 

basin. Variations in these factors from one basin to 

another result in a variety of shapes of flow-duration 

curves (Burchett and Moore, 1971). The shape of the 

low-flow portions of duration curves is controlled 

chiefly by the geology of the basin (Searcy, 1959) and is 

indicative of the interaction of ground water and surface water in the basin. 

Flow-duration curves of six long-term gaging stations on unregulated streams in the Tennessee Region 

are shown in figure 8. Each curve is representative of 

the flow characteristics of streams in a particular 

physiographic province. The effects of the difference in 

size of drainage areas have been minimized by plotting 

the streamflow in cubic feet per second per square mile. 

The decreasing slope of four of the duration curves 

shows that those streams have well-sustained base 

flow indicating the ability of unconsolidated aquifer 

material to store and release water slowly. Big Sandy 

River at Bruceton, Tenn., traverses unconsolidated 
L6 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

ti r i 

TRANSPIR TION 

~ \ 

W\NTER WATER TABLEw RAINFALL 

TRANSPIRATION 

r t I~ EVAPORATIO 

...... -- - -SUMMER WATER T-- ---

111 

ABL~-.... 

INFILTRATIO- -~ 

.... 

TYPICAL WATER BUDGET 

Inches 

Average rainfall over drainage area --- 50.2 

Stream discharge---------------------- 21.5 

Low flow------------------------- 11.5 

Overland flow-------------------- 10.0 

Evaporation and transpiration--------- 28.7 

FIGURE 4.-Hydrologic cycle and water budget for a typical stream in the Tennessee Region based on average of values for 

six drainage basins. (Hydrologic cycle from Burchett, 1977.) 

sand. Buffalo River near Lobelville, Tenn., Clinch 

River above Tazewell, Tenn., and Little River near 

Maryville, Tenn., are in areas covered by thick 

regolith. 

The curves for Wartrace Creek at Bell Buckle, Tenn., 

and Emory River at Oakdale, Tenn., are markedly different from the other curves, indicating the low waterstoring properties of the rock underlying the basins 

and the very poorly sustained low flows. The curve for 

Emory River at Oakdale shows the low storage capacity of the fractured rocks capping the Cumberland 

Plateau. The curve for Wartrace Creek shows the low 

storage and rapid release of ground water in flat-lying 

limestone aquifers of the Central Basin. Interconnected solution openings in the limestone rapidly discharge the water that is temporarily stored above 

stream level. Low-flow frequency analyses for these 

gaging stations also show that base flow of Emory 

River and Wartrace Creek is much more poorly sustained than that of the other four streams (table 2 ). 

MAJOR AQUIFERS 

Three types of aquifers occur in the Tennessee Region: unconsolidated material with intergranular 
TENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES L7 

GROUND-WATER LEVEL 

DURING WET WEATHERTREAM IS FLOWING 

ROUND-WATER LEVEL AFTER A 

LONG PERIOD OF DRY WEATHERSTREAM IS DRY 

FIGURE 5.-Ground-water levels in an unconfined aquifer affect streamflow. In this limestone aquifer, typical of the 

Central Basin, recharge is stored temporarily above stream level. When there is a gradient toward the stream, 

ground water is discharged to the stream, sustaining its flow. As solution openings are drained, the water table 

becomes almost flat at or below the stream level, and streamflow ceases. 

porosity, carbonate rocks with solution openings, and 

noncarbonate rocks with fractures (fig. 9). One or more 

of these aquifers is characteristic of each physiographic 

province (fig. 10). 

UNCONSOLIDATED AQVIFERS 

Uconsolidated materials are significant aquifers in 

about half of the Tennessee Region (fig. 10). In the 

Coastal Plain, an area of 4,000 mi2 on the western edge 

of the region, the important aquifers are sand formations which dip to the west. These formations are the 

most uniformly productive aquifers of the region, 

commonly yielding 200 to 600 gal/min to single wells. 

Parts of another 18,000 mi2 are covered by unconsolidated materials, referred to as regolith, which is a 

mantle of disintegrated rock that has accumulated 

over the bedrock. Grain size ranges from clay to coarse 

gravel and is a major factor in determining the regolith's water-bearing properties. The regolith is hydrologically significant in areas where it is thick and 

permeable, especially in the Highland Rim and parts of 

the Blue Ridge and Valley and Ridge. In these areas it 

acts as a sponge in absorbing and storing large 

amounts of ground water. Where saturated, the regolith yields dependable domestic supplies, but larger 

supplies can be obtained where fractures or solution 

openings in the underlying bedrock are hydraulically 

connected with the regolith. 

CARBONATE AQUIFERS 

Carbonate aquifers underlie about half of the Tennessee Region (fig. 10). The rocks in the Valley and 

Ridge section of the region are steeply tilted and west 

of the Valley and Ridge are essentially fiat lying. 

Water occurs in openings along fractures, faults, and 

bedding planes which have become enlarged by circulating ground water. Solution openings occupy a 

small volume in the rock and generally occur within 

about 300 ft of land surface. Individual openings range 

from a fraction of an inch to several feet in height and 

can be laterally extensive. Wells that penetrate large 

openings may be able to produce several thousand gallons per minute, but such openings occupy a small proportion of the rock. As a result, well yields vary widely 

in carbonate terrane. For example, at Franklin, Tenn., 

in the Central Basin just north of the Tennessee Region, two test wells 100 ft apart produced 18 and about 

180 gal/min respectively. Variability of solution openings makes well placement critical in efforts to develop 

large amounts of ground water from carbonate rocks. 

FRACTCRED ~O~CARBO~ATE AQl'IFERS 

Slightly more than a third of the Tennessee Region is 

underlain by noncarbonate rocks which, unlike the 

Coastal Plain deposits, have very little porosity aside 

from fractures. 

These rocks range from sedimentary rocks such as 

shale and sandstone underlying the Cumberland 

Plateau to rocks that have been subjected to 

metamorphism and deformation in the Blue Ridge. 

Weathering along fractures and faults has created avenues for water movement. These fracture openings 

probably comprise less than 1 percent of the rock volume, and water-bearing fractures are uncommon at 
0::: 

w 

Q.. 

..... 

w 

w 

LL 

u 

co 

:::> 

u 

z 

w 100 

C) 

0::: 

.c( 

J: 

u 

V) 

0 

.................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. . ................. . . ................. . ::::::::::::::::::: 

................... ................... ................... ................... ::::::::::::::::::: 

................... 

::::::::::::::::::: 

MAXIMUM ESTIMATED BASE FLOW 

..................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

:::::::::::::::::::: 

................... ................... ................... ................... 

.................... .................... .................... .................... 

···················· .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ................ ................ 

................ ................ 

................ ................ ................ 

. .............. . . .............. . . .............. . . .............. . ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 

:!':!':!'!!!! 

. ............... . . ............... . . ............... . . ............... . . ............... . . ............... . . ............... . . ............... . . ................... . ..................... ..................... . ................... . . ................... . ..................... . ................... . ..................... . ................... . . ................... . . ................... . . ................... . . ................... . . ................... . . ................... . 

1111111111 MINIMUM ESTIMATED BASE FLOW 

FIGURE 6.-Base flow of Buffalo River near Lobelville during the 1968 water year, a year of average streamflow. After about 6 days overland runoff has left the basin, and flow 

is supplied from the ground-water reservoir. Maximum and minimum ground-water contribution to streamflow was determined graphically for 1968 water year. For the 

maximum ground-water outflow, the recession curves from 6 days after each peak were projected back to the day of the peak. An arbitrary line was then drawn from the 

peak to the point where the stream began to rise. For the minimum, each recession curve was extended to the day of the following peak, then joined by a straight line to 

the point 6 days after that peak. This method is a modification of that described by Busby and Armentrout (1965) and Moore, Burchett, and Bingham (1969). 

t'""' 

00 

rn 

e 

s::: 

s::: 

> ::0 

K! 

> 'i:l 

'i:l 

~ w 

> r-< 

rn 

0 

1-rj 

t--3 

::r: 

trj 

z 

> 1-3 

0 

z 

r:./J 

Q 

;:d 

0 

e 

z 

t;) 

~ > t--3 

trj 

;:d 

;:d 

t::rj 

rn 

0 

e 

;:d 

("") 

t::rj 

rn 
TENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES 

20 

~ 

- w 

:r: 

u 

~ 

~ 10 - uS 

~ 

0:: 

~ 

:r: 

u 

w 

cc 

0 

1-

z 

z 

w 

tz 

0 

tw 

u 

::l 

z: 

~t­

~~ 

..... at ~w 

t-> 

~-

~at 

0> 

uo 

z 

~ 

~ 

- ~ 

z 

z 

w 

tw 

..... 

..... 

z 

z 

w 

t-

..... 

..... 

w za::. 

Ci)t-

~~ 

a:. ~ ..... w ~w 

o::CIIC 

t-U 

z 

ww 

uu ~ 

0:: 

tat 

~ 

~ 

z 

z 

w 

tRECHARGE 

z 

z 

w 

t-

..... 

..... 

w 

~ w 

w N 

~ ~ 0 to:: w 

> 

0 0 

z a:. ~ ~ 

> at w w ..... > ~ at 

> :r: 

u 

z 

..... 

u 

> 

> 

at 

~ 

w~ 

~ 

Oat 

~~ w wZ 

::l 

...IQC 

a::.w 

> 

at 

w 

..... 

tt-

..... 

FOR REGION 

11.5 INCHES 

~-~~ -= ~ :-=~---~ t ~ ~t;;-~-=~~~ 

---=t=-=- ~~ ~ 

-= ~ ~ .--.·---- -- -= ~ ... ~ - :t=. ~ 

-

--

-

I 

1--

~ 

17-20 23-33 20-3 1 10-31 13-23 22-29 

RECHARGE AS PERCENT OF 1968 RAINFALL 

IN EACH DRAINAGE BASJN 

FIGURE 7 .-Ground-water recharge (not including ground-water evapotranspiration) in 1968 in 

six drainage basins in the Tennessee region, and recharge for the region. This value is the 

average of the maximum and minimum values for the six basins. 

L9 

depths over 300ft (McMaster and Hubbard, 1970). The 

fractures at greater depths are likely to be unweathered and closed. Fractures are commonly more abundant near faults. Well production is determined by the 

depth, size, and degree of interconnection of fractures 

penetrated and by the thickness of overburden hydraulically connected to the fractures. 

reported to produce more than 100 gal/min each. Test 

drilling in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park 

(McMaster and Hubbard, 1970) showed that where 

fractured rock is hydraulically connected to thick regolith, properly located wells can produce 100 gal/min or 

Fractured rocks are generally considered to be poor 

aquifers, but they have generally not been adequately 

tested to determine their water-yielding potential. 

Newcome and Smith (1958) report that wells producing 

50 gal/min or more are rare on the Cumberland 

Plateau. However, the town of Wartburg, Tenn., has 

three wells which, at the time they were drilled, were 

more. 

AQUIFER PRODUCTIVITY 

Aquifer productivity as used in this report refers to 

the rate at which ground water can be withdrawn from 

an aquifer at a particular locality on a continuing basis 

by means of a well or group of wells. Well yields are 

determined by the hydraulic properties of the aquifer. 

In the Tennessee Region, however, the areal variability in properties of the aquifers, combined with lack of 
L10 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

TABLE !.-Comparison of water budget of a typical stream in the 

Tennessee Region with water budgets for Pomperaug River and 

Beaverdam Creek basins. 

[Values are given as percent of precipitation.] 

Evapotranspiration _____ _ 

Total runoff 

(streamflow) _________ _ 

Ground-water 

runoff (base flow) _________________ _ 

Change in storage _____ _ 

Pomperaug Beaverdam Basin Creek Basin 

52.2 

46.4 

19.6 

1.4 

60.7 

36.1 

25.9 

2.1 

Tennessee 

Region 

57.2 

42.8 

22.9 

Not calculated 

data for many areas make the definition of aquifer productivity difficult. Several approaches can be sed to 

quantify aquifer productivity. 

The basic hydraulic properties of an aquifer are 

transmissivity (the rate at which water can be 

transmitted through the aquifer) and storage (related 

to the amount of water that is released by draining 

part of a water-table aquifer or lowering the pressure 

in an artesian aquifer). The more nearly an aquifer 

approaches uniformity in its water-bearing properties, 

the more applicable are these measures of hydraulic 

characteristics. 

In the Tennessee R_egion, the unconsolidated aquifers of the Coastal Plain section, on the western margin 

of the region, are the lest variable in their hydraulic 

properties. Two aquifer tests indicate transmissivity of 

3,300 and 4,300 ft2/d and storage. coefficients of 0.0008 

and 0.0001 for the McNairy Sand, a confined unconsolidated aquifer (Boswell and others, 1965). However, 

nine-tenths of the region is underlain by carbonate or 

fractured noncarbonate aquifers which are far from 

uniform in their hydraulic properties. Five aquifer 

tests in Madison County, Ala., indicate transmissivity 

ranging from 650 to 130,000 ft2/d and storage coefficients of 0.04 to 0.0004 for the Fort Payne Chert 

(Malmberg and Downing, 1957). A similar large variability in aquifer hydraulic properties is evident from 

the results of aquifer tests made elsewhere in the Tennessee Region and is typical of carbonate aquifers. 

Another indicator of aquifer productivity is the 

specific capacity of wells, the rate of yield per unit of 

drawdown. Although specific capacity is influenced in 

part by conditions in and around the well, properly 

qualified specific capacity data can indicate the properties of the aquifer. The ranges of specific capacities 

shown in figure 11 illustrate the high degree of variability in the hydraulic properties of aquifers of the 

Tennessee Region, although some of the low values 

may be the result of poor well design rather than 

aquifer properties. This variability is of critical importance in developing a ground-water supply because 

the more variable the aquifer productivity, the greater 

the risk of failure to obtain the desired amount of 

ground water at a particular site. In the Tennessee 

Region, the least variability of yields is from wells that 

tap unconsolidated aquifers. The greatest variability is 

in carbonate-rock aquifers covered by thin or patchy 

mantles of regolith. In economic terms, greater variability in yields means that more preliminary study, 

more test wells, and more flexibility in well location 

will probably be needed to obtain a desired amount of 

ground water. 

Another approach to quantifying aquifer productivity is to estimate probable yields that could be obtained from wells located on the basis of geologic and 

hydrologic information. Table 3 shows yields that 

might be expected from different types of aquifers in 

the Tennessee Region. These yields are for single wells 

constructed to obtain maximum yield having at least 

50 ft of available drawdown. The numbers are based on 

figures given by Cederstrom (1973) for areas with geology similar to that of the Tennessee Region and on 

inferences drawn from records of well production in the 

region. Ground-water withdrawals are ultimately limited by the rate of recharge to the aquifer. In the Tennessee region, maximum withdrawals on a continuing 

basis are about 0.5 Mgal/d per square mile of area contributing recharge to the system. 

Efficient and economical development of the 

ground-water resources of the Tennessee Region are 

strongly influenced by the variability of aquifer productivity. Predictability of well yields and the availability of ground-water supplies at particular sites is 

greatest in the Coastal Plain sand aquifers and the 

regolith-mantled carbonate rocks. Hence, it is probable 

that ground-water development will proceed most efficiently in these areas. The predictability of obtaining a 

ground-water supply is poorest in the noncarbonate 

rocks and in the carbonate rocks that have no regolith 

cover. In these areas, development will be less efficient 

until methods are developed to locate permeable zones 

and predict well yields with greater accuracy. 

OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER 

The distribution of ground water in the Tennessee 

Region is influenced by the difference in topography, 

geology, and hydrology among the six physiographic 

provinces (fig. 2). Though large amounts of ground 

water exist in each physiographic area, less preliminary study and exploratory drilling are usually needed 

to obtain a specified supply in areas where the ground 

water occurs in the intergranular pore spaces of unconsolidated aquifers, than in areas where water occurs in 

discrete fractures or openings in consolidated rocks. 

The following sections describe for each physiographic 

area the topographic, geologic, and hydrologic controls 

on the distribution of ground water. 
TENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES 

BLUE RIDGE --liTTLE RIVER NEAR MARYVILLE. TENN. 

DRAINAGE AREA - 269 Ml 1 

VALLEY AND RIDGE-cliNCH RIVER ABOVE TAZEWELL, TENN. 

r;z;l DRAINAGE AREA - 147 4 Ml1 

= CUMBERLAND PLATEAU- EMORY RIVER AT OAKDALE, TEN 

~ DRAINAGE AREA - 764 Ml"" 

r;z;l HIGHLAND RIM- BUFFALO RIVER NEAR LOBELVILLE. TENN. 

~ DRAINAGE AREA - 707 Ml1 

< CENTRAL BASIN -WARTRACE CREEK AT BELL BUCKLE, TENN. 

::::> DRAINAGE AREA - 16.3 Ml~ 

~ >":':«<<->»,.,., COASTAL PLAIN--BIG SANDY RIVER AT BRUCETON, TENN. 

OO 10 1-----~~,....-.---t----------r-DRAINAGE AREA - 205 Ml""-

~ 

r;z;l 

ll-. 

c::l 

z 

0 

0 

r;z;l 

00 

~ 

r;z;l 

ll-. 

E-t 

r;z;l 

r;z;l 

~ 

0 

....... 

j:Q 

:;> 

0 

z 

....... 

~-

0 

~ 

~ 

~ 

< r;z;l 

~ E-t .1~-----------------+-------------4~--~-------=~--------~ 

00 \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

• 0 1 L-~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~\~~--~~~--~~--~ 

.01 .05.1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99.5 99.9 99.99 

99 99.8 

PERCENT OF TIME INDICATED STREAMFLOW WAS EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED 

FIGURE B.-Streamflow-duration curves for six gaging stations in the Tennessee Region. 

L11 

BLUE RIDGE 

The part of the Tennessee Region that lies within the 

Blue Ridge province is composed of remnants of an ancient mountain chain. The topography is rugged and 

relief is greater than in other parts of the region. In 

most places, the dense, massive bedrock contains little 

water except where faulted or fractured. Overlying the 

bedrock is a mantle of regolith that ranges in thickness 

from a few feet on the steeper slopes to more than 100 ft 

on the lower slopes of the mountains. The regolith is 

composed of sand, clay, and rock fragments (McMaster 

and Hubbard, 1970). It stores large amounts of water, 

releasing it slowly to the underlying fractures and to 

springs and streams. The fractures store only limited 
L12 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

TABLE 2.-3-day 20-year low flows at six gaging stations in the 

Tennessee Region 

Province Station 3-day 20-year low flow in cubic feet per second per square mile 

Blue Ridge ____________ Little River at 0.17 

Maryville, Tenn. 

Valley and Ridge ______ Clinch River above .08 

Tazewell, Tenn. 

Cumberland Plateau __ Emory River at .0005 

Oakdale, Tenn. 

Highland Rim Buffalo River near .22 

Lobelville, Tenn. 

Central Basin Wartrace Creek at .0014 

Bell Buckle, Tenn. 

Coastal Plain Big Sandy River at .16 

Bruceton, Tenn. 

----------------

amounts of water, but they act as collectors which 

transmit water from the overlying regolith to points of 

discharge (fig. 12). Most of the bedrock in the Blue 

Ridge is noncarbonate, but a few areas are underlain 

by intensely weathered carbonate rocks that contain 

large amounts of ground water in solution openings 

and in porous zones. 

In the Blue Ridge province, McMaster and Hubbard 

(1970) and LeGrand (1967) determined that the 

chances of drilling high-producing wells are increased 

at sites having a thick cover of regolith in relatively 

low topographic positions within a few hundred feet of 

a fault zone. The broad valleys underlain by carbonate 

rocks, such as Cades Cove in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, may be favorable sites for locating ground-water supplies. However, these occur only 

in a few small areas of the Blue Ridge. 

VALLEY AND RIDGE 

The Valley and Ridge province is characterized by 

northeast-trending ridges underlain by resistant rock 

separated by valleys underlain by less resistant rock. 

The rock formations crop out in long, narrow belts parallel to the trend of ridges and valleys; some belts are 

bounded by faults. The linear ridges and valleys channel surface drainage into a !!trellis" pattern of long 

streams flowing along valley floors fed by short lateral 

streams. 

All three major aquifer types occur in the Valley and 

Ridge province. Because of the great differences in hydraulic characteristics among these aquifers, geologic 

maps are essential tools for well-site selection in this 

province. The shale and sandstone formations (fractured noncarbonate rocks) are the poorest aquifers. 

Limestone and dolomite of varying solubility occur 

with a cover of regolith ranging in thickness from a few 

feet to over 100 ft with extreme areal variability 

(DeBuchananne and Richardson, 1956). The largest 

ground-water supplies are in the soluble carbonate 

rocks, especially where they are associated with thick 

regolith (fig. 13).Water moves through enlarged fractures and solution openings in these carbonate rocks, 

emerging in places as large springs. Some of these flow 

at an average rate of 4,500 gal/min or more (Sun and 

others, 1963). The Knox Dolomite, which underlies 

about 60 percent of the province, is the most significant 

water-bearing formation. The most productive wells 

are located in areas of ground-water discharge such as 

stream valleys or else they penetrate fracture zones. 

These fracture zones are sometimes indicated by 

straight stream segments and aligned tributaries. 

Most of the larger water-bearing openings in the Knox 

occur at a depth of less than 300 ft. Swingle (1959) 

states that surface faults indicate areas with deep and 

numerous fractures which allow deep solution activity. 

Wells tapping water-filled solution openings in low 

areas are more dependable as a source of water supply 

than wells on ridges because the seasonal fluctuations 

of water level are small in the low areas. 

UNCONSOLIDATED 

AQUIFER 

CARBONATE ROCK 

AQUIFER 

NON CARBONATE 

ROCK AQUIFER 

FIGURE 9.-The three major types of aquifers in the Tennessee Region, distinguished by the kind of water-bearing openings they contain 

(after Meinzer, 1923). 
88° 86° 84° 

KY 

--------- --------- TENNESSEE 

34° - MAJOR AQUIFER TYPES 

• 

AREA IN WHICH UNCONSOLIDATED SAND 

FORMATIONS ARE MAJOR AQUIFERS . 

~ AREA UNDERLAIN BY CARBONATE AQUIFERS 

~ AREA UNDERLAIN BY FRACTURED 

~ NONCARBONATE AQUIFERS 

SCALE 

20 10 0 20 40 60 Miles 

COMBINED AQUIFERS 

~AREA 

~ 

UNDERLAIN BY CARBONATE AQUIFERS 

WITH HYDROLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT REGOLITH 

~ 

~AREA UNDERLAIN BY FRACTURED NONCARBONATE 

~~gL~~~ WITH HYDROLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT 

AREAS OF OCCURRENCE ARE GENERALIZED 

FIGURE 10.-Distribution of major aquifer types in the Tennessee Region. 

t-3 

t_%j 

z 

z 

t_%j 

en 

en 

t.:r::l 

t_%j 

~ 

t_%j 

0 

0 

_z 

z 

0 

t""' 

c:: 

t::l 

z 

0 

"'0 

> 

~ 

0 

~ 

t-3 

t_%j 

z 

z 

t_%j 

~ t_%j 

> z 

t::l 

> t::l 

<:..., 

> 0 

t_%j 

~ 

~ 

en 

~ 

t-t 

1--' 

CJ.j 
77~0-

31./ .. -

83° 

l 

,, 

' !, '·· 

Bb0 

I 

s1o 

I '0~" 

/I ./ / "'":>-... '\.._ 

- -- -- _.h.-~·//! - ---r··/ . .... '\~ 

r .. ) :\ Q" \ '7. ~,c.,t.~ • / ~~t / ,~ 

-J'' ~,.. 

~Qt.,. ~~\ t".:_ ~"" ~.,.;:,' J:'fl: 

'·}··u/ \ 

··~·· L., 

" 

0 !7"6 I DO /'f\ILE~ 

-3b' 

-34° 

FIGURE 11.-Ranges and median values of specific capacities of selected wells in the Tennessee Region, in gallons per minute per foot. 

~ ..... 

~ 

~ a:: 

~ 

~ 

rn 

~ 

0 

~ 

t-3 

:I: 

tJ:j 

z 

~ 0 

z 

u3 

~ c:: 

z 

t::1 

~ 

~ tJ:j 

~ 

~ rn 

0 

c:: 

~ 

CJ 

tJ:j 

rn 
TENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES L15 

TABLE 3.-Probable yields from the major aquifer types of the 

Tennessee Region 

Type of aquifer 

Unconsolidated sand 

Carbonate rocks with ;;g~lith-================ Carbonate rocks without regolith ___________ _ 

Noncarbonate rocks with 

regolith ---------------------------------- Noncarbonate rocks without 

regolith ----------------------------------

CUMBERLAND PLATEAU 

Yield per well, in gallons per minute 

10{}..-500 

10{}..-300 

{}..-300 

25-100 

Unknown 

The Cumberland Plateau section of the Appalachian 

Plateaus province is about 1,000 to 1,500 ft higher than 

the adjoining Valley and Ridge province and Highland 

Rim. It extends about 175 miles northeast-south-west 

across the Tennessee Region. North from Anderson 

County, Tenn., the steep eastern escarpment of the 

Plateau forms the Tennessee River-Cumberland River 

divide. 

The bedrock is a sequence of mostly horizontal 

Pennsylvanian sandstone, shale, conglomerate, and 

coal, underlain by Mississippian and older shale and 

carbonates. The Mississippian carbonates are exposed 

where Sequatchie Valley, a 130-mile long, linear valley, cuts deeply into the Plateau. Large springs emerge 

along the sides of the Plateau and from the Mississippian and older limestones exposed in Sequatchie Valley (fig. 14). An example of these large springs is Blue 

Spring which is used as a source of water supply by the 

city of Jasper, Tenn. An average of 170,000 gal/d was 

used by the city in 1970 (Tennessee Dept. of Public 

Health, 1975). Newcome and Smith (1958) reported the 

flow of this spring to be 900 gal/min but the seasonal 

variation in discharge has not been determined. 

The Pennsylvanian rocks have low permeability except where fractured. The regolith is usually thin, providing little ground-water storage (DeBuchananne and 

Richardson, 1956). As a result of the uneven distribution of fractures, the average of reported well yields is 

less than 50 gal/min (Newcome and Smith, 1958). Even 

domestic supplies cannot always be obtained. However, 

since detailed studies involving test drilling have not 

been made, the full water-yielding potential of the 

Plateau is not known. Wilson (1965) states that in 

Cumberland County, Tenn., the Sewanee Conglomerate, 200 to 500ft below the surface of the Plateau, is a 

relatively untested aquifer. 

HIGHLA!'.;D RIM 

The Highland Rim section of the Interior Low 

Plateaus province is a gently rolling plateau which occupies a large part of the center of the Tennessee Region. It is extensively dissected where it adjoins the 

I 

Central Basin and Coastal Plain lowlands. The bedrock of the Highland Rim consists of fiat-lying Mississippian carbonates. These formations, principally the 

Fort Payne Chert, a cherty dolomite, and the Tuscumbia Limestone (with its equivalents, the Warsaw Limestone and St. Louis Limestone), constitute the most 

areally extensive aquifer in the Tennessee Region. 

These Mississippian formations weather to form a 

deep chert regolith typically having a Hrubble zone" at 

the base. The residual chert grades from gravel-sized 

fragments at the base to a layer of clay-sized chert 

particles which partially seals the top of the aquifer 

creating artesian conditions in some areas. The regolith may rest directly on the Chattanooga Shale which 

retards downward movement of the water, but more 

commonly it rests on unweathered Fort Payne bedrock. 

In many places the carbonate bedrock contains solution openings which can transmit water rapidly. 

In areas adjacent to the Highland Rim escarpment, 

water drains out of the bedrock openings as springs 

and seeps. These springs provide the well-sustained 

low flow of streams that dissect the edge of the Highland Rim. However, in the broad undissected areas of 

the Highland Rim, streams barely cut into the regolith 

and, therefore, have little effect on the discharge of 

water from the regolith and solution openings. The solution openings that supply water to wells in the undissected areas are hydraulically connected to the regolith (fig. 15). 

The aquifer formed by the bedrock and regolith of 

the Fort Payne Chert has been named the !!Manchester 

aquifer" (Burchett and Hollyday, 1974). Its areal extent has not been determined, especially on the western Highland Rim. This is basically the same aquifer 

that is present in the Tuscumbia Limestone and Fort 

Payne Chert in parts of northern Alabama. In places 

where the regolith is thin and little or no bedrock remains overlying the Chattanooga Shale, only small 

amounts of ground water are available. In areas where 

sections of Mississippian carbonate rocks remain beneath a thick regolith, however, extensive solution 

networks may develop that yield large quantities of 

water to wells and springs. For example, discharge 

measurements at Water Cress Spring in Madison 

County, Ala., indicate a sustained flow of about 5,000 

gal/min (7% Mgal/d) (Geol. Survey of Alabama, 1975). 

The Williams well, southwest of Huntsville, Ala., has 

been pumped continuously at 3,000 gal/min for 3 days 

with a maximum drawdown in water level of 2.5 ft. It 

was also noted during the period of pumping that water 

levels 0.8 mile away were unaffected (W. J. Powell, 

U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 1975). 

Criteria that are important in selecting well sites on 

the Highland Rim are as follows: an area with at least 
L16 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

+-

'+-

0 

0 

0 

C\.1 

+.-

::J 

0 

..0 

<r\ 

\ 

Fracture 

openings 

L About 0.5 miles 

Drawing not to scale 

FIGURE 12.-Sketch of ideali.zed geologic and hydrologic conditions in the Blue Ridge province. 

40 ft of regolith overlying the Fort Payne Chert, 

amplitude of water level fluctuation less than 10ft. (W. 

J. Powell, oral comm., 1975), and at least % to 1 mile 

from the Highland Rim escarpment in a topographic 

low area such as a long shallow depression (swale) parallel to the escarpment or other linear feature (C. R. 

Burchett and E. F. Hollyday, U.S. Geological Survey, 

oral commun., 1975). Seismic surveys, which indicate 

the depth to bedrock, may be a useful exploration tool 

in determining the thickness of overburden (Joiner and 

Scarbrough, 1969). 

CENTRAL BASIN 

The Tennessee Region includes the southern part of 

the Central Basin (Nashville Basin). The Central 

Basin, a section of the Interior Low Plateaus province, 

is an oval area in middle Tennessee lying about 200 ft 

lower than the surrounding Highland Rim. The bedrock is carbonate rocks that are generally flat lying but 

locally are folded. Ground water moves through solution-enlarged vertical joints and horizontal beddingplane openings (fig. 16). Soil cover is usually thin and 

surface streams are cut into bedrock. The lack of regolith, along with open joints in the rock, allow rapid 

runoff and infiltration of precipitation. Water is relatively briefly stored above stream level and is rapidly 

discharged to streams through solution openings. As a 

result, small streams respond quickly to precipitation 

and have poorly sustained base flows. 

Deeper solution openings are sheetlike and commonly range from 0.005 to 0.2 in. in height and about 

100 to 2,500 ft in width (Moore, 1973). Most solution 

openings are within 300 feet of the surface. Burchett 

(1977) states that, in the upper Duck River Basin ''46 

percent of the water produced from wells in the Central 

Basin comes from a depth of 60 to 100 feet below land 
TENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES L17 

+-

'+-

0 

0 

t0 

+-

:::s 

0 

...0 

<( 

N 

1 

A.bout 5 miles 

Drawing not to scale FIGURE 13.-Sketch of idealized geologic and hydrologic conditions in the Valley and Ridge province. 

surface. Less than 1 percent ... comes from a depth 

greater than 300 feet." 

The distribution of ground water in the Central 

Basin is highly variable. Except for the secondary 

openings most of the limestone has extremely low 

porosity. Most wells produce at least some water from 

bedding-plane cracks as large solution openings are 

relatively uncommon. Of the wells reported by drillers 

near Center Hill Lake in Tennessee (north of the Tennessee Region), 46 percent of those in the Central 

Basin produced less than 4 gal/min and 89 percent 

produced less than 20 gal/min. Only 3 out of 7 4 wells 

produced over 50 gal/min (Moore and Wilson, 1972). In 

spite of the low reported well production, it is possible 

in many areas to drill wells capable of producing over 

70 gal/min or 0.1 Mgal/d. In some areas it is possible to 

drill wells capable of producing several hundred gallons per minute. About 15 ft of solution openings were 

penetrated by a test well at Franklin, Tenn., (about 10 

mi north of the Tennessee Region). The well was 

pumped at 200 gal/min for 8 hours with a drawdown in 

water level of 0.58 ft. Another test well about half a 

mile away penetrated a 5 ft opening. These drilling 

sites were selected on the basis of stratigraphic 

criteria, an investigation of streamflow gains and 

losses, and surficial evidence of solution activity. It ap-
L18 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

Pennsylvanian, 

shale, sandstone, coal, 

(all fractured) 

Mississippian 

Limestone 

(Solution openings) 

Ordovician 

and older 

carbonates 

Cumberland 

Plateau 

N 

1 

Cumberland 

Escarpment 

About 10 miles 

Drawing not to scale 

-t-

<lJ 

<lJ 

'+-

0 

0 

l[) 

-1-

::J 

0 

..0 

<! 

FIGURE 14.-Sketch of idealized geologic and hydrologic conditions in the Cumberland Plateau section. The prevalence of solution openings in 

the limestone underlying the Plateau is unknown. 
TENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES L19 

...0 

<! 

Central 

Basin 

Highland Rim 

Escarpment 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Highland 

Rim 

About 2 miles 

Drawing not to scale 

FIGURE 15.-Sketch of idealized geologic and hydrologic conditions in the Highland Rim section. 

pears that the use of hydrologic and geologic studies in 

selecting drilling sites in the Central Basin greatly increases the chances of wells penetrating high-yielding 

solution openings. 

The Knox Dolomite, at depths of 350 to 1,500 ft 

below the surface, comprises an areally extensive artesian aquifer throughout the Central Basin. It is a dependable source of domestic water supplies (usually 10 

gal/min or less) of variable quality (Newcome and 

Smith, 1962). The largest known production from a 

well finished in the Knox in the Central Basin is 50 

gal/min (Kernie Cothran, driller, oral commun., 1975). 

However, in eastern Tennessee, production from single 

wells in the Knox can exceed 1,000 gal/min. The potential of the Knox to yield large amounts of ground water 

in the central part of the region is unknown. 

COASTAL PLAIN 

A narrow strip of the Coastal Plain province extends 

along the western edge of the Tennessee Region. Its 

eastern boundary is approximately the edge of the 

Paleozoic rock outcrop and its western edge is the Tennessee River-Mississippi River drainage divide. The 

Tennessee River flows along the eastern boundary 

against the edge of the Highland Rim. The topography 

west of the river valley is of moderate relief, less than 

that of the dissected edge of the Highland Rim. The 

major aquifers in the Coastal Plain section of the Tennessee Region are two unconsolidated Cretaceous formations, the Coffee Sand and MeN airy Formation 

(fig. 17). 

According to Boswell and others (1965), both the 

McNairy Formation and the Coffee Sand are capable of 

yielding municipal and industrial supplies nearly 

everywhere to the west of the outcrop. The Coffee Sand 

yields up to about 300 gal/min to wells and is used as a 

source of water in the westernmost counties in the 

Tennessee Region as far north as Carroll County, 

Tenn. The MeN airy Formation, however, is capable of 

much greater production, and good wells produce 500 

to 1,000 gal/min. The McNairy Formation is used as a 

source of water in the Tennessee Region counties north 
L20 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

~:- l 

Q) +-

c: Q) 

0 Q) -

en '+- Q) 

E 0 

0 c: C\.J 

c 

u +-

·:;: :J 

0 0 

"'0 

~ ...0 

0 <[ 

J 

About 1,500 feet 

Drawing not to scale 

FIGURE 16.-Sketch howing idealized geologic and hydrologic conditions in the Central Basin (Nashville Basin section of the Interior Low 

Plateaus province). 

of Carroll County, Tenn. The amount of water that can 

be withdrawn from these formations depends, in part, 

on the thickness of saturated sand layers and the construction of the wells that penetrate them. 

In northern Mississippi, test wells in a shattered 

Paleozoic chert aquifer produced up to 550 gal/min 

with a specific capacity of 5 (gal/min)/ft (Newcome and 

Callahan, 1964). The Camden Chert and Fort Payne 

Chert comprise this fractured chert aquifer in Tennessee (Wells, 1933). 

QUALITY OF GROUND WATER 

The natural quality of ground water in the Tennessee Region depends on many factors, but mainly upon 

the chemical composition of the rock in which the 

water occurs. When water from precipitation enters 

the aquifer as recharge, it is generally low in dissolved 

solids, soft, and slightly acidic. As the water moves 

through the aquifer it acquires a greater concentration 

of dissolved constituents which change its chemical 

and physical properties. The least change occurs in the 

aquifers composed of regolith. The ground water in the 

regolith remains slightly acidic and low in dissolved 

solids. This type of ground water is common in the 

regolith of the Blue Ridge and Highland Rim. Water in 

the outcrop belt (recharge area) of the unconsolidated 

aquifers of the Coastal Plain is also fairly close to 

rainwater in composition, but becomes harder and 

higher in dissolved solids as it moves deeper below land 

surface. 

Ground water that comes in contact with sandstone 

and shale containing pyrite remains soft but may become more acidic and high in concentrations of iron 

and hydrogen sulfide. This type of water occurs in some 

noncarbonate formations of the Valley and Ridge, in 

the Pennsylvanian shale and sandstone of the Cumberland Plateau, and immediately below the Chattanooga 

Shale of the Highland Rim. 

A third kind of change occurs in water that contacts 

carbonate rocks. Because rainwater that has passed 

through the soil is somewhat acidic, it can dissolve 

limestone and dolomite, becoming enriched in bicarbonate, calcium, and magnesium. As the dissolved solids 

content increases, the water becomes harder and 

slightly alkaline. This type of chemical change occurs 

in carbonate aquifers such as those in the Valley and 
TENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES L21 

N 

1 

Creek 

Mississippi RiverTennessee River 

drainage divide 

I 

Recharge I 

Predominant I ithology 

1· . ."·. : ~ . : :: ( Sand 

f--_=jclay 

I' ) 1 11 Limestone 

About 50 miles 

Drawing not to scale 

FIGURE 17 .-Sketch showing idealized geologic and hydrologic conditions in the Coastal Plain province. The cross section extends east and 

west approximately at a latitude of 35°N. 

Ridge, the Highland Rim, the Central Basin, 

Sequatchie Valley of the Cumberland Plateau, and in 

limestones underlying coves of the Blue Ridge. 

The analyses shown in figure 18 are representative 

of the chemical quality of the ground water from the 

six physiographic areas of Tennessee. Dissolved constituents, consisting mainly of calcium and bicarbonate ions, are highest in the ground water of the Central Basin, with somewhat lower concentrations in the 

Highland Rim and Valley and Ridge. Unlike aquifers 

of the Central Basin, aquifers in the latter two areas do 

not consist entirely of carbonate rocks, and the influence of the regolith and other noncarbonate rocks is 

seen in the lower amounts of dissolved constituents, 

including calcium and bicarbonate. 

The analyses for the Blue Ridge, Cumberland 

Plateau, and Coastal Plain, all areas with mainly noncarbonate aquifers, indicate considerably lower dissolved solids in the ground water of these areas than in 

carbonate terranes. In the Blue Ridge, where most of 

the ground water occurs in the highly weathered regolith, dissolved solids are lowest. 
L22 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

Values are medians, in milligrams per liter 

QJ 

~ 

Physiographic § § ~ QJ QJ QJ § 'r'l 'r'l 0 QJ "'CC "'CC 

Province Ill tO § tO .c ~ 'r'l ..-4 ~ 

tJ 'r'l QJ tO $.1 Ill $.1 $.1 Ill 

'r'l l=l tJ !:l 'r'l Ill Ill ..... 0 0 $.1 

.-I 0 .-I bO "'CC ~ tJ .-I .-I :I ~ 

'r'l $.1 Ill )!! 0 0 ..-4 :I ..c: .-I 'r'l 

en 1-1 u en p.. I':Q en u ~ z 

1 Blue Ridge 16 0.05 4.6 0.5 3.3 0.8 29 1.6 0.9 0.1 0.1 

2 Valley and 10 0.09 38 12 4.5 178 5 3.5 0.0 3.9 

Ridge 

3 Cumberland 6.4 1.0 16 3.5 3.9 1.2 60 10 2.8 0.1 0.8 

Plateau 

4 Highland Rim 11.5 o.oo 39 3.8 3.4 146 4.2 4.0 0.1 1.9 

5 Central Basin 7.3 0.08 79 9.7 4.4 1.5 256 26 5.0 0.3 0.5 

6 Coastal Plain 14 0.5 16 4.6 22 3.4 95 12 4.7 0.2 0. 7 

Source of analyses: 1, McMaster and Hubbard, 1970, 23 samples; 2, DeBuchananne and Richardson, 1950, 

235 samples; 3, Newcome and Smith, 1958, 13 samples; 4, Geol. Survey of Alabama bulletins, 125 samples; 5, U.S.G.S. test wells at Columbia, Normandy, and Franklin, Tenn., 22 samples; 6, Boswell, 

Moore, MacCary,and others, 1965, median for Ripley Fm. (McNairy Sand), number of samples unknown. 

FIGURE 18.-Results of chemical analyses of ground-water samples from each physiographic subdivision of the Tennessee Region. 

Ground-water quality is reflected in the chemical 

character of stream water during periods of base flow. 

To some extent, streams can be used to obtain an integrated sample of discharge from the aquifers underlying the watershed. Betson and McMaster (1975) have 

developed, for the Tennessee River basin, a model to 

simulate mineral constituent concentrations in 

streamflow for watersheds underlain by different types 

of rock. Concentration values generated using their regression coefficients and a streamflow of 1 (ft3/s)/mi2 

agree fairly closely with the analyses in figure 18 when 

the coefficients used are those for rock types most 

commonly found in each physiographic province. 

The rate of water circulation within the aquifer has 

an important effect on ground-water quality. Where 

circulation has been rapid, aquifers may have been 

flushed of readily dissolved substances. Where the regolith is hydraulically connected to well-developed 

openings in the underlying bedrock, for example, water 

from the regolith, low in dissolved solids, can circulate 

rapidly through the openings without great increases 

in hardness. As a result of situations like these, water 

from wells that tap very permeable formations or 

highly developed solution or fracture systems tends to 

be lower in dissolved solids than water from poorly 

interconnected openings. 

The quality of ground water from a particular 

aquifer at any one place tends to be relatively constant 

with time. This property is most evident where the 

regolith filters the water that replenishes the aquifer. 

In aquifers having direct connections with land surface 

(via sinkholes, for example), marked changes in quality may occur as storm runoff enters the system. 

Well-developed openings and highly porous mate-
TENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES L23 

rial, when less than about 100ft below land surface are 

very susceptible to pollution, and strong protective 

measures are needed to ensure that the ground-water 

quality will remain unimpaired. 

A study sponsored by the U.S. Public Health Service 

identified a high incidence of contamination of rural 

domestic water supplies in three counties in Tennessee, as shown by the presence of coliform and fecal 

coliform bacteria in water samples (Bureau of Water 

Hygiene, 1971). Fifty-nine percent of the water 

supplies examined failed to meet bacteriological 

standards. However, according to the report, nearly 

every one of the rural, individual systems examined 

had one or more facility deficiencies. Very few of these 

systems were constructed to prevent entrance of contamination. It is entirely probable that they represent 

contamination at the well site and not of the aquifers 

that furnish water to the wells. Water obtained from 

relatively deep aquifers penetrated by test wells has 

usually contained very few, if any, coliform bacteria, 

and it is not unusual for the water to be entirely free of 

any indications of contamination. 

Most of the ground water in the Tennessee Region is 

of suitable chemical character for public drinkingwater supplies. Figure 19 shows the medians and 

ranges of some of the chemical constituents for which 

maximum concentrations have been recommended by 

the Environmental Protection Agency (National 

Academy of Science-National Academy of Engineering, 1972; Environmental Protection Agency, 1975). In 

two areas the median values for iron exceed the recommended maximum concentration, but most of the 

samples are well within the recommendations. 

The Tennessee Region has no known significant 

bodies of saline ground water. Of about 1,000 analyses 

(mostly published) of water from wells and springs 

throughout the region, only 40 indicate water with 

over 1,000 mg/L total dissolved solids. The high dissolved solids content is usually associated with stagnant ground water in poorly developed solution openings in flat-lying carbonate rocks. Most of the wells and 

springs with high dissolved solids are in the Central 

Basin or Highland Rim, and 17 of the wells tap the 

Knox Dolomite of central Tennessee. In almost every 

case they reportedly produce less than 20 gal/min 

(0.03 Mgal/d). 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE 

GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

GROUND-WATER USE 

In 1970, the use of ground water in the Tennessee 

Region totaled 173 Mgal/d (Murray and Reeves, 1972). 

This is less than 1 percent of the estimated 22,000 

Mgal/d of ground water that is discharged annually to 

the streams of the Tennessee Region, which is an indication of the large amounts available for development. The ground water that is used amounts to 

slightly less than 8 percent of the total water use in the 

Region excluding that used for electric power generation (table 4). However, the percent of the population 

served by ground water is much larger than the totaluse figures would indicate. 

According to the 1970 census, the population of the 

Tennessee Region was about 3,300,000. One-third of 

the people were living in towns or cities with populations of 2,500 or more. The rest lived in small towns or 

rural areas (Delury, 1973). 

At present, most of the large towns and cities in the 

Tennessee Region use surface water. A notable exception is Huntsville, Ala., a city of 138,000, which obtained all its water from Big Spring until1950. Now it 

draws half its supply from five wells and one spring 

and the other half from the Tennessee River (Geol. 

Survey of Alabama, 1975). In that part of the State of 

Tennessee within the Tennessee River basin, the 

largest towns supplied entirely with ground water are 

Tullahoma, population 15,000 and Elizabethton, population 12,000. Both draw their water from springs 

(Tennessee Div. Water Resources, written commun., 

1976). 

Many of the smaller towns in the Tennessee Region 

use ground water. Seventy-nine percent of the small 

water-distribution systems (serving fewer than 2,500 

people) use ground water for at least half their supply. 

As these towns and others that withdraw water from 

small streams grow, the present surface source may 

become inadequate, and ground water could play a 

major role in supplementing these supplies. 

The rural population of the Tennessee Region obtains most of its water supply from wells and springs. 

Approximately 50 Mgal!d was used for rural domestic 

purposes in 1970. In contrast, only a third of water 

used for livestock and irrigation was ground water 

(Murray and Reeves, 1972). 

Industries in the Tennessee Region that have their 

own source of water used 45 Mgal/d of ground water in 

1970. This was only 3 percent of the water used by 

self-supplied industries other than power-generating 

plants. 

In addition to industrial use, ground water supplies 

many businesses in isolated areas such as service stations and motels. Springs are used for raising fish because of the constant temperature and low turbidity of 

the ground water. 

POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT 

Gro'und water is generally overlooked as a water 

supply in the Tennessee Region because of the abundance of surface water. Only a small part of the available ground-water supply, about 0.8 percent of the average annual recharge, is being used. The advantages in 
A 

c 

D 

E 

F 

G 

L24 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

A 

c 

D 

F 

G 

A 

c 

D 

F 

G 

EXPLANATION IRON 

100 LARGEST CITIES IN U. S. --

COASTAL PLAIN ---- - -

CENTRAL BASIN - - - - - -

HIGHLAND RIM - - - - - -

CUMBERLAND PLATEAU -- -

VALLEY AND RIDGE - - - - -

BLUE RIDGE 

MEDIAN 

RANGE 

A 

c 

D 

F 

G 

RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION 0.3 MG/L 

I I ' I • • I • I 1--------------..... 1.3 

--------------------------------------t~28 ..., _______________ ._.1.9 

.,_ _________________ ,..2.0 

------------------------------~; 11 

~------------------------------------~~ 12 ._ ... ________________ _,.1.9 

I 

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 

MILLIGRAMS PER tiTER 

A 

8 

c 

D 

G 

pH 

RECOMMENDED RANGE 

'----.. --.. 10.5 

I 

I 

I 

t;!OT INCLUDED IN ANALYSES I 

I 

I 

6 7 

UNITS 

9 10 

FLUORIDE 

SULFATE 

RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION 250 MG/L 

RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION 

(TENNESSEE REGION) 2.0 MG/l 

I I . I . ,. 572 

"'1.430 

r' 

... 294 

II- . 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 

CHLORIDE RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION 250 MG/L 

I . ~ 540 

;- 75 

--"'-500 

:195 

r 

,...._ 

~ . 

A 

8 

c 

D 

F 

G 

~ 

1--

I--

0.0 

I 

I 

1.0 

... 

.. 7.0 

. 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 

MILLIGRAMS P£R LITER 

NITRATE RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION 10 MG/l 

A 

c 

D 

F 

G 

I 

too 

~ 

r I I 

I 

. I . I . ~ 23 

'268 

, 78 

"";.. 40 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

MILIGRAMS PER LITER 

_I_ 

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 

NOTE, NITRATE CONCENTRAfiON IS INFLUENCED J!Y WELL DEPTH AND CONSTRUCTION,AND 

MAY NOT BE REPRESENTATIVE Of GROUND WATER TO BE EXPECTED 

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 19l51 AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES BoARD, NAT. AcAD. Sci., N .u. AcAD. ENG., 1973. 

VALUES FOR 100 LARGEST CITIES FROM DURFOR AND BECKER, 1965, 

ANALYSES USED ARE THE SAME AS THOSE IN FIGURE 18. 

FIGURE 19.-Medians and ranges of six chemical constituents in untreated ground water ofthe Tennessee Region and in the treated, finished 

water of the 100 largest cities in the United States. Also given are the recommended maximum or minimum values for these constituents 

in drinking water. 

TABLE 4.-Water use in the Tennessee Region in 1970 

[From Murray and Reeves 119721] 

Use of water Water withdrawn (in Mgal/dl 

Ground water Surface water 

Public supplies _____________________ _ 64 240 

Rural domestic use _________________ _ 51 .9 

Livestock and irrigation _____________ _ 

Self-supplied industrial use 13 25 

(excluding power generation) _____ _ 

Power generation (thermoelectric) ___ _ 45 1,300 

0 6,100 

Power generation (hydroelectric) _____ _ 0 12,000 - ---- Total _________________________ _ 173 19,700 

- --~-------

using ground water as a water supply are as follows: (1) 

its widespread availability, (2) its general dependability, particularly at depth, (3) the minimal amount of 

treatment required, (4) the relatively low cost of developing a ground-water supply, and (5) its uniform temperature and chemical character. Ground water can be 

used very efficiently for small-scale developments such 

as water supplies for rural communities, industries, 

and small towns. In addition, ground water has potential for supplemental and conjunctive use with 

surface-water supplies. 

There is growing interest in the feasibility and advisability of injecting fresh water into aquifers for 

storage. The use of underground space for storage of 

liquids has been practiced on only a limited scale in the 

region. 
TENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES L25 

A \'AIL:\BILITY 

In many parts of the Tennessee Region, ground 

water is available in amounts comparable to those that 

might be obtained from surface-water impoundments. 

In contrast to surface-water impoundments, however, 

the ground-water reservoir stores water with minimal 

evaporation, insulated to some degree from pollutants 

and available at diverse points. In addition, groundwater supplies can be developed more quickly and at 

lower cost compared to the time and cost of creating 

surface-water storage. 

DEPE;-..;DABII.I'I'Y 

It is a common belief that ground-water levels are 

continually declining in all parts of the country. However, this is true only in places where pumpage of 

ground water greatly exceeds natural recharge. In the 

Tennessee Region, ground-water levels show only 

normal seasonal trends. Water levels usually decline 

during the growing season (April-November) and rise 

during the remainder of the year when most groundwater systems are being recharged from precipitation 

(fig. 20). Shallow dug wells are not dependable sources 

of supply during periods of prolonged drought as they 

are generally not dug deep enough to allow for any 

extreme decline in water level. However, production 

from drilled wells that penetrate deeper solution cavities or water-bearing formations is generally not seriously reduced by drought. 

In areas where ground water is developed, local lowering of water levels can occur as a result of pumping. 

However, if pumpage is within the capacity of the 

aquifer to supply water, the rate of water-level decline 

will gradually diminish and the water level will 

stabilize. The response of the water level to various 

rates of pumping is shown in figure 21. Nowhere in the 

region has ground-water development caused significant depression of water levels, although there are 

instances where inadequate spacing between wells has 

caused excessive water-level drawdown in a localized 

area. 

TREATMENT NEEDS 

Ground water in the Tennessee Region usually needs 

less treatment than surface water to make it acceptable for most uses. It can often be used untreated for 

cooling and process water in industrial plants. Chlorination is the basic treatment needed for drinkingwater supplies. In some cases aeration is needed to dissipate dissolved gases such as hydrogen sulfide or to 

precipitate dissolved iron. Buffering may be needed, 

especially for water systems in which low-pH ground 

water is to be mixed with slightly alkaline surface water. Ground water usually has low turbidity and does 

not generally require filtration to meet turbidity 

standards for drinking water. Ground water has the 

additional advantage of being uniform in chemical 

quality, and would therefore require less monitoring 

than a surface-water supply. For example, the turbidity of surface water is increased by storm runoff, but 

ground-water turbidity is usually constant, except in 

shallow carbonate aquifers that have direct connections with land surface, such as sinkholes. 

As a result of the minimal treatment needed for most 

ground-water supplies, low-cost treatment facilities 

can be installed at the well field. This makes it possible 

to have multiple self-contained units located at points 

of use of the water rather than a single treatment plant 

with an extensive distribution system. 

COST OF DEVELOPMENT 

Another potential benefit of ground-water development is its relatively low cost. Cederstrom (1973) estimated that in the North Atlantic States the cost of 

large supplies of ground water at the wellhead, taking 

into account the costs of locating and developing a well 

or well field, ranged from 1.5 to 5 cents per thousand 

gallons in 1970 depending on the aquifer material. 

Many of the aquifer materials in this study area are 

similar to those of the Tennessee Region, ranging from 

Coastal Plain sediments from which ground water can 

be obtained most cheaply to carbonate rocks in which 

ground-water development is most costly. The investment required to construct and operate a ground-water 

distribution facility is further reduced at places where 

the water requires little treatment. 

A study of the alternatives for water supply may 

reveal an economic incentive to use ground water. An 

example is a small utilities district in central Hamilton 

County, Tenn. Owing to the proximity of the surfacewater intake for this system to the site of a nuclear 

powerplant on the Tennessee River, a study of alternative sources of water was made. The results of the investigation indicated that the use of ground water from 

the Knox Dolomite would lower the cost of providing 

finished water to the consumers by as much as 50 percent, and the utility district is now using wells. 

TEMPERATURE STABILITY 

A relatively constant annual temperature, about the 

same as the average annual air temperature of the 

area where it occurs, is characteristic of ground water. 

This characteristic makes it extremely useful for cooling and for industrial processes where constant temperature is required. In the Tennessee Region 

ground-water temperatures normally range from 50 to 

65°F. 

A growing use of ground water is as a heat exchange 

medium for heat pumps. Heating and cooling of build-
L26 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

8 

1A -- ------ --, (\ 1\ 

' \1\ \ 

\ ~ ~ I"' "V \ 

~ 

12 

16 

20 

M-1 24 ----- 1973 WATER YEAR --....... 28 --

lJSr ~t'\ Mf'\1 ~ ~ 8 

• ;::) 

., 12 {V 

v ~ ~ v ... 

~ n "\ ~N\~ fit. 16 • 

n 1\ \ ~ \ \ \ 

\ ~ ~ l \; ~ 

1\' 1-J '{ 

~ ~ '------r h-j\ "-1~ 

.... 

... 

... 

~ 20 

~ 

24 

: 

i 28 

g 32 

1974 WATER YEAR % 

Ia: 36 !!! 8 MARCH I APRil ---,.uy jlu JUl:Y •ur.u~T SI:PifMifR 

12 

16 

20 

24 

, 

, 

, , 

,' 

, 

, 

, 

~----~-----+-~--~~----~----~ , 

, 

FIGURE 20.-Water-level fluctuations in test well M-1, Manchester, Tenn. showing seasonal trends (from Burchett, 1977). 

ings is much more efficient with a ground-water-to-air 

rather than air-to-air interface, because of its constant 

temperature and the high specific heat of water. 

EFFICIENCY FOR SMALL-SCALE DEVELOPMENT 

Owing to the scale of ground-water developments, 

ground water in the Tennessee Region has great potential as a sole water source for small communities and 

industries that are remote from large reservoirs. 

In sparsely populated areas and small rural communities a multifamily well may be a more efficient 

water supply than a connecting pipeline to a large centralized water distribution system (Lehr, 1976). Cederstrom (1973) concluded in his cost analysis of groundwater supplies in North Atlantic States (1973) that 

((where large water requirements consist of many 

small to moderate demands at distinctly separate 

points ground-water supplies may serve admirably 

from a cost point of view." This approach is being taken 

in Lincoln County, Tenn. where the U.S. Geological 

Survey has undertaken a cooperative study with the 

Lincoln County Public Utilities Commission to investigate the occurrence and availability of ground water 

as an aid in developing ground-water supplies for small 

communities throughout the county. 

For industrial use, the cost of installing a well or 

developing a well field may compare favorably with the 

cost of a long pipeline connecting to a municipal system. Also, the initial cost would be defrayed by the low 

operation and maintenance cost of the ground-water 

facility. Where sufficient ground water cannot be obtained on site, water can be piped from wells at more 

favorable sites, as is being contemplated in Chattanooga, Tenn. (D. R. Rima, U.S. Geological Survey, 

oral commun., 1976). 

SUPPLEMENTAL AND CONJUCTIVE USE 

In areas where ground water alone is inadequate to 

supply a needed amount of water, it can play a supplemental role. There are several situations in which use 

of ground water would be an attractive alternative 

source of supply. For example, when a town grows 

gradually to the point where demand for water occasionally exceeds the supply available from groundwater sources, a surface-water impoundment might be 

needed. However, until the need was severe enough to 
TENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES L27 

w 

u 

~ "' 

a: 

~ 

..Jo 

wz 

w..J > "' 

..J~ 

0 a: ..J ww 

l-ID 

cc 

~~--w 

w 

14. 

! 

w 

1-

10 

IS 

10 

lS 

30 

n 

40 

45 

50 

::::. 1,100 z 

:I w 

C)Q: 

a::w 

Cl IL 

X 

ucn 

cnZ 

-o 

0 ..J 

..J 

"' C) 

! 

1,100 

800 

400 

0 

-; 

~ 

( 

b 

U'Uo 

MARCH 4 

~ >-o 

r ~ 

~ ~ 

~r-o..._ 

~ .~ 

"" 

~ ~ v--

MARCH 5 MARCH I MARCH 1 MARCH 8 MARCH 9 MARCHIO MARCH II 

1960 

FIGURE 21.-Pumping rate and water levels in well M-157, Colbert County, Ala. during pumping test (from Harris and others, 1963). 

justify major construction of this nature, ground water, 

even in relatively small amounts, could supply the 

peak water demand. In areas where surface water is 

not available, municipalities are faced with the alternatives of building a pipeline to connect to another 

water system or of developing ground-water supplies. 

In this situation, a thorough investigation of available 

ground-water resources is warranted because of the 

high cost of constructing a pipeline. Ground water can 

also play a role in urban development as the water 

supply for outlying areas of growth. 

Conjuctive use of ground water and surface water 

has received little attention in the Tennessee Region. 

The following examples illustrate how knowledge of 

ground water and surface water interaction could increase the efficiency with which both are used. In Chattanooga, Tenn., there is a plan to modify a water system that normally uses water from a stream which is 

subjected to occasional chemical pollution. The stream 

will be monitored and, when pollution occurs, the system will draw water from nearby wells until the surface water is again usable. Ground water could also be 

used to augment the low flows of streams, both to supply water systems and to maintain sufficient flow to 

assimilate waste. 

When a large surface-water impoundment is made, 

it could benefit ground-water users by reducing the 

ground-water level fluctuations in the vicinity of the 

lake. Surface water can be stored without the use of an 

impoundment where a suitable aquifer is available. 

Such an aquifer can be recharged with surface water 

during times of high flow for withdrawal during dry 

periods. Well fields can also be used to capture subsurface flow in stream beds by inducing flow from the 

stream toward the wells. 

In an alluvial aquifer, of which there are few in the 

Tennessee Region that are not covered by reservoirs, 

there is a fluctuation of temperature in the aquifer 

caused by infiltration of river water. The ground-water 

temperature lags about 6 months behind the river 

temperature. It is warmest in winter and coolest in 

summer. This property could be useful for heating and 

cooling purposes. 

CNDERGROUNDSTORAGE 

Deep wells are being used in the Tennessee Region 

for disposal of liquid waste. Two industries, in New 

Johnsonville, Tenn., and Mt. Pleasant, Tenn., use wells 

for disposal of chemical waste. At Oak Ridge, Tenn., 

medium-level liquid radioactive wastes are injected 

into a shale formation in cement grout so that once 

they solidify they cannot move from the point of injection (de Laguna, 1968). 

No aquifer in the Tennessee Region is capable of 

completely isolating injected liquid substances. Therefore, the possibility exists that injected liquids would 
L28 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

displace poor-quality water and migrate upward into 

aquifers used for sources of water supplies. 

The use of aquifers for storage of fresh water has not 

been strongly considered in the region. The inadequacy 

of information on local ground-water movement 

currently makes it difficult to evaluate the feasibility 

and environmental impact of injecting fresh water into 

a deep aquifer for later withdrawal. 

LOCATING A GROUND-WATER SUPPLY 

Ground water is not necessarily available in 

adequate quantities precisely where it is needed, especially in carbonate rocks. The chances of finding 

adequate supplies of ground water are greatly increased if drilling of production wells is preceded by a 

hydrologic study of the area to determine the most favorable areas for high-producing wells and by test 

drilling to verify these areas. In many areas the drilling and test pumping of more than one test well might 

be required before a satisfactory supply can be obtained. 

In his cost analyis of ground-water supplies in the 

North Atlantic Region, Cederstrom (1973) states that 

the ~~average yield" of wells in any one area, as commonly given in the literature, is no guide to what 

might be obtained because most wells were constructed 

to supply water for domestic use and the potential yield 

of the aquifer was not determined. The ~~average yield," 

therefore, represents something a little greater than 

the average need and is not a measure of the full potential of wells in the rock type being studied. 

In the Tennessee Region the generally low production from wells reported by drilling contractors has 

tended to discourage exploration for large groundwater supplies in almost all areas except the Coastal 

Plain. For example, in the part of the upper Duck 

River basin of Tennessee that is on the Highland Rim, 

86 percent of wells reported to the Tennessee Division 

of Water Resources produced 20 gal/min or less. However, of 19 test holes drilled in the same area, only 16 

percent produced 20 gal/min or less and 74 percent 

produced 100 gal/min or more (Burchett, 1977). The 

reason for this success in test drilling was the use of 

site-selection criteria based on hydrologic concepts of 

the occurrence and availability of water in the Fort 

Payne regolith and bedrock. 

Site-selection criteria are the practical application of 

an understanding of the hydrologic system in an area. 

In some parts of the Tennessee Region the controls on 

ground-water occurrence are well defined. Two such 

areas are the Coastal Plain and northern Alabama. 

Test drilling in the Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park (McMaster and Hubbard, 1970) has helped to 

identify criteria for the Blue Ridge. However, in other 

parts of the region, criteria are either nonexistent or 

incomplete. The Cumberland Plateau is the only area 

where very little test drilling for water has been done. 

Considering the unreliability of the flow of surface 

streams on the Plateau and the reported difficulty in 

obtaining even domestic ground-water supplies in 

some areas, an intensive study of the Plateau's water 

resources would contribute information needed to fill 

the biggest gap in knowledge of Tennessee Region's 

ground-water hydrology. 

In the Central Basin, Highland Rim, and Valley and 

Ridge Provinces, ongoing studies by the U.S. Geological Survey, including test drilling, are leading to development of site selection criteria which can greatly 

improve chances of obtaining large ground-water 

supplies in carbonate-rock terranes. These criteria are 

continually being tested and refined. 

Some of the hydrologic controls in each province of 

the Tennessee Region have been discussed in the section on ~~occurrence of Ground Water." Site selection 

criteria vary from one area to another depending on 

which factors have the greatest influence on groundwater distribution. Use of the criteria does not guarantee that large ground-water supplies will be located; it 

merely increases the chances of drilling successful 

wells, especially when a site is chosen on the basis of 

several different criteria. For example, test drilling, 

test pumping, definition of surface geology and subsurface structure, mapping of soil thickness, and correlation of the withdrawal of ground water with piezometric maps prepared during periods of high and low 

water levels were the basis for locating and developing 

a well field in a limestone terrane near Huntsville, 

Ala., capable of producing 14,000,000 gal/d at a fraction of the cost of a proposed surface-water supply 

(Lamoreaux and Powell, 1963). Figure 22 illustrates 

the kinds of information used in selecting drilling sites 

in central Tennessee. It should also be noted that in 

areas of great variability in ground-water occurrence, 

especially where carbonate rocks are the aquifers, a 

single test hole is not adequate to determine the 

maximum amount of ground water available at a particular site. 

Once a ground-water supply has been located, the 

characteristics of the hydrologic system should be 

taken into account in designing the pumping facility. 

The optimum design is a balance of well yield and 

operating efficiency against undesirable impacts on the 

hydrologic system (for example, diminution of stream 

or spring flow, interference with nearby wells, and deterioration of water quality as a result of induced recharge). One of the most frequently neglected princi-
TENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES L29 

FIGURE 22.- Types of data used to derive criteria for locating test well sites. 
L30 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

pies of well-field design is adequate spacing of wells to 

avoid interference. For example, in 1960 the town of 

Waverly, Tenn., was provided with water from two 

wells less than 500 ft apart, each reportedly producing 

300 gal/min. Pumpage from these wells had created a 

25 ft deep cone of depression around the wells (Marcher 

and others, 1964). In 1960 a third well was drilled in 

the same city-owned lot as the other two municipal 

wells, but it could not supply sufficient water to be used 

as a production well. In effect the three wells were 

functioning as a single well, and withdrawals had exceeded the capacity of the aquifer to supply water to 

that small area. It is likely that had the well been 

placed sufficiently far away so as not to be influenced 

by pumping from the other two, it would have produced 

an adequate amount of water. The necessary spacing 

between wells could have been calculated from aquifer 

test data. 

Land use can also be affected by ground-water development. For example, sinkhole development is a possible consequence of ground-water utilization in the 

parts of the Tennessee Region underlain by carbonate 

rocks. Where considerable lowering of ground-water 

levels is predicted, the likelihood of accelerated sinkhole formation should be investigated (Newton and 

others, 1973). 

Wells withdraw water that would naturally discharge to streams or springs. Pumping wells will 

inevitably reduce the ground-water supply to these 

discharge points and may eventually alter the 

ground-water gradient enough to cause surface water 

to enter the aquifer. While these effects may not be 

serious or may even be beneficial, plans for groundwater use would ideally include an evaluation of their 

impact on both ground water and surface water. This is 

particularly important when ground water and surface 

water are to be used conjunctively because groundwater withdrawals atfect streamflow at times of low 

flow when the need for sustained surface-water flow is 

greatest. 

DATA NEEDS 

Accurate assessment of an area's potential for 

ground-water development is only possible where 

adequate data exist or can be acquired to define the 

ground-water system. Much of the basic data required, 

even for a small-area study, cannot be obtained in a 

short period, but must be collected on a continuing 

basis. Geologic data, well records, water-level and 

water-quality data, and information on aquifer characteristics are typical of information required as a foundation for hydrogeologic studies. 

Large-scale general purpose geologic mapping is 

available nearly everywhere in the Tennessee Region. 

In addition, mineral exploration has provided subsurface stratigraphic data in many areas. A large quantity 

of unpublished well records are available as a result of 

state laws requiring drillers to submit information for 

wells they drill. This information soon will exceed 50 

wells per county in each state. Some ofthis information 

has been computer-listed by state water resources 

agencies. Federal and State water-resource agencies 

also keep well records and logs. 

The greatest deficit in ground-water basic data is in 

records of water-levels, water-quality, and aquifer 

tests. Northern Alabama is unusual in the completeness of its basic records. For example, as shown by 

figure 23, the number of network observation wells operated by the U.S. Geological Survey in the northern 

Alabama part of the Tennessee Region is equal to the 

number in the remainder of the region even though 

only 17 percent of the region is in Alabama. Outside of 

Alabama, observation wells are sparse, and they do not 

give representative information for all the physiographic provinces in the region. Strengthening the 

observation well network before large-scale groundwater development takes place would provide necessary information on water levels, on "base line" 

ground-water quality, and on aquifer behavior under 

natural stresses such as drought. 

Records of natural ground-water level fluctuations 

are particularly important, alone or in conjunction 

with stream seepage investigations, for identifying recharge and discharge areas. Identification of sources of 

contamination is most critical in recharge areas in 

order to manage ground-water quality. Large 

ground-water supplies that are subject to minimal 

water-level variation can often be located in or near 

ground-water discharge areas. Hence, the identification of these areas aids in exploration for ground water. 

Aquifer characteristics, as determined by pumping 

tests, are not known in most of the Region. Many of the 

pumping tests that have been made served chiefly to 

test well performance rather than aquifer characteristics. Governmental regulation ofpublic water supplies 

is increasing and more quantitative information from 

pumping tests will be required to satisfy the needs anticipated under these regulations. The results of these 

pumping tests would be useful in defining aquifer 

characteristics on a regional basis. 

According to an assessment of the availability of 

ground-water data in the Tennessee Valley (W. M. 

McMaster, Tennessee Valley Authority, written commun., July 1975) the density, utility, and age of published reports of ground-water information are highly 

variable. Large-area reconnaissance reports, published 

between 1932 and 1962, exist for most of the Region. 

These reports are generally based on rather cursory 

well inventories and cover large areas. Only the parts 
; 

36· 

)J J s s 

~ 

=~ 

:;;i =I i:j :I 

KE::\TFCKY 

----------------.... ----------------------------------------.. ·-"'"'""""' 

TE~:\'ESSEE 

GEORGIA 

A L A B.:\ 2\1 A 

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OBSERVATION WELL NETWORK 

r:.l 

.. i 

TENNESSEE REGION 

:! iii il 

; 

( 

""'~ ~'-...-\ 

FIGURE 23.-Locations of wells in the U.S. Geological Survey observation well network. 

\ 

CA 

S CAR 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

DIVISION OF WAUR CONTJIOl PlANNING 

HYDRAUliC DATA IRANCH 

SCALE 0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES . ~ 

1-3 

tE:I 

z 

z 

tE:I 

r.n 

r.n 

tE:I 

tE:I 

~ 0 

0 

~z 

z 

(j 

t'"' 

c 

tl 

z 

0 

~ 0 

l'2j 

1-3 

tE:I 

z 

~ 

~ tE:I 

tE:I 

~ t:::l 

~ > (j 

tE:I 

~ 

~ tE:I 

r.n 

t""' 

Cl.:) 

1--" 
L32 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

of the Tennessee Region in northern Alabama, Kentucky, and North Carolina are adequately covered by 

reports on smaller areas that are useful for defining 

well-site selection criteria. 

Detailed geohydrologic studies involving test drilling and aquifer testing are necessary for an understanding of ground-water hydrology that would allow 

the development of criteria for locating feasible areas 

in which to develop high-producing wells. The results 

of these studies should be considered in regional, metropolitan, and industrial water planning and management programs. 

The study of hydrologic systems in the Tennessee 

Region requires considerable time. However, if present 

sources of supply are placed under a severe stress resulting from a major drought or population expansion, 

the degree to which water management can deal with 

problems will depend, in part, on how much information is available and on how well the hydrologic systems of critical areas are understood. Information required to deal with these problems might include such 

things as where untapped ground-water supplies can 

be located, which parts of the region have the least 

ground-water storage, how ground water and surface 

water can be used conjunctively, and what the effects of 

utilizing one will be on the other. 

WATER-RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

Effective management of water resources cannot 

deal with water problems in isolation but as they relate 

to the hydrologic system as a whole. Stress imposed on 

one part of a hydrologic system is certain to have repercussions in other parts of the system. This is true 

whether the stress is applied to ground water or surface water. For example, ground-water withdrawals 

can reduce the low flow of streams by intercepting 

ground-water that is naturally discharged to the 

stream. Impoundment of surface water can increase 

the quantity of ground water in storage by altering 

head relationships in an aquifer. Although the 

surface-water resources in the Tennessee Region are 

heavily developed, there are no regionwide plans for 

managment of ground water or of the combined 

ground- and surface-water resources of the region. 

The response of a hydrologic system to stress may be 

experienced at points distant from the place where the 

stress is applied. For this reason, study and management of water resources can be accomplished most effectively within hydrologic boundaries rather than 

political boundaries. Yet many of the organizations, 

including most government agencies, whose function is 

to study or manage water resources have programs 

which operate within political boundaries such as states 

or counties. To deal with the broad implications of hydrologic problems, either of two approaches could be 

considered: close coordination among the organizations, or the involvement of an organization whose 

jurisdiction includes the entire hydrologic system. In 

the past, conflicts as to matters such as funding and the 

means of implementing management policies have 

arisen in the course of some attempts to coordinate the 

efforts of several organizations concerned with water. 

Notable success at managing water resources of a 

basin-wide scale has been achieved by agencies such as 

the Delaware River Basin Commission and the Tennessee Valley Authority. However, because the Tennessee Valley Authority was established primarily to 

control the Tennessee River, it has not been called 

upon to direct a major effort toward developing the 

region's ground-water resources, though it has supported ground-water studies in some parts of the region. 

The need for a regionwide ground-water management plan is not yet pressing in the present infancy of 

ground-water development in the Tennessee Region. In 

the absence of crisis, a regional ground-water management plan could serve several purposes: (1) to coordinate data collection and interpretive studies, (2) to 

indicate the most efficient and economical use of 

ground-water resources in the region, (3) to recommend measures to maintain the quality of present and 

potential ground-water supplies, and (4) to provide 

support for predicting the environmental impact of 

ground-water diversions by means of digital models 

which would simulate the conjunctive functioning of 

both ground-water and surface-water systems. Regardless of how a ground-water management plan would be 

administered, its formulation and implementation in 

conjunction with surface-water management plans 

should recognize the interdependence of ground water 

and surface water and provide for utilization of both 

aspects of the region's water resources to their fullest 

potential. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Ground water is an abundant resource in the Tennessee Region. As much as one-fifth to one-fourth of the 

precipitation that falls in the region enters the 

ground-water reservoirs each year. A significant part 

of the 22,000 Mgal/d contributed annually to the 

ground-water reservoir from precipitation is available 

for development. 

In 1970, less than 1 percent of the estimated 

ground-water recharge, amounting to 173 Mgal/d, was 

used in the Tennessee Region. This was less than 8 

percent of the total quantity of water used in the region. There is, therefore, a large potential for increased 

development of ground-water supplies. 

At present, ground water is used chiefly in rural 

areas and small communities and by industries and 
TENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES L33 

commercial establishments beyond the limits of municipal water-supply systems. This use of ground water for 

small-scale developments is practical and economical 

because in many parts of the region, ground water can 

be obtained at or near the points of use, eliminating the 

need for water impoundments and extensive distribution systems. The cost is further reduced by the need 

for only minimal treatment facilities for most 

ground-water developments. 

Ground water can also be used in larger communities to augment existing supplies. Use of ground 

water to provide for peak demand and as a standby or 

emergency water source is not uncommon in the Tennessee Region, but many more opportunities exist in 

which ground water could be used along with surfacewater supplies to obtain maximum benefit from the 

water resources. Conjunctive use of ground water and 

surface water, such as the use of wells to obtain water 

to maintain a minimum streamflow, has not been 

given much consideration in the Tennessee Region. 

This kind of development as well as the use of aquifers 

for storage of surface water during periods of excess 

flow require a degree of knowledge of ground-water 

occurrence and movement which is at present unavailable in most of the region. 

The amount of ground water available in the Tennessee Region, if all the recharge to an area were recoverable, would be about 0.5 (Mgal/d)/mi2 • The degree 

to which this quantity is recoverable depends on the 

hydraulic properties of the aquifers and their areal 

variability. A narrow strip along the western edge of 

the region, in the Coastal Plain province, is underlain 

by unconsolidated sand aquifers from which a large 

part of the ground-water recharge could be recovered 

with proper development. Aquifer yields at a given site 

are more predictable in the Coastal Plain than anywhere else in the region, and wells producing 500 to 

1,000 gal/min are possible. 

However, only one-tenth of the Tennessee Region 

lies in the Coastal Plain. The remainder is underlain 

by carbonate rocks or fracture noncarbonate rocks. The 

water-bearing properties of these rocks are variable 

resulting in high exploration costs in developing 

ground water. Carbonate rocks with little or no regolith, as they occur in the Central Basin and parts of 

the Valley and Ridge, are the most variable with well 

yields ranging from less than 1 gal/min to as much as 

several thousand gal/min within a short distance. 

An important factor in aquifer productivity in the 

region is the occurrence of the regolith. A thick regolith stores ground water and releases it slowly to 

openings in the underlying rock. Carbonate aquifers 

with a thick regolith occur in the Highland Rim and 

parts of the Valley and Ridge. Because of their great 

areal extent and relatively uniform distribution of 

ground water, these areas have the greatest potential 

for ground water development. 

Chemical constituents and physical properties of 

ground water in the Tennessee Region are usually 

within the limits recommended by the Environmental 

Protection Agency for drinking water. Water in unconsolidated aquifers and regolith tends to be soft, low in 

dissolved solids, and slightly acidic. In carbonate rocks 

the water is usually hard and somewhat alkaline. 

Water in noncarbonate rocks is generally soft and in 

some parts of the region, may contain certain undesirable amounts of iron and sulfate. Saline water is not 

known to occur in significant quantities in the region. 

Because nine-tenths of the Tennessee Region is 

underlain by rocks that have highly variable waterbearing properties, one of the major problems with developing the ground-water resource is locating openings that would supply the quantity of water required. 

A hydrologic study that includes adequate test drilling 

and pumping tests would greatly increase the chances 

of obtaining the quantity of ground water needed. Information from such a study would be useful in developing a concept of the hydrologic systems in which 

ground water occurs, thus permitting the formulation 

of criteria for selecting well sites in geologically and 

hydrologically similar areas. Hydrologic studies, including test drilling, have been undertaken in each 

section of the region except the Cumberland Plateau. 

These studies can only be regarded as a beginning but 

they have already indicated that the ground-water resource in much of the region is significantly larger 

than had been anticipated. Coverage by detailed reports is lacking in most of the region and the basic data 

required to make adequate appraisals of the water resources are not always available. Some of the data for 

hydrologic studies, such as geologic maps, well records, 

and streamflow records are available throughout the 

region. However, adequate information on groundwater levels, ground-water quality, and aquifer characteristics is not available in all parts of the region. 

Both basic data and interpretation derived from intensive studies are essential tools for managing the 

ground-water resources and predicting the results of 

developmental activities. The information needed for 

management cannot be obtained immediately when it 

is needed; it must be the product of a continuing program to understand and evaluate the Tennessee Region's water resources. Because ground-water development has been largely neglected in the region, there 

is opportunity to establish the data base and management capability before stress on the region's water resources increases to the point that management problems become difficult to solve. 
L34 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

At present the management of the region's water 

resources is unbalanced. Due to the establishment of 

the Tennessee Valley Authority, surface water is controlled to a high degree regionwide; however, there has 

been no comparable attempt to manage the ground 

water systematically. Any plans for fully developing 

the water resources should be based on hydrologic 

principles which recognize the interdependence of 

ground water and surface water and should provide for 

utilization of both aspects of the regions' water resources to their fullest potential. 

REFERENCES 

Adams, George 1., Butts, Charles, Stephenson, L. W., and Cooke, 

Wythe, 1926, Geology of Alabama: Alabama Geol. Survey Special Rept. no. 14, 312 p. 

Betson, Roger P., and McMaster, William M., 1975, Nonpoint source 

mineral water quality model: Water Pollution Control Federation Jour., v. 47, no. 10, p. 2461-2473. 

Boswell, E. H., Moore, G. K., MacCary, L. M., and others, 1965, 

Cretaceous aquifers in the Mississippi embayment, U.S. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 448-C, 37 p. 

Burchett, Charles R., 1977, Water resources of the upper Duck River 

basin, central Tennessee: Tennessee Div. of Water Resources, 

Water Resources Series no. 12, 103 p. 

Burchett, Charles R., and Hollyday, E. F., 1974, Tennessee's newest 

aquifer: Geol. Soc. America Abs. with Programs, v. 6, no. 4, p. 

338. 

Burchett, Charles R., and Moore, Gerald K., 1971, Water resources 

in the upper Stones River basin: Tennessee Div. of Water Resources, Water Resources Series no. 8, 62 p. 

Bureau of Water Hygiene, 1971, Evaluation of the Tennessee water 

supply program summary: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 23 p. 

Busby, M. W., and Armentrout, G. W., 1965, Kansas streamflow 

characteristics, part 6A, base flow data: Kansas Water Resources Board, Tech. Rept. no. 6A, 207 p. 

Butts, Charles, 1933, Geologic map of the Appalachian Valley of 

Virginia with explanatory text: Virginia Geol. Survey Bull. 42, 

56 p. 

Cederstrom, D. J., 1973, Cost analysis of ground-water supplies in 

the North Atlantic Region, 1970: U.S. Geol. Survey WaterSupply Paper 2034, 48 p. 

Cressler, Charles W., 1964, Geology and ground-water resources of 

Walker County, Georgia: Georgia Geol. Survey Inf. Circ. 29, 

15 p. 

Cushing, E. M., Boswell, E. H., Speer, P. R., Hosman, R. L., and 

others, 1970, Availability of water in the Mississippi embayment: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 448-A, 13 p. 

Davis, R. W., Lambert, T. Wm., and Hansen, Arnold J., Jr., 1973, 

Subsurface geology and ground-water resources of the Jackson 

Purchase region, Kentucky: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 1987, 66 p. [1974]. 

DeBuchananne, G. D., and Richardson, R. M., 1956, Ground-water 

resources of East Tennessee: Tennessee Div. Geology Bull. 58, 

393 p. 

de Laguna, Wallace, 1968, Radioactive waste disposal by hydraulic 

fracturing [abs.]: Ground Water, v. 6, no. 6, p. 47. 

Delury, George E., editor, 1973, The world almanac: New York, 

Newspaper Enterprise Assoc., 1040 p. 

Dodson, Chester L., and Harris, Wiley F., ,1963, Geology and 

ground-water resources of Morgan County, Alabama: Alabama 

Geol. Survey Bull. 76, 90 p. 

Dufor, Charles N., and Becker, Edith, 1964, Public water supplies of 

the 100 largest cities in the United States, 1962: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1812, 364 p. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1975, Interim primary drinking 

water standards: Federal Register, v. 40, no. 51, Part II, March 

14, 1975. 

Feth, J. H., 1965, Preliminary map of the conterminous United 

States showing depth to and quality of shallowest ground water 

containing more than 1,000 parts per million dissolved solids: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Hydrol. Inv. Atlas HA-199. 

Geological Survey of Alabama, 1975, Environmental geology and 

hydrology Huntsville and Madison County, Alabama: Alabama 

Geol. Survey Atlas Ser. 8, 118 p. 

Grantham, Rodney G., and Stokes, William R., 1976, Ground-water 

quality data for Georgia: U.S. Geol. Survey open-file report, 

216 p. 

Harris, H. B., Moore, G. K., and West, L. R., 1963, Geology and 

ground-water resources of Colbert Co., Alabama: Alabama Geol. 

Survey County Rept. 10, 71 p. 

Harris, Wiley F., Jr., and McMaster, W. M., 1965, Geology and 

ground-water resources of Lawrence County, Alabama: Alabama Geol. Survey Bull. 78, 70 p. 

Hunt, Charles B., 1967, Physiography of the United States: San 

Francisco and London, W. H. Freeman and Company, 480 p. 

Joiner, Thomas J., and Scarbrough, Leon W., 1969, Hydrology of 

limestone terranes, geophysical investigations: Alabama Geol. 

Survey Bull. 94, Part D, 43 p. 

LeForge, Lawrence, Cooke, Wythe, Keith, Arthur, and Campbell, 

Marius R., 1925, Physical geography of Georgia: Georgia Geol. 

Survey Bull. 42, 189 p. 

Lamoreaux, P. E., and Powell, W. J., 1963, Stratigraphic and structural guides to the development of water wells and well fields in 

a limestone terrane: Alabama Geol. Survey Rept. Ser. 6, 13 p. 

LeGrand, H. E., 1967, Ground water of the Piedmont and Blue Ridge 

provinces in the Southeastern States: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 

538, 11 p. 

Lehr, Jay H., 1976, Let's promote individual and cluster wells in 

rural water systems: Water Well Jour., March 1976. 

McMaster, W. M., 1963, Geology and ground-water resources of the 

Athens area, Alabama: Alabama Geol. Survey Bull. 71, 45 p. 

McMaster, W. M., and Harris, W. F., Jr., 1963, General geology and 

ground-water resources of Limestone County, Alabama, a reconnaissance: Alabama Geol. Survey County Rept. 11, 43 p. 

McMaster, W. M., and Hubbard, E. F., 1970, Water Resources of the 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North 

Carolina: U.S. Geol. Survey Hydrol. Inv. Atlas HA-420. 

Malmberg, G. T., and Downing, H. T., 1957, Geology and groundwater resources of Madison County, Alabama: Alabama Geol. 

Survey County Rept. 3, 225 p. 

Marcher, M. V., Bingham, R. H., and Lounsbury, R. E., 1964, 

Ground-water geology of the Dickson, Lawrenceburg, and 

Waverly areas in the western Highland Rim, Tennessee: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1764, 50 p. 

Meinzer, 0. E., 1923, Occurrence of ground water in the United 

States, with a discussion of principles: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 489, 321 p. 

Meinzer, 0. E., and Stearns, N. D., 1929, A study of ground water in 

the Pomperaug Basin, Connecticut, with special reference to intake and discharge: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 

597-B, p. 73-146. 

Miller, Robert A., 1974, The geologic history ofTennessee: Tennessee 

Div. Geol. Bull. 74, 63 p. 

Moore, G. K., 1973, Hydraulics of sheetlike solution cavities: Ground 

Water, v. 11, no. 4, July-August 1973. 
TENNESSEE REGION, INCLUDING PART OF TENNESSEE AND ADJACENT STATES L35 

Moore, Gerald K., Burchett, Charles R., and Bingham, Roy H., 1969, 

Limestone hydrology in the upper Stones River basin, central 

Tennessee: Tennessee Div. Water Resources, 58 p. 

Moore, Gerald K., and Wilson, John M., 1972, Water resources ofthe 

Center Hill Lake region, Tennessee: Tennessee Div. Water Resources, Water Resources Series no. 9, 77 p. 

Murray, C. Richard, and Reeves, E. Bodette, 1972, Estimated use of 

water in the United States in 1970: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 676. 

National Academy of Science-National Academy of Engineering, 

1973, Water quality criteria 1972: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ecol. Research Ser., EPA-R3-033, 594 p. 

Newcome, Roy, Jr., and Callahan, J. A., 1964, Water for industry in 

the Corinth area, Mississippi: Mississippi Board of Water Commissioners Bull. 64-2, 24 p. 

Newcome, Roy, Jr., and Smith, Ollie, Jr., 1958, Ground-water resources of the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee: Tennessee 

Div. Water Resources, 72 p. • 

---1962, Geology and ground-water resources of the Knox Dolomite in middle Tennessee: Tennessee Div. Water Resources, 

Water Resources Series no. 4, 43 p. 

Newton, J. G., Copeland, C. W., and Scarbrough, L. W., 1973, Sinkhole problem along proposed route of interstate highway 459 

near Greenwood, Alabama: Alabama Geol. Survey Circ. 83, 63 p. 

Peace, Richard R., Jr., 1964, Geology and ground-water resources of 

the Russel ville area, Alabama: Alabama Geol. Survey Bull. 77, 

83 p. 

Peace, Richard R., Jr., and Link, Donald R., 1971, Geology and 

ground-water resources of northwestern North Carolina: North 

Carolina Dept. of Water and Air Resources, Div. of Ground Water, Ground-Water Bull. 19, 135 p. 

Rasmussen, W. C., and Andreasen, G. E., 1957, A hydrologic budget 

of the Beaverdam Creek basin, Maryland: U.S. Geol. Survey 

open-file report, 211 p. 

Rima, D. R., Moran, Mary S., and Woods, Jean E., 1978, Groundwater supplies in the Murfreesboro area, Tennessee: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Water Resources Inv. 77-86, 73 p. 

Sanford, T. H., Jr., 1964, Ground-water conditions in the Huntsville 

area, Alabama, Jan. 1960 thru June 1961: Alabama Geol. Survey Circ. 24, 46 p. 

---1966, Ground water in Marshall County, Alabama, a reconnaissance: Alabama Geol. Survey Bull. 85, 66 p. 

Searcy, James K., 1959, Flow-duration curves: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1542-A, 33 p. 

Sun, P-C. P., Criner, J. H., and Poole, J. L., 1963, Large springs of 

East Tennessee: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1755, 

52 p. 

Swingle, George D., 1959, Geology, mineral resources, and ground 

water of the Cleveland area, Tennessee: Tennessee Div. Geol. 

Bull. 61, 125 p. 

Tennessee Dept. ofPublic Health, Division ofWater Quality Control, 

1975, Water quality management plan for the Lower Tennessee 

River basin, 220 p. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1973, Division of Water Control Planning, annual report for fiscal year 1973, 49 p. 

---1975, Precipitation in Tennessee River basin, annual 1975: 

Tennessee Valley Auth., Div. of Water Management, Data Services Branch, Rept. no. 0-243-A 75. 

Wells, Francis G., 1933, Ground-water resources of western Tennessee: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 656, 319 p. 

Wilson, John M., 1965, Ground-water resources and geology of Cumberland County, Tennessee: Tennessee Div. Water Resources, 

56p.