Summary Appraisals 

of the Nation's 

Ground-Water Resources--:.-

Great Lakes Region 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 813-J 

SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S 

GROUND-WATER RESOURCESGREAT LAKES REGION 
• 

o·~.,slv4--·' 

HAWAII 

~~ 

M{> 

CARIBBEAN 

PR VI 

r--"l·-» L--.r- \ 

-

Water Resources 

Regions 

M 

Letters indicate chapter 

designations 

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

Professional Paper 813 

series 

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 ResourcesGreat Lakes Region 

By WILLIAM G. WEIST, JR. 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 813-J 

The role of ground water in the 

region's water-related problems 

UNITED STATES GOVERNl\1ENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON 1978 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

H. William Menard, Director 

Library of Congress catalog-card No. 78-61XJ1l0.4 

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

Washington, D.C. 20402 

Stock Number 024-001-03072-1 
CONTENTS 

Page Page 

)Lbstract ----------------------------------------- J1 Role of ground vvater in the vvater-related problems 

of the region-Continued Introduction -------------------------------------- 1 

Description of the region --------------------------- 1 Pollution-Continued 

Physiographic setting-------------------------- 3 Deep-vvell disposal ------------------------- J18 

Hydrologic setting ----------------------------- 3 Other source~ of pollution ----------------- 19 

Climate ---------------------------------- 3 VVater supply--------------------------------- 19 

Surface vvater ---------------------------- 6 Public supplies --------------------------- 20 

Ground vvater ----------------------------- 6 Industrial supplies ------------------------ 21 

Economic setting ----------------------------- 11 Irrigation ___________ --------------------- 21 

Development _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ 11 Lovv flovv ------------------------------------- 21 

VVateruse -------------------------------- 11 VVetlands and lakes --------------------------- 22 

Role of ground vvater in the vvater-related problems of Erosion __________________________ ----------- _ 23 

the region -------------------------------------- 12 Flooding ------------------------------------- 23 

VVater quality -------------------------------- 13 Managing ground-vvater resources ------------------ 23 

Natural quality ------~-------------------- 13 Coordinating the development ------------------- 25 

Mineralized ground vvater ------------------ 14 Monitoring the use of ground vvater ------------- 27 

Pollution ------------------------------------- 17 Legal considerations ------------------------------- 27 

Septic tanks ------------------------------ 17 Future considerations ----------------------------- 28 

Landfills _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ 18 Summary _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ ____ __ __ _ _ __ _ 29 

VVastevvater effluents ----------------------- 18 References cited _____________________ -------------- 29 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Page 

FIGURE 1-4. Map of the Great Lakes basin shovving1. Geographic features -----------------------·-:-- ___ -'---------------------------------------- J2 

2. Normal annual precipitation, 1931-60 ----------------------------------------------------- 4 

3. Mean annual lake evaporation, 1946-55 ----------------------------------------------------- 5 

4. Bedrock geology _____________________________________________________________ ------------ 8 

5-9. Map shovving availability of ground vvater in unconsolidated deposits in the United States part of the5. Lake Superior basin __________________________________________________________ ------------ 9 

6. Lake Michigan basin --------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 

7. Lake Huron basin ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 

8. Lake Erie basin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 

9. Lake Ontario basin __________________________________________________________ - ----------- 13 

10. Map shovving areas vvhere dissolved-solids concentration of ground vvater exceeds 1,000 mg/L ---------- 16 

11. Flovv-duration curves for tvvo streams in Ohio ----------------------------------------------------- 22 

12. Sketch of feasible and infeasible conditions for pumping ground vvater to maintain lake levels ---------- 24 

13. Photograph of erosion from ground-vvater discharge along Lake Michigan in Indiana ------------------ 25 

14. Map shovving ground-vvater development in Lansing, Mich., area ------------------------------------ 26 

TABLES 

Page 

TABLE 1. VVater resources of the Great Lakes Region -------------------------------------------------------- J3 

2. Occurrence of ground vvater in the Great Lakes Region ---------------------------------------------- 7 

3. Water use in the Great Lakes Region, 1970 ------------------------------------------------------- 12 

4. Water-related concerns of the Great Lakes Region ------------------------------------------------- 14 

5. Major sources of ground-vvater pollution in the Great Lakes Region --------------------------------- 17 

v 
VI CONTENTS 

CONVERSION FACTORS 

In this report, units of measure are given in English units. The following table gives factors to conv,ert English units to 

SI (metric) units: 

Multiply English units 

.inches (in) 

feet (ft) 

miles (mi) 

square feet (ft2

) 

square miles (mP) 

acres 

cubic feet (ft3 ) 

gallons (gal) 

acre-feet (acre-ft) 

gallons per minute (gal/min) 

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 

cubic feet per second (fe/s) 

cubic feet per second per 

square mile (ft3/s) /mF 

degrees Fahrenheit [ (°F) -32] 

By 

25.4 

.3048 

1.609 

.0929 

2.59 

.4047 

.0283 

3.785 

1.233xlo-s 

.06309 

.0438 

.02832 

.0109 

.556 

To obtaln Sl units 

millimeters (mm) 

meters (m) 

kilometers (km) 

square meters (m2

) 

square kilometers (km2

) 

hectares (ha) 

cubic meters (m3

) 

liter (L) 

cubic kilometers (km3

) 

liters per second (L/s) 

cubic meters per second 

(m3/s.) 

cubic meters per second 

(m3 /s) 

cubic meters per second per 

square kilometer (m3/s) /km2 

degrees Celsius (°C) 
SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S 

GROUND-WATER RESOURCES-GREAT LAKES REGION 

By WILLIAM G. WEIST) JR. 

ABSTRACT 

The Great Lakes Regions, as a whole, has abundant supplies 

of water. Nearly 805·,000 billion cubic feet of water is contained in the Great Lakes. An additional 35,000 billion cubic 

feet of potable ground water is available from storage in 

the region. Estimated ground-water discharge to the streams 

and lakes of the region is 26 billion gallons per day. 

Despite this abundance of water, the United States part 

of the Great Lakes basin is faced with many water-related 

problems, most of which involve water quality and water 

supply. Other problems concern periods of low flow in streams, 

preservation of wetlands, detrimental effects of erosion, and 

flooding. The significance of ground water in thes.e problems is 

often overlooked. 

Ground water can be an alternative to surface water as a 

source of supply, or it can be used conjunctively with surface 

water to provide flexibility in water-supply management. 

Ground water supplied approximately 1,800 million gallons 

per day of the 39,900 million gallons. per day used in the 

Great Lakes Region in 1970. The ground-water contribution 

was only 4.5 percent of the water used. Thus, ground water 

represents a potential source of supply for much of the region. 

It also can be used, where conditions permit, to maintain 

lake levels and flow in streams, to dilute poor quality surface 

water, and to maintain or create wetlands and ponds. 

In managing water resources, ground water and surface 

water should be considered parts. of a single system. Management includes not only planning and controlling the development but also monitoring the effects of this development. 

Recent advances in ground-water hydrology have provided 

methods to resolve some of the development and management 

questions that formerly slowed the development of ground 

water. 

All of the States in the Great Lakes Region have some regulations to control the development or protect the quality of the 

ground water. These regulations, however, are not as comprehensive as those governing surface water. Future legislation could be designed to encourage the development of ground 

water and, at the same time, to protect the resource. 

Efficient development and management of ground-water resources requires a through knowledge of the system. Reports 

on ground water are available for about 80 percent of tbe 

Great Lakes Region. Most of these reports., however, are not 

sufficiently detailed to be useful in comprehensive planning. 

As ground-water development continues, quantitative groundwater studies, utilizing models as predictive tools, will enable 

this development to proceed in an efficient manner. 

INTRODUCTION 

In 1971, the U.S. Geological Survey began a 

broad-perspective analysis of the Nation's groundwater resources. This analysis was designed to emphasize the extensive occurrence and availability of 

ground water and the significant role it can play in 

regional de.velopment. The results are being published in the Geological Survey professional paper 

series, "Summary Appraisals of the Nation's 

Ground-Water Resources." This comprehensive summary of ground water in the United States should 

aid in orderly planning and development of the 

Nation's water resources. 

This report discusses ground-water resources for 

the part of the Great Lakes basin that is in the 

United States. The report is intended neither as a 

source of data nor a comprehensive discussion of 

water availability in the different aquifers. in the 

region. Rather, it builds on previous reports by focusing on water-related problems and the role 

ground water can play in meeting these problems. 

A comprehensive summary of ground-water availability in the Great Lakes basin, including an exlensive bibliography, was recently published by the 

Great Lakes Basin Commission (Waller and Allen, 

1975). 

Most of the material in this report is based on 

published reports and on information gathered 

through meetings with State and Federal personnel and members of regional planning commissions 

throughout the Great Lakes Region-the people who 

are gathering and using the water-resources data. 

The author gratefully acknowledges their contributions. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE REGION 

The Great Lakes basin (fig. 1) is an international 

basin containing 295,800 mi 2 in Canada and the 

United States. The Great Lakes. Region discussed 

in this report includes only the 173,470 mi 2 in the 

United States, of which 60,602 mi 2 is water surface. 

11 
··~. 

90' .J ·--..,(_50° 50/ 

r· ··/··voJ) 

' /.. ~~5' t ~~ ?··~ ·~ 

""-~·-J~--~-. 

~··, 

--------

EXPLANATION 

Basin boundary 

Physiographic boundary 

0 20 40 60 BO 100MILES 

1 I I I I I 11 1

1 

I I 

0 40 BO 120 160 KILOMETERS 

R ONTARIO (J \ 

p l.. "" 

WISCONS .. -uii>iS __ _ 

IlliNOIS 

INDIANA 

Base from Great Lakes Basin Commission 85° 

FIGURE 1.-The Great Lakes basin. 

~tvo ·~ 

·. 45° 

~--..r--... .. 1.._...· 

~ 

~ 

rn 

c:::: 

a;;: 

a;;: 

> 

~ 

~ 

> 1-d 

1-d 

~ 

> 

~ 

rn 

> 

~ 

rn 

0 

":tj 

~ 

::t: 

t?j 

z 

> 

~ ~ 

0 

z 

00 

C1 

~ 

0 

c:::: 

z 

t:l 

~ > 

~ 

t?j 

~ 

~ 

t?j 

rn 

0 

c:::: 

~ 

0 

t?j 

rn 
GREAT LAKES REGION J3 

PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING 

Most of the Great Lakes Region lies in the Central 

Lowland physiographic province (fig. 1). Parts of 

the region in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Upper 

Peninsula of Michigan are in the Superior Upland 

province, and parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New 

York are in the Appalachian Plateau, Adirondack, 

and St. Lawrence Valley province,s. Most of the 

region is characterized by generally flat or gently 

rolling lowlands and lake plains. Areas along the 

western, eastern, and southeastern borders are dissected plateaus with varied relief and prominent 

escarpments. Most of the region is less than 1,000 

ft above mean sea level. The highest point ( 4,621 ft) 

is in the Adirondack Mountains, and the lowest 

(150ft) is along the St. Lawrence River. The highest 

elevation in the headwaters is 2,301 ft, in Minnesota. 

The region underwent four major periods of glaciation. As much as 1,100 ft of glacial deposits ove-rlie the bedrock surface. Streams have partly reworked these deposits, leaving alluvium along t:he·ir 

channels. Local relief and much of the drainage 

was modified by the glaciation. The irregularity of 

the glacial deposits has resulted in an imperfect 

drainage pattern, with numerous lakes, ponds, 

marshes, and bogs. Major drainage is toward the 

Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. Twelve 

tributary river basins have drainage areas of about 

6,000 mP each; the rest have drainage areas ranging 

from a few to several hundred square mile's (Waller 

and Allen, 1975, p. 1). 

Bedrock consists of a series of sedimentary formations overlying crystalline rocks, except where the 

crystalline rocks are exposed in parts of Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, Michigan, and New York. The major 

structural bedrock feature is a deep sedimentary 

basin centered in Michigan. 

HYDROLOGIC SETTING 

The Great Lakes Region has an abundant supply 

of water (table 1). Because so much water is available in the Great Lakes and the streams that drain 

to them, the large amount of available ground water 

is frequently overlooked. 

All the water resources of the region are part 

of a single hydrologic system, in which a change 

in one phas·e will cause changes in the other phases. 

Because this system is very complex, precipitation, 

surface water, and ground water are generally investigated and described separately. The next three 

sections give a brief picture of these three phases 

in the Great Lakes Region. 

CLIMATE 

Because of its large water areas, the region has 

a more moderate climate than regions of similar 

latitude to the west. In January, normal daily average temperature's range from 10° F ( -12° C) ·in 

Minnesota to 28° F ( -2° C) in Ohio. In August 

they range from 65° F (18° C) in Minnesota to 

73o F (23° C) in Ohio (Environmental Data Service, 1968). 

Precipitation is affected by the Great Lakes and 

by the highlands along the easte-rn border of the 

region. Normal annual precipitation ranges from 

28 in in the Duluth area, along part of western Lake 

Michigan and Lake Huron, and in the Detroit area, 

to more than 52 in in the Adirondacks (fig. 2). 

TABLE 1.-Water 'resources of the G'reat Lakes Region 

Lake basin 

Superior ------------------

Michigan -----------------

Huron --------------------

Erie ----------------------

Ontario -------------------

Region--------------

1 Data from Leonard and Raoul, 1975, p. 36. 2 Data from Leonard and Raoul, 1975, p. 37. 3 Data from Leonard and Raoul, 1975, p, 7. 4 Data from Leonard and Raoul, 1975, p. 13. 5 Data from Norris and Fidler, unpub. rept., 1975. 

Average 

annual precipitation 

on basin,1 

1900-69 

(inches) 

29.56 

31.16 

31.26 

33.79 

34.18 

31.46 

Average 

runoff into lake,2 

1935-64 

(ft3/s) 

50,300 

37,400 

51,300 

24,500 

28,100 

141,600 

Volume 

of water in lake3 

(billion ft3) 

431,400 

173,500 

124,800 

17,200 

57,800 

804,700 

Average 

outflow 

of lake through 

natural 

channel, 4 

1860-1970 

(ft3/s) 

75,000 

52,000 

187,300 

201,900 

239,200 

Estimated 

volume of ground 

water containing 

less than 3,000 mg/L 

dissolved 

solids 

available 

from 

storage 6 

(billion ft 3 ) 

3,500 

14,900 

4,800 

8,200 

3,600 

35,000 
50°~ goo !'-· 

·~"--~: 50o 

( .. 1 / '"'-··') 

. / ( . I . aso : Ill -~ 

"\_ ,- ~-. cc--~ • "07 "·l_, 

\,,~ ~.1\<~so~- /'o._.z (//.?"','-.., '---. ~·\[··~ -'1Joo 

y ', ~~ ''-.. = :4 ·· )... .. ·' ' L '" 

EXPLANATION 

- ,28---

Line of equal normal 

annual precipitation 

Interval, 4 inches 

0 20 40 60 80 100 MILES 

MINNESOTA. __.:> AKE UPERIOR o,;_,,~ \ 

;28 ~ _ -/ • ONTARIO . 

.· I -~ ~·0 

v.· L~36 - ·\ -

- 45u 

I r' r r' 1 '1 r' 1 a' 

40 80 120 160 KILOMETERS 

··~.-~.· 

WISCONSIN -uiNots ----

ILLINOIS 

Base from Great Lakes Basin Commission From Environmental Data Service (1968, p. 43) 

FIGURE 2.-Normal annual precipitation, 1931-60. 

~ 

~ 

':12 

c: 

~ 

~ 

> 

~ 

> 'tl 

'tl 

:;d 

> 

~ 

rn. 

> t"4 

rn. 

0 

~ 

t-3 

p:: 

tz:j 

z 

> t-3 

~ 

0 

z 

00 

0 

~ 

0 

c::: 

z 

d 

:a 

> t-3 

l?=j 

~ 

~ 

l?=j 

Ul 

0 

c::: 

~ 

c 

l?=j 

00 
'"'-- ,----. 

··~. 

90° •• J ·~ soo ~y (_ 

r' ;··/··~ : "--- 85° :1\J ·. 

. f(··~ ~ 

~ 

EXPLANATION 

---30---

Line of equal mean annual 

lake evaporation 

Interval. 2 inches 

·~.r-'·.J''IA-··~ 0 20 40 60 80 100 MILES .. 

ONTARIO I \ .. 

I 1' r r' 1 11 r' 1 l 

40 80 120 160 KILOMETERS 

~ ·~ 

~. ·~··1._.· 

ILLINOIS 

Base from Great Lakes Basin Commission From Environmental Data Service (1968, p. 63) 

FIGURE 3.-Mean annual lake evaporation, 1946-55. 

C':l 

~ 

t_:l:j 

> 

~ 

&: 

p::: 

t_:l:j 

rn. 

~ 

t_:l:j 

C) 

........ 

0 

z 

~ 

01 
J6 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

Annual precipitation as a whole averages 31 in. 

Areas downwind (east) of the lakes generally receive more precipitation than areas upwind. The 

Adirondacks rise from the lake plains of the eastern 

border of the region and deflect moisture-laden air 

upward, so that the Lake Ontario basin receives the 

most precipitation. Precipitation is fairly evenly 

distributed throughout the year. February generally 

has the least (1.78 in) and September the most 

(3.24 in) (Leonard and Raoul, 1975). 

Nearly two-thirds of the precipitation returns to 

the atmosphere through evaporation and transpiration. As shown in figure 3, mean annual lake evaporation ranges from 24 to 32 in, being greatest along 

the southernmost edge of the region. About 80 percent of the evaporation occurs between May and 

October (Environmental Data Service, 1968). 

SURFACE WATER 

Average annual runoff in the Great Lakes Region 

is 11.6 in, ranging from 9 to 38 in (Great Lakes 

Bas~in Commission, 1975a, p. 25) . This wide range 

is due to differences in geology, surficial features, 

and land use as well as to differences in precipitation. 

The Great Lake,s form the major drainage system; 

average flow out of Lake Ontario is more than 

239,000 ft3/s (table 1). Developed storage on streams 

and lakes provides a sustained water-supply yield of 

more than 18 bilHon gallons per day (Great Lakes 

Basin Commission, 1975b). 

Although flood flows get more publicity than low 

flows because of the damage and suffering they can 

cause, low flows of streams are more important than 

floods in terms of water supply, waste assimilation, 

and fish and wildlife. Floods are a function of precip~itation, soil-moisture conditions, snow cover, 

topographic relief, and other physical features, 

whereas low flows are a function primarily of 

ground-water contribution to streamflow. When surface runoff ends, flow in streams is maintained by 

ground-water discharge. Where streams are fed by 

extensive aquifers, flow will be ma~intained even 

during prolonged periods of no rain; but where 

streams are adjacent to small aquifers or deposits 

having low permeability, such as till and lake sediments, flow will decrease fairly rapidly, and may 

even cease. 

The ground-water contribution to streamflow can 

be estimated from flow-duration curves, which are 

cumulative frequency curves showing the percentage of time specified discharges are equaled or exceeded. Waller and Allen (1975, p. 8) determined 

that flow at 70-percent duration represents a conservative value for average ground-water discharge 

in the Great Lakes basin. 

Runoff at 70-percent duration ranges from 0.01 

(ft3 /s) /mi2 in streams in parts of the eastern Lake 

Ontario basin to 0.90 (ft3/s) /mi 2 in the Mannistee 

River in Michigan and the Black River in New York. 

Runoff of many of the streams is in the range from 

0.20 to 0.40 (ft3/s) /mi2 (Waller and Allen, 1975). 

GROUND WATER 

The occurrence of ground water in the region is 

described in detail in the ground-water appendix to 

the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study (Waller 

and Allen, 1975) . Therefore, only a brief summary 

is presented in this report. 

Ground water is unevenly distributed across the 

Great Lakes Region. Land-surface features, precipitation, surface and subsurface drainage, and the 

hydrologic properties of the underlying rocks combine to determine the availability of ground water 

in any area. The hydrologic property of the, rocks is 

probably the most important factor in the Great 

Lake>s Region. Unconsolidated outwash sand and 

gravel deposits are highly permeable and represent 

the best aquifers in the region. The most productive 

aquifers are in the valleys of major streams. These 

aquifers can be recharged by induced infiltration of 

'streamflow, and the .sand and gravel act as natural 

filters to remove many impurities. 

In areas of the Great Lakes Region where the unconsolidated deposits are poorly permeable, thin, or 

absent, ground-water sources are limited to the consolidated (bedrock) aquifers. Supplies from these 

aquifers are generally adequate and dependable, except locally where shale or crystalline roc~s crop out. 

Fortunately, these areas are few and scattered. 

Waller and Allen (1975, p. v) state: 

Carbonate (limestone and dolomite) aquifers constitute the 

most common bedrock aquifers in the Basin. They occur 

along the northern and western shore of Lake Michigan, from 

Illinois to Cleveland, and along the southern shore of Lake 

Ontario. The carbonates are most productive, with well yields 

as much as 1,000 gpm, where they extrude or are overlain 

by unconsolidated deposits. Solution processes have developed 

good permeability in these areas. Sandstone aquifers are the 

next most common bedrock aquifers. A thick sequence of productive sandstone units (well yields as much as 1,3u0 gpm) 

is present along the western and northern part of the Lake 

Michigan basin. Such productive units with well yields as 

much as 500 gpm are also present in parts of Michigan and 

in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. As aquifers, shale 

beds are the least productive sedimentary unit. Shales are 

abundant in the southern part of the Great Lakes Basin from 

Indiana to the Adirondack Mountains. 
GREAT LAKES REGION J7 

Crystalline rocks constitute the bedrock west of 

Lake Superior and in the Adirondacks region. Wells 

in these rocks provide adequate yields for domestic 

and rural supplies and, in exceptional areas, for 

small commercial and industrial supplies. Water is 

obtained from fractures and from the upper, 

weathered part of the rocks. 

detailed study of the water resources is needed 

before heavy development can be planned in any 

area. An important aquifer in one area may yield 

only small amounts of water elsewhere or water 

that is too saline for most uses. For example, the 

Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system is an important 

source of water for the Chicago area. H,owever, in 

northern Indiana the water is so saline that the 

system is relegated to deep-well waste disposal. In 

the Lake Superior basin, the Silurian aquifer system 

yields 50. to '100 gal/min to wells, whereas in parts 

of the Lake Michigan basin the system yields as 

much as 1,000 gal/min. In general, the highest 

yields are obtained from fractured rock aquifers or 

those that contain solution channels. 

Yields of as much as 5,000 gal/min are obtainable 

from wells in some thick deposits of highly permeable sand and gravel, and yields in excess of 500 

gal/min have been reported from bedrock in some 

areas. On the other hand, yields of 5 gal/min may 

be difficult to obtain in some areas underlain by till 

or crystalline bedrock. Table 2 summarizes the occurrence of ground water in the Great Lakes Region. 

Figure 4 shows the distribution of the bedrock 

units in the region and figures 5-9 show the availability of ground water in unconsolidated deposits 

in each Great Lake basin. 

Well yields and water quality vary across the 

re~ion, even within the same aquifer system, and a 

The long-term water-yielding potential of an 

aquifer is dependent on the availability of recharge. 

In the Great Lakes Region most recharge from 

snowmelt and rainfall occurs as water infiltrates the 

soil and percolates to the water table. However, highest well yields are generally obtained from aquifers 

TABLE 2.-0ccurrence of ground water in the Great Lakes Region 

[Data from Waller and Allen, 19751 

Aquifer system 

Glacial lake deposits --------

Outwash sand and gravel ___ _ 

Till -----------------------

Pennsylvanian --------------

Mississippian --------------

Devonian ------------------

Devonian-Silurian ----------

Silurian ______ -------------

Ordovician ________________ _ 

Cambrian-Ordovician ______ _ 

Cambrian --------~--------- Cambrian-Precambrian _____ _ Precambrian ______________ _ 

Yields of highest-capacity 

we!ls (gal/min) 

10-20 

50-5,000 

10-20 

50-700 

50-1,800 

50--700 

50-500 

50-1,000 

50-500 

50-1,300 

50-500 

50-500 

100-250 

Principal water-bearing units 

Unconsolidated deposits 

Sandy zones within the silt and 

clay. 

Highest yields are obtained in 

areas with good· sources of 

recharge. 

Sand and gravel lenses 

Bedrock 

Sandstone and shale. Brine and 

sulfates frequently encountered in 

lower part. 

Sandstone and shale. May contain 

oil, gas, and brine. 

Mostly carbonate rocks with some 

sandstone. May contain oil, gas, 

and brine. 

Carbonate rocks ---------------

Mostly carbonate rocks. 

Water is saline in places. 

Carbonate rocks and sandstone. 

Saline water at depth. 

Carbonate rocks and sandstone. 

Saline water at depth. 

Sandstone. Saline water at depth_ 

Sandstone ---------------------- Sandstone and crystalline rocks __ _ 

Areas of greatest potential 

Indiana-South Bend area. 

Michigan-Jackson, Kalamazoo, 

area; Au Sable, Manitee, and 

Muskegon River valley. 

New York-Genesee River basin. 

Ohio-northeastern. 

Pennsylvania. 

Southern Michigan. 

Southern Michigan, northeastern 

Ohio, Pennsylvania. 

Ohio, southern Michigan, northeastern Indiana. 

North Michigan. 

Eastern Wisconsin, Illinois, northeastern Indiana, northwestern 

Ohio. 

Western New York. 

Illinois, eastern Wisconsin. 

Illinois. 

North Michigan. 

Minnesota-Mesabi Range. 
·'&. 

90' ,J "'-----. ' 5.01 !.~0 

/ ! -~··.r-·. ~ (J ( 85' \ uu .. ~ \...... ,------. ~' ~') ~ f21vY {)~ ~ - \ v~ ·~~~~0~ 

IV.._.~~~ ">f.·~~~~t;;:w~l>:.- MINNEsor A '~~.;~~-'-'.:~~::-,~- I ~~::~~~~~t~tr~,{-, , .. 

~~"'~~-~ Wl{,c.(:F~r 

WISCONSIN -N.iiNOi$ ---

ILLINOIS 

INDI_ANA 

Basin Commission 

B5o 

80° 

FIGURE 4.--Bedrock geology of the Great Lakes Region. 

EXPLANATION 

- Cretaceous System 

~~~~~j Pennsylvanian System 

~ Mississippian System 

1-::::-:::-=-d Devonian System 

1::::::::::::1 Silurian System 

[\')>HUH Ordovician System 

~~~:··.::~] Cambrian System 

~ ~ Precambrian rocks 

0 20 40 60 80 100 MILES 

I r'' r' 1 ', 1' 1 •' 

0 40 80 120 160 KILOMETERS 

Adapted from Waller and Allen (1975) 

c.... 

00 

U1 

c:::: 

~ 

~ 

> 

;:d 

~ 

> 

~ 

~ 

;:d 

> H 

U1 

> r 

U1 

0 

~ 

~ 

p:: 

tr! 

z 

> 

~ H 

0 

z 

r)5_ 

C1 

;:d 

0 

c:::: 

z 

tj 

~ 

> 

~ 

M 

;:d 

;:d 

M 

U1 

0 

c:::: 

;:d 

a 

t:r-:J 

rr. 
l goo 

~ --/' 

~ -~" MINNESOTA 

WISCONSIN 

Base from Great Lakes Basin Commission 

EXPLANATION 

Typical yields from 6-inch 

or larger diameter wells 

0 

/ ";:;;-'b;,~ ~ J'/;f;-l; '~ 

50 MILES 

Su..o<S 

1>/oJ<? 

MICHIGAN 

I I 

1

1 1

1 

I 11 1

1 

I ' 

0 40 80 Kl LOMETERS 

D Less than 10 gallons per minute 

f:::::::j 10-100 gallons per minute 

• 100-500 gallons per minute 

Iff}}) More than 500 gallons per minute 

-··- Basin boundary 

85° 

After Waller and Allen (1975) 

FIGURE 5.-Availability of ground water in unconsolidated deposits in the United States part of the Lake Superior basin. 

Q 

::0 

t;rj 

> 

~ 

t"" 

> 

~ 

t;rj 

rn 

::0 

t;rj 

Q 

~ 

0 

z 

~ 

1:.0 
JlO SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER~ RESOURCES 

WISCONSIN 

I LLI NO IS 

Base from Great Lakes 

Basin Commission 

MICHIGAN 

INDIANA 

0 

' i' I 

I I 

r t= ' 

0 40 

EXPLANATION 

Typical yields from 6-inch 

or I a r ge r diameter we II s 

~ Less than 10 gallons per minute 

~ 10 to 100 gal Ions per minute 

~ 100 to 500 gal Ions per minute 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ More than 500 gal Ions per minute 

-··- Basin boundary 

OHIO 

After Waller and Allen (1975) 

50 Ml LES 1

1 

I I 

80 KILOMETERS 

FIGURE 6.-A vailability of ground water in unconsolidated deposits in the United States part of the Lake Michigan basin. 

that are in direct hydraulic continuity with lakes or 

streams. Under such conditions, heavy pumping can 

induce recharge from these water bodies. This will, 

of course, result in reduced streamflow or lower 

lake levels. 

Natural ground-water discharge maintains 

streamflow during dry periods and helps to maintain 

lake levels and wetlands. This discharge varies 

seasonally. At least 30 percent of the time, during 

low flow, nearly all water in streams comes from 

ground-water discharge. This amounts to nearly 26 

billion gallons per day for the region (Great Lake.s 

Basin Commission, 1975b). At higher streamflows 
GREAT LAKES REGION J11 

L 

MICHIGAN 

H U 

Base from Great Lakes 

Basin Commission 

0 50 MILES 

t-r ..... ' ,.....,,,._. T""i "r-\ .,., ..... ~·· 

0 40 80 KILOMETERS 

EXPLANATION 

Typical yields from 6-inch 

or I a r ge r d i a meter we I I s 

D Less than 10 gal Ions ~er minute 

10701 

~ 

~ 

10 to 100 gallons per minute 

100 to 500 gal Ions per minute 

A\K E 

\ 

H\0 

\ 

\ 

\ 

) 

I 

I 

• • More than 500 gal Ions per minute 

----Basin boundary 

N 

FIGURE 7.-Availability of ground water in unconsolidated deposits in the United States part of the 

Lake Huron ba8in. 

the ground-water discharge may be greater, but 

data are not readily available to determine amounts. 

Ground-water divides are generally assumed to 

coincide with surface-water divides. However, this 

is not always so in the Great Lakes Region. Near 

Chicago the Great Lakes drainage area is only a 

mile or so wide, but the bedrock aquifers extend 

several tens of miles beyond. Heavy pumping from 

these aquifers in the Chicago area has lowered the 

pressure in the aquifers, causing water to flow into 

the area from outsidethe Great Lakes Region. 

ECONOMIC SETTING 

DEVELOPMENT 

The Great Lakes Region, which constitutes only 

4 percent of the Nation's land area, contained 

slightly more than 14 percent of the population, or 

29,322,300 people, in 1970. Of these, 85 percent were 

concentrated in the Lake Michigan and Lake Erie 

basins and only 2 percent in the Lake Superior basin. 

Major industries include steel production ( 47 percent of the Nation's total in 1970), petroleum refining, and manufacturing of chemicals, paper, and 

food products. Urban and industrial areas occupy 

8.4 percent of the land. 

More than 38 percent of the land is devoted to 

agriculture, which ranks behind the metal, food, 

and chemical industries in number of employees. 

Major crops include corn, wheat, oats, soybeans., and 

hay. Locally important crop.s include vegetables, 

grapes, fruit, and dairy products. 

Nearly 50 percent of the land is forested. Recreational use of the land is increasing rapidly, particularly _in northern Wisconsin, northern Michigan, and 

parts of New York. Mining, especially production of 

sand and gravel, crushed stone, iron ore, and portland cement, is important in some areas. Significant 

quantities of petroleum are pumped in scattered 

fields in the region. 

WATER USE 

The magnitude of water use in the Great Lakes 

Region is a function of economic development. Heaviest use is in the urban and industrial areas; lightest 

use is in the forested areas. Steel p·roduction, 

petroleum, refining, and manufacturing of chemicals, 

pap_er, and food products account for about 80 percent of the region's industrial water requirements, 

as well as most water-quality problems (Great Lakes 

Basin Commission, 1975d, p. 4-5). Lo·cally, mining 

and ore processing require large amounts of water. 

With the large quantities of water readily available 

and most of the major urban areas located on their 

shores, the Great Lakes are the major source of 

water. Water use in the region in 1970 is summarized 

in table 3. 
J12 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

EXPLANATION 

MICHIGAN 

OHIO 

INDIANA 

Base from Great Lakes Basin Commission 

Typical yields from 6-inch 

or larger diameter wells 

~Less than 10 gal Ions per minute 

f:::::::]10 to 100 gallons per minute 

~ 100 to 500 gal Ions per minute 

ltt}?J More than 500 gallons per minute 

boundary 

0 50 MILES 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I I I I 

0 40 BO KILOMETERS 

------42° 

After Waller and Allen (1975) 

FIGURE 8.-Availability of ground water in unconsolidated deposits in the United States part of the Lake Erie basin. 

TABLE 3.-Wa.tet· use in the Great Lakes Region, 1970, 

in 1nillions of gallons per day 

[Partial figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding] 

Sou.t·ce 1 

Use Total Surface Ground 

water water 

Public supply -------------------- 4,400 3,700 700 

Self-supplied industrial ----------- ~35,000 34,300 340 fresh 

400 saline 

Rural domestic ------------------ 280 7 270 

Livestock ------------------------ 90 24 62 Irrigation _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ __ 90 53 37 

38,100 1,800 -3-9.~90~0----~~---------

1 Data from Murray and Reeves, 1972. 

!! Includes thermoelectric power use. 

ROLE OF GROUND WATER IN THE WATERRELATED PROBLEMS OF THE REGION 

The main objective of this report is to discuss 

water-related problems and concerns of the Great 

Lakes Region, how ground water relates to them, 

and the role ground water can play in meeting or 

helping to alleviate them. In discussions with water 

officials and investigators of the region, the author 

asked what they felt were their major water-related 

problems. Table 4 summarizes their replies and also 
GREAT LAKES REGION J13 

EXPLANATION 

Typical yields from 6-inch 

PENNSYLVANIA 0 

I 1

1 

I 

0 

After Waller and Allen (1975) 

50 MILES 

I', 1

1 I I 

40 80 KILOMETERS 

FIGURE 9.-Availability of ground water in unconsolidated deposits in the United States part of the 

Lake Ontario basin. 

summarizes problems identified in reports prepared 

by various water-resource agencies. The concerns 

most frequently mentioned relate to management, 

lack of data, water quality, waste disposal, and water 

supply. Other, in general lesser concerns include 

flooding, erosion, wetlands, and low streamflow. 

Management and lack of data are covered under 

separate major headings, "Managing ground-water 

resources" and "Future Considerations," respectively. All the other concerns are discussed in the 

sections that immediately follow. 

WATER QUALITY 

NATURAL QUALITY 

Natural quality of ground water in the Great 

Lakes Region is variable, though generally acceptable for most uses. Ground water is hard (more than 

120 mg/L) (milligrams per liter) in most of the 

region, and iron concentrations greater than 0.3 

mg /L are common, particularly in water from the 

sandstone aquifer in Wisconsin and Illinois and from 

the glacial deposits. High sulfate concentrations 

(more than 100 mg/L) are found in water from 

some of the unconsolidated aquifers, particularly in 

New York, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, and in 

water from Silurian and older bedrock aquifers 

throughout the region. In general, the water becomes 

more highly mineralized with depth. 

Because ground-water discharge maintains dryweather flow in the streams and helps to maintain 

the levels of most lakes and ponds, the chemical 

quality of these surface bodies of water during dry 

weather reflects the quality of water in adjacent 

shallow aquifers. During periods of high flow and 

in areas affected by pumping, water may move from 

the streams into the adjacent aquifers. 

Ground water usually has a more constant quali,ty 

than does surface water. During periods of low 

streamflow, when the quality of surface water may 
J14 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

TABLE 4.-Water-related concerns 

Waste dU;posal 

Agency or investigator Landfills 

. Lack of Low Erosion FJoodmg data st~~~m- Manage- Recrea- ment tion Deep 

well 

Illinois 

Illinois Water Survey _______________________________________________ . 

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission ----------------------------- Metropo~itan Sanitary District, Chicago ---------------------------------

X 

X 

X 

X 

Indiana 

U.S. Geological Survey _________________________________________________ _ 

Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission -------------------

1\iichiana Area Council of Governments ---------------------------------

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Michigan 

U.S. Geological Survey ________________________________________________ _ 

Michigan Geological Survey ______________________________ ---------- __ _ Soil Conservation Service _____________________________________________ _ 

Michigan Department of Natm·al Resources ___________________________ _ 

Michigan Bureau of Water Management --------------------------------- Dr. C. R. Humphreys (Mich. State Univ.) -------------------------------

X X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X X 

X 

X 

X 

Minnesota 

U.S. Geological Survey _______________________________________________ _ 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ----------------------------- Arvowhead R~gional Development Commission ---------------------------

X 

X 

X X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

New York 

U.S. Geological Survey _____________________ --- __ -- ____________ ------- _ 

New York State Geological Survey ------------------------------------- New York State Department of Public Service ------------------------- New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ------------ Central New York Regional Planning and Development Board ----------

Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Board ------------------------- Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board -------------------

Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District ------------------------------------ Black River Basin Regional Water Resources Planning Board -----------

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Ohio 

U.S. Geological Survey __________________________ -----------------------

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency -------------------------------- Ohio Department of Natural Resources ---------------------------------- X X X X 

X 

X X 

x 

X 

X 

X 

Pennsylvania 

U.S. Geological Survey ______________ ---------- ____________ ------------- X X X X Erie County Department of Health __________________ ------- ___ ----- __ _ X 

Wisconsin 

U.S. Geological Survey ___ -------- _____________________________________ _ 

Wisconsin Geological Survey ----------------------- ____________ ---------

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ---------------------------- Dr. David Stevenson (Univ. of Wisconsin) ----------------------------- Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission --------------------

Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission ------------------------------- East-Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission ----------------- North-Central. Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission ----------------

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

.X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

:X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Entire Basin 

Great Lakes Basin Commission ----------------------------------------- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -----------------------

W. J. Drescher, U.S. Geological Survey ---------------------------------

not meet water-quality standards, it may be feasible 

to utilize ground water to improve the quality of 

the streams. (See section on "Low Flow.") Ground 

water also can be used to improve water quality 

in small ponds. (See section on "Wetlands and 

Lakes.") 

MINERALIZED GROUND WATER 

The term "mineralized water" means different 

things to different people. This report follows the 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X X 

X 

X X 

X 

X X 

x 

X 

X 

classification of Krieger, Hatchett, and Poole (1957, 

p. 5): Dissolved 

soli<1r> Terminology (mg/L) 

Slightly saline -------------------------- 1,000-3,000 

Moderately saline ----------------------- 3,000-10,000 

Very saline ----------------------------- 10,000-35,000 

Brine (sea water) ---------------------- More than 35,000 

The U.S. Public Health Service (1962) recommends 

that water containing more than 1,000 mg/L of 

dissolved solids not be used for interstate commerce. 
of the Great Lakes Region 

Waste disposal-Continued 

Spreading Effluents ~=~~i~ Hardness 

X 

X 

X 

X 

1 Mining. 

2 Power. 

X 

X 

X 

x 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Iron 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

GREAT LAKES REGION 

Water quality 

Salinity Sulfate Industrial Road operations deicing 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Illinois-Continued 

Indiana-Continued 

X 

Michigan-Continued 

Minnesota-Continued 

(1) 

New York-Continued 

X 

X 

x 

X 

Ohio-Continued 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Pennsylvania-Continued 

X 

Wisconsin-Continued 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Entire Basin-Continued 

X X X 

Water supply 

Domestic Industrial Irrigation Municipal 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

J15 

Wetlands 

X 

X 

x 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

x 

However, people can become accustomed to water ] 

with a higher dissolved-solids concentration, and 

water containing as much as 3,000 mg/L can be 

used for a domestic supply, where less mineralized 

water is not available. 

at shallow depths is due to natural migration upward and outward from deeper bedrock formations 

and to leakage through uncased or improperly constructed wells. 

Slightly saline water occurs at depths less than 

500 ft below land surface throughout much of the 

region (fig. 10). In parts of eastern Michigan and 

Pennsylvania, saline water is at depths less than 

100 ft below land surface. Most mineralized water 

Mineralized ground water is generally considered 

a nuisance in most of the Great Lakes Region. However, it does have considerable economic potential. 

In areas where supplies of potable ground water are 

scant, such as in parts of eastern Michigan and 

central New York, mineralized ground water is a 
·. 

;··~ .. 

sao~ goo _tV ~soo I 

( ?1 )./'1·(~5' c:--v· "i.f'd '· 

v-~ (..> 

EXPLANATION 

Depth, in feet below land 

surface, to shallowest zone 

containing mineralized water 

L=:J No data 

1:::::::~ Less than 500 feet 

L\J/] 500 to 1000 feet 

~ More than 1000 feet 

---··-- Basin boundary 

.. ~ . --. r-n..·v"'V1Joo 

1..; "d """"-? 0 20 40 60 BO 100 MILES 

I I I I 1

1 I', I I 

40 80 120 160KILOMETERS 

WISCONSIN -aiiNols ----

ILLINOIS 

J, 

Base from Great Lakes Basin Commission i 1

1

i 

.,~ 

ONTARIO 

INDIANA 

\. 

~-· 

\ 45° 

~--~··1_......·· 

From Feth and others ( 1965) 

FIGURE 10.-Areas where dissolved-solids concentration of ground water exceeds 1,000 mg/L. 

~ 

....... 

~ 

rn 

~ 

~ 

~ 

> 

~ 

~ 

> 

~ 

~ 

~ 

> 1--1 

rn 

> t"" 

rn 

0 

~ 

1-3 

l:I:: 

tr:1 

z 

> 

1-3 

1--1 

0 

z 

rJ5. 

0 

~ 

0 

~ 

z 

Cj 

~ 

> 1-3 

M 

~ 

~ 

M 

rn 

0 

~ 

~ 

0 

M 

rn 
GREAT LAKES REGION J17 

potential source of water supply. Advances in desalination processes are making saline water economically competitive with other alternatives, such 

as reservoirs and pipelines. Industry can use mineralized water for cooling and for processing, where 

the water does not become part of the finished 

product. 

A concept that is attracting increasing interest is 

the use of saline aquifers to store freshwater or 

natural gas. Kimbler, Kazmann, and Whitehead 

(1975), working with hydrologic models (physical 

and mathematical) of unconsolidated aquifers, found 

that a zone of stagnation can be created within a 

saline aquifer to reduce mixing of injected fresh and 

host saline waters. They report that the percentage 

of the freshwater recovered uncontaminated with 

saline water improves with each cycle of injection 

and recovery. Storing freshwater in a saline aquifer 

would be particularly attractive in heavily populated areas, where all feasible surface reservoir sites 

have been developed or where land is too expensive 

for surface reservoirs. 

Because most investigations so far have been confined to aquifers having intergranular permeability 

and porosity, storage of freshwater in a saline 

aquifer may have only slight application in the 

Great Lakes Region, where most saline aquifers are 

in fractured bedrock. Additional studies, however, 

may show that the principles described by Kimbler, 

Kazmann, and Whitehead (1975, p. 73-74) can be 

modified to apply to these aquifers. 

Saline aquifers are also used for disposal of liquid 

wastes. Caution is necessary, however, for much 

still needs to be learned about the processes and 

risks involved. Disposal of liquid wastes is discussed 

in more detail in the next section. 

POLLUTION 

Ground water can become pollu'ted in many ways. 

Some pollution is related to develop·ment of the resource, as when heavy pumping induces flow into 

an aquifer from an adjacent saline water aquifer; 

some is related to waste disposal, as when leachate 

enters an aquifer from a landfill; and some is related to other activities of man, such as oil and gas 

production. The major sources of ground-water pollution in the Great Lakes Region are listed in table 

5. 

Waste disposal and the effects it may have on 

water quality is a major concern in the region. 

Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972, the States are mandated to 

eliminate stream pollution. Implementation of this 

TABLE 5.-Major sources of g1·ound-water pollution in the 

Great Lakes Region 

Source of pollution Primary pollutants 

Waste disposal 

Septic tanks and cesspools 

Landfills and dumps --------

Spreading of water-treatment and waste-treatment effluents. 

Holding ponds --------------

Disposal wells ---------------

Bacteria, nitrate, detergent, 

chloride. Heavy metals, PCB's (polychlorinated 

biphenyls), chloride, phenols, nutrients. Chloride, nutrients, heavy metals. 

Variety of industrial wastes such as phenols, PCB's, heavy metals. Radioactive wastes, industrial chemicals. 

Industrial operations 

Oil and gas recovery --------

Salt mining ----------------- Accidental spills, leakage ___ _ 

Road deicing ----------------

Chloride, petroleum products. Chloride. 

Petroleum products, industrial chemicals. Chloride. 

Agricultural activities 

Feedlots -------------------- Use of fertilizers ----------- Use of pesticides ------------

Bacteria, nutrients. Nutrients. 

Various hydrocarbon compounds. 

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

Management problems 

Overdevelopment of aquifer__ Chloride. Abandoned wells. leaky cas- Chloride, nitrate. ings, improperly cased wells. 

law could place additional stress on the groundwater system through an increase in use of landfills and deep disposal wells and through the surface 

spreading of liquid-waste effluents. 

SEPTIC TANKS 

The most widespread means of waste disposal in 

the region is through septic tanks. Unfortunately, 

soils in much of the region are not suitable for this 

type of disposal. Septic tanks do not function well 

where the water table is near land surface, where 

the soil is clayey, or where the soil cover is thin. 

These conditions, singly or in combination, are common throughout much of the Great Lakes Region. 

Numerous septic tanks clustered together under 

these conditions, as in summer-home developments, 

can cause pollution. 

Vogt (1972) and Pettyjohn (1972) describe two 

areas where ground water has become polluted from 

septic-tank wastes. In both areas only a few feet of 

soil overlies a highly permeable limestone, which is 

the source of household water for the areas. At 

Posen, Mich. (Vogt, 1972), septic-tank effluent carrying hepatitis virus was discharged into the soil 

zone. Percolating water from melting snow and 

spring rains carried the effluent and virus into the 

ground-water reservoir, spreading the virus. to nearby wells and causing an epidemic of infectious 

hepatitis. 

Residents of Bellevue, in north-central Ohio, used 

septic tanks that discharged into a thin soil zone 
J18 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

overlying a very permeable limestone aquifer. They 

also drilled waste-disposal wells into the limestone 

(Pettyjohn, 1972). The result was a plume of polluted ground water extending 15 mi to Lake Erie 

through a highly productive aquifer (well yields 

greater than 500 gal/min) . 

Wisconsin's Door Peninsula is another area where 

pollution of ground water is widespread owing to 

the disposal of septic-tank effluent and agricultural, 

industrial, and municipal wastes into a thin soil 

zone (Sherrill, 1975). The wastes percolate through 

the soil, enter a cavernous limestone aquifer, and 

then spread rapidly through the aquifer. Thus, the 

shallow ground water is polluted, and the State now 

requires at least 100 ft of casing in new wells. This 

pollution could increase and spread laterally and 

vertically unless other means of waste disposal are 

used. 

Increased eutrophication of many lakes in the 

region is, in part, a result of ground-water pollution 

from septic wastes. Nutrients in septic-tank effluents 

are transported by ground water and discharged 

into lakes. Conditions conductive to eutrophication 

are particularly prevalent in lakes of northern Wisconsin and northern Michigan, where lake shores 

are occupied by year-round communities and subdivisions. 

LANDFILLS 

Although not as numerous or widespread as septic 

tanks, landfills are another potential source of 

ground-water pollution. For example, three landfills 

in northern Ohio have polluted a shallow aquifer, 

which is the source of water for nearby residents 

(David J ohe, Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency, oral commun., 1975). Johe reports that two 

of the landfills have been dosed but that polluted 

water will continue to enter the aquifer for years, 

and new sources of household water will have to be 

found. Because ground water moves so slowly and 

diffusion rates are so low, polluted ground water 

may not be noticed for many years. Other landfills 

in the Great Lakes Re,gion are probably polluting 

ground-water bodies. 

A waste-disposal site is usually considered suitable 

if the surface will remain unsaturated. In humid 

areas, such as the Great Lakes Region, sites where 

excavation will not intersect the zone of saturation 

are difficult to find. For this reason, many ·landfills 

are located in materials of low permeability, such as 

till. Generally, test drilling is necessary to identify 

the materials at the potential landfill site, which can 

be expensive. For preliminary evaluation of a site, 

data from nearby water wells ·can be used to estimate the characteristics of the subsurface materials 

and the depth to water. 

WASTEWATER EFFLUENTS 

Disposal of effluents from water-treatment and 

sewage-treatment plants is of increasing concern as 

more wastes are generated. Statutes restrict the discharge of effluent to streams. Early results from an 

effluent-disposal project near Muskegon, Mich., indicate that spray-irrigation of liquid wastes may be 

practical. Effluent from Muskegon and from a nearby 

paper company are being used to spray irrigate 

about 6,000 acres of principally very sandy soil. 

Irrigation water that percolates through the upper 

few feet of soil is collected in perforated tile drains 

and discharged into nearby streams. Thus far the 

return wate·r has been of acceptable quality. If return water of good quality can be maintained, spray 

irrigation may not only provide a means of waste 

disposal but also may become a source of recharge 

to the local aquifer. 

DEEP-WELL DISPOSAL 

Deep-well disposal of liquid wastes, although not 

new, has received increasing interest in recent years 

(Cook, 1972; Braunstein, 1973). This approach has 

an out-of-sight, out-of-mind appeal and is sometimes 

the easiest method of disposal, but it may be impractical or unwise in many areas. The effects of injecting wastes into deep aquifers are complex and 

varied. Injection is not a means of permanent disposal but, rather, a means of storage (Piper, 1969, 

p. 6), and the wastes could become a problem in the 

future. Most of the wastes are injected into aquifers 

containing highly saline water. Although the saline 

water has no use at present, it may be of beneficial 

use in the future. 

The Great Lakes Basin Com1nission reports 86 

waste-disposal wells in the region (Eugene A. 

Jarecki, oral commun., 1975). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 197 4) published records 

of 33 operating wells and 19 inactive wells in the 

region in 1973. Of those in use, 21 are in Michigan, 

8 in northwestern Indiana, 3 in northwestern Ohio, 

and 1 in New York. One well in Michigan injects 

wastes into Mississippian sandstone at a depth of 

1,030 ft. The Cambrian Mount Simon Sandstone receives wastes from 3 wells in Michigan, 3 in Ohio, 

and 6 in Indiana. Well depths range from 2,160 ft 

in Indiana to 4,608 ft in Michigan. The rest of the 
GREAT LAKES REGION J19 

wells inject waste, into Devonian limestone, dolomite, 

and sandstone. Well depths range from 255 ft in 

Indiana to 4,986 ft in Michigan. Most of the wastes 

are from steel mills (spent pickling liquor), chemical and drug manufacturing, and brine processing 

but also include wastes from oil refining and from a 

laundromat. Rates of injection range from about 1 

gal/min to 556 gal/min. 

Because of the wide variation in geologic and hydrologic settings and in the volume and nature of 

wastes, adoption of uniform nationwide standards 

and criteria for deep-well disposal is not fully practical. At present ( 1976), Minnesota and Wisconsin 

do not allow deep-well disposal of liquid wastes. 

Where such disposal is considered in the other State's 

in the Great Lakes Region, careful studies help to 

determine the physical and chemical nature of the 

wastes, compatibility of the wastes with fluids in 

the injection zone, and possible reactions between 

the wastes and the rock materials constituting the 

aquifers. Stringent well-construction standards and 

careful monitoring of the injection process would 

help to protect potable ground-water. 

OTHER SOURCES OF POLL UTI ON 

In addition to waste disposal, other activities 

cause ground-water pollution in the region. Improperly cased wells, improperly plugged abandoned 

wells, or unplugged abandoned wells with deteriorated casings have allowed water of poor quality 

to move into aquifers that contained good water. 

Accidental spills, leaky storage tanks, and broken 

pipelines have allowed petroleum products to contaminate ground water. The effects of these and 

similar activities are usually local, but they are very 

long lasting. 

One widespread source of ground-water pollution 

that is increasingly recognized is the salt used in 

deicing roads. The salt not only imparts a bitter 

taste to the water but also may be hazardous to 

persons on a low-sodium diet. 

WATER SUPPLY 

Considering the amount·of water available in the 

Great Lakes Region, the idea of water-supply problems may seem anomalous. Nevertheless, the problems are real. Although many supply problems relate to water quality, as previously discussed, some 

areas face a potential shortage of water. In other 

areas, water-supply problems are the result of local 

overdevelopment. 

The water-supply situation in the Great Lakes 

Region is summarized in the following table (Great 

Lakes Basin Commission, 1975b, p. 30) : 

Public supply: 

Use ________ ----- _______ _ 

1970 capacity/2020 needs ___ _ 

Industrial supply: 

Use---------------------

1970 capacity/20,2;0 needs ___ _ 

Rural supply: 

Use ___ ------·------------

1970 capacity/2020 needs ___ _ 

1970 (Mgal/d) 

4,400 

7,400 

1 10,600 

10,600 

470 

470 

1 Does not include thermoelectric power use. 

2020 (Mgaljd) 

9,200 

1,800 

12,800 

2,200 

740 

270 

The entry "1970 capacity" is the developed capacity 

to supply water as of 1970. The entry "2020 needs" 

refers to the additional capacity that must be developed to meet the demands anticipated by the 

year 2020. This capacity could involve developing 

additional water supplies, increasing the capacity of 

water-treatment plants, installing new distribution 

lines, or other similar measures. 

Many people are aware of some of the advantages 

and disadvantages of ground water as a source of 

supply because many of them obtain water from 

their own wells or from municipally owned wells. 

Nevertheless, a brief discussion seems indicated. 

Ground water generally costs less to develop than 

an equal amount of surface water. Howard (1974) 

reported that costs for developing a ground-water 

supply range from $100 to $300 per gallon per 

minute, whereas the costs for developing a surfacewater supply ranges from $1,100 to $1,500 per 

gallon per minute. A ground-water supply can be 

developed gradually as demand warrants, whereas 

an intake structure or reservoir for a surface-water 

supply must be designed and constructed to meet 

not only present demands but also anticipated future 

demands. Prope,rly managed, a ground-water supply 

does not lose its capacity or deteriorate, nor does it 

require a large land area. A surface-water reservoir, 

on the other hand, is subject to loss of capacity from 

siltation, eutrophication, pollution from water-based 

recreation, and deterioration of the physical facilities. 

Ground water usually has a narrow temperature 

range, little or no sediment or turbidity, is relatively 

free from nuclear fallout, and usually is not polluted 

by bacteria or viruses. (A study of public water 

supplies in New York has shown that ground water 

there is free from organic pollution (U.S. Geol. 
J20 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

Survey, 197 4). There were no traces of PCB's, pesticides, or organic mercury in any samples of 

ground-water supplies.) In addition, ground-water 

loss through evaporation is minimal, and ground 

water is widely available throughout the region, at 

least in moderate quantities. 

On the other hand, ground water is generally more 

mineralized than surface water and, once polluted, 

is very difficult, if not economically impossible, to 

clean up. Where a ground-water source is heavily 

developed, water levels are lowered in nearby wells, 

pumping costs are increased, and streamflow may be 

decreased as a result of induced flow into the 

ground-water system. If water of poor quality is 

present in an adjacent aquifer, heavy pumping may 

induce this water to flow into the developed aquifer. 

In parts of the Great Lakes Region, available quantitie~s of ground water are insufficient to support 

large-scale developme:ry.t. 

PUBLIC SUPPLIES 

Most large metropolitan areas in the Great Lakes 

region obtain water from surface reservoirs, 

streams, or one of the Great Lakes. Smaller communities generally obtain their supply from ground 

water. In general, in spite of local problems, ample 

water is available to meet current municipal demands. 

Water for public supplies in 1970 was withdrawn 

at a rate of about 4,400 Mgal/ d (Great Lakes Basin 

Commission, 1975b, p. 30), of which 3,400 Mgal/d, 

or 77 percent, came from the Great Lakes; 390 

Mgal/ d, or 9 percent, from inland lakes and streams; 

and 560 Mgal/ d, or 13 percent, from ground-water 

bodies. Developed water-supply capacity was 7,400 

Mgal/d. The Great Lakes Basin Commission estimates that by the year 2020 nearly 9,200 Mgal/d 

will be needed to meet public-supply demands-an 

increase of 1,800 Mgal/ d over present developed 

capacity. 

The city of Chicago obtains most of its water from 

Lake Michigan. Many of the surrounding communities and industries, however, obtain water from 

deep bedrock aquifers. This deep aquifer system is 

fairly uniform throughout the area, and well yields 

and water quality are predictable. Pumping has 

lowered water levels several hundred feet at major 

pumping centers. Pumping has been heavy also in 

the Milwaukee area, and the drawdown cones of the 

Chicago and Milwaukee areas have begun to overlap. Further development of the deep aquifer system 

would probably accelerate the decline in water levels 

and may induce water of poor quality to move updip 

into the area from the east. 

Less is known about the hydrology of the shallow 

aquifers in the Chicago area because they have not 

been developed as much as the deep aquifers. Increased development of the shallow aquifers could 

relieve some of the stress on the deep aquifer system. 

Digital models of the aquifer systems have been 

made by the Illinois Water Survey for the Chicago 

area and by the U.S. Geological Survey for the Milwaukee area. These models will enable planners to 

manage the development and use of the aquifers 

more effectively. 

Prior to 1957, the city of Green Bay, along with 

neighboring communities and industries, obtained 

its water supply from a sandstone aquifer. By 1957 

the water level in wells. tapping the aquifer had 

declined more than 200 ft in downtown Green Bay 

(Knowles, 1964), and the city had to seek another 

source of supply. Other sources in the immediate 

area-Green Bay, Fox River, and Lake Winnebago 

-are polluted. Thus, the city turned to Lake Michigan for its supply and since 1957 has obtained water 

from the Lake by pipeline across the Door Peninsula. 

When Green Bay discontinued pumping from the 

sandstone aquifer, water levels recovered rapidly. 

However, subsequent development of the aquifer 

has caused the water levels to decline severely again. 

Although the sandstone aquifer is heavily used, 

it has potential for additional development, but careful planning would be necessary to prevent interference between wells and consequent local depletion 

of supplies. Local officials are concerned that concentrated heavy pumping will cause water of poor 

quality from the south to move into the aquifer. 

As glaciers moved across the Great Lakes Region, 

many valleys were filled with debris. These buried 

valleys that contain extensive deposits of saturated 

sand and gravel are a potential source of publicwater supply. 

Fort Wayne, Ind., obtains its water supply from 

the St. Joseph River. The U.S. Geological Survey, 

in cooperation with the Indiana Department of 

Natural Resources and the city of Fort Wayne, is 

making a study of the availability of ground water 

for future supply. Preliminary results indicate that 

a buried valley to the northwest may be able to 

supply sufficient water to the city for many years. 

Buried valleys are also potential sources of water 

for communities in the Erie, Pa., area and parts of 

northeastern Ohio. These valleys have not been 

systematically studied, so little is known about their 

hydrologic charaoter. The U.S. Geological Survey, in 
GREAT LAKES REGION J21 

cooperation with the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, is starting a study of Erie County that will include investigation of the ,ground-water potential of 

some of these valleys. 

For cities near one of the Great Lakes, the conjunctive use of ground water and surface water may 

have advantages. Ground water could be used during 

summer and fall, when it is cooler than lake water. 

The lake water could be used during winter and 

spring while the aquifers are recharged. Mixing 

water from both sources could reduce treatment 

costs. Alternatively, areas near the lake could be 

supplied with lake water while inland areas are 

supplied with ground water. This could reduce 

pumping and transmission costs. 

INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES 

The Great Lakes Region is heavily industrialized, 

and industrialization is expected to increase during 

the next few decades. In addition to manufacturing, 

other large industrial uses of water include power 

generation, sand and gravel production, and ore 

processing. Self-supplied industrial use of water in 

1970 was 10,600 Mgal/d. This is expected to increase 

to nearly 12,800 Mgal/d by the year 2020 (Great 

Lakes Basin Commission, 1975b, p. 30). 

Many industries in the region purchase water 

from municipalities; many others, however, provide their own supply. Industries tend to cluster 

together, usually in or near large cities. Their closeness can lead to overdevelopment of the water 

sources and to deterioration of water quality. 

Nearly everywhere that municipalities in the region 

are faced with a water-supply problem, industries 

also have a problem. 

Although outside the Great Lakes Region, the Mill 

Creek valley in southwestern Ohio is a good example 

of what industries can do by cooperating in developing their water supplies. The Mill Creek valley is 

part of the greater Cincinnati industrial area. Industrial development started in the late 1800's and 

increased steadily, with both World Wars providing 

impetus for rapid growth. Ground-water withdrawals rose comparably, and, by the late 1940's, 

water levels were extremely low and well yiel~s 

sharply reduced. In an effort to improve the situation, 11 industries formed the Southwestern Ohio 

Water Company. They developed a ground-water 

system in an adjacent valley and piped the water 

into their industrial complex. As a result, withdrawals from the aquifer in Mill Creek valley declined, and water levels and yields recovered. However, increased industrial development brought the 

threat of further problems, and the water users 

requested a study of the feasibility of artificial recharge to the aquifer. This study (Fidler, 1970), 

made in cooperation with the Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Water, concluded 

that artificial recharge through injection wells 

would reverse the declining water levels. 

Formation of a cooperative to import water may 

not be feasible everywhere in the Great Lakes 

Region. Nevertheless, it shows what cooperation and 

ingenuity can do to meet a water-supply problem. 

IRRIGATION 

Irrigation of crops does not yet play a major 

role in the Great Lakes Region. Out of a total of 

11,972,000 potentially irrigable acres, 196,800 acres 

were irrigated in 1968 (Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1975c, p. 8-9). More than half the irrigation 

is in Michigan. Irrigated acreage is estimated to increase to more than 520,000 acres by 2020. Agricultural irrigation in the region required 106,700 acreft in 1968 and probably will require more than 480,-

000 acre-ft in 2020. Similar amounts were used and 

will be used to irrigate golf courses. 

In recent years, agriculture has depended on improved hybrid crops and fertilizers to increase production. A plateau may have been reached in their 

effectiveness, however, and farmers may be turning 

more to irrigation to ensure high productivity. If 

so, demand for water will increase. 

Even in the humid climate of the Great Lakes 

Region, soil moisture can limit crop growth. Studies 

of the relation of evapotranspiration to climate show 

that yield-depressing droughts are common, even 

though average precipitation during the growing 

~eason may exceed the amount needed by the crop 

(Richards and Richards, 1957, p. 49). 

A steady, dependable source of good-quality water 

is needed for irrigation, which means that most of 

the increased demand will be supplied by ground 

water. This water may come directly from wells, 

from ponds excavated into the water table, or by 

pumping from wells into a holding pond and then 

distributing the wate·r as needed. This last method 

will permit irrigation in areas where high yielding 

wells are not feasible. 

LOW FLOW 

Low flow (dry-weather flow or base flow) in 

streams consists of ground-water discharge into the 

streams. In the Great Lakes Region, low flows are 

greatest per unit area in streams that drain highly 
J22 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

U.l 

_, 

permeable aquifers. In streams that drain poorly 

permeable aquifers, flow will decrease fairly rapidly 

after rains and may even cease altogether between 

rains. Flow-duration curves for two streams in 

Ohio are shown in figure 11. The data were adjusted 

to the 1931-60 period (Cross, 1968). Curve A is for 

the Ottawa River at Allentown, Ohio. The river 

drains an area of fairly coarse-grained glacial materials that readily yield ground water to maintain 

streamflow. The stream also receives discharge from 

the underlying carbonate-rock aquifer. Curve B is 

for the Ashtabula River near Ashtabula, Ohio. The 

river drains fine-grained glacial and lake deposits, 

which do not yield much ground water to maintain 

streamflow. Using figure 11, one can calculate that, 

at the 95 percentile, the Ottawa River will have a 

flow of 11 ft 3 /s, whereas the Ashtabula will have a 

flow of 0.1 ft 3 /s. 

0.01 0.2 1 2 5 10 20 40 60 80 90 95 99 5 99.99 

10.0 

'_\ 

\ 

\ \ 

\ \ :::E 1.0 f\1\ U.l 

a:: 

cc 

:=J 

0 

en 

a:: 

U.l 

11. 

c 

z: 

0 

(.) 

U.l 

en 

~ 0.1 11. 

1-

U.I 

U.l 

LL 

(.) 

m 

:=J 

(.) 

!: 

~0.01 a:: 

cc 

~ 

(.) 

en 

;; 

\ 

\ 

~ 

!\ ' 

\.,\ 

~ 

~ 1'-. A 

1\ 

\ 

~8 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

1\ 

\ 

0•

001 0.1 0.5 30 50 70 99 99.9 

PERCENTAGE OF TIME DISCH~RGE WAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED 

A- Ottawa liver at Allentown, Ohio. Drainage area 16U mi 2 

8- Ashtubula River near Ashtubula, Ohio. Drainage area 121 mi

2 

FIGURE H.-Flow-duration curves for two streams in Ohio, 

1931-60. 

Augmentation of low flow has been considered for 

some streams, usually to maintain the quality of 

the water. Implementation of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 should 

lessen the need for augmentation to control water 

quality. However, nonpoint sources of pollution will 

continue to affect the quality of many streams. Other 

reasons for low-flow augmentation include ~aintaining streamflow as a source of water for industries and municipalitie~s, maintaining fish and wildlife habitats, and recreation. 

Many of the small communities along the Great 

Lakes obtain their water supply from small streams 

that drain directly into the Lakes. During dry 

periods, flow in many of these streams is insufficient 

to meet needs of the communities. Even on larger 

streams, a combination of low flo·.v and heavy development can cause water shortages. In addition to 

maintaining sufficient flow to avoid damage to fish 

and wildlife habitats, low-flow augmentation can be 

used to improve water-quality (te,mperature, dis--

solved oxygen) conditions in trout streams (Novitski, 1973). 

Most low-flow augmentation is done with water 

from reservoirs. In some areas, ground water is an 

alternative source. Where the aquifer is separated 

from a stream by a less permeable zone, pumping 

ground water into a s.tream for flow augmentation 

may be especially practical. Even where the aquifer 

is in good hydraulic connection with the stream, 

proper well location can prevent adverse effects of 

pumping on streamflow during the critical low-flow 

period. Most periods of critical low flow, when augmentation would be needed, last only a few days. 

By locating the well (s) several hundred to a few 

thousand feet (depending on hydrologic character 

of the aquifer) from the stream, the effects of 

diverting ground-water flow will not reach the 

stream until the critical period is over. By then, 

pumping will have stopped, and the water table can 

recover. 

WETLANDS AND LAKES 

The relationship between ground water and wetlands is frequently misunderstood. Many people 

think of wetlands as areas of ground-water recharge, whereas most wetlands are maintained because they are areas of ground-water discharge. 

Similarly, ground-water discharge maintains the 

water level in most of the smaller lakes and ponds 

in the region. Permanently draining a wetland, pond, 

or lake would decrease the availability of ground 
GREAT LAKES REGION J23 

water in the area because it would lower the water 

table. 

Wetlands, lakes, and ponds do recharge aquifers 

during floods, when the water level in the wetlands 

and lakes is higher than in adjacent aquifers. However, the recharged water generally quickly dissipates once flood levels recede, as water flows from 

the aquifers back into the wetlands and lakes. This 

same process along streams is termed "bank storage." 

In some places, ground water can be used to maintain the water level artificially in a wetlands or a 

small lake or to create a new wetlands or lake. If 

the aquifer is not hydraulically connected with the 

lake or wetlands, water could be pumped from the 

aquifer to maintain levels (fig. 12A). However, if 

the aquifer is hydraulically connected with the lake 

(fig. 12B), pumping from a well near the lake could 

cycle the water from the lake to the aquifer and 

back to the lake. 

During recent years, the Detroit municipal water 

system, which obtains water from Lake Huron, has 

enlarged its service area to include about 2,000 mi 2 

in southeastern Michigan, including Pontiac and 

Flint. Much of this area formerly used ground-water 

supplies but switched to the1 Detroit system as water 

levels declined and pumping costs increased. Groundwater levels have now recovered, and, in some areas, 

wells are flowing. This ground water could be diverted or pumped to create recreational ponds or 

lakes. 

Water quality is becon1ing a problem in many 

lakes in the region, particularly because of high 

nutrient concentration. Ground water, particularly 

that from deep aquifers, generally contains a much 

smaller nutrient load than surface water. It may be 

feasible to remove much of the nutrients in .small, 

highly eutrophic lakes by draining and refilling the 

lakes, either by natural ground-water discharge or 

by pumping from a deep aquifer. Born and others 

(1973) described an attempt t,o rehabilitate Snake 

Lake, in northern Wisconsin. The lake, which covers 

12.3 acres, had received direct discharge of municipal 

waste for more than 20 years, destroying the lake's 

recreational and esthetic value. The lake was drained. 

and then allowed to refill from natural ground-water 

discharge and from precipitation. Although dissolved-oxygen-depletion problems continued, there 

was a substantial initial reduction in nutrient concentrations, as well as a reduction in chloride concentration, conductance, and water color. The .subsequent return of these constituents to near predraining levels is attributed to their release from 

bottom sediments. If the nutrient-rich bottom sediments had been leached or removed before the lake 

was refilled, the reduction in nutrients, chloride, and 

other mineral concentrations, would probably have 

been permanent. Other beneficial e,ffects were the 

elimination of a heavy growth of duckweed and a 

deepening of part of the littoral zone through sediment compaction. 

EROSION 

The role of ground water in shoreline erosion is 

. not generally recognized. The action of ground water 

may not be as spectacular as that of a stream cutting into its banks or waves beating on a cliff. 

Nevertheless, ground water can erode. Where the 

water table in a bluff is above the level of the lake 

or stream, perhaps a perched water table held up 

by a clay layer in unconsolidated deposits, the water 

loosens the deposits, allowing them to slump down 

to the shore and be carried away by wave action. 

Even a small trickle of water seeping out of a hillside can gradually wash away the deposits over 

which it flows (fig. 13). 

In some areas this erosion may be reduced or 

stopped by dewatering the bluff along the shore. 

Depending on local conditions, this might be done 

by several large capacity wells or by a line of dr.ivepoint wells. The pumped water could be used for 

local public-supply, industrial, or irrigation needs. 

FLOODING 

The ground-water system can be used to alleviate 

flooding. Where conditions permit, flood peaks could 

be reduced by diverting some or all the flow into 

recharge areas, .such as abandoned sand and gravel 

pits or specially prepared areas. Waller and Ayer 

(1975, p. 163-164) have suggested that floodflows 

in the Black River basin in western New York be 

diverted into ditches running across the top of sand 

deltas at the base of the Adirondacks. The water 

would either recharge the aquifers or go into temporary storage that would later supply baseflow to the 

numerous streams that rise in the deltas. 

lVIANAGING GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

Effective and efficient management of groundwater resources requires a knowledge of groundwater hydrology and the local hydrologic system 

and cooperation of all involved in water use. It includes planning the development of the resource, 

managing withdrawals, monitoring the results of 

development, and modifying pumping schedules and 
J24 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

Pumping well 

--.water:-

LAKE 

A 

Pumping well 

LAKE 

AQUIFER 

8 

FIGURE 12.-Feasible (A) and infeasible (B) conditions for pumping ground water to maintain lake levels. 
GREAT LAKES REGION J25 

FIGURE 13.-Erosion from ground-water discharge 

along Lake Michigan in Indiana. 

additional development on the basis of past experience and analytical studies. Ground-water management combined with surface-water management enables the two sources to be treated as a single 

resource. 

The discussions in the preceding sections of this 

paper indicate the probability of water-related problems even in an area of abundant water such as the 

Great Lakes Region. Recognizing the need for a reference on management principles, the American Society of Civil Engineers has published a manual on 

ground-water management (Coe and others, 1972). 

The manual discusses in detail the concepts that are 

only briefly mentioned here and contains an extensive bibliography of pertinent reports. 

COORDINATING DEVELOPMENT 

The first step in managing ground-water resources 

is to coordinate the development of supplies by 

using knowledge of the hydrologic system. This requires a good data base, including information on 

recharge rates, boundary conditions, water quality, 

and geology. A good development plan would have 

wells spaced to minimize boundary and well-interference effects without overly increasing the costs 

of transmission lines. It could also include conjunctive use of surface water, where feasible. For example, coordinated development in the area along 

the Mesabi Iron Range, particularly around Hibbing 

and Virginia, Minn., could be of great benefit to 

both municipal and industrial water users. The surface-water potential in the area is only fair, and 

ground water, which is used for most industrial and 

municipal supplies, may not be sufficient for future 

demands. 

Mining companies in the area have been using 

1,200 to 6,000 gal of water / ton of ore processed, 

mostly from surface sources. At the same time, much 

of the large quantities of ground water being pumped 

to dewater deep mines is discharged to nearby 

streams (Cotter and others, 1965; Winter, 1973). 

Through coordination, the pumped ground water 

could be made available to nearby municipalities or 

used for ore processing, leaving the surface water 

for municipal use. The suggestion has been made 

that it might be possible to pipe in water, either 

from Lake Superior or from a distant well field, to 

meet future needs. If all those who would benefit 

from such a plan would finance it jointly, the cost 

would be minimal for any single entity. 

Perhaps the most important factor in groundwater management is mutual planning and development by municipalities and industries. Several areas 

in the Great Lakes Region are faced with watersupply problems because cooperation and coordination has been inadequate. The Lansing, Mich., area 

is an example. 

The city of Lansing installed its first well in 1885 

in unconsolidated deposits along the Grand River. 

In 197 4, the city pumped 8,054 million gal from 

about 125 wells tapping both unconsolidated glacial 

deposits and the Saginaw Formation. Four other 

water-supply systems in the area pumped 4,438 million gal from about 50 wells (fig. 14). Additional 

quantities were pumped by several large industrial 

wells in the area. This heavy development of ground 

water has produced a cone of depression under at 

least 100 mi 2 of the Lansing area. Near the center 

of the cone, water levels have declined as much as 

160 ft (F. R. Twenter, written commun., 1976). 

As a result, many privately owned wells have gone 

dry. 

The principal aquifer underlying the Lansing area 

is the Pennsylvanian Saginaw Formation, but ·large 

supplies of water also can be obtained from the overlying Pennsylvanian Grand River Formation and 
J26 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

T 

5 

N 

T 

4 

N 

T 

3 

N 

R4W R3W R2W RlW 

EXPLANATION 

C)~ 4 

General area of heavy pumping 

Top number is number of wells; bottom 

number is average daily pumpage for 

1974. in millions of gallons 

0 

I 

2 3 4 5 MILES 

I 

0 4 8 KILOMETERS 

FIGURE 14.-Ground-water development in the Lansing, Mich., area. 

some of the glacial deposits. Vanlier and others 

( 1973) used an analog model to evaluate the hydrologic systems of the area. They discussed several 

different water-supply developments that included 

conjunctive use of ground water and surface water, 

increasing recharge to the aquifer, and additional 

development of the aquifer. They concluded that an 

intensive management program, with the cooperation of all the large water users in the area, would 

assure ample water to meet the needs of the area 

for many decades. 

Recharge to the aquifers is an important consideration of water management. It is not possible 

to pump water from an aquifer without decreasing 

natural discharge, increasing natural recharge, removing water from storage, or some combination of 

these. In general, ground-water development is designed to take advantage of opportunities to increase 

recharge. In many places, wells can be located so 

that pumping will induce recharge from a nearhy 

river. 

Artificial recharge through wells may not be economically feasible in most of the Great Lakes 

Region. Augmentation of natural recharge by water 

spreading or diverting flow into gravel pits would 

probably be more effective. 
GREAT LAKES REGION J27 

MONITORING THE USE OF GROUND WATER 

Managing ground-water resources does not end 

when the wells are put into service. Most groundwater development is planned using inadequate data. 

Although models of hydrologic systems are excellent 

tools for developing water resources, models are no 

better than the data used to construct them. Continued data collection during project operation, 

therefore, can be used for refining models. These 

data include, as a minimum, water-level nleasurements in observation wells and records of pumpage. 

If the aquifer is unconfined and is hydraulically connected to a river, flow upstream and downstream 

could be monitored. Predictions of well yields, waterlevel declines, and streamflow changes can be used 

to adjust pumping rates of wells and to locate additional wells for optimum development. 

Water samples collected periodically from the 

pumping wells can be analyzed for chemical and bacteriological quality. Protecting the quality of the 

ground water might also involve monitoring landuse changes. As pumping increases, changes in the 

flow pattern of ground water can be determined. 

Landfills, sewage lagoons, storage pits, and similar 

sites in areas that are contributing to the groundwater supply constitute potential sources of pollution. 

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 

All the States in the Great Lakes Region have 

comprehensive laws and regulations to control the 

development and to protect the quality of their surface-water bodies. However, they do not have similar 

comprehensive laws and regulations for groundwater bodies. 

Two common-law rules are applied to groundwater use in the Great Lakes Region: the rule of 

absolute ownership (English rule) and the rule of 

reasonable use (American rule). Under absolute 

ownership, the land owner can use all the ground 

water he can find; he is not liable, even if he drains 

his neighbor's supply. Only Wisconsin; among the 

Great Lakes States, follows this rule. The other 

States follow the reasonable-use rule, which allows · 

a landowner to withdraw ground water, even by 

inducing flow from neighboring land, as long as the 

use of the water is reasonable. Non exercise of the 

rights to use ground water does not result in forfeiture of those rights under either rule. 

The Great Lakes Basin Commission ( 1975e) has 

summarized the State laws regarding ground-water 

resources. Within the Great Lakes Region, all the 

States except Ohio and New York require waterwell drillers to obtain a license. The primary purpose of licensing are: (1) insures that the persons 

drilling a well are competent, (2) facilitates data 

collection, and (3) places control of drilling in a 

responsible agency. All the States except New York 

require that records be filed with the State on co,mpletion of a water well. 

Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin have established 

standards for methods of constructing water wells 

and the materials used. Indiana, Michigan, and New 

·York require a permit before a public-supply well 

can be installed. To protect ground-water resources 

from pollution or to protect scant supplies, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota can designate restrictive-use areas, specifying allowable pumping capacities under various geologic and hydrologic conditions. Wisconsin can do the same in areas where 

high-capacity wells (70 gal/min) can be developed. 

Michigan may spe.cify the volume of water that may 

be used or allowed to flow in areas where a nuisance 

occurs owing to waste or unreasonable use. Indiana 

and Minnesota have statutes to conserve artesian 

pressure. 

Illinois, Indiana, Minne,sota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania control drilling, where wells penetrate several 

aquifers, in order to prevent interchange of fluids 

between the aquifers. Michigan has similar controls 

that apply to oil, gas, and brine wells but not to 

wells for private water supply. All the States except 

New ¥ ork and Ohio require that abandoned wells 

and test holes be filled, capped, and (or) plugged, 

and New York and Ohio require these measures for 

oil and gas wells. 

Regulation of waste disposal is also important in 

protecting ground-water resources. All the States in 

the Great Lakes Region require a license to operate 

a solid-waste disposal site and have adopted regulations governing the location of such sites. Michigan, 

Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have regulations governing the size of lots in unsewered subdivisions. 

Indiana requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 ft2 

~ where 5 or more unsewered lots are developed along 

a public freshwater lake. 

The National Water Commission (1973, p. 61-63) 

recommended enactment of laws outlining the establishment of water-management agencies that would 

have the power to manage surface water and ground 

water conjunctively, coordinate withdrawals from 

either or both sources, control the rate of depletion 

in an aquifer, and use artificial recharge to replenish 

aquifers. The commission does not believe that Federal regulation of ground water is desirable, but 
J28 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

would let the States decide whether or not to regulate it. 

In the framework study, the Great Lakes Basin 

Commission ( 1975e, p. ix) recognized nine legislative controls of ground water. 

1. Regulation to control well spacing and withdrawal rates. 

2. Plugging, filling, and capping of abandoned 

wells. 

3. Determine rights of municipalities to withdraw 

water from land outside their limits. 

4. Develop stricter laws to prevent ground-water 

pollution, and foster research and recordkeeping. 

5. Require State certification of waste-treatment 

operators who are discharging wastes into 

ground-water bodies. 

6. Regulation of .solid-waste disposal sites to prevent pollution of ground water. 

7. Regulation of abandoned mines. 

8. Regulation of waste-disposal wells. 

9. Establish ground-water rights. 

Water-resources legislation need not be restrictive. 

As pointed out by Thomas ( 1961, p. 6), permissive 

legislation can encourage organization of public districts having the common interest of economic and 

effective development and use of water in a specified 

area. Laws recognizing potentialities as well as limitations of water resources can help rather than 

hinder development. 

Because there are so many variations geographically, hydrologically, and temporally ·in water resources in the Great Lakes Region and even within 

a State, water laws, ideally, should be flexible enough 

to accommodate most any change. Thomas ( 1961, p. 

6) suggested that one method to achieve flexibility is 

for such laws: 

to enunciate only the basic principles in statutes, to confer 

broad powers upon the administrator responsible for working 

out detailed solutions to specific problems, and to provide for 

prompt and effective action by the courts on appeals from 

the administrators' decisions. 

In this manner, fundamental decisions on development and use of water resources would be made by 

those most knowledgeable of the local situation, 

subject to broad guidelines from the State. 

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS 

Proper management of ground water and legislation to control its development and to protect its 

quality depend on a thorough knowledge of the 

ground-water system. Reports on ground-water resources are available for about 80 percent of the 

Great Lakes Region, but most are reconnaissance 

in scope. Michigan, in particular, is lacking in detailed ground-water studies. Waller and Allen 

( 1975) include an extensive bibliography in their report on ground water in the Great Lakes Basin. 

Many planners in the Region consider available 

ground-water data inadequate. The inadequacy is 

of several forms. In some areas, little or no basic 

ground-water data are available; in others, data are 

available but not in a form that planners can use. 

Elsewhere, available data are scant or not detailed 

for thorough planning. Several planners mentioned 

the need for a central clearing house for geologic and 

hydrologic data, perhaps. on a statewide basis. 

Many of the areas that have little or no basic data 

are also areas of little or no development. In such 

areas, wells are few and old, and little is known 

about them. The ground-water system in these areas, 

however, can be envisioned by interpolating from 

well records and geologic data in similar areas. As 

interest in these undeveloped areas increases, hydrologic studies would help evaluate the potential for 

ground-water development. 

Data are generally available, but not in a usable 

form, in areas where most wells are stock and domestic wells. Numerous well records are available 

from drillers, State agencies, and the Geological 

Survey. Many of these records ha.ve been published 

as parts of reconnaissance reports. Of particular 

use are data organized to show areas of recharge, 

depth to water table, amount of water available, and 

rate of ground-water discharge into streams. This 

type of information can be interpreted by experienced ground-water hydrologists. 

In areas of extensive ground-water development, 

or in areas having such a potential, some of whic.h 

have been discussed earlier, quantitative groundwater studies would encourage fullest use of the resource. Digital or electric-analog models of the hydrologic system can be used as predictive tools to 

determine the best places for large withdrawals of 

ground water, the amount of water that can be 

safely pumped, and the long-term effects of pumping 

on water levels and streamflow. 

Another concern to planners is the effect of urbanization on the local total hydrologic syste~m. How 

much does paving increase runoff and decrease recharge? What is the effect on low flows? How is the 

quality of both surface water and ground water affected? Studies that answer these questions are useful to planners. Planners also seek information on 
GREAT LAKES REGION J29 

the effects of filling in wetlands and the movement of 

pollutants in ground water. Few studies relating to 

the above have been made in the Great Lakes 

Region. Detailed ground-water studies have been 

made for some of the metropolitan areas, as previously mentioned (Chicago, Green Bay, Lansing 

and Milwaukee), and other studies will be made. 

Most of the studies, however, although suitable for 

initial planning, are not sufficiently detailed for designing. 

Some planners were not fully aware of the studies 

that had been done in their area and indicated a need 

for both greater publicity and a clearing house on a 

local or State level where they could get information 

on geology, soils, water resources, and hydrology. 

The U.S. Geological Survey District offices in each 

State are usually informed on the availability of 

these types of data and serve as public-information 

offices. The State water-resources agencies are other 

sources of information. 

The Geological Survey's NAWDEX (National 

Water Data Exchange) and RALI (Resources and 

Land Information) systems are clearing houses at 

the national level for sources of water and land data. 

The Survey's W ATSTORE (Water Data Storage 

and Retrieval) system provides up-to-date basic 

water data collected by the Survey. 

SUMMARY 

Ground water available fr:om. storage in the Great 

Lakes Region is estimated to be 35,000 billion ft:;. 

Ground-water dis.charge to streams and lakes in the 

region is estimated to be 26 billion gallons per day. 

Despite this abundance of ground water, only 1.8 

billion gallons per day was used in the region in 

1970. This is about 11.6 percent of the total water 

used, excluding therm·oelectric power use. 

Ground water is available throughout the Great 

Lakes Region. However, the amount available locally 

varies widely. The most productive aquifers, those 

along the valleys of major streams, yield as much 

as 5,000 gal/min. Yields in excess of 1,000 gal/min 

have been obtained from the bedrock in some areas. 

Because well yields vary across the region, even 

within the same aquifer system, a detailed study 

of the hydrologic system is desirable before heavy 

development is started or continued. 

In addition to being a potential source of water to 

meet increasing municipal and industrial demands, 

ground water can be used to augment low streamflow, to dilute water of poorer quality, and to maintain lake levels and wetlands, a1nong other uses. In 

places, floodflows may be diminished by diverting 

them over areas where some of the water can infiltrate the ground and recharge the local aquifer. 

Mineralized ground water has an economic potential for the region. Improved desalination processes make moderately saline (less than 10,000 

mg /L dissolved solids) ground water a viable alternative source of water. Saline aquifers also could 

be used to store freshwater or natural gas, and the 

more highly saline aquifers have been used for 

liquid waste disposal. 

Effective utilization of ground water depends on 

good management. This includes planning the development of the resource, monitoring pumping and 

modifying future development, and protecting 

ground water from pollution. Legislation that re;cognizes the variability and potential of ground water 

as' well as its limitations can help in effective management. 

Nature has endowed the Great Lakes Region with 

an abundance of water. Ground water, although 

only a small part of the total, is playing an increasingly important role in the Region's growth. 

Wise management of this resource will assure its 

orderly development and undiminished quality. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Born, S. M., and others, 1973, Dilutional pumping at Snake 

Lake, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Resources, Tech. 

.Bull. 66, 32 p. 

Braunstein, Jules, ed., 1973, Underground waste management 

and artificial recharge: Tulsa, Okla., Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, v. 1 and 2, 931 p. 

Coe, J. J., and others, 1972, Ground water management: Am. 

Soc. Civil Engineers, Manuals and Repts. on Engineering 

Practice-No. 40, 216 p. 

Cook, T. D., ed., 1972, Underground waste management and 

environmental implications: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol<>-

gists Mem. 18, 412 p. 

Cotter, R. D., Young, H. L., Petri, L. R., and Prior, C. H., 

1965, Ground and surface water in the Mesabi and 

Vermilion Iron Range area, northeastern Minnesota: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1759-A, p.A1-A36. 

Cross, W. P., 1968, Flow duration of Ohio streams based on 

gaging-station records, through 1965: Ohio Div. Water 

Bull. 42, 68 p. 

Environmental Data Service, 1968, Climatic atlas of the United 

States: U.S. Dept. Commerce, 80 p. 

Feth, J. H., and others, 1965, Preliminary map of the conterminous United States showing depth to and quality 

of shallowest ground water containing more than 1,000 

parts per million dissolved sO'lids: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Hydrol. Inv. Atlas HA-199, 2 sheets. 

Fidler, R. E., 1970, Potential development and recharge of 

ground water in Mill Creek valley, Butler and Hamilton 

Counties, Ohio, based on analog model analysis.: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1893, 37 p. 
J30 SUMMARY APPRAISALS OF THE NATION'S GROUND-WATER RESOURCES 

Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1975a, Surface water hydrology: Great Lakes Basin Comm., Great Lakes Basin 

Framework Study, App. 2, 133 p. 

---1975b, Water supply-municipal, industrial, rural: 

Great Lakes Basin Comm., Great Lakes Basin Framework 

Study, App. 6, 266 p. 

---1975c, Irrigation: Great Lakes Basin Commission, Great 

Lakes Basin Framework Study, App. 15, 111 p. 

-.--1975d, Economic and demographic studies: Great Lakes 

Basin Comm., Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, App. 

19, 217 p. 

---1975e, State laws, policies, and institutional arrangements: Great Lakes Basin Commission, Great Lakes. Basin 

Framework Study, App. S20, 215 p. 

Howard, J. F., 1974, The cost of ground water vs. surface 

water: Water Well Jour., v. 28, no. 8, p. 35-37. 

Kimbler, 0. K., Kazmann, R. G., and Whitehead, W. R., 1975, 

Cyclic storage of fresh water in saline aquifers: Louisiana Water Resources Research Inst. Bull. 10, 78 p. 

Knowles, D. B., 1964, Ground-water conditions in the Green 

Bay area, Wisconsin, 1950-60: U.S. Geol. Survey WaterSupply Paper 1669-J, p. J1-J37. 

Krieger, R. A., Hatchett, J. L., and Poole, J. L., 1957, Preliminary survey of the saline-water resources of the United 

States: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1374, 

172 p. 

Leonard, D. J., and Raoul, Joseph, Jr., 1975, Levels and flows: 

Great Lakes Basin Comm., Great Lakes Framework Study, 

App. 11, 206 p. 

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

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

37 p. 

National Water Commission, 1973, New directions in U.S. 

water policy: Summary, conclusions and recommendations from the final report: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 

197 p. 

Novitski, R. P., 1973, Improvement of trout streams in Wisconsin by augmenting low flows with ground water: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 2017, 52 p. 

Pettyjohn, W. A., 1972, Good coffee water needs. body, in Pettyjohn, W. A., ed., Water quality in a stressed environment: 

Minneapolis, Minn., Burgess Publishing Co., p. 194-199. 

Piper, A. M., 1969, Disposal of liquid wastes by injection underground-neither myth nor millennium: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Circ. 631, 15 p. 

Richards, L. A., and Richards, S. J., 1957, Soil moisture, in 

Soil, the Yearbook of Agriculture 1957: Washington, 

D.C., U.S. Govt. Printing Office, p. 49-60. 

Sherrill, M. G., 1975, Ground-water contamination in the 

Silurian dolomite of Door County, Wisconsin: Ground 

Water, v. 13, no. 2, p. 209-213. 

Thomas, H. E., 1961, Ground water and the law: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Circ. 446, 6 p. 

U.S. Environmental Pvotection Agency, 1974, Compilation of 

industrial and municipal injection wells in the United 

States: U.S. Environmental Protection Ag,ency, 2 vols. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1974, Quality of public water supplies 

of New York, November 1970-April 1972: Albany, N.Y., 

U.S. Geol. Survey open-file rept., 198 p. 

U.S. Public Health Service, 1962, Drinking water standards: 

Public Health Service Pamph. 956, 61 p. 

Vanlier, K. E., Wood, W. W., and Brunett, J. 0., 1973, Watersupply development and management alternatives for 

Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties, Michigan: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1969, 111 p. 

Vogt, J. E., 1972, Infectious hepatitis outbreak in Posen, 

Michigan, in Pettyjohn, W. A., ed., Water quality in a 

stressed environment, Minneapolis, Minn: Burgess Publishing Co., p. 188-193. 

Waller, R. M., and Allen, W. B., 1975, Geology and ground 

water: Great Lakes Basin Comm., Great Lakes Basin 

Framework Study, App. 3, 152 p. 

Waller, R. M., and Ayer, G. R., 1975, Water resources of the 

Black River basin, New York: N.Y. State Dept. Environmental Conserv. Basin Plan Rept. BRB-1, 205 p. 

Winter, T. C., 1973, Hydrogeology of glacial drift, Mesabi 

Iron Range, northeastern Minnesota: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2029-A, p. A1-A2'3. [1974].