Characterization and Simulation of Flow in 

the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, 

South-Central Kansas

By Xiaodong Jian, Lanna J. Combs, and Cristi V. Hansen

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperation with the 

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES

Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5204
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

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

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Jian, Xiaodong, Combs, L.J., and Hansen, C.V., 2004, Characterization and simulation of flow in the lower Kansas River 

alluvial aquifer, south-central Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5204, 82 p.

Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in Lawrence, Kansas (http://ks.water.usgs.gov)
 iii

Contents

Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

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

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

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

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

Well and Surface-Water Site-Identification Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Previous Hydrologic Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Characterization of Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Physiographic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Precipitation and Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Consolidated Rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Unconsolidated Deposits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Dissolved Solids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Sulfate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Alluvial Aquifer Characteristics in Modeled Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Areal Extent and Hydraulic Properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Water Levels and Direction of Flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Saturated Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Surface-Water and Ground-Water Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Conceptual Model of the Alluvial Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Water-Budget Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Recharge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Lateral Ground-Water Inflow and Outflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Flow From or To Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Ground-Water Pumpage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Conceptual Water-Budget Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Initial Model Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Model Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Sensitivity Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Hypothetical Simulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Recharge Outside the Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

References Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
iv 

Supplemental Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figures

1. Maps showing location of study area and lower Arkansas, Ninnescah, and Walnut River Basins 

in south-centralKansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

2. Map showing study area and subdivisions described in this report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

3. Diagram showing local well-numbering system used in this report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

4. Map showing physiographic provinces in Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

5. Map showing areas of equal mean soil permeability in study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

6. Graphs showing average minimum and maximum monthly temperatures and average monthly 

precipitation at Arkansas City, ElDorado, Wellington, Wichita, and Winfield. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

7. Graphs showing total annual and normal precipitation at Arkansas City, El Dorado, 

Wellington,Wichita, and Winfield. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

8–10. Maps showing:

8. Location of currently active U.S. Geological Survey gaging stations in study area and sites 

where miscellaneous streamflow measurements were made, 2001–03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

9. Generalized surficial geology in study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

10. Land use in study area, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

11. Pie diagrams showing percentages of water withdrawn from study area, 1990, 1995, and 2000. . . . 24

12–18. Maps showing:

12. Location of ground- and surface-water sites where water-quality samples were collected 

during August 2003 in and near modeled area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

13. Historical dissolved-solids concentrations in water from wells in the four-county study 

area and dissolved-solids concentrations in ground- and surface-water samples 

collected from modeled area, August 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

14. Historical chloride concentrations in water from wells in the four-county study area and 

chloride concentrations in ground- and surface-water samples collected from modeled 

area,August 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

15. Location of past and present oil and gas fields in the four-county study area and wells 

with chloride concentrations in water samples equal to or greater than 500 milligrams per 

liter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

16. Historical sulfate concentrations in water from wells in the four-county study area and 

sulfate concentrations in ground- and surface-water samples collected from modeled 

area,August 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

17. Configuration of bedrock surface in modeled area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

18. Water-level altitudes and approximate direction of ground-water flow in alluvial aquifer in 

modeled area, March 2001 and February 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

19. Graphs showing ground-water levels in representative observation well in study area and 

annual precipitation at nearby Wichita, 1962–2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

20. Maps showing approximate saturated thickness of the alluvial aquifer in the modeled area, 

March 2001 and February 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

21–23. Graphs showing:

21. Daily mean river-stage altitude of Little Arkansas River at Valley Center, daily mean water-level 

altitude in nearby well, and daily precipitation at streamflow-gaging station, August 2002–

August 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

22. Monthly instantaneous ground-water levels in wells EB–216–AA, EB–216–A, EB–216–B, 

EB–216–C and the mean daily river stage of the Arkansas River near Hutchinson, April 1988–

May 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
 v

23. Duration curve of estimated streamflow gains for Arkansas River between Wichita and 

ArkansasCity, Kansas, 1940–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

24–29. Maps showing:

24. Finite-difference grid and boundary conditions used in model analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

25. Distribution of average volume of ground-water withdrawals from modeled area reported 

for 1998–2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

26. Calibrated ground-water recharge rates for modeled area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

27. Distribution of horizontal hydraulic conductivity in modeled area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

28. Simulated saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer in modeled area with average reported 

ground-water withdrawals for 1998–2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

29. Comparison of measured water-level altitudes for March 2001 and simulated water-level 

altitudes with average reported ground-water withdrawals for 1998–2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

30. Graph showing differences between measured and simulated water-level altitudes, 

March 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

31. Graphs showing mean deviations of simulated hydraulic heads from accepted modelcalibration heads for changes in streambed conductance, recharge, and hydraulic conductivity. . 57

32. Maps showing simulated saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer in modeled area using 

differentpumping scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Tables

1. Drainage area, period of record, and annual median and maximum peak discharge for period of 

record at 14 currently active U.S. Geological Survey gaging stations in Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and 

Sumner Counties, south-central Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2. Generalized geohydrologic section for Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, southcentralKansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3. Land use in Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-central Kansas, 1990 . . . . . . . . 20

4. Estimated water use in Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-central Kansas, 

during 1990, 1995, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5. Reported ground-water use in modeled area of lower Arkansas River Basin in south-central 

Kansas for 1998–2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6. Estimated net streamflow gain in modeled area of lower Arkansas River Basin, south-central 

Kansas, 1940–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

7. Summary of conceptual water budget. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

8. Simulated steady-state water budget for Arkansas River alluvial aquifer in modeled area, 

Cowley,Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-central Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

9. Simulated steady-state water budgets used in hypothetical simulations of alluvial aquifer in 

lowerArkansas River Basin, south-central Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

10. Estimated recharge rates in upland contributing-drainage areas, Butler, Harvey, Marion, 

Sedgwick,and Sumner Counties, south-central Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

11. Results of water-quality analyses of samples collected during August 2003 from ground- and 

surface-water sites in Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-centralKansas. . . . . . . . . . . 74

12. Records of wells where water levels were measured during March 2001 and February 2002 in alluvial 

deposits in modeled area of Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-centralKansas. . . . . 78

13. Results of miscellaneous streamflow measurements made in March 2001, February 2002, and 

August 2003 in modeled area of lower Arkansas River Basin, south-central Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
vi 

Conversion Factors, Abbreviations, and Datums

1

 Temperature can be converted to degrees Celsius (oC) or degrees Fahrenheit (oF) by the 

equations:

oC = 5/9 (oF - 32) oF = 9/5 (o

C) + 32.

2 For concentrations less than 7,000 mg/L, the numerical value is the same as for concentrations 

in parts per million.

Abbreviated water-quality units used in this report: Chemical concentrations are given in metric 

units. Chemical concentration is given in milligrams per liter (mg/L), in micrograms per liter 

(μg/L), or microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm). Milligrams per liter is a 

unit expressing the concentration of chemical constituents in solution as weight (milligrams) of 

solute per unit volume (liter) of water. Micrograms per liter is a unit expressing the concentration 

of chemical constituents in solution as weight (micrograms) of solute per unit volume (liter) of 

water. 

Datums: Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 

(NAD 83). Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 

1988 (NAVD 88).

Multiply By To obtain

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3)

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 1,233 cubic meter per year (m3/yr)

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

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.6463 million gallons per day (Mgal/d)

cubic foot per second per year

[(ft3/s)/yr] 0.02832

cubic meter per second per year 

[(m3/s)/yr]

cubic foot per second per year

[(ft3/s)/yr]

724 acre-foot per year per year 

[(acre-ft/yr)/yr]

degree Fahrenheit (oF) (1) degree Celsius (oC)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d)

foot squared per day (ft2/d) 0.09290 meter squared per day (m2/d)

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

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

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch per day (in/d) 2.54 centimeter per day (cm/d)

inch per hour (in/hr) 2.54 centimeter per hour (cm/hr)

inch per year (in/yr) 2.54 centimeter per year (cm/yr)

microgram per liter (μg/L) 1.0 part per billion (ppb)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

milligram per liter (mg/L) (2) part per million (ppm)

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 1,120 acre-foot per year [(acre-ft)/yr]

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)
 vii

Definition of Terms

alluvium (alluvial sediment deposits)

Deposits of clay, silt, sand, gravel, or other particular rock material left by a river in a streambed, on a flood plain, delta, or at the base of 

a mountain.

aquifer A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains 

sufficient saturated permeable material to yield 

significant quantities of water to wells or 

springs.

arkosic Having wholly or in part the character of arkose—sandstone of granular texture, 

composed primarily of angular to subangular 

grains of quartz and feldspar.

base flow Sustained or fair weather flow in a 

stream. Base flow is composed largely of 

ground-water discharge to the stream.

colluvium A general term applied to any 

loose, heterogeneous, and incoherent mass of 

soil material or rock fragments deposited by 

unconcentrated surface runoff, usually at the 

base of a slope.

discharge As a surface-water term refers to 

the volume of water that passes through a cross 

section of a stream channel per unit of time as 

measured in cubic feet per second. As a 

ground-water term refers to the process 

involved in the outflow of water from the saturated part of an aquifer as measured in inches 

or acre-feet.

gage height Is the water-surface elevation 

above the gage datum. Gage datum is a horizontal surface used as a zero point for measurement of stream stage. This surface usually is 

located slightly below the lowest point of the 

stream bottom. If the elevation of the gage 

datum relative to the national datum 

(NAVD 88) has been determined, then the 

gage readings can be converted to elevations 

above the national datum by adding the 

elevation of the gage datum to the gageheight reading.

hydraulic conductivity The volume of water 

at the existing kinematic viscosity that will 

move in unit time under a unit hydraulic 

gradient through a unit area measured at right 

angles to the direction of flow. The standard 

unit for hydraulic conductivity is cubic foot per 

day per square foot [(ft3/d)/ft2

]. This mathematical expression reduces to foot per day 

(ft/d).

hydraulic gradient [dimensionless] Change 

in total hydraulic head per unit of distance in a 

given direction.

hydraulic head Height above a standard 

datum (such as NAVD 88) of the surface of a 

water column that can be supported by the 

static water pressure at a given point in an 

aquifer.

permeability A measure of the relative ease 

with which a porous medium can transmit a 

liquid under a potential gradient. It is a property of the medium that is dependent upon the 

number, shape, and size of the pores (void 

spaces).

porosity [dimensionless] The ratio of the 

volume of void spaces in sediment or rock to 

the total volume of the sediment or rock. 

potentiometric divide A ridge in the water 

table (potentiometric surface) from which the 

ground water represented by that surface 

moves away in both directions.

recharge The process involved in the addition of water to the saturated part of an aquifer.

saturated thickness The thickness of the 

zone in an aquifer that is saturated with water.

soil permeability The quality of the soil to 

transmit water as measured in inches per hour.

specific capacity The rate of discharge of 

water from a well divided by the drawdown of 

the water level in the well.

specific storage Volume of water that an 

aquifer releases from or takes into aquifer storage per unit volume of saturated aquifer material per unit change in hydraulic head.
viii 

specific yield The ratio of the volume of 

water that sediment or rock, after being saturated, will yield by gravity to the total volume 

of the rock or sediment.

steady state Condition under which there are 

no changes in aquifer storage, the magnitude 

and direction of ground-water flow velocities 

are constant with time, and water inflow to and 

outflow from the aquifer are equal and constant.

storage coefficient Volume of water that an 

aquifer releases from or takes into aquifer storage per unit surface area per unit change in 

hydraulic head.

streambed conductance A measure of the 

ability of a streambed to transmit water, 

reported in feet squared per day.

stream stage The height of water surface in 

the stream above an established datum.

transmissivity The capacity of an aquifer to 

transmit water of the prevailing kinematic viscosity is referred to as its transmissivity. The 

transmissivity (T) of an aquifer is equal to the 

hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer multiplied by the saturated thickness of the aquifer, 

generally expressed in feet squared per day 

(ft2/d) (Heath, 1987, p. 26).

water table The surface in an unconfined 

ground-water body where water pressure is 

equal to atmospheric pressure. It is defined by 

the levels at which water stands in wells that 

penetrate the water body just far enough to 

hold standing water.

water year Water year is the 12-month period 

beginning October 1 and ending September 30. 

Water years are designated by the year in 

which they end; for example, the 12-month 

period beginning October 1, 2001, and ending 

September 30, 2002, is called the “2002 water 

year.”
Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower 

Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

By Xiaodong Jian, Lanna J. Combs, and Cristi V. Hansen

Abstract

Large parts of the lower Arkansas, Ninnescah, and Walnut 

River Basins in south-central Kansas—an area that includes 

Wichita, the largest city in Kansas—are experiencing rapid 

population growth and, consequently, increasing demands on 

surface- and ground-water resources in addition to agricultural 

irrigation in the area. The quantity and quality of water available in the lower Arkansas, Ninnescah, and Walnut River 

Basins in Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties are 

crucial as population and water use continue to increase in 

the region. 

A steady-state model was constructed to simulate flow in 

the Arkansas River alluvial aquifer between Wichita and 

Arkansas City. Calibration was achieved using March 2001 

measured water levels and streamflow gain using long-term 

(1940–2001) streamflow records. Average recharge about 

5 inches per year; average aquifer hydraulic conductivity was 

about 500 feet per day; well pumpage (average of reported 

1998–2001 use) was 56 cubic feet per second; and net flow 

from the alluvial aquifer to streams in the modeled area was 

computed by hydrograph separation to be 157 cubic feet 

per second.

Nine hypothetical simulations were conducted with 

ground-water pumpage varying from zero to double authorized 

pumpage (206 cubic feet per second). Net remaining aquifer 

thickness declined for the largest simulated pumpage increases 

in comparison to 1998–2001 average pumping, as did flow from 

the aquifer to the Arkansas River. Simulated aquifer thickness 

decreases were more pronounced in areas where pumpage is 

currently (2004) greatest.

Introduction

Parts of the lower Arkansas, Ninnescah, and Walnut River 

Basins in south-central Kansas—an area that includes Wichita, 

the largest city in Kansas (fig. 1)—are experiencing rapid population growth and, consequently, increasing demands on surface- and ground-water resources for public-supply water use. 

The quantity and quality of water available in the lower Arkansas, Ninnescah, and Walnut River Basins in the four-county 

area of Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties are 

crucial as population and water use continue to increase. 

Population and public-supply water use in the four-county 

area increased by about 11 and 24 percent, respectively, 

between 1990 and 2000. The population was about 517,000 in 

1990 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1995) and 575,000 in 2000 (Institute for Public Policy and Business Research, 2002). Total public-supply water use was 57.88 Mgal/d in 1990 and 

71.53 Mgal/d in 2000 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2003). The 

Institute for Public Policy and Business Research (2003) 

projects another 6-percent increase in population between 2000 

and 2010 (projection of 612,000 people), with much of this 

increase occurring in Sedgwick County. Growth concerns and 

associated stress on water resources are of particular concern 

south of Wichita. 

The Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water 

Resources (DWR), is charged with the beneficial allocation of 

water resources in Kansas and is concerned about the increase 

and projected demands on the limited water resources available 

in the lower Arkansas, Ninnescah, and Walnut River Basins. 

Important ongoing concerns include (Kansas Water Office, 

2002):

• Sufficient water supplies to meet projected 2040 

public water-supply needs—outside of the river valleys, there are no widespread, large-yielding sources of 

fresh ground water in the four-county area. Groundwater resources, while not adequate in most areas for 

large users such as public water supplies, typically have 

been adequate during most climatic conditions for the 

demands of domestic-supply wells. However, during a 

severe drought the ground-water resources will likely 

be inadequate in some parts of the area even for these 

small demands. Shortages also may occur if water 

demands increase due to increases in population or in 

other sources of demand such as crop watering and new 

industries.

• Water quality unsuitable for some uses limits the 

supply of surface water from most streams in the 

four-county area, especially during periods of low 

flow—ground-water supplies are limited locally by 

large chloride and sulfate concentrations, the sources of 

which include natural discharge of water from dissolution of salt or gypsum deposits in the underlying bedrock, surface-water transport from areas upstream and 

within the lower Arkansas, Ninnescah, and Walnut 

River Basins, and past oilfield-brine disposal practices.
2 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Bird Creek

97°50'

38°

50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

40' 30' 20' 10' 50' 40' 96°30' 97°

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Chikaskia River

Slate Creek

Ninnescah River South Fork

North Fork

Cheney

Reservoir

Garden

Plain Goddard Wichita

Haysville Derby

Andale

Valley

Center

Maize Towanda

Colwich

Mount

Hope

Arkansas River

Big Slough

Creek

Little Arkansas River

El Dorado

Augusta

Winfield

Whitewater River

Walnut River

El Dorado

Lake

Little Walnut River

Hickory Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock Creek

Eightmile Creek

Arkansas

City

SUMNER COUNTY

Arkansas

River

Timber Creek

Grouse Creek

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

HARVEY COUNTY

MARION COUNTY CHASE COUNTY

RENO COUNTY

KINGMAN

COUNTY

HARPER

COUNTY

KAY COUNTY GRANT COUNTY OSAGE COUNTY

CHAUTAUQUA

COUNTY

ELK

COUNTY

GREENWOOD

COUNTY 

0 5 10 20 MILE 15 S

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Belle

Plaine

Wellington Oxford

Conway

Springs

Index map

KANSAS

Study area

Lower Arkansas

River Basin

Walnut River Basin

Ninnescah River

Basin

Chikaskia River

Basin

Kansas River

Arkansas River

Walnut River

Fourmile

Creek

EXPLANATION

Boundary of river basin

Hutchinson

Cowskin

Creek

Figure 1. Location of study area and lower Arkansas, Ninnescah, and Walnut River Basins in south-central Kansas.
Introduction 3

• Interaction of surface and ground water can affect 

the quantity and quality of water available for use— 

for example, increases in ground-water withdrawals 

may reduce the amount of surface water available for 

use or may induce poorer quality water to flow into an 

aquifer from either overlying surface-water sources or 

underlying rocks. Gravel pits and other areas where the 

water table has been exposed may act as both areas of 

recharge and discharge, depending on the hydrologic 

and climatic conditions.

• Development pressures in the lower Arkansas River 

Valley south of Wichita are raising a host of watersupply and water-quality concerns in an area for which 

there is insufficient hydrologic information with which 

to effectively manage the available surface- and 

ground-water resources.

DWR recognized that the hydrologic information available for the area was not sufficient for it to effectively apply 

existing water-management and regulatory measures to protect 

and allocate the limited water resources in the lower Arkansas, 

Ninnescah, and Walnut River Basins, especially during periods 

of drought. Therefore, in 2000 DWR entered into a cooperative 

agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (supported 

in part by the Kansas State Water Plan Fund) to conduct a study 

to provide an improved understanding of: (1) ground-water 

flow conditions, (2) surface-water and ground-water interaction, and (3) the effect of varying hydrologic conditions on the 

availability and quality of surface and ground water in the fourcounty area. 

This information will help DWR meet the second of 

15 long-range objectives of the Kansas Water Plan approved by 

the Kansas Water Authority in October 1998 (Kansas Water 

Authority, 1998) by careful management of existing water 

resources in the four-county area. The second objective states 

that “by 2010, less than five percent of public water suppliers 

will be drought vulnerable.” The methods and results of this 

study also will be applicable to similar study areas nationwide. 

Purpose and Scope

The purposes of this report are to describe: 

• the quantity and quality of surface- and ground-water 

resources in Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner 

Counties in south-central Kansas with particular 

emphasis on the Arkansas River Valley from Wichita 

to just north of Arkansas City;

• areas of poor ground-water quality; 

• the development and results of a steady-state numerical 

model of ground-water flow that DWR will be able to 

use as a tool to aid in management of the lower Arkansas River alluvial aquifer;

• the effects of various hypothetical well pumping scenarios on surface- and ground-water availability; and

• estimates of recharge from computations of streamflow 

gain from ground water in two upland areas.

The descriptions and discussions in this report are limited to 

Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties (study area in 

fig. 1) and to upland contributing-drainage areas of the Whitewater River that extend into Harvey and Marion Counties. 

Description of Study Area

To meet study objectives and for the purposes of this 

report, the four-county study area was divided into the modeled 

area of the Arkansas River Valley and two distinct upland contributing-drainage areas (fig. 2). The modeled area includes 

only the alluvial deposits in the Arkansas River Valley from the 

USGS streamflow-gaging station on the Arkansas River near 

Maize (station 07143375 in Sedgwick County) to the USGS 

gaging station at Arkansas City (station 07146500 in Cowley 

County). The two upland contributing-drainage areas are 

upstream from the USGS gaging station on the Whitewater 

River at Towanda (station 07147070) in Butler County, extending outside the four-county study area into parts of Harvey and 

Marion Counties, and upstream from the USGS gaging station 

on Slate Creek at Wellington (station 07145700) (fig. 2). The 

upland areas in this report are that part of the four-county study 

area outside of the alluvial boundary as shown in figure 2. 

Well and Surface-Water Site-Identification Systems

Each data-collection site in this report, whether a well or 

stream site, has been assigned a unique identification number. 

This number is unique in that it applies specifically to a given 

site indefinitely. The systems used by USGS to assign identification numbers for well and surface-water sites differ, but both 

are based on geographic location. 

Local well numbers are assigned according to a modification of the Bureau of Land Management’s system of land subdivision. In this system (fig. 3), the first set of digits in the well 

number refers to the township north (N) or south (S) of the Kansas-Nebraska State line; the second set refers to the range east 

(E) or west (W) of the Sixth Principal Meridian; and the third 

set refers to the section in which the well is located. The terminal letters refer to the 160-acre, 40-acre, 10-acre, and 2.5-acre 

tracts within the section. The letters A, B, C, or D are assigned 

in a counterclockwise direction beginning in the northeast 

quadrant. The final two digits are sequence numbers beginning 

with 01. For example, local well number 26S–01W–14CBB–03 

indicates the third well inventoried in the northwest quarter of 

the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of section 14, 

township 26 south (S), range 01 west (W) (fig. 3).

Since October 1, 1950, USGS streamflow-gaging stations 

are assigned an eight-digit number according to downstream 

order. The first two digits of each station in Kansas are either 

“06” or “07,” which designates the major river basin.
4 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Cowskin

Creek

97°50'

38°

50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

40' 30' 20' 10' 50' 40' 96°30' 97°

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Slate Creek

Ninnescah River

South Fork

North Fork Cheney

Reservoir

Arkansas River

Big Slough

Creek

Walnut River

El Dorado

Lake

Little Walnut River

Hickory Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock Creek

Eightmile Creek

SUMNER COUNTY

Grouse Creek

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

HARVEY COUNTY

CHASE COUNTY MARION COUNTY

RENO COUNTY

KINGMAN

COUNTY

HARPER

COUNTY

KAY COUNTY GRANT COUNTY OSAGE COUNTY

CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY

ELK

COUNTY

GREENWOOD

COUNTY 

0 5 10 20 MILE 15 S

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Extent of alluvial deposits from

Kansas Geological Survey (1964)

Chikaskia River

River

07146500

07145700

07143375

07147070

EXPLANATION

Alluvial deposits

Upland contributing-drainage area

Boundary of drainage area

07146500

Boundary of four-county study area

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-

 gaging station and number

UPLAND

AREA

UPLAND

AREA UPLAND

AREA

Boundary of 

modeled area

Walnut

River

Little Arkansas

River

Fourmile

Creek

Timber Creek

Arkansas

Whitewater River

Bird Creek

Figure 2. Study area and subdivisions described in this report.
Introduction 5

R. 5 W. R. 4 W. R. 3 W. R. 2 W. R. 1 W. R. 1 E. R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E.

T.

22

S.

T.

23

S.

T.

24

S.

T.

25

S.

T.

26

S.

T.

27

S.

T.

28

S.

T.

29

S.

T.

30

S.

T.

31

S.

T.

32

S.

T.

33

S.

T.

34

S.

T.

35

S.

97°50'

38°

50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

40' 30' 20' 10' 50' 40' 96°30' 97°

Chikaskia River

Slate Creek

Ninnescah River South Fork

North Fork

Cheney

Reservoir

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

River

Walnut River

El Dorado Lake

Hickory Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock Creek

Eightmile Creek

SUMNER COUNTY

Arkansas

River

Timber Creek

Grouse Creek

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

HARVEY COUNTY

MARION CHASE COUNTY COUNTY

RENO COUNTY

KINGMAN

COUNTY

HARPER

COUNTY

KAY COUNTY GRANT COUNTY OSAGE COUNTY

CHAUTAUQUA

COUNTY

ELK

COUNTY

GREENWOOD

COUNTY 

0 5 10 20 MILE 15 S

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Little Walnut River

Walnut River

Whitewater

Big Slough

Creek

654321

7 8 9 10 11 12

18 17 16 15 13

19 21 24

30 29 28 27 26

31 35

B A

C

A

33

B

C

D

26S−01W−14CBB−03 14

D

20 22 23

28

32

14

25

34 36

Bird Creek

Figure 3. Local well-numbering system used in this report.
6 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Identification numbers for gaging stations in the Missouri River 

Basin begin with “06,” and identification numbers for gaging 

stations in the lower Mississippi River Basin begin with “07.” 

The other six digits are downstream-order numbers.

 The identification numbers for miscellaneous wells and 

surface-water sites are a 15-digit number. The first six digits 

generally denote the latitude in degrees, minutes, and seconds. 

The next seven digits generally denote the longitude in degrees, 

minutes, and seconds, and the last two digits (assigned sequentially) identify the well or surface-water site within a 1-second 

grid. The miscellaneous site identification number, once 

assigned, is a pure number and is not changed if for example the 

original latitude and longitude are found to be in error.

Previous Hydrologic Studies

The importance of and concern about water resources in 

the four-county study area are evident from the numerous 

reports that have been published during the past 90 years covering a variety of hydrologic topics. Early studies were based on 

few data and provided only brief descriptions of ground- and 

surface-water quality (Parker, 1911) and well yields and quality 

of water available for irrigation supplies (Meinzer, 1914).

The Equus Beds aquifer north and west of Wichita has 

received the most attention as it is a major source of water supply for Wichita, the area’s largest and fastest growing metropolitan area. Emergency water supplies in the Wichita area were 

evaluated by Lane and others (1962). Lawrence and Hess 

(1963) described Wichita’s past, present, and future water supplies. Petri and others (1964) described the ground- and surfacewater resources of the Wichita area with respect to industrial 

supplies. The continuing multi-year Equus Beds Ground-Water 

Recharge Demonstration Project, that began in 1995, is a cooperative effort among the city of Wichita, Bureau of Reclamation, and USGS. The project has resulted in numerous published 

reports that can be viewed on the World Wide Web at URL: 

http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/studies/equus/

Williams and Lohman (1949) authored a comprehensive 

report on the geology and ground-water resources of southcentral Kansas with a special reference to the Wichita water 

supply. Dugan and Peckenpaugh (1985) described the effects of 

climate, vegetation, and soils on consumptive water use and 

ground-water recharge to the Central Midwest regional aquifer 

system that underlies the four-county study area. A geologic 

map of Butler County was published by the Kansas Geological 

Survey (Aber, 1993). Individual reports on the geology and 

water resources were written for Cowley County (Bayne, 

1962), Sedgwick County (Lane and Miller, 1965a,b; Bevans, 

1988,1989), and Sumner County (Walters, 1961). 

Several studies have dealt with saline-water problems in 

the four-county study area (Leonard and Kleinschmidt, 1976; 

Gogel, 1981; Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1982; Spinazola 

and others, 1985; Myers and others, 1996). Ground-water quality at potential or identified hazardous-waste sites in the area 

has been studied by Hart and Spruill (1988), Spruill (1988, 

1990), and Myers and others (1993). Surface-water quality in 

the Walnut and South Fork Ninnescah River Basins were discussed by Diaz (1962, 1965).

The application of ground-water flow models in the study 

area (Sophocleous, 1983; Gogel, 1981; Spinazola and other, 

1985; Myers and others 1996) underscore the need for accurate 

estimates of aquifer characteristics. Richards and Dunaway 

(1972) published geohydrologic data for numerical modeling of 

ground-water withdrawals in the Little Arkansas River Basin. 

Reed and Burnett (1985) compiled the results of aquifer performance tests, and Hansen (1991) provided estimates of freshwater storage and potential natural recharge. 

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the landowners of Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties who allowed access to 

their lands and wells for water-level and streamflow measurements and water-quality sampling during this study. 

Characterization of Study Area

Physiographic Setting

The four-county study area consisting of Butler, Cowley, 

Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties in south-central Kansas is 

located at the western edge of the Central Lowland physiographic province (Schoewe, 1949) (fig. 4). That part of the 

study area drained by the Arkansas River and its tributaries, 

including the Ninnescah River, is part of the Arkansas River 

Lowlands section of the Central Lowland. 

The Arkansas River Lowlands section is divided into the 

Finney Lowland, the Great Bend Lowland, the McPherson 

Lowland, and the Wellington Lowland. The Great Bend Lowland includes that part of the study area that is drained by the 

Arkansas and Little Arkansas Rivers and is described as a flat, 

smooth plain, with local relief ranging from 0 to 300 ft (Hammond, 1964). Agriculture; the production of oil; milling, storage, and shipment of grain; and manufacturing are the important 

industries in this part of the study area. Along with Wichita, cities in the Great Bend Lowland in the study area include Andale, 

Arkansas City, Haysville, Mount Hope, and Valley Center 

(fig. 1). The Wellington Lowland includes that part of the study 

area drained by the Ninnescah River and is described by Hammond (1964) as an irregular plain with local relief ranging from 

100 to 300 ft. Agriculture and the production of oil and gas are 

the two outstanding industries in this part of the study area. Cities in the Wellington Lowland include Belle Plaine, Garden 

Plain, Goddard, and Wellington (fig. 1).

Nearly all of Butler County, a large part of Cowley 

County, and northeastern Sedgwick County, are part of the Flint 

Hills Upland, which is the western subdivision of the Osage 

Plains physiographic province. The surface of the Flint Hills
Characterization of Study Area 7

Upland is gently rolling (local relief of about 350 ft) and merges 

on the west with a smooth and gentle slope that trends toward 

the Arkansas River Valley. The Flint Hills are strewn with a 

large amount of flint and chert from which they derive their 

name. South of the Kansas River, the Flint Hill Upland comprises about 16,000 mi2 of one of the finest grazing areas in the 

State if not elsewhere in the United States because of the bluestem grass that flourishes there. The Flint Hills Upland is also 

the location of some of the more important oil and gas fields in 

eastern Kansas (Schoewe, 1949). Cities in the Flint Hills 

Upland section of the study area include Augusta, El Dorado, 

and Winfield (fig. 1). 

Soils

Soils in the four-county study area belong to the soil order 

Mollisol (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1967). Mollisols are 

some of the most productive agricultural soils in the world and 

are characterized by a surface horizon that is thick, dark, and 

rich in organic materials. Mollisoils have a granular or crumb 

structure and are not hard when dry (Brady, 1974). Soils in the 

Arkansas River Valley belong to the suborder Udoll, which is 

usually moist and has no horizons in which either gypsum or 

calcium carbonate has accumulated. Upland soils belong to the 

suborder Ustoll, which is intermittently dry during the warm 

part of the year or has subsurface horizons in which salt or carbonate has accumulated. 

Individual soil surveys for Butler (Penner and others, 

1975), Cowley (Horsch, 1980), Sedgwick (Penner and Wehmueller, 1979), and Sumner (Fenwick and Ratcliff, 1979) 

Counties were published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These county surveys contain detailed soil maps, information about the use and management of soil, and information on 

engineering properties, physical and chemical properties, and 

soil and water features.

With all other factors being equal, watersheds with soils of 

low permeability exhibit less infiltration to ground water than 

watersheds with highly permeable soils, which tend to allow 

greater infiltration and a greater ground-water contribution to 

base flow of streams. Soil permeability in Butler County ranges 

from less than 0.06 to 2.0 in/hr (Penner and others, 1975) and in 

Cowley County from less than 0.06 to 6.0 in/hr (Horsch, 1980). 

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Study area

37°

102°

38°

39°

40°

101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

95°

F i n n e y L o w l a n d

G r e a t B e n d L o w l a n d

McPhe r s o n

Lowla n d

W e l l i n g t o n L o w l a n d

EXPLANATION

Great Plains

Central Lowland

Ozark Plateau

Boundary of physiographic

 province or section

Provinces

KANSAS

Base map fom U.S. Geological Survey deigital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994

Albers Conic Equal-Area projection,

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

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Physiography modified from Schoewe (1949)

Fli n t Hills

Upla n d

Osage C u estas

OSAGE PLAINS

D I S S E C T E D H I G H P L A I N S

A R K A N S A S R I V E R L O W L A N D S

Figure 4. Physiographic provinces in Kansas (modified from Schoewe, 1949).
8 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Soil permeability in Sedgwick and Sumner Counties ranges 

from less than 0.06 to 20.0 in/hr (Penner and Wehmueller, 

1979; Fenwick and Ratcliff, 1979) with soil permeability generally greatest in the alluvial valleys. A map of equal mean soil 

permeability from county soil maps for the study area is shown 

in figure 5 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1996).

Precipitation and Surface Water

Climate in the four-county area is affected by the movement of various air masses of tropical and continental origin 

over the open, inland plains, and seasonal precipitation 

extremes are common. About 70 percent of the mean annual 

precipitation falls from April through September. Precipitation 

during early spring and late fall occurs in association with frontal air masses that produce low-intensity rainfall of regional 

coverage. During the summer months, the weather is dominated 

by warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico or by hot, dry air 

from the Southwest. Summer precipitation generally occurs as 

high-intensity thunderstorms. 

The study area is characterized by large variations in seasonal temperatures, moderate precipitation, and windy conditions. Average maximum monthly temperatures in the fourcounty study area range from 40.6 o

F in January at Wichita to 

93.5 o

F in July at Wellington. Average minimum temperatures 

range from 20.2 o

F in January to 69.9 oF in July at Wichita 

(High Plains Regional Climate Center, 2003) (fig. 6). 

Average total monthly precipitation in the study area 

ranges from 0.73 in. in January at Wichita to 4.91 in. in May at 

Arkansas City (High Plains Regional Climate Center, 2003). 

Normal annual precipitation for 1961–90 ranged from 30.14 in. 

in Sedgwick County to 34.42 in. in Butler County (Kansas State 

University, 2003). Total annual and normal (1961–90) precipitation for Arkansas City, El Dorado, Wellington, Wichita, and 

Winfield are shown in figure 7. 

Major streams draining the four-county study area are the 

Arkansas, Chikaskia, Ninnescah, and Walnut Rivers and 

Cowskin Creek. There are currently (2004) 13 USGS continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations operating in the fourcounty study area (fig. 8, table 1) that measure water levels 

(gage height) to determine streamflow discharge of area 

streams. In addition, one gaging station (07144790, Cheney 

Reservoir near Cheney) measures the water elevation to determine the contents of Cheney Reservoir, a major water-supply 

source for the city of Wichita. Data from these 14 gaging 

stations are available in near real time on the World Wide Web 

at URL http://ks.water.usgs.gov/

Geology

Consolidated Rocks

The oldest surficial rocks in the study area are Late Pennsylvanian in age and crop out in southeastern Cowley County 

(Wabaunsee Group; Bayne, 1962) (fig. 9 and table 2). Consolidated rocks of Early Permian age (Admire, Council Grove, and 

Chase Groups) underlie much of the upland areas in the eastern 

two-thirds of Butler (Aber, 1993) and Cowley (Bayne, 1962) 

Counties. The Wellington Formation and Ninnescah Shale 

(Sumner Group) of Early Permian age occupy upland areas in 

Sedgwick (Lane and Miller, 1965a) and Sumner (Walters, 

1961) Counties and the western one-third of Butler and Cowley 

Counties (fig. 9).

The Wellington Formation of Early Permian age forms the 

bedrock surface in much of Sedgwick County and the eastern 

two-thirds of Sumner County. The Ninnescah Shale, also of 

Early Permian age, constitutes the bedrock surface in the western one-third of Sumner County, rocks of the Early Permian 

form the bedrock surface in much of the eastern two-thirds of 

Butler and Cowley Counties, and rocks of Late Pennsylvanian 

age create the bedrock surface in extreme southeastern 

Cowley County. 

Unconsolidated Deposits

The surficial unconsolidated deposits in the study area are 

not marine in origin but fluvial sediment deposited by flowing 

streams across the continental interior (Frye and Leonard, 

1952). Unconsolidated deposits in Kansas are assigned mostly 

to the Quaternary System (Pleistocene and Holocene Series). 

Pleistocene deposits are composed of silt, clay, sand, and 

gravel. The Pleistocene Series in Kansas has been divided into 

the pre-Illinoisan and Wisconsinan glacial stages, and the Aftonian, Yarmouthian, and Sangamonian interglacial stages. It was 

during Illinoisan time that most of the present-day large streams 

in the State, including the Arkansas River, were established. 

Throughout Pleistocene time the major streams draining the 

upland areas of the study area were cutting their channels near 

their present courses. Sediments deposited by these streams 

were composed of locally derived material, chiefly pebbles of 

limestone and chert, whereas sediments deposited by the 

Arkansas River contained large grains of quartz or feldspar 

derived mainly from the Pliocene Ogallala Formation in the 

western part of the State (Bayne, 1962). 

Alluvium occupies the valleys of all the major streams in 

the four-county study area, but all streams except the Arkansas 

River are deepening their channels over much of their courses 

and, consequently, alluvium is present only in the narrow active 

channels of these streams. In the Arkansas River Valley, however, the alluvium deposited after the pre-Illinoisan glacial 

period that lies adjacent to the stream is as much as 16-mi wide 

in northern Sedgwick County (fig. 9) and nearly 1-mi wide in 

Cowley County and as much as 50 ft thick (Bayne, 1962).

 Unconsolidated deposits occur over the consolidated bedrock in much of Sedgwick County, with undifferentiated 

Pliocene and lower Pleistocene deposits as much as 160 ft thick 

occupying much of the basal part of the Arkansas River Valley 

north of Wichita, and lower Pleistocene deposits occupying the 

basal part of the Arkansas River Valley south of Wichita at
Characterization of Study Area 9

97°50'

38°

50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

40' 30' 20' 10' 50' 40' 96°30' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

HARVEY COUNTY

MARION COUNTY CHASE COUNTY

RENO COUNTY

KINGMAN

COUNTY

HARPER

COUNTY

KAY COUNTY GRANT COUNTY OSAGE COUNTY

CHAUTAUQUA

COUNTY

ELK

COUNTY

GREENWOOD

COUNTY 

0 5 10 20 MILE 15 S

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

0.01 - 0.18

0.18 - 0.34

0.34 - 0.64

0.64 - 0.87

0.87 - 1.09

1.09 - 1.28

1.28 - 1.29

1.29 - 2.75

2.75 - 6.23

6.23 - 12.99

12.99 - 17.60

Water

Areas of equal mean soil permeability, in inches per hour

EXPLANATION

Soil permeability data from U.S. Department of Agriculture (1996)

Boundary of modeled area

Cheney

Reservoir

El Dorado Lake

Garden

Plain Goddard

Wichita

Haysville Derby

Andale

Valley

Center

Maize Towanda

Colwich

Mount

Hope

El Dorado

Augusta

Winfield

Arkansas City

Belle

Plaine

Wellington

Conway

Springs

Oxford

Figure 5. Areas of equal mean soil permeability in study area (data from U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1996).
10 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

B. El Dorado, Kansas, January 1904 – November 2003

C. Wellington, Kansas, August 1948 – November 2003

D. Wichita, Kansas, January 1954 – September 2003

E. Winfield, Kansas, January 1900 – November 2003

Average temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

Average total precipitation, in inches

0.89

1.40

2.43

3.15

4.91

4.43

3.78

3.55 3.70

2.90

2.33

1.33

20.5

42.7

0.87

24.8

48.8

1.23

33.3

58.6

2.20 44.5

20.6

42.7

0.93

25.4

48.9

1.23

33.4

57.8

2.40 44.4

69.3

2.87 54.5

78.0

4.57

64.2

82.8

4.87

69.2

93.5

3.66

67.7

92.7

3.45

58.9

84.0

3.24

46.4

72.6

2.57

34.2

57.1

1.99

24.5

46.1

1.19

20.2

22.1

40.6

0.73

24.9

47.0

0.99

33.2

56.6

2.29 44.6

68.1

2.41

54.7

76.9 3.90

64.4

86.8 4.32

69.9

93.0

3.39 68.2

91.5

3.00 59.4

82.1

3.30

47.0

70.5

2.65

33.8

55.3

1.53

24.1

44.0

1.13

44.2

1.00

25.9

49.9

1.39

34.6

59.9

2.17

45.6

70.5

3.32 55.0

78.2 4.70

64.4

87.5

4.79

68.9

93.2

3.79 67.8

92.7

3.26

59.9

84.3

3.62

47.9

73.0

2.82

35.0

58.2

2.08

25.6

46.9

1.38

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0 A. Arkansas City, Kansas, August 1948 – November 2003 Insufficient data - -minimum temperature Insufficient data - -maximum temperature

Average total precipitation

Average total precipitation

Average minimum temperature

Average maximum temperature

69.5

3.07

54.1

77.4

4.57

63.8

86.5

4.76

68.3

92.2

3.79

66.9

91.5

3.51

58.8

83.4

3.75

46.8

72.1

2.73

33.7

57.2

2.02

24.2

45.7

1.22

Figure 6. Average minimum and maximum monthly temperatures and average monthly precipitation at (A) Arkansas City, 

(B) El Dorado, (C) Wellington, (D) Wichita, and (E) Winfield. Data from High Plains Regional Climate Center (2003).
Characterization of Study Area 11

B. El Dorado, Kansas, January 1904 – December 2003

C. Wellington, Kansas, August 1948 – December 2003

D. Wichita, Kansas, January 1954 – December 2003

E. Winfield, Kansas, January 1900 – December 2003

Annual total precipitation, in inches

10

0

20

30

40

50

60

10

0

20

30

40

50

60

10

0

20

30

40

50

60

10

0

20

30

40

50

60

10

0

20

30

40

50

60

A. Arkansas City, Kansas, August 1948 – December 2003

1900 1910 1920 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004 1930

Substantially above normal

Annual precipitation

No data

No data

No data

No data

Incomplete data Substantially below normal

Normal 1961–90 (34.61 inches)

Normal 1961–90 (34.75 inches)

Normal 1961–90 (32.26 inches)

38.21

40.77

35.07

32.60

33.85

Normal 1961–90 (29.33 inches)

Normal 1961–90 (33.85 inches)

Figure 7. Total annual and normal (1961–90) precipitation at (A) Arkansas City, (B) El Dorado, (C) Wellington, (D) Wichita, 

and (E) Winfield. Data from High Plains Regional Climate Center (2003) and Kansas State University (2003).
12 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

97°50'

38°

50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

40' 30' 20' 10' 50' 40' 96°30' 97°

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Slate Creek

Ninnescah River

South Fork

North Fork

Cheney

Reservoir

Arkansas River

Big Creek

Whitewater River

Walnut River

El Dorado

Lake

Little Walnut River

Hickory Creek

Muddy Creek

Eightmile Creek

SUMNER COUNTY

Grouse Creek

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

HARVEY COUNTY

CHASE COUNTY MARION COUNTY

RENO COUNTY

KINGMAN

COUNTY

HARPER

COUNTY

KAY COUNTY GRANT COUNTY OSAGE COUNTY

CHAUTAUQUA

COUNTY

ELK

COUNTY

GREENWOOD

COUNTY 

0 5 10 20 MILE 15 S

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Chikaskia River

River

07146500

07147800

07146500

07145700

07151500

07145500

07143375

07144480 07144300

07144550

07144795

07144790

07144100

07144200

07147070

EXPLANATION

Current U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging

 station and site identification number

Miscellaneous streamflow measurement site—Number

 is map number given in table 13

Walnut

River

LittleArkansas River

Fourmile Creek

Rock Creek

Timber Creek

Arkansas

Slough

6

5

8 7

10

9

11

12 14

13 15

13

Boundary of modeled area

Boundary of four-county study area

1

2

3

4

16

Bird Creek

Cowskin

Creek

Figure 8. Location of currently (2004) active U.S. Geological Survey gaging stations in study area and sites where 

miscellaneous streamflow measurements were made, 2001–03.
Characterization of Study Area 13

Table 1. Drainage area, period of record, and annual median and maximum peak discharge for period of record at 

14 currently (2004) active U.S. Geological Survey gaging stations in Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-central 

Kansas.

[Data from Putnam and Schneider, 2004. NA, not applicable]

U.S. Geological 

Survey 

identification 

number

(fig. 8)

Station name Drainage area 

(square miles)

Period of 

record 

(water years)

Discharge 

(cubic feet per second)

Annual median 

for period of 

record

Maximum peak 

for period of 

record

07143375 Arkansas River near Maize, Kansas 39,110 1988–2003 276 45,900

07144100 Little Arkansas River near Sedgwick, Kansas 1,239 1994–2003 61 17,600

07144200 Little Arkansas River at Valley Center, Kansas 1,327 1923–2003 59 32,000

07144300 Arkansas River at Wichita, Kansas 40,490 1935–2003 435 48,400

07144480 Cowskin Creek at 119th Street at Wichita, Kansas 86.0 2001–03 3.8 1,420

07144550 Arkansas River at Derby, Kansas 40,830 1969–2003 526 58,300

07144790 Cheney Reservoir near Cheney, Kansas1

1Conservation pool elevation is between 1,329.2 and 1,421.6 feet above NAVD 88 with a content of 151,800 acre-feet. Maximum elevation was 

1,429.4 feet on June 11, 1995, with a content of 252,980 acre-feet.

2901

2Drainage area is 901 square miles of which 237 square miles are probably noncontributing.

1965–2003 NA NA

07144795 North Fork Ninnescah River at Cheney Dam, Kansas 2901 1965–2003 .48 2,070

07145500 Ninnescah River near Peck, Kansas 2,129 1938–2003 240 38,200

07145700 Slate Creek at Wellington, Kansas 154 1970–2003 8.2 28,500

07146500 Arkansas River at Arkansas City, Kansas 343,713

3Drainage area is 43,713 square miles of which 7,607 square miles are probably noncontributing.

1903–2003 907 103,000

07147070 Whitewater River at Towanda, Kansas 426 1962–2003 35 80,600

07147800 Walnut River at Winfield, Kansas 1,880 1922–2003 168 105,000

07151500 Chikaskia River near Corbin, Kansas 794 1951–2003 97 39,300

thicknesses of as much as 70 ft. Loess deposits of Illinoisan to 

Holocene age occur over bedrock and lower Pleistocene deposits in most of the upland areas at thicknesses of as much as 74 ft. 

Alluvium and terrace deposits of Wisconsinan to Holocene age 

overlie the basal part of Arkansas River Valley (as much as 60 ft 

thick) and the Ninnescah River Valley in Sedgwick County (as 

much as 50 ft thick) (Bevans, 1989). 

Unconsolidated deposits of Quaternary age consisting of 

alluvium, loess, and terrace deposits (Pleistocene and Holocene 

age) occur only along major streams in Butler County, principally the Little Walnut, Walnut, and Whitewater Rivers and 

Eightmile, Fourmile, Hickory, Muddy, and Rock Creeks 

(Aber, 1993). 

In northwestern Sumner County, unconsolidated terrace 

deposits (pre-Illinoisan glacial stage of the Lower Pleistocene) 

underlie the surface near Conway Springs (northwestern part of 

county). Illinoisan and Wisconsinan terrace deposits border 

most of the major streams, and Holocene deposits form the 

flood plains (alluvium) and also occur as dune sand (Walters, 

1961). 

In Cowley County, Pleistocene deposits of the preIllinoisan and Illinoisan glacial stages occur only along the 

Arkansas and Walnut Rivers; later Wisconsinan terrace deposits also are found along the major rivers and Grouse and Silver 

Creeks. Alluvium deposited after the pre-Illinoisan glacial stage 

occupies the valleys of all the major streams in Cowley County 

(Bayne, 1962).

Land Use

 Activities associated with land use often affect the quantity and quality of water resources. Land use in the four-county 

study area is primarily agricultural (fig. 10, table 3). In 1990, 

the mean percentage of agricultural land use in the four-county 

area was about 95 percent. Grassland was dominant in Butler 

and Cowley Counties, whereas cropland dominated agricultural 

land use in Sedgwick and Sumner Counties. Urban land use 

made up only about 3.3 percent of the total land use for the 

study area in 1990, with Sedgwick County having the largest 

total urban land-use percentage (about 12 percent) (table 3). 

Population growth and the resulting land-use change are occurring southeast of Wichita.
14 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Creek

Cowskin

Creek

97°50'

38°

50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

40' 30' 20' 10' 50' 40' 96°30' 97°

Cheney

Reservoir

El Dorado

Lake

SUMNER COUNTY

OKLAHOMA

HARVEY COUNTY

MARION COUNTY CHASE COUNTY

RENO COUNTY

KINGMAN COUNTY

HARPER

COUNTY

KAY COUNTY GRANT COUNTY OSAGE COUNTY

ELK

COUNTY

GREENWOOD

COUNTY 

0 5 10 20 MILE 15 S

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Geology modified from Kansas Geological Survey (1964)

EXPLANATION

Formations

Dune sand

Alluvium—post-Illinoisan deposits 

 (Illinoisan, Wisconsinan, and Holocene)

Loess

Terrace deposits—pre-Illinoisan and older

 deposits

Sumner Group

Chase Group

Council Grove Group

Admire Group

Wabaunsee Group

Boundary of modeled area

Boundary of four-county study area

Water bodies

Geologic contact

SEDGWICK COUNTY

KANSAS

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

CHAUTAUQUA

COUNTY

River

Quaternary System

Pleistocene

Series

Holocene

Series

Permian System

Lower Permian

Series

Pennsylvanian

System

Upper

Pennsylvanian

Series

System Series System Series System Series

Arkansas

Walnut River

Little Walnut River

Hickory Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Eightmile Creek

Timber

Grouse Creek

Silver Creek

Walnut River

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Chikaskia River

Slate Creek

Ninnescah River

South Fork

North Fork

Big

Creek

Little

Arkansas River

Slough 

Whitewater River

Creek

Fourmile

Creek

Arkansas River

Bird Creek

Figure 9. Generalized surficial geology in study area.
Table 2. Generalized geohydrologic section for Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-central Kansas.—Continued[Stratigraphic nomenclature is that of the U.S. Geological Survey and may differ somewhat from that of the Kansas Geological Survey. Geologic section compiled and modified froLane and Miller (1965a), and Aber (1993). Shading indicates those units included in the alluvial aquifer as described in this report. gal/min, gallons per minute; +, plus or minus] 

System Series Subseries Stage or group Stratigraphic unit Thickness (feet) Physical characteristics Water-supply charac

Quaternary

Holocene

Dune sand 0–30 Sand, medium and fine, some silt. Generally above the wate

not yield water to well

Alluvium 0–75

Silt, clay, and arkosic sand and gravel 

in Arkansas River Valley. Silt, clay, sand, and gravel in other stream valleys.

Yields large quantities of 

wells in Arkansas Rivsmall to moderate quaother stream valleys.

Pleistocene

Upper 

Pleistocene

Colluvium 0–30

Silt and clay, minor amounts of sand 

and gravel, resembling the underlying bedrock material.

Generally above water tab

does not yield appreci

ties of water to wells.

Wisconsinan

Stage

Loess 0–74

Wind-deposited silt, generally in 

upland position. Locally may contain silt older than 

Wisconsinan age.

Lies above water table an

water to wells.

Terrace deposits 0–75

Silt, clay, and arkosic sand and gravel 

in Arkansas River Valley. Locally in Walnut River Valley, these deposits contain chert gravel. Can be differentiated from alluvium only by topographic position.

Large quantities of water 

poor quality available River Valley. Small to supplies of hard water other major stream val

Illinoisan

Stage

Crete and 

Loveland

Formations

0–65

Poorly sorted sand and gravel; contain 

considerable red-brown silt and locally derived limestone and shale fragments.

In Walnut River Valley, th

are above the water tabno water. In Arkansas 

ley, yield small to modties of water to wells.

Lower 

Pleistocene

PreIllinoisan

Stage

Sappa and Grand 

Island Formations 0–90

Poorly sorted sand and gravel; locally 

contains much silt and clay.

Yield small to moderate (

quantities of water to w

Terrace deposits 0–90

Chiefly, medium to coarse sand; 

contain some silt and clay.

Yield moderate quantities 

wells.

Tertiary Pliocene Undifferentiated deposits 150+

Composed of lenticular beds of 

calcareous silt and clay, fine to 

coarse sand, and fine to coarse gravel. In subsurface only, these unconsolidated deposits and the 

overlying Pleistocene units are known locally as the Equus Beds 

aquifer north of Wichita.

Contributes large supplies 

quality water to many irrigation, and industriscreened in multiple pthat penetrate the comof unconsolidated dep
Permian Lower Permian Sumner Group Ninnescah Shale 0–250 Predominantly silty shale; contains beds of dolomite, calcareous siltstone, and fine-grained sandstone. Yields small quantities of 

to wells. 

Wellington Formation 0–650 Chiefly shale and silty shale; contains lenticular beds of gypsum, silty limestone, dolomite, and the thick Hutchinson Salt Member. Yields small to moderate 

hard water to wells eaArkansas River Valley

Chase Group Nolans Limestone 20–55 Limestone and dolomite in upper part. Calcareous shale in middle part; contains some impure limestone. Lower part, thinner and more dense limestone separated by calcareous shale. Locally yields small to lar

of water of good to pofrom the upper part, wsolution channels. Littwater is obtained from and lower parts. 

Odell Shale 30–40 Chiefly calcareous shale. Locally dolomitic zones occur in upper and middle parts. Yields little water to well

Winfield Limestone 30+ Limestone; locally may contain some chert. Locally yields small to m

tities of water to wells ered upper part. 

Doyle Shale 65–100 Shale, separated by limestone. Locally, in subsurface, lar

ate supplies of water opoor quality are availasolution channels in upfeet. Some water is avlimestone beds near baof water ranges from g

Barneston Limestone 55–90 Limestone in upper part; lower part interbedded with chert. Chert occurs in bands separated by limestone. Upper weathered zone yie

moderate supplies of hwells. Middle and lowyield small to large quwater to wells and sprsolution channels in lo

Matfield Shale 30–65 Shale, limy in part, separated by limestone. Locally, yields small supp

to wells from limeston

Table 2. Generalized geohydrologic section for Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-central Kansas.—Continued [Stratigraphic nomenclature is that of the U.S. Geological Survey and may differ somewhat from that of the Kansas Geological Survey. Geologic section compiled and modified froLane and Miller (1965a), and Aber (1993). Shading indicates those units included in the alluvial aquifer as described in this report. gal/min, gallons per minute; +, plus or minus] System Series Subseries Stage or group Stratigraphic unit Thickness (feet) Physical characteristics Water-supply charac
Permian Lower Permian

Chase 

Group

Wreford 

Limestone 25–35

An upper algal limestone, which 

weathers to a pitted surface, a shaly limestone zone, and a lower cherty limestone—all separated by limy shale in middle.

Yields small to moderate 

hard water to wells, prfrom weathered and frzones.

Council 

Grove 

Group

Speiser Shale 25–35

Shale; locally, a sandstone is present in 

the lower middle part.

Sandstone may yield sma

of water to wells localno water is obtained fr

Funston 

Limestone 9–12

Limestone at top; shale and limestone 

in middle part; and dense limestone at base.

Yields little or no water to 

Blue Rapids Shale 17–22 Shale in upper part; a thin limestone in the middle part; shale in lower part. Yields little or no water to 

Crouse Limestone 8–12

An upper and a lower limestone bed 

separated by a thin shaly limestone bed. Upper and lower beds contain some chert.

Not a good aquifer but loc

small quantities of harwells.

Easly Creek Shale 10–15 Mostly shale. Yields no water to wells i

Bader Limestone 15–30 Limestone, separated by shale. Locally yields small quan

water to wells and spr

Stearns Shale 6–10 Shale, limy in parts. Yields no water to wells. 

Beattie Limestone 10–25

Limestone, separated by limy shale 

that contains numerous fossils.

Yields very small quantiti

water to a few wells anSupplies are generally 

Eskridge Shale 20–35 Shale; contains numerous fossils. Yields little or no water to 

Grenola 

Limestone 35–55

Limestone separated by limy shale. Yields small to moderate 

hard water to wells anlocally.

Roca Shale 10–15 Shale, limy in part. Yields no water to wells. 

Table 2. Generalized geohydrologic section for Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-central Kansas.—Continued[Stratigraphic nomenclature is that of the U.S. Geological Survey and may differ somewhat from that of the Kansas Geological Survey. Geologic section compiled and modified froLane and Miller (1965a), and Aber (1993). Shading indicates those units included in the alluvial aquifer as described in this report. gal/min, gallons per minute; +, plus or minus] 

System Series Subseries Stage or group Stratigraphic unit Thickness (feet) Physical characteristics Water-supply charac
Permian Lower Permian Council Grove Group Red Eagle Limestone 20 Limestone, upper part massive; middle part, thin-bedded limestone layers separated by very thin shale part- ings; lower part very thin lime- stone, which may be absent locally. Locally may yield small q

hard water to wells froupper part of unit near 

Johnson Shale 20–30 Varicolored shale, limy to very limy in lower part. Yields no water to wells. 

Foraker Limestone 40–55 Limestone in upper part. Lower part contains dense cherty limestone separated by shale. Locally, yields small to m

quantities of hard wateand springs. 

Admire Group Janesville Shale 55–65 Two shale units separated by lime- stone. Generally a poor aquifer; 

yield small quantities from channel sandstonlimestone. Locally, seeoccur in shale. 

Falls City Limestone 3–5 Dense limestone. 

Onaga Shale 50–65 Shale, separated by limestone. 

Pennsyl- vanian Upper Penn- sylvanian Wabaunsee Group Wood Siding Formation 40–50 Three limestone beds separated by shale that is locally sandy. Generally a poor aquifer, 

may yield small quantof poor quality from s

Root Shale 50–70 Shale separated by dense limestone. Locally contains sandstone in upper part. Generally a poor aquifer. 

small quantities of waquality are obtained froin upper part. 

Stotler Limestone 15–25 Limestone separated by shale. Generally a poor aquifer, 

small quantities of waquality may be obtaineweathered part of lowe

Pillsbury and Willard Shales 10–15 Varicolored shale. A persistent impure limestone occurs below the middle part; coal commonly occurs near top and bottom of the formation. Locally yield small quant

of poor quality to shal

Emporia Limestone 20–30 Limestone separated by shale. Shale commonly contains coal in upper part and sandstone in middle part. Small quantities of water 

poor quality available, from the sandstone in 

Auburn Shale 5–10 Shale, locally contains thin limestone beds. Yields little or no water to 

Table 2. Generalized geohydrologic section for Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-central Kansas.—Continued [Stratigraphic nomenclature is that of the U.S. Geological Survey and may differ somewhat from that of the Kansas Geological Survey. Geologic section compiled and modified froLane and Miller (1965a), and Aber (1993). Shading indicates those units included in the alluvial aquifer as described in this report. gal/min, gallons per minute; +, plus or minus] System Series Subseries Stage or group Stratigraphic unit Thickness (feet) Physical characteristics Water-supply charac
Characterization of Study Area 19

Creek

97°50'

38°

50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

40' 30' 20' 10' 50' 40' 96°30' 97°

Cheney

Reservoir

El Dorado

Lake

SUMNER COUNTY

OKLAHOMA

HARVEY COUNTY

MARION COUNTY CHASE COUNTY

RENO COUNTY

KINGMAN COUNTY

HARPER

COUNTY

KAY COUNTY

GRANT COUNTY OSAGE COUNTY

ELK

COUNTY

GREENWOOD

COUNTY 

0 5 10 20 MILE 15 S

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

SEDGWICK COUNTY

KANSAS

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

CHAUTAUQUA

COUNTY

River

Arkansas

Residential

Commercial and industrial

Urban grassland and

woodland

Urban water

Cropland

Grassland

Woodland

Water

Other

Boundary of modeled area

Boundary of four-county study area

Urban land use Agricultural land use

Land use modified from Kansas Applied Remote Sensing Program (1990)

Walnut River

Little Walnut River

Hickory Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Eightmile Creek

Timber

Grouse Creek

Silver Creek

Walnut River

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Chikaskia River

Slate Creek

Ninnescah River 

South Fork

North Fork

Big

Creek

Little

Arkansas River

Slough 

Whitewater River

Creek

Fourmile

Creek

Arkansas River

Cowskin

Creek

Bird Creek

Figure 10. Land use in study area, 1990 (from Kansas Applied Remote Sensing Program, 1990).
20 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Table 3. Land use in Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-central Kansas, 1990.

[Land-use data from Kansas Applied Remote Sensing Program, 1990]

Land-use classification

(fig. 10)

Butler 

County Cowley County Sedgwick County Sumner County

Land area (square miles) 1,428 1,126 999 1,182

Percentage of urban land use

Residential .52 .48 5.90 .33

Commercial and (or) industrial .16 .17 2.71 .06

Urban grassland .36 .16 3.61 .18

Urban woodland 0 0 .09 0

Urban water .01 .01 .13 0

Total urban land-use percentage 1.05 .82 12.44 .57

Percentage of urban land use for study area 3.28

Percentage of agricultural land use

Cropland 30.43 25.96 69.22 67.89

Grassland 65.18 67.94 15.67 29.12

Woodland 1.64 4.07 1.38 2.02

Total agricultural land-use percentage 97.25 97.97 86.27 99.03

Percentage of agricultural land use for study area 95.55

Percentage of other land use

Water 1.44 1.03 1.03 .25

Other .26 .18 .27 .15

Total other land-use percentage 1.70 1.21 1.30 .40

Percentage of other land use for study area 1.17

Water Use

Water resources in Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner 

Counties are used for public, irrigation, thermoelectric power 

generation, industrial, and self-supplied domestic supplies. 

Estimated water use for 1990, 1995, and 2000 (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2003) is presented in table 4.

Public supply used 43 percent of the water withdrawn in 

the four-county area in 1990 and that percentage increased to 

53 percent in 2000 (fig. 11). Sumner County was the only 

county in the study area that consistently used more of its water 

for irrigation than for public supply (table 4). The majority of 

the water used in the four-county area came from ground-water 

supplies, with ground water providing 68 percent of the water 

used in 1990, 67 percent in 1995, and 58 percent in 2000 

(fig. 11). The apparent decreasing reliance on ground water as a 

source of supply in the study area most likely is due to increasing reliance by Sedgwick County and, Wichita in particular, on 

Cheney Reservoir as a source of public supply (Hansen and 

Aucott, 2004). Approximately 76 percent of the water withdrawn from the four-county study area during 1990–2000 was 

withdrawn from Sedgwick County. Water use varies from year 

to year as a result of many factors including changes in precipitation, population, and especially irrigation pumpage.

Ground-water use reported to the Kansas Department of 

Agriculture, Division of Water Resources (DWR) (written 

commun., 2003), for 1998–2001 was summarized for the modeled area (table 5). Irrigation and municipal uses accounted for 

an average of 36 and 28 percent, respectively, of the total 

ground-water use in the modeled area during 1998–2001. Much 

of this water use is concentrated in Sedgwick County. Water use 

that is authorized or permitted by DWR (about 68 Mgal/d) is 

almost twice the 1998–2001 average reported use (about 

36 Mgal/d).

Water Quality

Unsuitable water quality can restrict some uses of a water 

resource. Ground- and surface-water-quality issues, especially 

elevated chloride concentrations, have been identified in the 

study area by previous investigators (Gogel, 1981). An inventory of historic ground- and surface-water-quality analyses for 

the four-county study area was compiled from the USGS 

QWDATA database, and water-quality samples were collected 

during August 2003 from 30 wells and 10 surface-water sites in 

and near the modeled area (fig. 12) to help further define water 

quality in the alluvial aquifer. 
Characterization of Study Area 21

Table 4. Estimated water use in Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner 

Counties, south-central Kansas, during 1990, 1995, and 2000.—Continued

[Water-use data and population served from U.S. Geological Survey (2003). Mgal/d; 

million gallons per day]

Use

(population served)

Estimated water use (Mgal/d)

Ground 

water

Surface 

water Total

Butler County

1990

Public supplies (37,020) 0.08 7.63 7.71

Irrigation .13 1.14 1.27

Thermoelectric power generation 0 0 0

Industrial .07 .17 .24

Domestic, self supplied (13,560) 1.22 0 1.22

All other uses .86 1.66 2.52

Total for 1990 2.36 10.60 12.96

1995

Public supplies (41,440) .12 8.42 8.54

Irrigation .04 .61 .65

Thermoelectric power generation 0 0 0

Industrial 0 .22 .22

Domestic, self supplied (16,310) 1.35 0 1.35

All other uses 1.70 .36 2.06

Total for 1995 3.21 9.61 12.82

2000

Public supplies (44,380) .14 10.07 10.21

Irrigation .12 1.06 1.18

Thermoelectric power generation 0 0 0

Industrial .01 .03 .04

Domestic, self supplied (15,100) 1.07 0 1.07

All other uses .37 1.70 2.07

Total for 2000 1.71 12.86 14.57

Cowley County

1990

Public supplies (33,400) 4.10 2.33 6.43

Irrigation .75 .55 1.30

Thermoelectric power generation 0 0 0

Industrial 1.08 0 1.08

Domestic, self supplied (3,520) .34 0 .34

All other uses 1.78 .40 2.18

Total for 1990 8.05 3.28 11.33

1995

Public supplies (32,740) 3.37 2.00 5.37

Irrigation .46 .32 .78

Thermoelectric power generation 0 0 0

Industrial .96 0 .96

Domestic, self supplied (4,370) .38 0 .38

All other uses 1.54 .56 2.10

Total for 1995 6.71 2.88 9.59
22 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Cowley County—Continued

2000

Public supplies (33,560) 2.53 2.37 4.90

Irrigation .44 .79 1.23

Thermoelectric power generation 0 0 0

Industrial 0 0 0

Domestic, self supplied (2,730) .23 0 .23

All other uses .76 .90 1.66

Total for 2000 3.96 4.06 8.02

Sedgwick County

1990

Public supplies (360,400) 14.28 25.99 40.27

Irrigation 36.33 .94 37.27

Thermoelectric power generation 4.35 0 4.35

Industrial 7.02 0 7.02

Domestic, self supplied (43,260) 3.63 0 3.63

All other uses 7.53 .21 7.74

Total for 1990 73.14 27.14 100.28

1995

Public supplies (375,470) 18.95 25.49 44.44

Irrigation 27.01 .32 27.33

Thermoelectric power generation 4.46 0 4.46

Industrial 4.27 0 4.27

Domestic, self supplied (43,860) 3.17 0 3.17

All other uses 5.46 .17 5.63

Total for 1995 63.32 25.98 89.30

2000

Public supplies (432,790) 16.81 36.93 53.74

Irrigation 32.85 1.04 33.89

Thermoelectric power generation 5.86 0 5.86

Industrial 4.56 0 4.56

Domestic, self supplied (20,080) 1.75 0 1.75

All other uses 2.84 .27 3.11

Total for 2000 64.67 38.24 102.91

Sumner County

1990

Public supplies (23,700) 2.10 1.37 3.47

Irrigation 4.97 0 4.97

Thermoelectric power generation 0 0 0

Industrial 0 0 0

Domestic, self supplied (2,140) .20 0 .20

All other uses .82 .19 1.01

Total for 1990 8.09 1.56 9.65

Table 4. Estimated water use in Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner 

Counties, south-central Kansas, during 1990, 1995, and 2000.—Continued

[Water-use data and population served from U.S. Geological Survey (2003). Mgal/d; 

million gallons per day]

Use

(population served)

Estimated water use (Mgal/d)

Ground 

water

Surface 

water Total
Characterization of Study Area 23

Sumner County—Continued

1995

Public supplies (23,310) 1.77 0.74 2.51

Irrigation 3.29 .01 3.30

Thermoelectric power generation 0 0 0

Industrial .01 0 .01

Domestic, self supplied (3,210) .24 0 .24

All other uses .80 .03 .83

Total for 1995 6.11 .78 6.89

2000

Public supplies (23,910) 1.73 .95 2.68

Irrigation 5.52 0 5.52

Thermoelectric power generation 0 0 0

Industrial 0 0 0

Domestic, self supplied (2,040) .18 0 .18

All other use .57 .06 .63

Total for 2000 8.00 1.01 9.01

Totals for study area

1990

Public supplies (454,520) 20.56 37.32 57.88

Irrigation 42.18 2.63 44.81

Thermoelectric power generation 4.35 0 4.35

Industrial 8.17 .17 8.34

Domestic, self supplied (62,480) 5.39 0 5.39

All other uses 10.99 2.46 13.45

Total for 1990 91.64 42.58 134.22

1995

Public supplies (472,960) 24.21 36.65 60.86

Irrigation 30.80 1.26 32.06

Thermoelectric power generation 4.46 0 4.46

Industrial 5.24 .22 5.46

Domestic, self supplied (67,750) 5.14 0 5.14

All other uses 9.50 1.12 10.62

Total for 1995 79.35 39.25 118.60

2000

Public supplies (534,640) 21.21 50.32 71.53

Irrigation 38.93 2.89 41.82

Thermoelectric power generation 5.86 0 5.86

Industrial 4.57 .03 4.60

Domestic, self supplied (39,950) 3.23 0 3.23

All other uses 4.54 2.93 7.47

Total for 2000 78.34 56.17 134.51

Table 4. Estimated water use in Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner 

Counties, south-central Kansas, during 1990, 1995, and 2000.—Continued

[Water-use data and population served from U.S. Geological Survey (2003). Mgal/d; 

million gallons per day]

Use

(population served)

Estimated water use (Mgal/d)

Ground 

water

Surface 

water Total
24 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

1990

1995

2000

Public supplies (43 percent)

Irrigation (34 percent)

Thermoelectric

power generation

(3 percent) 

Industrial (6 percent)

Domestic, self supplied (4 percent)

All other uses

(10 percent)

Public supplies (53 percent)

Irrigation (31 percent)

Thermoelectric

power generation

(5 percent) 

Industrial (3 percent)

Domestic, self supplied (2 percent)

All other uses

(6 percent)

Public supplies (51 percent)

Irrigation (27 percent)

Thermoelectric

power generation

(4 percent) 

Industrial (5 percent)

Domestic, self supplied (4 percent)

All other uses

(9 percent)

Surface water

(32 percent)

Ground water

(68 percent)

Surface water

(33 percent)

Ground water

(67 percent)

Surface water

(42 percent)

Ground water

(58 percent)

Figure 11. Percentages of water withdrawn from study area, 1990, 1995, and 2000 (data from U.S. Geological Survey, 2003).
Characterization of Study Area 25

Table 5. Reported ground-water use in modeled area of lower Arkansas River Basin in south-central Kansas for 1998–2001.

[Water-use values reported to Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources, Topeka, Kansas. All values are in million gallons per 

day; --, not reported]

Water use 1998 1999 2000 2001 Average for 

1998–2001

Contamination remediation 3.39 2.99 3.92 3.01 3.33

Dewatering -- -- -- .17 .04

Hydraulic dredging .36 .45 .18 .26 .31

Industrial uses 6.62 7.89 7.13 6.24 6.97

Irrigation 13.54 10.77 12.73 15.31 13.09

Municipal uses 11.52 9.61 11.36 8.79 10.32

Recreational uses .75 1.28 3.71 1.44 1.79

Thermal exchange -- -- -- 1.41 .35

Total 36.18 32.99 39.02 36.62 36.20

Ground-water-quality samples were collected using 

approved USGS techniques (Wood, 1976). All wells that were 

sampled were less than 100 ft deep and were completed in 

unconsolidated deposits. Surface-water quality samples were 

collected using either a width-integrated approach in the case of 

a stream or a depth-integrated approach in the case of a surfacewater body (Wilde and others, 1999). The surface-water sampling sites included four sites on the Arkansas River, two sites 

on the Ninnescah River, one site on Slate Creek, two sand quarries, and one oxbow lake. 

All samples were measured onsite for physical properties, 

including specific conductance, pH, temperature, and alkalinity, using methods described in Wilde and Radtke (1998). 

Major-ion concentrations (including calcium, magnesium, 

sodium, sulfate, and chloride) were analyzed at the USGS 

National Water-Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Denver, Colorado, using analytical methods described in Fishman and Friedman (1989). Results of the August 2003 water-quality analyses 

are presented in table 11 in the “Supplemental Information” 

section at the back of this report.

The natural water-quality characteristics of ground water 

generally are functions of the mineralogy of the geologic formations containing the water and of the duration of contact 

between the water and minerals (Bevans, 1989).The natural 

water-quality characteristics of surface water generally are a 

function of water volume, water velocity, surface runoff, 

ground-water contributions, and point- and nonpoint-source 

contributions. Data obtained through a search of the USGS 

QWDATA database for results of ground- and surface-waterquality analyses were used to give an overall picture of the historical quality of water in the four-county area. Of specific 

interest were dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations as these water-quality constituents have been identified in 

previous studies as being particularly problematic (see references cited in “Previous Studies” section) for the study area.

Dissolved Solids

 In general, water from consolidated bedrock formations in 

the four-county area (specifically the Wellington Formation and 

Ninnescah Shale) is more mineralized than water from the shallower unconsolidated deposits (specifically alluvial and terrace 

deposits), and concentrations of dissolved solids generally 

increase with depth as the duration of contact between the water 

and the minerals increases (Bevans, 1989, p. 82). Unconsolidated deposits generally have few readily soluble minerals; they 

are recharged rapidly by precipitation and transmit ground 

water at a faster rate than bedrock. However, water from unconsolidated deposits generally is more susceptible to larger concentrations of dissolved solids. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2003) has 

established a nonenforceable guideline (Secondary Drinking 

Water Regulation, SDWR) of 500 mg/L for dissolved solids in 

drinking water. SDWRs regulate contaminants that may cause 

cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. 

Water containing more than 500 mg/L dissolved solids is likely 

to contain enough of certain constituents to cause noticeable 

taste or odor issues or otherwise make the water undesirable or 

unsuitable for some uses.

A map showing historical dissolved-solids concentrations 

in water from wells in the four-county study area is shown in 

figure 13A. The map is based on results of analyses from 

926 ground-water samples with historical concentrations ranging from 7.0 to 31,600 mg/L and a median dissolved-solids concentration of 825 mg/L. Twenty-nine percent of the samples 

contained dissolved-solids concentrations that were 500 mg/L 

or less.

Historical dissolved-solids concentrations in water from 

wells in Butler County were generally larger in water from the 

unconsolidated deposits along the Whitewater and Walnut Rivers than in water from upland areas of the county (fig. 13A). In 

Cowley County, Bayne (1962, table 6) reported dissolved solids 

in 57 ground-water samples in concentrations ranging from 
26 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Wichita

Haysville

Derby

Goddard

Andale

Arkansas City

Belle

Plaine Conway

Springs

Oxford

T.

26

S.

T.

27

S.

T.

28

S.

T.

29

S.

T.

30

S.

T.

31

S.

T.

32

S.

T.

33

S.

T.

34

S.

T.

35

S.

R. 1 W R. 1 E. R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 4 W. R. 3 W. R. 2 W. .

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Slate

Creek

Walnut River

Little

Walnut

Hickory

Muddy Creek

Rock

Fourmile Creek

Eightmile Creek

SUMNER COUNTY

Timber

Grouse

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

GRANT COUNTY KAY COUNTY

0 5 10 15 MILES

0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Chikaskia

River

EXPLANATION

Ground-water-quality sampling site and map number

Surface-water-quality sampling site and map number

Boundary of modeled area

Walnut

River

Whitewater River

River

Creek

Creek

Creek

Arkansas

River

Creek

97°40' 30' 20' 10' 97° 96°50'

37°50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

Valley

Center

Augusta

Towanda El Dorado

Winfield

Wellington

Garden

Plain

Maize

Colwich

Big Slough Creek

Little

Arkansas River

31

29

27

25

32

24 23

22

21

19

18

40

20

16

15

12

14

13

11

10 9

6

5

4

3

2

8

17

33

39

38

37

36

35

1

1

34

34

7

26

28

30

Ninnescah River

Cowskin

Creek

Bird

Creek

Figure 12. Location of ground- and surface-water sites where water-quality samples were collected during August 2003 in and near 

modeled area.
Characterization of Study Area 27

269 to 28,000 mg/L. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water 

from consolidated bedrock formations ranged from 290 to 

2,670 mg/L, and in water from unconsolidated deposits, dissolved-solids concentrations ranged from 269 to 28,000 mg/L. 

Figure 13A shows larger historical dissolved-solids concentrations in water from wells in the unconsolidated deposits along 

the Arkansas River in Cowley County than in upland areas. 

In Sedgwick County, water from the Wellington Formation is generally either a calcium sulfate, a calcium bicarbonate 

sulfate, or a calcium bicarbonate type. Calcium and bicarbonate 

are derived from the dissolution of impure limestone beds that 

occur in this formation. Calcium and sulfate are derived from 

the dissolution of gypsum and anhydrite beds. The calcium sulfate type water from the Wellington Formation generally contains dissolved-solids concentrations that exceed 1,000 mg/L; 

the calcium bicarbonate sulfate type water has dissolved-solids 

concentrations ranging from 500 to 1,000 mg/L; and calcium 

bicarbonate type water has concentrations of dissolved solids 

that are generally less than 500 mg/L (Bevans, 1989). 

Water from the Ninnescah Shale in Sedgwick County is 

generally less mineralized than water from the Wellington Formation because the Ninnescah Shale does not contain as many 

readily soluble minerals and because the occurrence of unconsolidated deposits overlying the Ninnescah Shale improves 

recharge conditions and probably allows dilution of water in the 

bedrock (Lane and Miller, 1965a). Shallow wells in the upper 

weathered part of the Ninnescah Shale yield calcium bicarbonate water, with dissolved-solids concentrations less than 

1,000 mg/L. Mineralization of water increases with depth in the 

Ninnescah Shale, and where thin beds of gypsum are encountered, the water is a calcium sulfate type, with concentrations of 

dissolved solids often exceeding 1,000 mg/L (Bevans, 1989).

Lower Pleistocene (undifferentiated pre-Illinoisan age) 

deposits that occur in upland areas north of the Ninnescah River 

yield calcium bicarbonate type water, with less than 500 mg/L 

dissolved solids. Alluvium and terrace deposits of Wisconsin to 

Holocene age also occur in the Ninnescah River Valley, but 

water-quality data are sparse. The Ninnescah River is a gaining 

stream throughout its reach, and water in the alluvium may be 

similar to that in adjacent bedrock, probably calcium sulfate or 

calcium bicarbonate type water with less than 1,000 mg/L dissolved solids. Large-capacity wells could induce infiltration of 

stream water into the alluvium and yield sodium chloride type 

water with less than 1,000 mg/L (Bevans, 1989). 

Water in alluvium and terrace deposits of Wisconsinan to 

Holocene age in the Little Arkansas River valley north of Wichita generally is a calcium bicarbonate type, with generally less 

than 500 mg/L dissolved solids. In northern Wichita, these same 

deposits contain sodium calcium chloride bicarbonate type 

water, with concentrations of dissolved solids exceeding 

500 mg/L or sodium chloride type water, with concentrations of 

dissolved solids exceeding 1,000 mg/L (fig. 13A). South of 

Wichita, alluvium and terrace deposits contain calcium bicarbonate water, with concentrations of dissolved solids less than 

1,000 mg/L and locally less than 500 mg/L (Bevans, 1989). 

In Sumner County, historical dissolved-solids concentrations were generally larger in the unconsolidated deposits along 

the major streams than in upland areas (fig. 13A). Walters 

(1961, table 6) reported dissolved solids in 67 ground-water 

samples in concentrations ranging from 146 to about 

158,400 mg/L. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water from 

consolidated bedrock formations ranged from 573 to 

3,360 mg/L for the Wellington Formation and from 295 to 

2,670 mg/L for the Ninnescah Shale (Walters, 1961, table 6). 

Dissolved-solids concentrations in water from unconsolidated 

deposits ranged from 146 to 158,400 mg/L. Walters (1961) 

attributed the larger concentrations of dissolved solids in 

unconsolidated deposits of Sumner County to oilfield-brine 

contamination.

The results of analyses for dissolved solids in the August 

2003 water-quality samples from 30 ground-water sites and 

10 surface-water sites are shown in figure 13B and listed in 

table 11 at the back of this report. Forty percent of the samples 

collected from the ground-water sites contained dissolvedsolids concentrations that exceeded the SDWR, and 80 percent 

of the surface-water samples had dissolved-solids concentrations that exceeded the SDWR. Dissolved-solids concentrations 

in the August 2003 ground-water samples ranged from 216 to 

1,100 mg/L and are larger in the Wichita area and near and 

downstream from the confluence of the Ninnescah and Arkansas Rivers (fig. 13B). Dissolved-solids concentrations in the 

August 2003 surface-water samples ranged from 318 (sand 

quarry near Oxford, map number 37) to 4,340 mg/L (Slate 

Creek, map number 35) and were largest in samples from the 

upstream end of the modeled area, the downstream reach of 

Slate Creek, and the oxbow lake near Belle Plaine (map number 

39, fig. 13B). Dissolved-solids concentrations were smallest 

(318 and 368 mg/L) in samples from the two sand quarries (map 

numbers 37 and 40, respectively, fig. 13B). The two sandquarry dissolved-solids concentrations probably reflect the 

ground-water contribution to the quarries.

Chloride

Chloride ions are very abundant in nature. They are found 

in quantity in sea water (19,000 mg/L; Hem, 1992) and oilfield 

brines and are dissolved in small quantities as sodium chloride 

from many rock materials. Two natural sources of chloride and 

one artificial source (resulting from human activities) affect 

ground-water quality in the four-county study area. The two 

natural sources of chloride are the Arkansas River and saline 

ground water from the Wellington Formation (Gogel, 1981). 

The artificial source of chloride is brine from oilfield activities. 

Chloride has little effect on the suitability of water for ordinary 

use unless present in sufficient quantity to make the water unpotable or corrosive. Chloride concentrations less than 250 mg/L 

cannot be detected by taste; water containing between 250 and 

500 mg/L chloride may have a slightly salty taste but can be 

used for drinking and household uses; and water containing 

more than 500 mg/L has a disagreeable taste but 
28 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

T.

22

S.

T.

23

S.

T.

24

S.

T.

25

S.

T.

26

S.

T.

27

S.

T.

28

S.

T.

29

S.

T.

30

S.

T.

31

S.

T.

32

S.

T.

33

S.

T.

34

S.

T.

35

S.

R. 5 W. R. 4 W. R. 3 W. R. 2 W. R. 1 W. R. 1 E. R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E.

Wichita

Belle

Plaine

Oxford

97°50'

38°

50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

40' 30' 20' 10' 50' 40' 96°30' 97°

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Slate Creek

Ninnescah River South Fork

North Fork

Cheney

Reservoir

Arkansas River

Big Slough

Creek

Little

Walnut River

El Dorado Lake

Little Walnut River

Hickory Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock Creek

Eightmile Creek

SUMNER COUNTY

Timber

Grouse Creek

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

HARVEY COUNTY

MARION CHASE COUNTY COUNTY

RENO COUNTY

KINGMAN

COUNTY

HARPER

COUNTY

KAY COUNTY GRANT COUNTY OSAGE COUNTY

CHAUTAUQUA

COUNTY

ELK

COUNTY

GREENWOOD

COUNTY 

0 5 10 20 MILE 15 S

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Extent of alluvial deposits from

Kansas Geological Survey (1964)

Chikaskia River

EXPLANATION

Alluvial deposits

Boundary of modeled area

Boundary of four-county study area

Walnut

River

River

Dissolved-solids concentration,

 in milligrams per liter

 0–250

 251–500

 501–1,000

1,001–2,000

Greater than 2,000

Not determined

Arkansas River

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Creek

Arkansas

Cowskin

Creek

Bird Creek

Figure 13. (A) Historical dissolved-solids concentrations in water from wells in the four-county study area (data from 

U.S. Geological Survey QWDATA database).
Characterization of Study Area 29

T.

26

S.

T.

27

S.

T.

28

S.

T.

29

S.

T.

30

S.

T.

31

S.

T.

32

S.

T.

33

S.

T.

34

S.

T.

35

S.

R. 1 W R. 1 E. R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 4 W. R. 3 W. R. 2 W. .

Wichita

Belle

Plaine

Oxford

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Slate Creek

Walnut River

Little Walnut

Hickory

Muddy Creek

Rock Creek

Fourmile Creek

Eightmile Creek

SUMNER COUNTY

Timber Creek

Grouse

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

GRANT COUNTY KAY COUNTY

0 5 10 15 MILES

0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987 Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Chikaskia River

EXPLANATION

Walnut

River

River

Arkansas

Creek

River

Creek

Whitewater River

97°40' 30' 20' 10' 97° 96°50'

38°50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

Big Slough

Arkansas

31

29

27

25

32

24 23

22

21

19

18

40

20

16

15

12

14

13

11

10 9

6

5

4

3

2

8

17

33

39

38

37

36

35

1

1

34

34

7

26

28

30

Ninnescah River

Ground-water sampling site and map number

Surface-water sampling site and map number

Boundary of modeled area

Dissolved-solids concentration,

 in milligrams per liter

 0–250

 251–500

 501–1,000

1,001–2,000

Greater than 2,000

Not determined

River

Creek

Little Arkansas River

Cowskin

Creek

Bird Creek

Figure 13. (B) Dissolved-solids concentrations in ground- and surface-water samples collected from modeled area, 

August 2003.
30 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

ordinarily causes no health effects until much larger concentrations are present. Chloride concentrations greater than 

350 mg/L can be harmful to crops (Bauder, 2000). Because of 

the salty taste and corrosive potential, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (2003) has established a nonenforceable 

SDWR of 250 mg/L for drinking water.

A map of historical chloride concentrations in ground 

water in the four-county study area is shown in figure 14A. The 

map is based on results of analyses from 3,413 ground-water 

samples with historical concentrations ranging from 1.1 to 

160,000 mg/L and a median chloride concentration of 67 mg/L. 

Ninety-one percent of the samples contained chloride concentrations that were 500 mg/L or less. 

In Butler County, historical chloride concentrations of 

500 mg/L or greater may be associated with the extensive past 

or present oilfield activities in the county (fig. 15). In Cowley 

County, Bayne (1962, table 6 and p. 100) reported chloride concentrations in 215 ground-water samples ranging from 11 to 

17,300 mg/L, with the largest concentrations in a ground-water 

sample from terrace deposits adjacent to the Arkansas River and 

in association with a still active oilfield. Of the 215 samples, 

87 (40 percent) contained chloride in excess of 250 mg/L, all 

but one of which were collected from alluvium or terrace 

deposits in the Arkansas River Valley and adjacent areas 

(Bayne, 1962). 

In Sedgwick County, Lane and Miller (1965a) reported 

chloride concentrations in 297 ground-water samples ranging 

from 4 to 1,695 mg/L, and 24 years later, Bevans (1989) 

reported chloride concentrations in 101 ground-water samples 

ranging from 7.5 to 630 mg/L. Ground-water contamination 

from oilfield brine was indicated in 16 of the samples from the 

study by Bevans (1989, p. 115).

In Sumner County, Walters (1961) reported chloride concentrations in 219 ground-water samples ranging from 60 to 

160,000 mg/L. Of these samples, 170 had chloride concentrations less than 500 mg/L, 20 contained 500 to 2,000 mg/L, 

11 contained 2,001 to 10,000 mg/L, and 18 contained more than 

10,000 mg/L. Walters (1961, p. 49) and Gogel (1981) thought 

that the large chloride concentrations west of Belle Plaine along 

the Ninnescah River were due to natural contamination 

upwelling from the Wellington Formation, whereas the large 

chloride concentrations in the Oxford area were due to contamination from oilfield brine (see also fig. 15). Figure 14A shows 

historical chloride concentrations ranging from less than 250 to 

more than 2,000 mg/L in water from Sumner County wells.

The results of analyses for chloride in the August 2003 

water-quality samples from 30 ground-water sites and 10 surface-water sites are shown in figure 14B and listed in table 11 at 

the back of this report. Only one sample collected from the 

ground-water sites contained a chloride concentration that 

exceeded the SDWR, and seven surface-water samples had 

chloride concentrations that exceeded the SDWR. Chloride 

concentrations in the August 2003 ground-water samples 

ranged from 5.2 to 380 mg/L and do not appear to be of major 

concern in the areas sampled (fig. 14B). Chloride concentrations in the August 2003 surface-water samples ranged from 

41 to 1,990 mg/L and were largest in surface-water samples 

from the downstream reach of Slate Creek (map number 35, 

fig. 14B) and the oxbow lake (map number 39). Chloride concentrations were smallest (41 and 46 mg/L) in samples from the 

two sand quarries (map numbers 40 and 37, respectively, 

fig. 14B). The two sand-quarry chloride concentrations 

probably reflect the predominant ground-water contribution 

to the quarries.

Sulfate

Sulfur is widely distributed in reduced form in both igneous and sedimentary rock as metallic sulfides. When sulfide 

minerals undergo weathering in contact with aerated water, the 

sulfur is oxidized to yield sulfate ions that go into solution in 

water. Pyrite crystals occur in many sedimentary rocks and constitute a source of ferrous iron and sulfate in ground water. Oxidation of pyrite and other forms of sulfur also is promoted by 

humans through the combustion of fuels and the smelting of 

ores, which contribute sulfate to natural water. Sulfate also is a 

common constituent in seawater (2,700 mg/L) and brines (Hem, 

1992, p. 112–113).

Sulfate when combined with calcium or magnesium contributes most of the permanent hardness to natural water, and 

the removal of these constituents is both difficult and expensive. 

Sulfate in excessive amounts (more than 500 mg/L) in water 

used for drinking or livestock watering is undesirable because 

of the laxative effect when the water is first used. A concentration of less than 250 mg/L is recommended for human consumption, although a concentration as great as 2,000 mg/L may 

be tolerated. Because of its potential laxative effect, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (2003) has recommended a 

nonenforceable SDWR of 250 mg/L in drinking water.

A map showing historical sulfate concentrations in water 

from wells in the four-county study area is shown in figure 16A. 

The map is based on results of analyses from 2,902 groundwater samples with historical concentrations ranging from 0.40 

to 7,800 mg/L and a median sulfate concentration of 74 mg/L. 

Seventy-two percent of the samples contained sulfate concentrations that were 250 mg/L or less.

Historical sulfate concentrations in water from wells in 

Butler County were generally larger in water from the unconsolidated deposits along the Whitewater River than in other 

areas of the county (fig. 16A). In Cowley County, Bayne (1962, 

p. 100) reported sulfate in 138 ground-water samples in concentrations ranging from 5.3 to 1,490 mg/L; 11 samples contained 

concentrations of more than 250 mg/L. Figure 16A shows historical sulfate concentrations that were generally 250 mg/L or 

less in water from Cowley County wells. 

Lane and Miller (1965a, table 5) reported sulfate concentrations in 81 ground-water samples from Sedgwick County 

that ranged from 11 to 1,550 mg/L, whereas Bevans (1989, 

table 15) reported sulfate concentrations in 101 ground-water 

samples that ranged from 15 to 1,700 mg/L. Figure 16A generally shows larger historical sulfate concentrations in water from 
Alluvial Aquifer Characteristics in Modeled Area 31

upland wells in Sedgwick County than in wells located in the 

unconsolidated deposits adjacent to major streams.

In Sumner County, Walters (1961, p. 51) reported sulfate 

concentrations in 95 ground-water samples ranging from 3.7 to 

7,800 mg/L. Of these samples, 30 had sulfate concentrations 

less than 50 mg/L, 36 contained 50 to 250 mg/L, 8 contained 

251 to 1,000 mg/L, and 21 contained more than 1,000 mg/L. 

Figure 16A also shows generally larger historical sulfate concentrations in water from upland wells in Sumner County than 

in water from wells located adjacent to major streams.

The results of analyses for sulfate in the August 2003 

water-quality samples from 30 ground-water sites and 10 surface-water sites are shown in figure 14B and listed in table 11 at 

the back of this report. Only one water-quality sample collected 

from the modeled area contained a sulfate concentration that 

exceeded the SDWR. The surface-water sample from Slate 

Creek (map number 35, fig. 16B) had a sulfate concentration of 

480 mg/L. Sulfate concentrations in the August 2003 groundwater samples ranged from 16 to 210 mg/L. Sulfate concentrations in the August 2003 surface-water samples ranged from 

64 to 480 mg/L and were smallest (64 mg/L) in samples from 

the Ninnescah River near Peck (map number 33, fig. 16B) and 

in the sand quarry near Oxford (map number 37). Overall, sulfate concentrations in the water-quality samples collected during August 2003 do not exceed standards.

Alluvial Aquifer Characteristics in Modeled 

Area

Although ground water is found in the subsurface throughout the study area, the hydrogeologic properties of the rock and 

unconsolidated subsurface deposits determine the availability 

of water. Most of the bedrock consists of fine-grained shale, 

silty shale, and siltstone, with some instances of limestone. The 

fine-grained consolidated nature of the shale and siltstone hinders the movement of water and limits recharge and yields to 

wells. In areas where the consolidated limestone has weathered 

or developed solution openings, yields of generally hard water 

may range from less than 10 to as much as 350 gal/min in localized areas (Lane and Miller, 1965a; Bevans, 1989). 

In general, saturated unconsolidated deposits yield much 

larger quantities of water to wells than saturated bedrock in the 

study area. The saturated unconsolidated deposits in the Arkansas River Valley can yield as much as 2,000 gal/min (Bevans, 

1989) and from 50 to about 300 gal/min in the Ninnescah River 

Valley where they are thinner and generally less permeable 

(Lane and Miller, 1965a). The saturated portion of the post-Illinoisan unconsolidated deposits shown in figure 9 is referred to 

as the “alluvial aquifer” in this report and will be the only aquifer discussed in the rest of this report.

Areal Extent and Hydraulic Properties

The Arkansas River alluvial aquifer extends laterally 

between the alluvial valley walls where bedrock crops out 

(fig. 9) and vertically from the land surface to the top of the bedrock. A map showing the configuration of the bedrock in the 

modeled area is shown in figure 17. This map is based on information from driller’s logs on file with the Kansas Geological 

Survey (KGS) (well driller’s log WWWC–5 database, 

Lawrence, Kansas) and published well logs, maps, and (or) geologic sections found in Walters (1961), Bayne (1962), Lane and 

Miller (1965a,b), and Gogel (1981). The altitude of the bedrock 

surface ranges from a low of about 1,050 ft in Cowley County 

to a high of greater than 1,300 ft in Sedgwick County (fig. 17).

Hydraulic properties of an aquifer provide important information in the evaluation of ground-water problems by giving an 

indication of well yield in a particular aquifer and by providing 

the necessary data for ground-water modeling. Hydraulic properties include estimates of hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storage coefficient, and specific yield. Under unconfined 

conditions, as is the case in the alluvial aquifer in the modeled 

area, the storage coefficient and the specific yield are 

virtually equal.

A general review of lithologic logs of wells in the modeled 

area does not indicate the presence of widespread or laterally 

extensive confining units (such as clay and shale) within the 

unconfined alluvial aquifer. This absence of widespread confining units and the generally sand-and-gravel nature of the alluvial sediment result in relatively uniform hydraulic conductivity 

from top to bottom in the aquifer. In the northern part of the 

modeled area, Myers and others (1996), using aquifer-test data 

(Reed and Burnett (1985), pumping tests, and lithologic logs 

from eight observation wells southeast of Maize (Maize section, 

plate 2), estimated hydraulic conductivity in the upper unit of 

the Equus Beds aquifer (alluvial deposits that ranged from 2 to 

about 110 ft below land surface). Myers’ estimates for hydraulic 

conductivity ranged from 50 to 750 ft/d, with 750 ft/d most 

common in the alluvial deposits near the Arkansas River 

(Myers and others, 1996, fig. 21A). Near the southern end of 

the modeled area, Spruill (1993, p. 10–11), using information 

from Lohman (1979, table 17) and lithologic information from 

selected wells and test holes, estimated hydraulic conductivity 

of the alluvial aquifer at an abandoned oil refinery located just 

southeast of the modeled area on the western edge of Arkansas 

City. Spruill’s estimates ranged from about 15 ft/d for fine sand 

found in the upper part of the aquifer to about 800 ft/d for coarse 

sand and gravel found in the lower 5 to 10 ft of the alluvial aquifer. Average hydraulic-conductivity values from eight wells at 

the abandoned refinery ranged from 25 to about 375 ft/d 

(Spruill, 1993, table 1).

Specific capacities, computed from drillers’ logs, varied 

widely in the modeled area and were not considered reliable 

estimates of hydraulic conductivity or aquifer transmissivity. 

Hansen (1985, p. 13, plate 3) estimated specific yield of the 

alluvial aquifer in the modeled area at 0.15 on the basis of values reported in Fader and Morton (1975).
32 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

T.

22

S.

T.

23

S.

T.

24

S.

T.

25

S.

T.

26

S.

T.

27

S.

T.

28

S.

T.

29

S.

T.

30

S.

T.

31

S.

T.

32

S.

T.

33

S.

T.

34

S.

T.

35

S.

R. 5 W. R. 4 W. R. 3 W. R. 2 W. R. 1 W. R. 1 E. R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E.

97°50'

38°

50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

40' 30' 20' 10' 50' 40' 96°30' 97°

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Slate Creek

Ninnescah River

North Fork

Cheney

Reservoir

Arkansas River

Big Slough

Creek

Little

Walnut River

El Dorado Lake

Little

Hickory Creek

Muddy

Rock

Fourmile

Eightmile

SUMNER COUNTY

Timber

Grouse Creek

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

HARVEY COUNTY

MARION CHASE COUNTY COUNTY

RENO COUNTY

KINGMAN

COUNTY

HARPER

COUNTY

KAY COUNTY GRANT COUNTY OSAGE COUNTY

CHAUTAUQUA

COUNTY

ELK

COUNTY

GREENWOOD

COUNTY 

0 5 10 20 MILE 15 S

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Extent of alluvial deposits from

Kansas Geological Survey (1964)

Chikaskia River

Walnut

River

River

River

River

South Fork

EXPLANATION

Alluvial deposits

Boundary of modeled area

Boundary of four-county study area

Chloride concentration, in

 milligrams per liter

 0–250

 251–500

 501–860

861–2,000

Greater than 2,000

Not determined

Arkansas River

Walnut

Whitewater

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Arkansas

Cowskin

Creek

Bird Creek

Wichita

Belle

Plaine

Oxford

Figure 14. (A) Historical chloride concentrations in water from wells in the four-county study area (data from U.S. Geological 

Survey QWDATA database).
Alluvial Aquifer Characteristics in Modeled Area 33

T.

26

S.

T.

27

S.

T.

28

S.

T.

29

S.

T.

30

S.

T.

31

S.

T.

32

S.

T.

33

S.

T.

34

S.

T.

35

S.

R. 1 W R. 1 E. R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 4 W. R. 3 W. R. 2 W. .

Wichita

Belle

Plaine

Oxford

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Slate Creek

Walnut River

Little Walnut

Hickory

Muddy Creek

Rock Creek

Fourmile Creek

Eightmile Creek

SUMNER COUNTY

Timber

Grouse

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

GRANT COUNTY KAY COUNTY

0 5 10 15 MILES

0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987 Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Chikaskia River

Walnut

River

Whitewater

River

River

Creek

Arkansas

River

Creek

Creek

97°40' 30' 20' 10' 97° 96°50'

38°50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

Big Slough

Arkansas

31

29

27

25

32

24 23

22

21

19

18

40

20

16

15

12

14

13

11

10 9

6

5

4

3

2

8

17

33

39

38

37

36

35

1

34

7

26

28

30

Ninnescah River

EXPLANATION

1

34

Ground-water sampling site and map number

Surface-water sampling site and map number

Boundary of modeled area

Chloride concentration, in

 milligrams per liter

 0–250

 251–500

 501–860

861–2,000

Greater than 2,000

Not determined

River

Little Arkansas River

Creek

Belle

Plaine

Oxford

Cowskin

Creek

Bird Creek

Figure 14. (B) Chloride concentrations in ground- and surface-water samples collected from modeled area, August 2003.
34 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

97°50'

38°

50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

40' 30' 20' 10' 50' 40' 96°30' 97°

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Slate Creek

Ninnescah River

South Fork

North Fork Cheney

Reservoir

Arkansas River

Big

Creek

Little

Walnut River

El Dorado Lake

Little Walnut River

Hickory Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Eightmile Creek

SUMNER COUNTY

Timber

Grouse Creek

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

HARVEY COUNTY

CHASE COUNTY MARION COUNTY

RENO COUNTY

KINGMAN

COUNTY

HARPER

COUNTY

KAY COUNTY GRANT COUNTY OSAGE COUNTY

CHAUTAUQUA

COUNTY

ELK

COUNTY

GREENWOOD

COUNTY 

0 5 10 20 MILE 15 S

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Oil and gas field digital data from

Kansas Geological Survey (2003)

Chikaskia River

EXPLANATION

Oilfield

Oil and gas field

Gas field

Boundary of modeled area

Boundary of four-county study area

Well with chloride concentration equal to 

 or greater than 500 milligrams per liter

Walnut

River

Garden

Plain Goddard

Wichita

Haysville

Derby

Valley

Center

Towanda Maize

Mount

Hope

El Dorado

Augusta

Winfield

Arkansas City

Belle

Plaine

Wellington

Conway

Springs

Oxford

Andale

River 

Arkansas River

Slough

Whitewater River

Creek

Fourmile Creek

Creek

Arkansas

Cowskin

Creek

Bird Creek

Figure 15. Location of past and present (2003) oil and gas fields in the four-county study area (from Kansas Geological 

Survey, 2003) and wells with chloride concentrations in water samples equal to or greater than 500 milligrams per liter.
Alluvial Aquifer Characteristics in Modeled Area 35

Water Levels and Direction of Flow

An inventory of existing water wells in the four-county 

study area was done to identify potential ground-water-level 

measurement data-collection sites. Seventy-five wells from 

either the USGS National Water Information System groundwater (GWSI) or the KGS WWWC–5 database were selected 

using a 2- by 3-mi grid overlain on a map of the extent of the 

alluvial deposits in the lower Arkansas River Basin (Kansas 

Geological Survey, 1964) in the modeled area. The wells were 

selected to give the widest, most evenly distributed picture of 

ground-water conditions in the alluvial aquifer as possible. 

Water levels in the 75 wells were measured twice, in March 

2001 and February 2002. Water levels were measured to the 

nearest 0.01 ft using an electric tape. The ground-water-level 

data were used to draw maps of the altitude of the water-level 

surface and direction of ground-water flow in the alluvial aquifer at specific points in time (fig. 18A and 18B). Some of the 

measured wells were not used in the water-level maps because 

they were located outside of the modeled area and are not 

included in the data compilation in table 12. The ground-waterlevel data also provided a set of water levels to establish initial 

conditions as well as calibration target for the numerical model. 

The location, depth to water, land-surface altitude, groundwater altitude, and supporting information (water use and depth 

of well) for the 68 wells used in water-level-map compilation 

are given in table 12 in the “Supplemental Information” section 

at the back of this report. In March 2001 and February 2002, 

water-level altitudes in the alluvial aquifer in the modeled area 

ranged from about 1,090 ft in southeastern Cowley County to 

about 1,340 ft in Sedgwick County north of Wichita (fig. 18,

table 12). 

Depths to water in wells measured in March 2001 ranged 

from about 3.0 ft below land surface in a lawn and garden well 

north of Wichita to about 45 ft below land surface in an irrigation well southwest of Wichita. Depths to water in wells measured in February 2002 ranged from about 6.6 ft below land surface in a domestic well in Sumner County south of Derby to 

about 46 ft below land surface in an irrigation well southwest of 

Wichita (table 12). In all but two wells, water levels measured 

in February 2002 were lower than those measured in March 

2001; they were lower an average of 2.38 ft. Streamflow in the 

Arkansas River at Derby was well below the long-term median 

(526 ft3/s, table 1) in February 2002 (255 ft3

/s) and above the 

median in March 2001 (938 ft3

/s) (table 13 in the “Supplemental Information” section at the back of the report). Larger 

streamflows occur at higher stream stages.

Long-term historical water levels in the study area are 

available for only a few wells. An example is observation well 

26S–02W–29AAA01 northwest of Wichita where water levels 

have been measured periodically. Water levels since 1962 in 

this well are plotted in figure 19. In general, ground-water 

levels in and adjacent to the modeled area are strongly affected 

by precipitation and, if near a perennial stream, by the stream. 

Water levels fluctuate seasonally. Historic measurements show 

that water levels in this part of the alluvial aquifer have 

remained relatively stable since the 1960s, indicating a system 

in relative balance and near steady-state conditions (fig. 19).

Unconfined ground water flows from higher to lower altitudes in the direction that is perpendicular (in isotropic aquifers) 

to the water-level contours (fig. 18). In the modeled area, the 

direction of ground-water flow in March 2001 and February 

2002 is primarily down the valley parallel to the Arkansas River 

and toward the major streams. 

Saturated Thickness

Saturated thickness of the alluvial aquifer in the modeled 

area is the difference between the water-level altitude (figs. 18A

and 18B) and the bedrock-surface altitude (fig. 17) and in the 

modeled area ranged from less than 25 ft along the aquifer 

boundary and in some of the southern parts of the area to almost 

150 ft in the thickest part of the aquifer in the northwestern part 

of the modeled area (figs. 20A and 20B) and averaged 38 ft for 

March 2001 and February 2002. Hansen (1985, plate 1) 

mapped estimated saturated thickness of the alluvial aquifer 

statewide. Hansen’s estimates of saturated thickness in the 

study area ranged from less than 40 ft in most of Butler, Cowley, and Sumner Counties to more than 120 ft in north-central 

Sedgwick County (Hansen, 1985, plate 1). The width of the 

river valley in the modeled area generally ranges from 5 to 

10 mi. 

Surface-Water and Ground-Water Interaction

A hydrograph of a stream gage (Little Arkansas River at 

Valley Center) and a nearby well in the northern part of the 

study area show a good hydraulic connection between the river 

and the alluvial aquifer (fig. 21). Water-level changes in the 

river are transmitted rapidly to the aquifer and nearby well. 

Hydrographs at a nest of wells at different depths near a stream 

gage on the Arkansas River northwest of the study area near 

Hutchinson (fig. 22) indicate a similar good connection 

between the river and all depths in the aquifer (Myers and others, 1996). Given that the source of alluvial aquifer material is 

similar for these two areas as it is for the study area and the minimal aquifer thickness in the modeled area (average of 38 ft), it 

is likely that the connection between the Arkansas River and the 

entire alluvial aquifer thickness is very good in the 

modeled area.

The relation of the water-level altitude in the alluvial aquifer to the Arkansas River is indicative of the hydraulic conductivity of the unconsolidated deposits near the river. Water-level 

contours cross the Arkansas River nearly perpendicular to the 

channel (fig. 18). River stage and ground-water levels are very 

nearly the same because nearby aquifer sediment consists of 

coarse sand and gravel that transmit water-level changes rapidly 

(Myers and others, 1996).
36 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

T.

22

S.

T.

23

S.

T.

24

S.

T.

25

S.

T.

26

S.

T.

27

S.

T.

28

S.

T.

29

S.

T.

30

S.

T.

31

S.

T.

32

S.

T.

33

S.

T.

34

S.

T.

35

S.

R. 5 W. R. 4 W. R. 3 W. R. 2 W. R. 1 W. R. 1 E. R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 7 E. R. 8 E. R. 9 E.

Wichita

Belle

Plaine

Oxford

97°50'

38°

50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

40' 30' 20' 10' 50' 40' 96°30' 97°

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Slate Creek

Ninnescah River

North Fork

Cheney

Reservoir

Arkansas River

Big Slough

Creek

Little

Walnut River

El Dorado

Lake

Little

Hickory Creek

Muddy

Rock

Fourmile

Eightmile

SUMNER COUNTY

Timber

Grouse Creek

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

HARVEY COUNTY

MARION CHASE COUNTY COUNTY

RENO COUNTY

KINGMAN

COUNTY

HARPER

COUNTY

KAY COUNTY GRANT COUNTY OSAGE COUNTY

CHAUTAUQUA

COUNTY

ELK

COUNTY

GREENWOOD

COUNTY 

0 5 10 20 MILE 15 S

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Extent of alluvial deposits from

Kansas Geological Survey (1964)

Chikaskia River

Walnut

River

River

River

South Fork

EXPLANATION

Alluvial deposits

Boundary of modeled area

Boundary of four-county study area

Sulfate concentration, in

 milligrams per liter

 0–250

 251–500

 501–1,000

1,001–2,000

Greater than 2,000

Not determined

Arkansas River

Whitewater River

Walnut

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Arkansas

Cowskin

Creek

Bird Creek

Figure 16. (A) Historical sulfate concentrations in water from wells in the four-county study area (data from U.S. Geological 

Survey QWDATA database).
Alluvial Aquifer Characteristics in Modeled Area 37

T.

26

S.

T.

27

S.

T.

28

S.

T.

29

S.

T.

30

S.

T.

31

S.

T.

32

S.

T.

33

S.

T.

34

S.

T.

35

S.

R. 1 W R. 1 E. R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E. R. 5 E. R. 6 E. R. 4 W. R. 3 W. R. 2 W. .

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Slate Creek

Walnut River

Little Walnut

Hickory

Muddy Creek

Rock Creek

Fourmile Creek

Eightmile Creek

SUMNER COUNTY

Timber

Grouse

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

GRANT COUNTY KAY COUNTY

0 5 10 15 MILES

0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987 Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Chikaskia River

Walnut

River

Whitewater

River

River

Creek

Creek

Creek

River

Arkansas

EXPLANATION

1

34

Ground-water sampling site and map number

Surface-water sampling site and map number

Boundary of modeled area

97°40' 30' 20' 10' 97° 96°50'

38°50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

Big Slough

Arkansas

31

29

27

25

32

24 23

22

21

19

18

40

20

16

15

12

14

13

11

10 9

6

5

4

3

2

8

17

33

39

38

37

36

35

1

34

7

26

28

30

Ninnescah River

Creek

River

Little Arkansas River

Wichita

Belle

Plaine

Oxford

Sulfate concentration, in

 milligrams per liter

 0–250

 251–500

 501–1,000

1,001–2,000

Greater than 2,000

Not determined

Cowskin

Creek

Bird Creek

Figure 16. (B) Sulfate concentrations in ground- and surface-water samples collected from modeled area, August 2003.
38 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

1275

1275

1275

1250

1200

1175

1175

1175

1150

1100

1075

1075

1075

1075

1050

1050

1125

1125

1075

1075

1100

1225

1200

1250

1225

1275

1300

1100

1175

1175

1225

1200

1250

1275

1300

1300

1275

1300

1300

1300

1275

1250

1250

1200

1200

1175

1150

1225

Maize

Colwich

Augusta

Andale

Goddard

Garden Plain

Haysville Derby

Belle

Plaine

Oxford

Wichita

Winfield

Arkansas

City

Conway

Springs

Wellington

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97° 35'

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Approximate extent of alluvial deposits in modeled area

Bedrock contour—Shows altitude of bedrock

 surface. Contour interval 25 feet. Datum is

 North American Vertical Datum of 1988

-1 Jian/fig_17.ai

1075

Approximate 

boundary of

alluvial aquifer

Approximate 

boundary of

alluvial aquifer

River

Walnut River

River

Figure 17. Configuration of bedrock surface in modeled area. Geology based on driller’s logs on file with the 

Kansas Geological Survey (WWWC–5 database, Lawrence, Kansas) and published well logs, maps, and (or) 

geologic sections found in Walters (1961), Bayne (1962), Lane and Miller (1965a,b), and Gogel (1981).
Conceptual Model of the Alluvial Aquifer 39

Conceptual Model of the Alluvial Aquifer

A conceptual model of the alluvial aquifer, including 

boundaries and ground-water recharge and discharge, is useful 

to aid in understanding the ground-water flow system, in

formulating the ground-water flow model, and for evaluation of 

results from the model.

Boundaries

Within the modeled area (fig. 9), the upper shale member 

of the Wellington Formation forms a low-permeability barrier 

to ground-water flow. This shale member occurs beneath the 

alluvial aquifer where it exists throughout all of the modeled 

area. The alluvial aquifer extends generally east and west to the 

valley-wall interface between the alluvial deposits and the 

Wellington Formation. The unconsolidated deposits that comprise the alluvial aquifer extend north and south beyond the 

modeled area along the Arkansas River in Sedgwick and Cowley Counties, west along the Ninnescah River in Sedgwick 

County and along Slate Creek in Sumner County, and north 

along the Walnut River in Butler and Cowley Counties.

Water-Budget Components

Inflow to the alluvial aquifer in the modeled area is from 

recharge, ground-water inflow from adjacent areas, and seepage 

from the Arkansas and Ninnescah Rivers to the aquifer. Major 

components of outflow from the alluvial aquifer in the modeled 

area consist of ground-water flow out of the valley, seepage 

from the alluvial aquifer to the Arkansas and Ninnescah Rivers, 

and ground-water pumpage.

Recharge

The quantity of recharge from precipitation in any area is 

a function of the quantity and intensity of precipitation, types of 

vegetation, topography, soil permeability and antecedent soil 

moisture, and aquifer characteristics (permeability, porosity, 

depth to water, and capacity to store the recharge) (Bevans, 

1989, p. 80). The Arkansas River Valley in the modeled area is 

readily recharged by precipitation. The valley receives moderate precipitation (about 32.5 in/yr, average of 1961–90 mean 

annual precipitation at Arkansas City and Wichita), and land 

cover is primarily grassland and cropland. The valley is relatively flat, which allows for less runoff and more infiltration 

through the highly permeable sandy soil. The underlying alluvial deposits provide excellent aquifer storage as characterized 

by the thick deposits of unconsolidated sand and gravel especially in the northern part of the modeled area.

Recharge from precipitation occurs over all of the model 

area except where shale crops out (Sumner and Chase Groups, 

fig. 9). The amount of water reaching the saturated zone of the 

aquifer over the long term would be the total amount of 

precipitation minus the sum of surface runoff and evapotranspiration from the unsaturated zone, assuming no net change in 

subsurface storage. Results of previous investigations (Williams and Lohman, 1949; Stramel, 1956; Sophocleous, 1983; 

Dugan and Peckenpaugh, 1985; Sophocleous and Perry, 1985; 

Spinazola and others, 1985; Hansen, 1991; Myers and others, 

1996) indicate that annual recharge in the Arkansas River Valley in the vicinity of the study area ranges from 0.44 to 8.80 in. 

(about 1.4 to 27 percent of the 1961–90 mean annual precipitation for the modeled area). The median value of this range is 

4.6 in/yr, which applied over the entire 430-mi2 modeled area 

would yield 146 ft3

/s.

Lateral Ground-Water Inflow and Outflow

Given the small permeability beneath and along the valleywall sides of the alluvial aquifer, it is assumed that relatively 

little or no flow into or out of the alluvial aquifer occurs there. 

Lateral ground-water inflow and outflow to the alluvial aquifer 

in the modeled area can occur from the alluvial aquifer outside 

the modeled area across a broad area along the northwestern 

boundary, across a small area along the Arkansas River on the 

southern boundary, and across two small areas on the western 

side where alluvial deposits along the Ninnescah River and 

Slate Creek enter the modeled area. 

Estimated inflow across the northwestern boundary is 

about 51 ft3/s, assuming a hydraulic gradient of 0.001 (an average value throughout much of the modeled area, fig. 18A,B), a 

hydraulic conductivity of 750 ft/d, and an inflow area of 

5,911,000 ft2

. Estimated inflow on the western side of the modeled area along the Ninnescah River is about 7 ft3

/s, assuming a 

hydraulic gradient of 0.001, a hydraulic conductivity of 

750 ft/d, and an inflow area of 769,000 ft2. Estimated outflow 

on the southern side of the modeled area along the Arkansas 

River is about 2 ft3

/s, assuming a hydraulic gradient of 0.001, a 

hydraulic conductivity of 750 ft/d, and an outflow area of 

216,000 ft2. Total estimated net subsurface inflow is 56 ft3/s.

Flow From or To Streams

Inflow to the alluvial aquifer as seepage from streams or 

outflow from the alluvial aquifer to streams occurs along the 

Arkansas River, Cowskin Creek, and the Ninnescah River in the 

modeled area. Net streamflow gain can be estimated using 

hydrograph separation techniques (Rutledge, 1998; 2000). 

Using these techniques for the period 1940–2001, base flows 

were computed for USGS stream gages in the study area. The 

period 1940–2001 was used because it was the longest common 

period of record of reasonably average hydrologic conditions 

for the major streamflow gages that excluded the exceptional 

drought period of the 1930s. Median flows also were computed 

for that time period. Streamflow gain was estimated for the 

Arkansas River between Wichita and Arkansas City by subtracting the base flow at upstream USGS stream gages 
40 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

T.

26

S.

T.

27

S.

T.

28

S.

T.

29

S.

T.

30

S.

T.

31

S.

T.

32

S.

T.

33

S.

T.

34

S.

R. 3 W. R. 2 W. R. 1 W. R. 1 E. R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E.

1100 1092

1092

1125

1163

1262

1273

1272

1223

1183

1250

1259

1088

1216

1289

1321

1264

1308

1284 1288

1276

1271

1253 1241

1242

1293

1094

1148

1145

1111

1117

1146

1171

41

1161

1170

1196

1168

1174 1177 1175

1190 1197

1190

1205 1210 1232

1235

1225

1212

1222

1245

1252 1256 1317

1266

1271

1290

1312

1315

1291

1309

1324

1324

1329

1303

1146

11

1320

1310

1320

1300

1300

1280

1280

1270

1270

1260

1260

1250

1250

1240

1240

1230

1230

1220

1220

1210

1200

1200

1190

1180

1180

1170

1190

1180 1160

1160

1170

1150

1140

1130

1130

1140

1120

1120

1090

1090

1090

1290

1290

1330

1310

1320

1320

1338

1110

1100

1210

1363

1164

1363

Maize

Colwich

Augusta

Andale

Goddard

Garden Plain

Haysville Derby

Belle

Plaine

Oxford

Wichita

Winfield

Arkansas

City

Conway

Springs

Wellington

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97° 35'

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Approximate extent of alluvial deposits in

 modeled area

Water-table contour—Shows altitude of water

 table, March 2001. Contour interval 10 feet. 

 Datum is North American Vertical Datum 

 of 1988

Approximate direction of ground-water flow

1070

Ground-water sampling site—Number is altitude

 of water table, in feet, March 2001. Datum is

 North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Observation well with long-term water-level

 measurements—Shown in figure 19. Number is

 altitude of water table, in feet, March 2001.

 Datum is North American Vertical Datum of 1988

 

River

River

Walnut River

Approximate 

boundary of

alluvial aquifer

Approximate 

boundary of

alluvial aquifer

Figure 18. (A) Water-level altitudes and approximate direction of ground-water flow in alluvial aquifer 

in modeled area, March 2001.
Conceptual Model of the Alluvial Aquifer 41

T.

26

S.

T.

27

S.

T.

28

S.

T.

29

S.

T.

30

S.

T.

31

S.

T.

32

S.

T.

33

S.

T.

34

S.

R. 3 W. R. 2 W. R. 1 W. R. 1 E. R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E.

12 60

1098

1089

1121

1159

1260

1271

13

1320

1310

1320

1310

34

1143

1179

1245

1257

1086

1213

1288

1270

1307

1283 1287

1276

1247

1240

1242

1292

1092

1143

1141

1110

1114

1145

1138

1195

1158 1162

1163

1173

1177 1172

1195 1189 1188

1203 1207

1231 1222 1209

1220

1220

1242

1251 1254

1314

1264

1270

1287

1307 1313

1289 1308

1321

1320

1322

1301

1090

1090

1090

1110

1120

1120 1110

1130

1130

1140

1140

1150

1150

1160

1160

1170

1180

1180

1180

1190

1190

1170

1200

1200

1210

1210

1220

1220

1230

1230

1240

1240

1250

1250

1260

1260

1270

1270

1280

1280

1290

1290

1300

1300

1320

1330

1100

1100

1160

1167

Maize

Colwich

Augusta

Andale

Goddard

Garden Plain

Derby

Belle

Plaine

Oxford

Wichita

Winfield

Arkansas

City

Conway

Springs

Wellington

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97° 

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Approximate 

boundary of

alluvial aquifer

Approximate boundary of

alluvial aquifer

River

Haysville Walnut River

River

1092

Approximate extent of alluvial deposits in

 modeled area

Water-table contour—Shows altitude of water

 table, February 2002. Contour interval 10 feet. 

 Datum is North American Vertical Datum 

 of 1988

1070

Approximate direction of ground-water flow

Ground-water sampling site—Number is altitude

 of water table, in feet, February 2002. Datum is

 North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Figure 18. (B) Water-level altitudes and approximate direction of ground-water flow in alluvial aquifer 

in modeled area, February 2002.
42 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

(Arkansas River at Wichita, station 07144300; Ninnescah River 

near Peck, station 07145500; Slate Creek at Wellington, 

station 07145700; and Cowskin Creek at 119 Street at Wichita, 

station 07144480), estimates of tributary flow derived from 

Perry and others (2004) using 50-percent duration flows, and 

average flow from the Wichita wastewater treatment plant north 

of Derby for the period 1986–2003 (Willie Whitaker, Wichita 

Wastewater Treatment Plant, written commun., 2003) from the 

base flow at the downstream stream gage (Arkansas River at 

Arkansas City, station 07146500). The base flows were computed using the RORA program (Rutledge, 2000). The results 

are noted in table 6. The more-recent base-flow computation 

(1970–2001) exceeded that of the longer term record computation (1940–2001) (171 compared to 157 ft3

/s) despite greater 

average ground-water pumpage and Wichita treatment plant 

discharges during 1970–2001, both of which would reduce the 

amount of streamflow gain. Thus, the computed streamflowgain differences for these two relatively normal climatic periods 

Depth to water below land surface, in feet Amount of precipitation, in inches

(A) Observation well 26S-02W-29AAA 01

1962 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2003

(B) Annual precipitation at Wichita

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 19. (A) Ground-water levels in representative observation well in study area and (B) annual precipitation at nearby 

Wichita, 1962–2003. Location of observation well shown in figure 18. Ground-water levels from U.S. Geological Survey 

National Water Information System and measurements made during this study. Precipitation data from High Plains Regional 

Climate Center (2003).
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 43

exceed the human-induced changes during those periods. As a 

result, the 1940–2001 computation, that with the longer hydrologic record, was selected as most representative of streamflow 

gain (157 ft3/s).

Rutledge (2000) observed that base-flow separation techniques are more reliable on small and medium-sized streams 

than on larger streams like the Arkansas River. These techniques tend to overestimate base flow for large rivers because 

of poor streamflow recession characteristics of rivers with 

larger drainage basins. 

Streamflow gain varies considerably with time. Figure 23 

is a duration curve constructed by computing the streamflow 

difference on a daily basis (1-day lag) for the Arkansas River 

between Wichita and Arkansas City as indicated in the previous 

paragraph for the 1940–2001 period and rank ordering those 

daily streamflow gains. During drier times, this curve 

represents base flow; however, during wetter times, it is runoff 

dominated.

Ground-Water Pumpage

Outflow from the aquifer by ground-water pumpage from 

wells occurs throughout the modeled area. Municipal and 

industrial ground-water pumpage occurs in localized areas, 

whereas irrigation pumpage is more distributed over the modeled area. Average total ground-water pumpage for 1998–2001 

in the modeled area was reported to be about 36 Mgal/d 

(56 ft3/s) (table 5).

Conceptual Water-Budget Summary

A summary of the conceptual water budget is given in 

table 7. Recharge and flow to and from streams are the largest 

components. No attempt was made to balance the components 

of the conceptual budget.

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow

A three-dimensional, finite-difference, ground-water flow 

model program MODFLOW (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988) 

was used to simulate ground-water flow and stream-aquifer 

interaction in the modeled area. The simulated results were 

used to:

• Determine recharge over the modeled area;

• Show general patterns of ground-water flow in the alluvial aquifer; and

• Determine the effects of various hypothetical groundwater pumping scenarios on ground-water levels and 

on streamflow in the Arkansas River.

Assumptions for MODFLOW are:

• Aquifer properties and stresses are distributed uniformly within a model cell and are constant during a 

stress period;

• The effects of aquifer stresses across the model boundaries are negligible;

• Tops and bottoms of model cells are horizontal, and the 

sides of cells are vertical; and

• Stream leakage to and from the aquifer is vertical.

Because the focus of this study was the Arkansas River and 

the adjacent alluvial aquifer in the area between Wichita and 

Arkansas City, a model grid was laid out with rows generally 

perpendicular to the river (fig. 24). The model grid consisted of 

209 rows, 75 columns, and one layer for a total of 15,675 cells. 

One layer was used because the saturated thickness was less 

than 50 ft in most of the modeled area (38-ft average) and no 

known laterally extensive confining material was present. Each 

cell was 1,320.5 ft by 1,320.5 ft. The model grid was made large 

enough to take advantage of natural barriers to ground-water 

flow, such as the contact between shale and the alluvial deposits 

at the alluvial valley walls and to include the downstream 

reaches of the Ninnescah River and Slate Creek.

Various boundaries affect the geometry of the model. Noflow boundaries were simulated with no-flow cells where shale 

provides a natural boundary to ground-water flow on either side 

of the river valley. A no-flow boundary also was simulated 

beneath the alluvial aquifer where shale is considered a relatively impermeable boundary to ground-water flow. Water levels from Myers and others (1996) were used for the northern 

constant-head boundary. Water levels from the March 2001 

water-table map (fig. 18A) were used for constant-head boundaries near the Ninnescah River and Slate Creek on the west, and 

near the Arkansas River on the south. The southeastern constant-head boundary was selected along a ground-water potentiometric divide. Stream cells in the model were located where 

streams exist to simulate the flux of water to or from the stream 

that is dependent on the difference between hydraulic head in 

the stream and the aquifer and the vertical hydraulic conductivity. Constant-head cells were used to simulate ground-water 

flow into or out of the modeled area where the alluvial aquifer 

extends laterally beyond the model limits. Active cells represented that part of the alluvial aquifer where water levels, saturated thickness, and ground-water flow were allowed to fluctuate.

The model used a steady-state assumption. This was considered reasonable because of little long-term change in water 

levels (fig. 19) and insufficient water-level and water-use data 

to show sufficient change to accurately calibrate a transient 

model. A consequence of the steady-state assumption is that 

any future hypothetical simulations can only examine long-term 

steady-state effects of changes in the system.

Initial Model Conditions

Aquifer properties defined for the flow model included 

horizontal hydraulic conductivity. The model developed by 

Myers and others (1996) for the upper layer of the Equus Beds 

aquifer between Hutchinson and Wichita was the primary 
44 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

T.

26

S.

T.

27

S.

T.

28

S.

T.

29

S.

T.

30

S.

T.

31

S.

T.

32

S.

T.

33

S.

T.

34

S.

R. 3 W. R. 2 W. R. 1 W. R. 1 E. R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E.

25

100

75

100

25

25

50

50

50

25

25

25

25

50

75

25

25

25

25

25

75

2

7

7

2

23 32

25

43

62

84

26

31

29

16

47

71

11

22 34

75

10

53

25

20

25

21

15

30

21 41

17 12

41 41

55

48

29

10 21 17

52

40

30 32

35 32

22

25

28

16 77

22

27

92

86

28 59

38

28

103

135

149 137

147

113

20

71

0

0

125

50

l lll lll ll ll

l l l l l l ll ll l l l l l l l l ll

Maize

Colwich

Augusta

Andale

Goddard

Garden Plain

Haysville Derby

Belle

Plaine

Oxford

Wichita

Winfield

Arkansas

City

Conway

Springs

Wellington

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut River

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

Approximate extent of alluvial deposits in modeled area

Approximate saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer, March 2001—Interval 25 feet

Alluvial aquifer thickness measurement site—Number is thickness of 

 alluvial aquifer, in feet

25

Walnut River

River

Approximate boundary of

alluvial aquifer

Approximate 

boundary of

alluvial aquifer

24

Figure 20. (A) Approximate saturated thickness of the alluvial aquifer in the modeled area, March 2001.
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 45

T.

26

S.

T.

27

S.

T.

28

S.

T.

29

S.

T.

30

S.

T.

31

S.

T.

32

S.

T.

33

S.

T.

34

S.

R. 3 W. R. 2 W. R. 1 W. R. 1 E. R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E.

25

25

25

0

25

25

25

25

50

50

75

75

100

100

125

25

25 50

50

50

0

25

25

0

4

5

1

4

0

8

21

29

21

39

60

83

66

23

45

30

27

13

45

70

21 33

75

52

24

23

14

21

18 14

25

17 38

17

36 38

52 29

16 19

50 37

31 27

33 29

21

22

14 27 74

20

26

83

26

57

26

102

134

145 134

145 111

Maize

Colwich

Augusta

Andale

Goddard

Garden Plain

Haysville Derby

Belle

Plaine

Oxford

Wichita

Winfield

Arkansas

City

Conway

Springs

Wellington

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Approximate 

boundary of

alluvial aquifer

Approximate 

boundary of

alluvial aquifer

River

Walnut River

River

5

EXPLANATION

Approximate extent of alluvial deposits in modeled area

Approximate saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer, February 2002—Interval 25 feet

Alluvial aquifer thickness measurement site—Number is thickness of 

 alluvial aquifer, in feet

25

River

Figure 20. (B) Approximate saturated thickness of the alluvial aquifer in the modeled area, February 2002.
46 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

A

2002

S OND J

2003

FMAM J J A S OND J

2004

FMAM J J A

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1,325

1,330

1,335

1,340

Precipitation, in inches per day

River-stage altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum (NAVD 88)

Ground-water-level altitude, in feet above NAVD 88

River stage

Ground-water level

Figure 21. Daily mean river-stage altitude of Little Arkansas River at Valley Center (streamflow-gaging station 

07144200), daily mean water-level altitude in nearby well (25S–01W–36BCCD–01), and daily precipitation at 

streamflow-gaging station, August 2002–August 2004.
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 47

Table 6. Estimated net streamflow gain in modeled area of lower Arkansas River Basin, south-central Kansas, 1940–2001.

[All values are in cubic feet per second]

Station 

identification 

number 

(fig. 8)

Station name Median flow, 

1940–2001

Base flow, 

1940–2001

Base flow,

1970–2001

07146500 Arkansas River at Arkansas City, Kansas 1,060 1,025 1,034

Total stream outflow 1,060 1,025 1,034

07144300 Arkansas River at Wichita, Kansas 474 490 460

07144480 Cowskin Creek at 119th Street at Wichita, Kansas 3 3 3

07145500 Ninnescah River near Peck, Kansas 245 279 304

07145700 Slate Creek at Wellington, Kansas 8 11 11

Tributaries to Cowskin Creek 8 7 7

Tributaries to Ninnescah River 3 3 3

Tributaries to Arkansas River 15 12 12

Wichita wastewater treatment plant 63 63 63

Total stream inflow 819 868 863

Net streamflow gain 241 157 171

1,460

1,459

1,458

1,457

1,456

1,455

Water-level altitude, in feet above North American

Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

A M J J AS OND A J MJ F M

1988 1989 1990

J A S OND J MJ F M A

Well EB–216–B

(perforated 195–205 feet)

Well EB–216–AA

(perforated 20–30 feet)

Well EB–216–C

(perforated 299–309 feet)

Well EB–216–A

(perforated 75–85 feet)

River

Figure 22. Monthly instantaneous ground-water levels in wells EB–216–AA, EB–216–A, EB–216–B, and EB–216–C and the mean daily 

river stage of the Arkansas River near Hutchinson (gaging station 0714330), April 1988–May 1990 (from Myers and others, 1996, 

fig. 16).
48 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

source of initial aquifer property data. The starting horizontal 

hydraulic conductivity used in the modeled area was 750 ft/d.

Stresses

Stresses simulated in the steady-state ground-water flow 

model included recharge, stream leakage, and pumpage by 

wells. Recharge was chosen initially to be 5 in. everywhere 

because that was near the midpoint of the range of values 

reported in previous studies and somewhat greater than 

Spinazola and others (1985) and Myers and others (1996) used 

in their slightly more arid study areas to the northwest. Stream 

leakage was simulated by calculating a streambedconductance term on the basis of the length and width of each 

stream reach (one stream reach for each model cell), the thickness of the streambed, and the vertical hydraulic conductivity of 

the streambed and is expressed by the equation (McDonald and 

Harbaugh, 1988, p. 6–4):

(1)

0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9

Percentage of time indicated value was equalled or exceeded

0.1

1.0

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Streamflow gain , in cubic feet per second

Figure 23. Duration curve of estimated streamflow gains for Arkansas River between Wichita (gaging 

station 07144300) and Arkansas City (gaging station 07146500, fig. 8), Kansas, 1940–2001.

criv

KLW

M = ------------
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 49

where

criv = streambed conductance, in feet squared per day;

K = vertical hydraulic conductivity of the streambed, in 

feet per day;

L = length of stream reach, in feet;

W = width of stream reach, in feet; and

M = thickness of streambed, in feet.

The length of each stream reach was set equal to the cumulative length of the stream or streams in each model cell. The 

width of the streams was estimated by onsite observation. 

Because no discrete streambed could be identified, the thickness of the streambeds was assumed to be 1 ft. The initial values 

of vertical hydraulic conductivity of streambeds were assigned 

similar to Myers and others (1996) assuming that the Arkansas 

River would have the largest vertical hydraulic conductivity. 

The initial streambed vertical hydraulic-conductivity values 

used in the model were 50 ft/d for the Arkansas River; 15 ft/d 

for the Little Arkansas River; and 1 ft/d for Slate Creek, 

Cowskin Creek, and the Ninnescah River.

In addition to the aquifer properties just mentioned, 

streambed slope, top-of-streambed altitude, and bottom-ofstreambed altitude were used to calculate stream stage in each 

stream cell. Streambed slope and top-of-streambed altitude 

were determined from USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps. 

Assuming that there has not been any significant aggradation or 

degradation of streambed altitude since the topographic maps 

were made, the streambed altitude used in the model probably 

is accurate to +2.5 ft (one-half of the contour interval). 

Well pumpage was simulated in the steady-state model 

using average reported 1998–2001 ground-water withdrawals. 

Reported average ground-water withdrawals for 1998–2001 

simulated in the steady-state model were about 56 ft3

/s and 

were applied to appropriate model cells as shown in figure 25. 

Model Calibration

The purpose of calibration is to refine the model so that it 

is a reasonable representation of the stream-aquifer system. Calibration was achieved by adjusting the values of recharge and 

aquifer hydraulic conductivity, within reasonable ranges, to 

achieve the best fit between measured March 2001 groundwater levels and simulated ground-water levels that resulted 

from average 1998–2001 reported ground-water use (56 ft3/s) 

and computed streamflow gain (157 ft3

/s). Recharge was 

increased from 5 to 8 in. along the valley wall boundaries to 

achieve a better match with aquifer water levels and to achieve 

a reasonable water balance with computed streamflow gain. 

This added recharge represents seepage that occurs at the valley 

wall interface that is otherwise unaccounted for. Aquifer 

hydraulic conductivity was decreased areally especially toward 

the south and near the valley walls. The final model-calibrated 

recharge (5.4 in.) and aquifer hydraulic conductivity (average 

of 509 ft/d) values are shown in figures 26 and 27, respectively. 

Streambed conductance was not adjusted during calibration. 

A map showing simulated saturated thickness of the alluvial aquifer that resulted from using average reported groundwater withdrawals for 1998–2001 is shown in figure 28. This 

map is somewhat similar to the map drawn using the difference 

between measured March 2001 ground-water levels and the 

altitude of the bedrock surface, except in the northwest and 

southeast near the valley walls where the water-level fit was 

poorest (see fig. 29).

The measure of model calibration is the fit between modelcalibrated water levels and measured water levels as well as the 

comparison of model-computed and measured/computed 

parameters. The comparison of the two water-level surfaces is 

shown in figure 29. It shows reasonable agreement in most 

areas with the weakest fit achieved near the valley wall in the 

northwestern, southern, and southeastern parts of the modeled 

area. Model calibration is least certain near boundaries and 

especially in the extreme southern part of the modeled area 

where the model grid is only a few cells wide and there are large 

pumping centers. The mean absolute difference between the 

66 measured water levels in March 2001 and the model-calibrated-water levels was 3.87 ft, whereas the mean difference 

was 0.3 ft less than March 2001 water levels. Of the 66 measured water-level points, 3 simulated water levels differed by 

10 to 15 ft; all others differed by less than 10 ft (see fig. 30).

The final simulated steady-state water budget is summarized in table 8. The computed streamflow gain (table 6) of 

157 ft3

/s compares favorably with the simulated net aquifer to 

streamflow gain of 164 ft3

/s (outflow 191 ft3/s minus seepage 

inflow 27 ft3

/s, table 8). The final simulated model water budget 

(table 8) is very similar to the conceptual water budget (table 7).

Model calibrations are not unique. This calibration probably represents a reasonable maximum for recharge because the 

water levels used were from a period of above-average streamflow and probably above-average ground-water levels and simulated streamflow gain were greater than computed 

(164 compared to 157 ft3

/s). The model was also run using all 

parameters the same as during the calibrated model except 

recharge was selected as 4.7 in. This simulation resulted in a 

mean absolute water-level difference of 4.28 ft, a mean waterlevel difference of 1.3 ft below March 2001 measured water 

levels (0.1 ft below the average of the high, March 2001, and 

low, February 2002, water levels), and a streamflow gain of 

145 ft3

/s. This simulation probably represents a reasonable

Table 7. Summary of conceptual water budget.

[+, indicates inflow to the aquifer in the modeled area; -, indicates

outflow from the aquifer in the modeled area]

Water-budget component

Net inflow 

(cubic feet per 

second)

Recharge +146

Net lateral inflow/outflow across 

boundary

+56

Net flow to/from streams -157

Ground-water pumpage -56

Net difference -11
50 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Slate Creek

Whitewater

Walnut River

Little Walnut

Hickory

Muddy Creek

Rock Creek

Fourmile

SUMNER COUNTY

Timber

Grouse

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

GRANT COUNTY KAY COUNTY

0 5 10 15 MILES

0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Chikaskia

River

EXPLANATION

River

Columns

Rows 1 209

Creek

Walnut

River

Boundary

of modeled

area

97°40' 30' 20' 10' 97° 96°50'

37°50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

Big Slough

Arkansas

Ninnescah River

 No-flow cells

 Stream cells

 Constant-head cells

 Active cells

Creek

River

Arkansas

Creek

Creek

River

River

Creek

75

1

Figure 24. Finite-difference grid and boundary conditions used in model analyses.
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 51

Approximate 

boundary of

alluvial aquifer

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Slate Creek

River

Walnut River

Little Walnut

Hickory

Muddy Creek

Rock Creek

Fourmile

SUMNER COUNTY

Timber

Grouse

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

GRANT COUNTY KAY COUNTY 0 5 10 15 MILES

0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Chikaskia

River

EXPLANATION

River

Arkansas

Creek

Whitewater

River

Creek

Creek

Creek

97°40' 30' 20' 10' 97 96°50'

37°50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

Big Slough

Arkansas

Ninnescah River

Walnut River

0 - 100

101 - 200

201 - 500

501 - 1,000

1,001 - 2,000

No well located in

 grid cell

Average volume of ground-water withdrawals, in acre-feet per year

Creek

River

Boundary

of modeled

area

Figure 25. Distribution of average volume of ground-water withdrawals from modeled area reported for 1998–2001 (data from 

Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources, Topeka, Kansas, written commun., 2003).
52 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Slate

Creek

Walnut River

Little Walnut

Hickory

Muddy Creek

Rock Creek

Fourmile

SUMNER COUNTY

Timber

Grouse

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

GRANT COUNTY KAY COUNTY

0 5 10 15 MILES

0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Chikaskia

River

EXPLANATION

River

Whitewater River

Creek

River

Creek

Creek

Creek

Arkansas

Boundary

of modeled

area

97°40' 30' 20' 10' 97° 96°50'

37°50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

Arkansas

Ninnescah River

5

8

Calibrated recharge, in inches per year

Walnut River

River

Big Slough Creek

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

Figure 26. Calibrated ground-water recharge rates for modeled area.
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 53

Bluff Creek

Fall Creek

Slate Creek

Walnut River

Little Walnut

Hickory

Muddy Creek

Rock Creek

Fourmile

SUMNER COUNTY

Timber

Grouse

Silver Creek

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

COWLEY COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

SEDGWICK COUNTY

GRANT COUNTY KAY COUNTY

0 5 10 15 MILES

0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Chikaskia

River

EXPLANATION

Whitewater River

Creek

River

Creek

Creek

Arkansas

River

Creek

Boundary

of modeled

area

97°40' 30' 20' 10' 97° 96°50'

37°50'

40'

30'

20'

10'

37°

Big Slough

Arkansas

Ninnescah River

0–10

11–50

51–100

101–300

301–500

501–750

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity,

 in feet per day

Walnut River

Rive

C

r

reek

Figure 27. Distribution of horizontal hydraulic conductivity in modeled area.
54 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Line of equal simulated saturated thickness—Interval 25 feet 50

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

River

River

Walnut River

25

50

50

50

75

100

75

100

125

150

50

50

25

50

25

25

25

25

25

25

50

25

25

25

25

25

25

50

50

50

75

75

25

25

25

Figure 28. Simulated saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer in modeled area with average reported groundwater withdrawals for 1998–2001 (40,552 acre-feet per year). Reported ground-water withdrawals from 

Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources, written commun., 2003.
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 55

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Measured water-table contour—Shows altitude of measured 

 water table, March 2001. Contour inteval 10 feet. Datum is North 

 American Vertical Datum of 1988

Simulated water-table contour—Shows altitude of simulated 

 water table using average reported ground-water withdrawals for

 1998–2001. Contour inteval 10 feet. Datum is North American 

 Vertical Datum of 1988

1070

1350

1340

1330

1330

1320

1320

1320

1320

1310

1300

1290

1270

1280

1260

1250

1240

1230

1220

1210

1200

1190

1180

1170

1160

1180 1150

1190

1140

1130 1120

1110

1100

1090

1090

1310

1300

1290

1280

1270

1260

1250

1240

1230

1220

1210 1200

1200

1200

1210

1190

1190

1190

1180

1180

1170

1160

1150

1140

1130

1110 1100

1090

1080

1080

1070

1070

1050

1070

1060

1060

1120

1320

1070

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

River

River

Walnut River

Figure 29. Comparison of measured water-level altitudes for March 2001 and simulated water-level 

altitudes with average reported ground-water withdrawals for 1998–2001.
56 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350

Measured water-level altitude, in feet

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Difference between measured and simulated water-level altitudes, in feet

Figure 30. Differences between measured and simulated water-level altitudes, March 2001.

minimum for average recharge over the modeled area. As a 

result, recharge in the modeled area is probably between 4.7 and 

5.4 in. averaged over the area.

Sensitivity Analysis

The purpose of sensitivity analysis is to measure how sensitive 

the calibrated model-computed results are to changes in aquifer 

properties and aquifer stresses. During sensitivity analysis, 

recharge and hydraulic conductivity were varied from onequarter to twice their calibration values, and streambed conductance varied from multiples of 0.01 to 100 times the calibration 

values. The resulting simulated hydraulic heads were used to 

calculate the mean deviation of water levels for each active 

model cell from the calibrated model heads (fig. 31). 

Changes in the rate of recharge and values of hydraulic 

conductivity had the most effect on the mean absolute deviation 

from the accepted calibration hydraulic heads, whereas changes 

in streambed conductance had little effect. Doubling the values 

of recharge and hydraulic conductivity changed the mean absolute deviation by about 4 and 2 ft, respectively. These relatively 

small changes are an indication that water-level changes in the 

alluvial aquifer are constrained by the presence of the Arkansas 

River, by the generally shallow depth of the water table below 

land surface, and the large hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer 

material. That is, water levels in the aquifer near the Arkansas 

River cannot decline or rise much below or above the level of 

water in the river without large amounts of water moving 

between the river and the aquifer, and water cannot rise above 

land surface without running off. Thus, water levels in the alluvial aquifer are constrained under natural or at least not excessive pumping conditions to a relatively small range. In such a 

constrained system, a larger range of aquifer properties and 

Table 8. Simulated steady-state water budget for Arkansas River 

alluvial aquifer in modeled area, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner 

Counties, south-central Kansas.

[All values are in cubic feet per second]

Budget term Steady state

Inflow

Recharge 166

Ground-water inflow from adjacent areas 54

Seepage from Arkansas and Ninnescah 

Rivers to alluvial aquifer

27

Total inflow 247

Outflow

Ground-water outflow to adjacent areas 2

Seepage from the alluvial aquifer to the 

Arkansas and Ninnescah Rivers

191

Well pumpage 154

Total outflow 247

1Simulated well pumpage differs from actual well pumpage because a few 

active model cells were dry during the simulation.
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 57

stresses will satisfy a given hydraulic-head distribution than in 

a less-constrained system. The hydraulic parameters and 

boundary conditions used to represent the stream-aquifer 

system are not unique but represent one of many possible 

solutions. 

Hypothetical Simulations

A series of nine hypothetical simulations was used to estimate the possible effects of changing well pumpage on groundwater levels and saturated thickness of the alluvial aquifer. All 

boundary conditions and aquifer properties for the model were 

the same as those previously discussed. Pumpage and the other 

water-budget components from these steady-state simulations 

of hypothetical conditions are summarized in table 9. The areal 

effects of the different pumping scenarios are summarized by a 

simulated aquifer thickness map for each scenario (fig. 32 A–J). 

The accuracy of thickness maps from these simulations is less 

in the areas where the calibration of water levels deviated most 

from that contoured using water-level measurements near the 

northwestern and southeastern valley walls and probably in 

areas of minimal aquifer thickness (less than 25 ft). Because of

0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0 0.5 1.0

Change factor

1.5 2.0

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

(B) Recharge

(C) Hydraulic conductivity

Mean deviation of water levels, in feet

Mean deviation

Figure 31. Mean deviations of simulated hydraulic heads from accepted model-calibration heads for changes in 

(A) streambed conductance, (B) recharge, and (C) hydraulic conductivity.
58 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Table 9. Simulated steady-state water budgets used in hypothetical simulations of alluvial aquifer in lower Arkansas River Basin, 

south-central Kansas.

[values are in cubic feet per second]

Pumping scenario

Distribution of 

ground-water 

withdrawals

Water-budget term

Well 

pumpage1

1 Small differences in well pumpage and recharge are a result of some model cells being dry in some simulations. 

Net 

streamflow 

gain

Recharge1 Boundary flow

Calibration Pumping at average groundwater use reported for 1998–

2001

Reported use 54 164 166 52

Hypothetical 

simulation 

identification

A No pumping -- 0 216 166 50

B Pumping at the 2002 groundwater useReported use 50 168 166 52

C Pumping at the current (2004) 

authorized ground-water 

use2

2 Authorized ground-water use from Kelly Emmons, Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources, January 16, 2004.

Authorized use 106 113 165 54

D Pumping at about 10 percent 

more than the current (2004) 

authorized ground-water use

Authorized use 116 103 165 54

E Pumping at about 25 percent 

more than the current (2004) 

authorized ground-water use

Authorized use 132 88 165 55

F Pumping at about 50 percent 

more than the current (2004) 

authorized ground-water use

Authorized use 158 57 158 56

G Pumping at about 75 percent 

more than the current (2004) 

authorized ground-water use

Authorized use 184 31 157 58

H Pumping at about 100 percent 

more than current (2004) 

authorized ground-water use

Authorized use 206 9 156 59

I Pumping at Hansen (1991) 

recharge rates in each model 

cell. These values are used 

by Kansas Department of 

Agriculture, Division of 

Water Resources, as safe 

yield.

Based on recharge 

distribution

 84 130 157 57

the steady-state assumption, the results of these hypothetical 

simulations apply to the long-term average effect of pumpage at 

the noted quantity and distribution.

The difference in aquifer thickness for most of the nine 

hypothetical simulations is relatively small. Some differences 

in simulated aquifer thickness are evident in the simulations that 

projected larger pumping rates (simulations F–H, fig. 32 and 

table 9) especially in the northern part of the modeled area 

where most of the authorized pumpage is located. However, 

because only simulation I used a substantially different pumpage distribution scheme, simulations A through H have similar 

saturated thickness patterns. Simulation I has a greater percentage of pumpage in the southern part of the modeled area relative 

to the other simulations, and some effects of that distribution 

can be observed in the thickness map (fig. 32I). The effect of 

increased pumping on Arkansas River streamflow gain is more 

notable (table 9). Doubling the authorized ground-water pumpage decreases streamflow gain from 168 to 9 ft3

/s or 95 percent.
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 59

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Line of equal saturated thickness—Interval 25 feet 50

Approximate boundary of alluvial aquifer

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

River

River

Walnut River

25

50

50

75

100

100

75

50

125

150

175

25

25

50

50

25

25

25

25

25

50

25

50

50

50

25

25

25

25

50

75

75

Figure 32. (A) Simulated saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer in modeled area using pumping at average 

ground-water use reported for 1998–2001. 
60 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Line of equal saturated thickness—Interval 25 feet 50

Approximate boundary of alluvial aquifer

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

River

River

Walnut River

25

50

50

50

75

75

100

125

150

175

25

25

50

50

75

100

100

25

25

25

50

25

25

25

50

50 75

75

25

25

25

25

25

25 50

25

25

25

50

50

Figure 32. (B) Simulated saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer in modeled area using no pumping. 
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 61

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Line of equal saturated thickness—Interval 25 feet 50

Approximate boundary of alluvial aquifer

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

River

River

Walnut River

25

50

50

75

100

100

125

150

175

50

25

25

25

25

25

25

50

50

25

25

25

50

50

25

50

50

25

25

25

25

75

75

Figure 32. (C) Simulated saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer in modeled area using pumping at 2002 groundwater use.
62 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Line of equal saturated thickness—Interval 25 feet 50

Approximate boundary of alluvial aquifer

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

River

River

Walnut River

25

25

25

25

50

50

75

75

75 100

100

125

125

150

175

50

50

25

50

50

25

50

25

25

25

25

25

50

75

25

25

25

50

25

Figure 32. (D) Simulated saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer in modeled area using pumping at current 

(2004) authorized ground-water use.
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 63

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Line of equal saturated thickness—Interval 25 feet 50

Approximate boundary of alluvial aquifer

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

River

River

Walnut River

25

50

50

75

75

100

100

125

150

175

25

25

25

75

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

50

50

25

50

25

25

25

50

50

50

25

25

50

25

Figure 32. (E) Simulated saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer in modeled area using pumping at about 

10 percent more than current (2004) authorized ground-water use.
64 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Line of equal saturated thickness—Interval 25 feet 50

Approximate boundary of alluvial aquifer

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

River

River

Walnut River

25

50

75

100

100

125

150

0

175

50

50

50

50

50

25

50

25

50

25

25

25

25

75

75

25

25

25

50

25

Figure 32. (F) Simulated saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer in modeled area using pumping at about 

25 percent more than current (2004) authorized ground-water use.
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 65

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Line of equal saturated thickness—Interval 25 feet 50

Approximate boundary of alluvial aquifer

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

River

River

Walnut River

25

50

75

0

0

100

100

125

150

175

0

50

50

25

25

50

25

25

25

25

25

50

25

25

25

50

75

25

25

50

50

50

25

Figure 32. (G) Simulated saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer in modeled area using pumping at about 

50 percent more than current (2004) authorized ground-water use.
66 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Line of equal saturated thickness—Interval 25 feet 50

Approximate boundary of alluvial aquifer

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

River

River

Walnut River

25

50

75

75

0

100

100

125

150

175

0

50

75

50

25

25

50

50

50

50

25

25

25

50

25

25

25

0

25

25

25

25

25

25

Figure 32. (H) Simulated saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer in modeled area using pumping at about 

75 percent more than current (2004) authorized ground-water use.
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 67

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Line of equal saturated thickness—Interval 25 feet 50

Approximate boundary of alluvial aquifer

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

River

River

Walnut River

25

50

75

75

0

125

150

100

100

175

75

0

75

50

50

25

0

50

25

50

50

50

25

25

75

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

0

50

25

50

Figure 32. (I) Simulated saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer in modeled area using pumping at about 

100 percent more than current (2004) authorized ground-water use.
68 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Slate Creek

Chikaskia River

Walnut River

Walnut River

Eightmile Creek

Muddy Creek

Rock

Creek

Little

Whitewater River

Fourmile Creek

Walnut

Ninnescah

Arkansas River

Arkansas River

Little Arkansas River

37°45'

40'

35'

30'

25'

20'

15'

10'

37°05'

97°40’ 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5' 97°

SUMNER COUNTY

SEDGWICK COUNTY

BUTLER COUNTY

COWLEY COUNTY

0 2 4 8 MILE 6 S

0246 8 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1987

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American

 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION

Line of equal saturated thickness—Interval 25 feet 50

Approximate boundary of alluvial aquifer

Approximate boundary

of alluvial aquifer

River

River

Walnut River

25

25

25

25

0

75

75

50

100

100

125

150

175

25

25

0

25

25

25

50

50

25

25

50

50

25

50

25

50

25

25

50

75

Figure 32. (J) Simulated saturated thickness of alluvial aquifer in modeled area using pumping at Hansen 

(1991) recharge rates in each model cell.
Recharge Outside the Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer 69

Table 10. Estimated recharge rates in upland contributing-drainage areas, Butler, Harvey, Marion, Sedgwick, and Sumner 

Counties, south-central Kansas.

[mi2, square miles; in/yr, inches per year]

Streamflow-gaging station

(fig. 8)

Drainage area

(mi2

)

Period of record 

(water years)

Antecedent 

recession

(days)

Recession 

index

(days/log 

flow)

Recharge 

rate

(in/yr)

Slate Creek at Wellington

(station 07145700)

154 1980–99 3–6 50–500 1.2

1970–2001 

(all available 

record)

3–6 50–500 1.0

Whitewater River at Towanda

(station 07147070)

426 1980–99 4–6 50–500 1.9

1962–2001

(all available 

record)

4–6 50–500 1.6

Recharge Outside the Arkansas River 

Alluvial Aquifer

The computer program RORA (Rutledge, 1998, 2000) 

estimates base flow of streams and ground-water recharge using 

the recession-curve-displacement method and streamflow 

hydrographs. The method is based on the change in total potential ground-water discharge that is caused by each recharge 

event. The method is applied to a long period of record of daily 

mean streamflow (at least several years) and gives an estimate 

of the mean rate of ground-water recharge to the aquifer.

RORA was used in evaluating data from two streamflowgaging stations—Slate Creek at Wellington (station 07145700, 

154-mi2 drainage area) and Whitewater River at Towanda (station 07147070, 426-mi2 drainage area) (fig. 2). Varying values 

of antecedent recession index and recession index were used in 

the RORA model. The results in table 10 are average recharge 

values obtained by varying the antecedent recession (in days) 

and the recession index (days/log flow) for two different time 

periods for each site. Recharge rates for each site and time 

period using different values noted for antecedent recession and 

recession index did not differ appreciably from the site and 

period-of-record average recharge rates. Rutledge (2000) also 

found that recharge arates from RORA tended to vary more 

using different periods of record than from differences in antecedent recession and recession index values within reasonable 

ranges.

Results of hydrograph separation analysis are estimates of 

aquifer discharge to streams and, barring factors such as pumpage, boundary flows, or major ground- or surface-water diversions, are used frequently as estimates of recharge (Rutledge, 

2000). Because these values are averages across the respective 

drainage basins, areas of lower permeable soils (fig. 5) would be 

expected to have smaller recharge rates, and areas with more 

permeable soils would be expected to have larger recharge rates 

than these averages.

Summary

Large parts of the lower Arkansas, Ninnescah, and Walnut 

River Basins in south-central Kansas—an area that includes 

Wichita, the largest city in Kansas—are experiencing rapid 

population growth and, consequently, increasing demands on 

surface- and ground-water resources. The quantity and quality 

of water available in the lower Arkansas, Ninnescah, and Walnut River Basins in Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner 

Counties are crucial as population and water use continue to 

increase in the region. Average reported ground-water withdrawal from the Arkansas River alluvial aquifer in the modeled 

area from 1998–2001 was 56 ft3/s, whereas authorized water 

use was 106 ft3

/s as of 2004.

A steady-state model was constructed to simulate flow in 

the Arkansas River alluvial aquifer between Wichita and 

Arkansas City. Calibration was achieved using March 2001 

measured water levels and streamflow gain using long-term 

streamflow records. Average recharge was 5.4 in/yr, and average aquifer hydraulic conductivity was about 500 ft/d. Well 

pumpage (average of reported 1998–2001 use) was 56 ft3/s, and 

net aquifer to streamflow gain computed by hydrograph separation was 157 ft3/s.

Nine hypothetical simulations were conducted with 

ground-water pumpage varying from zero to almost double 

authorized pumpage (206 ft3/s). Net remaining aquifer thickness declined noticeably for the largest simulated pumpage 

increases in comparison to 1998–2001 average pumping, and 
70 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

the net aquifer flow to the Arkansas River declined to near zero. 

Simulated aquifer thickness decreases were more pronounced 

in areas where pumpage (average 1998–2001) was greatest.

References Cited

Aber, J.S., 1993, Geologic map of Butler County, Kansas: 

Kansas Geological Survey Map Series M–30, scale 1:50,000, 

1 sheet.

Bauder, Troy, 2000, Understanding irrigation water quality: 

Agronomy News, March 2000, available on World Wide 

Web, accessed May 12, 2004, at URL 

http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Soil/Crop/extension/

Newsletters/2000/Salinity/pg5.html

Bayne, C.K., 1962, Geology and ground-water resources of 

Cowley County, Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 

158, 219 p.

Bevans, H.E., 1988, Water supply and demand in Sedgwick 

County, Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

88–711, 2 p.

Bevans, H.E., 1989, Water resources of Sedgwick County, 

Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 88–4225, 119 p.

Brady, N.C., 1974, The nature and properties of soil (8th ed.): 

New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 639 p.

Diaz, A.M., 1962, Quality of water investigation in the Walnut 

River Basin: Kansas Water News, v. 5, no. 3, p. 6–7.

Diaz, A.M., 1965, Cooperative water-quality investigation, 

South Fork Ninnescah Basin: Kansas Water News, v. 8, 

no. 3, p. 3–4.

Dugan, J.T., and Peckenpaugh, J.M., 1985, Effects of climate, 

vegetation, and soils on consumptive water use and groundwater recharge to the Central Midwest regional aquifer system, mid-continent United States: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 85–4236, 78 p.

Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1982, South Wichita chloride 

study: Topeka, Interim Report, Phase I, for the Kansas 

Department of Health and Environment, 62 p.

Fader, S.W., and Morton, R.B., 1975, Ground water in the 

Middle Arkansas River Basin, Kansas and Oklahoma: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 75–367, 44 p.

Fenwick, R.W., and Ratcliff, I.W., Jr., 1979, Soil survey of 

Sumner County, Kansas: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

110 p., 88 plates.

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., eds., 1989, Methods for 

determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial 

sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 545 p.

Frye, J.C., and Leonard, A.B., 1952, Pleistocene geology of 

Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 99, 230 p.

Gogel, Tony, 1981, Discharge of saltwater from Permian rocks 

to major stream-aquifer systems in central Kansas: Kansas 

Geological Survey Chemical Quality Series 9, 60 p.

Hammond, E.H., 1964, Classes of land-surface form in the 

forty-eight States, U.S.A.: Annuals of the Association of 

American Geographers, v. 54, no. 1.

Hansen, C.V., 1991, Estimates of freshwater storage and potential natural recharge for principal aquifers in Kansas: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 87–4230, 100 p.

Hansen, C.V., and Aucott, W.R., 2004, Status of ground-water 

levels and storage volume in the Equus Beds aquifer near 

Wichita, Kansas, January 2000–January 2003: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4298, 

36 p.

Hart, R.J., and Spruill, T.B., 1988, Description and hydrologic 

evaluation of nine hazardous-waste sites in Kansas, 1984–86: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 88–4015, 73 p.

Heath, R.C., 1987, Basic ground-water hydrology: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2220, 84 p.

Hem, J.D., 1992, Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 p.

High Plains Regional Climate Center, 2003, Historical data 

summaries—Kansas: Lincoln, University of Nebraska, information available on the World Wide Web, accessed 

August 19, 2003, at URL http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/

products/historical.htm

Horsch, M.L., 1980, Soil survey of Cowley County, Kansas: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 123 p., 88 plates.

Institute for Public Policy and Business Research, 2002, Kansas 

county level data: Lawrence, Kansas, University of Kansas, 

information available on the World Wide Web, accessed 

July 28, 2003, at URL http://www.ku.edu/pri/ksdata/

county.shtml

Institute for Public Policy and Business Research, 2003, Population, section 16, in Kansas statistical abstract 2001: 

Lawrence, Kansas, University of Kansas, information available on the World Wide Web, accessed August 6, 2003, at 

URL http://www.ku.edu/pri/ksdata/ksah/ksa34.sthml

Kansas Applied Remote Sensing Program, 1990, Kansas land 

cover mapping project—land cover for Sedgwick, Butler, 

Sumner, and Cowley Counties, Kansas: Lawrence, Kansas, 

Data Access and Support Center, information available on 

the World Wide Web, accessed September 15, 2003, at URL 

http://gisdasc.kgs.ukans.edu/kanview/landcover/html/

Butler.html

http://gisdasc.kgs.ukans.edu/kanview/landcover/html/

Cowley.html

http://gisdasc.kgs.ukans.edu/kanview/landcover/html/

Sedgwick.html

http://gisdasc.kgs.ukans.edu/kanview/landcover/html/

Sumner.html

Kansas Geological Survey, 1964, Geologic map of Kansas: 

Kansas Geological Survey Map Series M–1, 1 sheet, 

scale 1:1,000,000.
References Cited 71

Kansas Geological Survey, 2003, Oil and gas production, by 

county: Information available on the World Wide Web, 

accessed December 24, 2002, at URL 

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/petro/interactive.html

Kansas State University, 2003, Precipitation summary— 

Weather Data Library: Manhattan, Kansas, Research and 

Extension, information available on the World Wide Web, 

accessed August 26, 2003, at URL 

http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/wdl/wdl/pmaps.htm

Kansas Water Authority, 1998, Kansas water plan—2010 

objectives: Topeka, Kansas, information available on the 

World Wide Web, accessed September 9, 2003, at URL 

http://www.kwo.org/KWP/2010_objectives.htm

Kansas Water Office, 2002, The Kansas water plan—fiscal year 

2004 update, approved by the Kansas Water Authority, 

July 11, 2002: Topeka, Kansas, information available on the 

World Wide Web, accessed September 9, 2003, at URL 

http://www.kwo.org/KWP/2004_kwp.htm

Lane, C.W., and Miller, D.E., 1965a, Geohydrology of Sedgwick County, Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey 

Bulletin 176, 100 p.

Lane, C.W., and Miller, D.E., 1965b, Logs of wells and test 

holes in Sedgwick County, Kansas: Kansas Geological 

Survey Special Distribution Publication 22, 175 p.

Lane, C.W., Reavis, E.L., and Stramel, G.J., 1962, Emergency 

water supplies in the Wichita area, Kansas: U.S. Geological 

Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA–58, 

scale 1:250,000, 1 sheet.

Lawrence, R.E., and Hess, R.H., 1963, Wichita’s past, present, 

and future water supply: Journal of the American Water 

Works Association, v. 55, no. 8, p. 1081–1092.

Leonard, R.B., and Kleinschmidt, M.K., 1976, Saline water in 

the Little Arkansas River basin area, south-central Kansas: 

Kansas Geological Survey Chemical Quality Series 3, 24 p.

Lohman, S.W., 1979, Ground-water hydraulics: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 708, 70 p., 9 pl.

McDonald, M.G., and Harbaugh, A.W., 1988, A modular threedimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 6, chap. A1, variously paginated.

Meinzer, O.E., 1914, Preliminary report on ground water for 

irrigation in the vicinity of Wichita, Kansas: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 345–A, p. 1–9.

Myers, N.C., Hargadine, G.D., and Gillespie, J.B., 1996, 

Hydrologic and chemical interaction of the Arkansas River 

and the Equus Beds aquifer between Hutchinson and Wichita, south-central Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 95–4191, 100 p.

Myers, N.C., Heck, B.A., and Hargadine, D.A., 1993, Hydrogeology and ground-water-quality conditions at the Sumner 

County Landfill, south-central Kansas, 1989–90: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 92–4177, 52 p.

Parker, H.N., 1911, Quality of the water supplies of Kansas: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 273, 375 p.

Penner, H.L., Ekart, S.C., Ewing, D.A., Schmidt, Gordon, and 

Smith, Jimmie, 1975, Soil survey of Butler County: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 60 p., 76 plates.

Penner, H.L., and Wehmueller, W.A., 1979, Soil survey of 

Sedgwick County, Kansas: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

126 p., 76 plates.

Perry, C.A., Wolock, D.M., and Artman, J.C., 2004, Estimates 

of flow duration, mean flow, and peak-discharge frequency 

values for Kansas stream locations: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5033, 651 p.

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

resources of the Wichita area, Kansas: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1499–I, 69 p.

Putnam, J.E., and Schneider, D.R., 2004, Water resources data, 

Kansas, water year 2003: U.S. Geological Survey WaterData Report KS–03–1, 641 p.

Reed, T.B., and Burnett, R.D., 1985, Compilation and analyses 

of aquifer performance tests in eastern Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85–200, 125 p.

Richards, D.B., and Dunaway, T.W., 1972, Geohydrologic data 

for numerical modeling of ground-water withdrawal in the 

Little Arkansas River basin area, south-central Kansas: 

Lawrence, Kansas, U.S. Geological Survey open-file report, 

426 p.

Rutledge, A.T., 1998, Computer programs for describing the 

recession of ground-water discharge and for estimating mean 

ground-water recharge and discharge from streamflow 

records—update: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 98-4148, 43 p.

Rutledge, A.T., 2000, Considerations for use of the RORA program to estimate ground-water recharge from streamflow 

records: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00–156, 

44 p.

Schoewe, W.H., 1949, The geography of Kansas, part II— 

physical geography: Transactions of the Kansas Academy of 

Science, v. 52, no. 3, p. 261–333.

Sophocleus, M.A., 1983, Water quality modeling of the Equus

Beds aquifer in south-central Kansas: Kansas Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 83–1, 75 p.

Sophocleous, M.A., and Perry, C.A., 1985, Experimental studies of natural groundwater recharge dynamics—the analysis 

of observed recharge: Journal of Hydrology, v. 81, 

p. 297–332.

Spinazola, J.M., Gillespie, J.B., and Hart, R.J., 1985, Groundwater flow and solute transport in the Equus beds area, southcentral Kansas, 1940–79: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 85–4336, 68 p.

Spruill, T.B., 1988, Use of total organic carbon as an indicator 

of contamination from an oil refinery, south-central Kansas: 

Ground Water Monitoring Review, Summer 1988, p. 76–82.

Spruill, T.B., 1990, Preliminary evaluation of the effects of an 

abandoned oil refinery on chemical quality of water in the 

Arkansas River Valley, Arkansas City, Kansas, 1985–86: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 89–4190, 53 p.
72 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Stramel, 1956, Progress report on the ground-water hydrology 

of the Equus beds area, Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey 

Bulletin 119, part 1, 59 p.

U.S. Census Bureau, 1995, Kansas, population of counties by 

decennial census—1900 to 1990: Information available on 

the World Wide Web, accessed July 28, 2003, at URL 

http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/ks190090.txt

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1996, Detailed soils, 

1:24,000 scale: Salina, Kansas, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, digital data.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003, National drinking water standards: Office of Water, EPA–816–F–03–016, 

information available on the World Wide Web, accessed 

December 23, 2003, at URL http://www.epa.gov/

safewater/mcl.html#sec

U.S. Geological Survey, 2003, Water use in the United States 

by county for 1990, 1995, and 2000: Information available on 

the World Wide Web, accessed July 24, 2003, at URL 

http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1967, Distribution of principal 

kinds of soils—orders, suborders, and great groups, in The 

national atlas of the United States of America, 1970: Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, p. 85–88.

Walters, K.L., 1961, Geology and ground-water resources of 

Sumner County, Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 

151, 198 p.

Wilde, F.D., and Radtke, D.B., eds., 1998, National field 

manual for the collection of water-quality data—field 

measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6, variously 

paged.

Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., Gibs, Jacob, and Iwatsubo, R.T., 

eds., 1999, National field manual for the collection of waterquality data—collection of water samples: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

book 9, chap. A4, 156 p. 

Williams, C.C., and Lohman, S.W., 1949, Geology and groundwater resources of a part of south-central Kansas, with special reference to the Wichita municipal water supply: Kansas 

Geological Survey Bulletin 79, 455 p.

Wood, W.W., 1976, Guidelines for collection and field analysis 

of ground-water samples for selected unstable constituents: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 2, chap. D2, 24 p.
Supplemental Information
Table 11. Results of water-quality analyses of samples collected during August 2003 from ground- and surface-water sites in Cowley, Sedgwick, and Scentral Kansas.—Continued [ ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; oC, degrees Celsius; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, milligrams per liter; Ca

micrograms per liter; -- not determined; <, less than; E, estimated] Map no. (fig. 12) Site number Local well number or site name Date of sample (month/day/ year) Time (24- hour) Dis- charge, instan- taneous (ft3/s) Specific conduct- ance, onsite (μS/cm) Specific conduct- ance, laboratory (μS/cm) pH, onsite (stan- dard units) pH, labor- atory (stan- dard units) Temper- ature, water (oC) T

Ground-water sites 1 370209097015601 35S–04E–06BDD01 08/11/03 1020 -- 1,090 1,050 6.7 7.2 14.6 

2 370236096575401 34S–04E–35CCD01 08/11/03 1150 -- 492 471 6.9 7.4 18.5 3 370420097031101 34S–03E–26CDC01 08/14/03 1100 -- 377 355 6.0 6.9 17.3 4 370923097013101 33S–04E–30AA01 08/11/03 1410 -- 991 1,030 7.0 7.3 16.3 5 371140097064501 33S–03E–09BCC01 08/19/03 1350 -- 444 436 6.3 7.2 15.8 6 371257097050801 32S–03E–34DCC01 08/19/03 1450 -- 803 792 6.8 7.4 15.7 7 371357097093101 32S–02E–25DC01 08/19/03 1145 -- 1,840 1,870 6.7 7.3 16.4 8 371534097063001 32S–03E–21B01 08/13/03 0955 -- 968 932 6.7 7.2 16.0 9 371552097054001 32S–03E–15CBC01 08/13/03 1115 -- 744 723 6.8 7.3 16.1 

10 371625097091901 32S–02E–13ABA01 08/13/03 1400 -- 666 634 7.2 7.5 17.0 11 371813097083101 32S–03E–06ABB01 08/13/03 1220 -- 701 672 6.8 7.3 15.6 12 371959097121901 31S–02E–21DDD01 08/11/03 1515 -- 841 803 7.1 7.6 16.5 13 372000097075601 31S–03E–20CCB01 08/19/03 1015 -- 335 328 5.9 6.8 15.9 14 372033097105402 31S–02E–23BDB02 08/13/03 1420 -- 826 791 7.2 7.6 18.2 15 372048097135101 31S–02E–20ABB01 08/18/03 1335 -- 853 841 6.8 7.3 17.0 16 372135097154801 31S–01E–13ABD01 08/13/03 1500 -- 667 637 7.3 7.4 19.1 17 372225097090701 31S–02E–12AAC01 08/14/03 1300 -- 854 -- 6.7 -- 16.5 18 372245097133701 31S–02E–05DDC01 08/18/03 1445 -- 483 474 7.1 7.8 17.1 19 372335097160301 30S–01E–36CDD01 08/18/03 1045 -- 608 598 6.5 7.2 15.1 20 372349097111201 30S–02E–34DAA01 08/18/03 1155 -- 494 486 6.6 7.3 16.2 
Ground-water sites—Continued

21 372517097184001 30S–01E–22CCC01 08/18/03 0940 -- 734 725 6.4 7.4 16.0 22 372755097231401 30S–01W–01CCB01 08/12/03 1540 -- 1,180 1,140 6.7 7.2 15.8 23 373010097271701 29S–01W–29BAC01 08/12/03 1010 -- 732 704 6.6 7.2 18.2 24 373024097211801 29S–01E–19DDC01 08/12/03 1300 -- 554 553 6.7 7.2 15.7 25 373303097255701 29S–01W–04DCA01 08/12/03 1120 -- 750 722 6.7 7.1 17.6 26 374101097191501 27S–01E–21DAC01 08/15/03 1335 -- 1,310 1,330 7.5 7.8 19.9 27 374102097214301 27S–01E–19DBC01 08/15/03 1430 -- 1,260 1,260 7.6 7.8 19.3 28 374310097193301 27S–01E–09ABC01 08/20/03 0915 -- 1,140 1,140 6.9 7.3 19.7 29 374419097254201 26S–01W–33DDD01 08/15/03 0925 -- 542 536 6.8 7.5 15.8 30 374447097213701 26–01E–31ACC01 08/15/03 1055 -- 1,460 1,490 6.8 7.5 16.4 

Surface-water sites

31 07143375 Arkansas River near Maize 08/12/03 0930 51.2 2,430 2,370 8.2 8.2 23.2 32 07144550 Arkansas River at Derby 08/12/03 1230 167 1,320 1,310 8.1 8.0 29.4 33 07145500 Ninnescah River near Peck 08/12/03 1400 45.1 1,340 1,290 8.5 8.3 30.5 34 07146500 Arkansas River at Arkansas City 08/13/03 1145 386 1,610 1,490 9.2 9.0 26.1 35 371004097085700 Slate Creek (33S–02E–24ADD) 08/11/03 1115 2.0 7,280 6,990 8.1 8.0 37.1 36 371632097093600 Arkansas River at Oxford 08/11/03 1040 267 1,540 1,530 8.5 8.4 25.3 37 371758097083400 Sand quarry near Oxford 08/13/03 1200 -- 700 524 6.9 8.0 26.9 38 371852097104200 Ninnescah River (31S–02E–35ABB) 08/11/03 1215 73.3 1,700 1,650 8.4 8.2 27.2 39 372344097185400 Oxbow lake near Belle Plaine 08/19/03 0850 -- 6,580 6,540 8.4 7.6 25.6 40 372828097160000 Sand quarry near Mulvane 08/13/03 0920 -- 602 567 8.3 8.1 20.2 

Table 11. Results of water-quality analyses of samples collected during August 2003 from ground- and surface-water sites in Cowley, Sedgwick, and Scentral Kansas.—Continued[ ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; oC, degrees Celsius; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, milligrams per liter; Ca

micrograms per liter; -- not determined; <, less than; E, estimated] 

Map 

no. 

(fig. 

12)

Site number Local well number or site name

Date of sample 

(month/day/

year)

Time

(24-

hour)

Discharge, 

instantaneous 

(ft3/s)

Specific 

conductance, 

onsite

(μS/cm)

Specific 

conductance, 

laboratory

(μS/cm)

pH, 

onsite

(standard 

units)

pH, 

laboratory (standard 

units)

Temperature, 

water

(oC)

T
Table 11. Results of water-quality analyses of samples collected during August 2003 from ground- and surface-water sites in Cowley, Sedgwick, and S

central Kansas.—Continued ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; oC, degrees Celsius; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, milligrams per liter; CaC

micrograms per liter; -- not determined; <, less than; E, estimated] Map no. (fig. 12) Site number Local well number or site name Date of sample (month/day/ year) Time (24- hour) Dis- solved solids (mg/L) Cal- cium (mg/L) Mag- nesium (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L) Potas- sium (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Chlor- ide (mg/L) Flu

rid

(mg

Ground-water sites 1 370209097015601 35S–04E 06BDD01 08/11/03 1020 690 120 39 59 1.7 98 77 

2 370236096575401 34S–04E–35CCD01 08/11/03 1150 300 78 10 13 2.3 16 5.2 3 370420097031101 34S–03E–26CDC01 08/14/03 1100 248 35 7.1 24 1.5 43 28 4 370923097013101 33S–04E–30AA01 08/11/03 1410 665 95 15 130 2.1 110 80 5 371140097064501 33S–03E–09BCC01 08/19/03 1350 283 51 11 29 2.2 38 13 6 371257097050801 32S–03E–34DCC01 08/19/03 1450 497 85 21 64 2.5 61 43 7 371357097093101 32S–02E–25DC01 08/19/03 1145 1,100 180 40 150 3.2 48 380 8 371534097063001 32S–03E–21B01 08/13/03 0955 623 120 16 83 2.5 81 29 9 371552097054001 32S–03E–15CBC01 08/13/03 1115 489 72 19 63 1.8 72 27 

10 371625097091901 32S–02E–13ABA01 08/13/03 1400 390 59 10 70 3.4 43 69 11 371813097083101 32S–03E–06ABB01 08/13/03 1220 453 97 18 25 1.9 85 18 12 371959097121901 31S–02E–21DDD01 08/11/03 1515 593 130 22 32 2.6 180 12 13 372000097075601 31S–03E–20CCB01 08/19/03 1015 216 27 8.1 20 1.7 20 39 14 372033097105402 31S–02E–23BDB02 08/13/03 1420 557 120 19 37 2.7 140 17 15 372048097135101 31S–02E–20ABB01 08/18/03 1335 544 120 24 44 2.1 120 14 16 372135097154801 31S–01E–13ABD01 08/13/03 1500 423 97 17 19 1.8 46 13 17 372225097090701 31S–02E–12AAC01 08/14/03 1300 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -18 372245097133701 31S–02E–05DDC01 08/18/03 1445 296 89 5.9 9.4 5.4 17 7.2 19 372335097160301 30S–01E–36CDD01 08/18/03 1045 377 63 16 41 3.4 63 38 20 372349097111201 30S–02E–34DAA01 08/18/03 1155 306 67 13 24 1.6 26 5.6 21 372517097184001 30S–01E–22CCC01 08/18/03 0940 461 69 17 61 3.7 52 55 22 372755097231401 30S–01W–01CCB01 08/12/03 1540 834 160 32 58 3.0 210 48 23 373010097271701 29S–01W–29BAC01 08/12/03 1010 469 74 21 48 1.8 57 40 24 373024097211801 29S–01E–19DDC01 08/12/03 1300 352 51 11 45 1.9 30 21 25 373303097255701 29S–01W–04DCA01 08/12/03 1120 467 77 17 57 2.4 31 57 
Ground-water sites—Continued

26 374101097191501 27S–01E–21DAC01 08/15/03 1335 811 130 23 130 15 180 130 27 374102097214301 27S–01E–19DBC01 08/15/03 1430 776 120 19 130 3.4 120 130 28 374310097193301 27S–01E–09ABC01 08/20/03 0915 723 140 36 68 13 110 47 29 374419097254201 26S–01W–33DDD01 08/15/03 0925 329 53 11 46 3.0 43 43 30 374447097213701 26–01E–31ACC01 08/15/03 1055 859 84 19 190 6.0 120 240 

Surface-water sites

31 07143375 Arkansas River near Maize 08/12/03 0930 1,360 62 22 400 7.0 160 580 32 07144550 Arkansas River at Derby 08/12/03 1230 770 74 20 180 7.6 130 240 33 07145500 Ninnescah River near Peck 08/12/03 1400 726 52 18 200 4.2 64 280 34 07146500 Arkansas River at Arkansas City 08/13/03 1145 859 71 20 230 7.2 120 320 35 371004097085700 Slate Creek (33S–02E–24ADD) 08/11/03 1115 4,340 150 56 1,170 6.3 480 1,970 36 371632097093600 Arkansas River at Oxford 08/11/03 1040 898 84 22 230 7.5 130 300 37 371758097083400 Sand quarry near Oxford 08/13/03 1200 318 48 13 38 3.3 64 46 38 371852097104200 Ninnescah River (31S–02E–35ABB) 08/11/03 1215 929 64 20 230 3.5 73 370 39 372344097185400 Oxbow lake near Belle Plaine 08/19/03 0850 3,730 110 73 310 12 120 1,990 40 372828097160000 Sand quarry near Mulvane 08/13/03 0920 368 58 16 46 3.6 98 41 

Table 11. Results of water-quality analyses of samples collected during August 2003 from ground- and surface-water sites in Cowley, Sedgwick, and S

central Kansas.—Continued

ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; oC, degrees Celsius; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, milligrams per liter; CaC

micrograms per liter; -- not determined; <, less than; E, estimated] 

Map 

no. 

(fig. 

12)

Site number Local well number or site name

Date of sample 

(month/day/

year)

Time

(24-

hour)

Dissolved 

solids 

(mg/L)

Calcium

(mg/L)

Magnesium

(mg/L)

Sodium

(mg/L)

Potassium

(mg/L)

Sulfate

(mg/L)

Chloride

(mg/L)

Flu

rid

(mg
78 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Table 12. Records of wells where water levels were measured during March 2001 and February 2002 in alluvial deposits in modeled 

area of Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-central Kansas.—Continued

[ft, feet; ft above NAVD 88, feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988; --, not available or not measured]

Local well number 

(township, range, 

section, fig. 18)

Water use Depth of well 

(ft)

Land-surface 

altitude 

(ft above NAVD 88)

Date of 

measurement

(month/year)

Depth to water

(ft)

Ground-water level

(ft above NAVD 88)

Cowley County

31S–03E–20CCB domestic 37 1,189 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

19.30

26.70

1,169.70

1,162.30

31S–03E–28BCC domestic 36 1,222 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

26.05

26.65

1,195.95

1,195.35

32S–03E–06ABB domestic -- 1,158 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

11.65

14.54

1,146.35

1,143.46

32S–03E–15CBC industrial 34 1,177 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

6.11

10.23

1,170.89

1,166.77

32S–03E–21B domestic 38 1,177 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

13.21

17.50

1,163.79

1,159.50

33S–03E–03ABB domestic 30 1,160 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

13.57

14.93

1,146.43

1,145.07

33S–03E–05BCB irrigation 40 1,125 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

7.85

10.57

1,117.15

1,114.43

33S–03E–09BCC domestic 30 1,124 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

13.00

13.67

1,111.00

1,110.33

33S–03E–14DDC domestic 49 1,164 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

19.35

23.04

1,144.65

1,140.96

33S–03E–25CDD irrigation 47 1,164 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

15.64

21.35

1,148.36

1,142.65

33S–03E–28DCB irrigation 39 1,111 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

11.18

13.45

1,099.82

1,097.55

33S–03E–32BBB irrigation -- 1,100 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

8.14

10.63

1,091.86

1,089.37

34S–03E–04DAC irrigation -- 1,101 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

13.31

14.98

1,087.69

1,086.02

34S–03E–24CDC lawn and

 garden

44.5 1,115 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

20.90

23.20

1,094.10

1,091.80

Sedgwick County

26S–01E–21BBB lawn and

 garden

40 1,332 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

2.99

--

1,329.01

--

26S–01E–31ADC lawn and

 garden

40 1,320 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

17.21

19.27

1,302.79

1,300.73

26S–01W–33DDD lawn and

 garden

40 1,327 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

5.89

7.23

1,321.11

1,319.77

27S–01E–08CCD lawn and

 garden

30 1,304 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

13.40

14.60

1,290.60

1,289.40

27S–01E–09ABC lawn and

 garden

35 1,305 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

12.11

13.38

1,292.89

1,291.62

27S–01E–19DBC lawn and

 garden

40 1,302 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

14.07

15.22

1,287.93

1,286.78

27S–01E–21DAC lawn and

 garden

30 1,295 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

10.72

11.67

1,284.28

1,283.33
Supplemental Information 79

Sedgwick County—Continued

27S–01W–08ACCC observation

 well

-- 1,345 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

20.89

23.60

1,324.11

1,321.40

27S–01W–15BBC lawn and

 garden

55 1,336 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

26.54

28.34

1,309.46

1,307.66

27S–01W–25CBB lawn and

 garden

51 1,305 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

15.64

16.96

1,289.36

1,288.04

27S–01W–30AADA observation

 well

-- 1,330 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

18.25

23.18

1,311.75

1,306.82

27S–01W–34BBA lawn and

 garden

65 1,317 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

27.50

30.30

1,289.50

1,286.70

27S–02W–12CDDC observation

 well

-- 1,334 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

10.18

12.28

1,323.82

1,321.72

27S–02W–24DADD observation

 well

-- 1,342 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

26.87

29.29

1,315.13

1,312.71

28S–01E–05DBB observation

 well

-- 1,285 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

14.46

15.27

1,270.54

1,269.73

28S–01E–16ADA observation

 well

-- 1,273 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

7.17

9.13

1,265.83

1,263.87

28S–01E–23ABD lawn and

 garden

65 1,288 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

24.39

--

1,263.61

--

28S–01E–29CBB lawn and

 garden

49 1,266 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

10.03

11.74

1,255.97

1,254.26

28S–01E–34BBBB observation

 well

-- 1,261 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

8.57

10.06

1,252.43

1,250.94

28S–01W–05BBB observation

 well

-- 1,325 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

17.05

18.49

1,307.95

1,306.51

28S–01W–10DCC lawn and

 garden

65 1,307 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

34.26

35.72

1,272.74

1,271.28

28S–01W–11CBB lawn and

 garden

95 1,293 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

21.05

--

1,271.95

--

28S–01W–23BB lawn and

 garden

110 1,294 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

32.50

33.76

1,261.50

1,260.24

28S–01W–28BBB irrigation 127 1,316 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

45.44

46.38

1,270.56

1,269.62

28S–02W–13CCD lawn and

 garden

65 1,345 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

6.55

11.05

1,338.45

1,333.95

28S–02W–25AAC irrigation 138 1,345 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

27.62

30.94

1,317.38

1,314.06

29S–01E–06BDC lawn and

 garden

45 1,294 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

35.47

36.51

1,258.53

1,257.49

29S–01E–09BC observation

 well

-- 1,255 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

10.07

12.66

1,244.93

1,242.34

Table 12. Records of wells where water levels were measured during March 2001 and February 2002 in alluvial deposits in modeled 

area of Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-central Kansas.—Continued

[ft, feet; ft above NAVD 88, feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988; --, not available or not measured]

Local well number 

(township, range, 

section, fig. 18)

Water use Depth of well 

(ft)

Land-surface 

altitude 

(ft above NAVD 88)

Date of 

measurement

(month/year)

Depth to water

(ft)

Ground-water level

(ft above NAVD 88)
80 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Sedgwick County—Continued

29S–01E–14DCC public

 supply

37.5 1,240 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

18.50

19.60

1,221.50

1,220.40

29S–01E–19DDC lawn and

 garden

60 1,276 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

33.75

33.69

1,242.25

1,242.31

29S–01E–34DBC irrigation 54 1,232 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

9.07

11.63

1,222.93

1,220.37

29S–01E–36CCC public

 supply

53 1,225 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

12.80

16.12

1,212.20

1,208.88

29S–01W–04DCA lawn and

 garden

90 1,297 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

21.28

21.26

1,275.72

1,275.74

29S–01W–21CCD lawn and

 garden

55 1,270 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

19.93

24.82

1,250.07

1,245.18

29S–01W–25D irrigation 65 1,274 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

33.34

34.49

1,240.66

1,239.51

29S–01W–29BAC lawn and

 garden

65 1,271 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

18.40

24.19

1,252.60

1,246.81

Sumner County

30S–01E–5BDD irrigation 55 1,260 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

25.36

--

1,234.64

--

30S–01E–09BCA irrigation 48 1,246 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

13.56

14.70

1,232.44

1,231.30

30S–01E–14DAB domestic 20 1,214 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

3.93

6.58

1,210.07

1,207.42

30S–01E–22CCC lawn and

 garden

35 1,231 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

15.30

17.85

1,215.70

1,213.15

30S–01E–29DCD domestic 47 1,212 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

21.64

23.74

1,190.36

1,188.26

30S–01E–36CDD lawn and

 garden

40 1,210 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

12.72

14.76

1,197.28

1,195.24

30S–02E–18B irrigation 55 1,213 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

7.81

10.09

1,205.19

1,202.91

30S–02E–34DAA domestic 50 1,215 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

24.93

25.92

1,190.07

1,189.08

30S–01W–01CCB domestic 31 1,237 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

11.92

14.95

1,225.08

1,222.05

31S–01E–13ABD irrigation 37 1,188 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

10.75

11.17

1,177.25

1,176.83

31S–02E–-05DDC irrigation 50 1,190 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

7.44

10.67

1,182.56

1,179.33

31S–02E–09B irrigation 66 1,186 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

10.59

13.53

1,175.41

1,172.47

31S–02E–12AAC -- -- 1,202 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

28.27

29.19

1,173.73

1,172.81

Table 12. Records of wells where water levels were measured during March 2001 and February 2002 in alluvial deposits in modeled 

area of Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-central Kansas.—Continued

[ft, feet; ft above NAVD 88, feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988; --, not available or not measured]

Local well number 

(township, range, 

section, fig. 18)

Water use Depth of well 

(ft)

Land-surface 

altitude 

(ft above NAVD 88)

Date of 

measurement

(month/year)

Depth to water

(ft)

Ground-water level

(ft above NAVD 88)
Supplemental Information 81

Sumner County—Continued

31S–02E–20ABB domestic 54 1,183 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

14.73

20.11

1,168.27

1,162.89

31S–02E–21DDD -- -- 1,174 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

11.25

14.65

1,162.75

1,159.35

31S–02E–23B -- 60 1,169 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

7.56

10.74

1,161.44

1,158.26

32S–02E–13ABA lawn and

 garden

30 1,150 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

8.83

11.75

1,141.17

1,138.25

32S–02E–25DC -- -- 1,141 Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

16.07

19.76

1,124.93

1,121.24

Table 12. Records of wells where water levels were measured during March 2001 and February 2002 in alluvial deposits in modeled 

area of Cowley, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, south-central Kansas.—Continued

[ft, feet; ft above NAVD 88, feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988; --, not available or not measured]

Local well number 

(township, range, 

section, fig. 18)

Water use Depth of well 

(ft)

Land-surface 

altitude 

(ft above NAVD 88)

Date of 

measurement

(month/year)

Depth to water

(ft)

Ground-water level

(ft above NAVD 88)
82 Characterization and Simulation of Flow in the Lower Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, South-Central Kansas

Table 13. Results of miscellaneous streamflow measurements made in March 2001, February 2002, and August 2003 in 

modeled area of lower Arkansas River Basin, south-central Kansas.

 [ft3/s, cubic feet per second; --, not measured]

Map number

(fig. 8) Site identification number Site name

Date of 

measurement

(month/year)

Streamflow 

discharge

(ft3/s)

1 371004097085700 Slate Creek, Kansas, 33S–02E–24AAD Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

Aug. 2003

49.6

10.9

2.0

2 370844097070600 Arkansas River near Rainbow Bend, Kansas 

33S–03E–29DCA–01

Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

2,450

574

3 371632097093600 Arkansas River at Oxford, Kansas Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

2,500

557

4 371852097104200 Ninnescah River, Kansas, 31S–02E–35ABB Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

1,470

2.41

5 07143375 Arkansas River near Maize, Kansas Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

Aug. 2003

672

153

51.2

6 07144200 Little Arkansas River at Valley Center, Kansas Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

107

53

7 07144300 Arkansas River at Wichita, Kansas Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

888

219

8 07144480 Cowskin Creek at 119th Street, Wichita, 

Kansas

Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

--

1.31

9 07144545 Cowskin Creek near Oatville, Kansas Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

--

4.33

10 07144550 Arkansas River at Derby, Kansas Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

Aug. 2003

938

255

167

11 07145500 Ninnescah River near Peck, Kansas Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

Aug. 2003

357

221

45.1

12 07145700 Slate Creek near Wellington, Kansas Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

5.5

7.1

13 07146500 Arkansas River near Arkansas City, Kansas Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

Aug. 2003

1,340

616

386

14 07147800 Walnut River at Winfield, Kansas Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

452

77.2

15 07147900 Walnut River at Arkansas City, Kansas Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

--

88.5

16 372225097121800 Cowskin Creek near Arkansas River, Kansas,

31S–02E–09AAA

Mar. 2001

Feb. 2002

--

2.36