Water in Storage and Approaches to GroundWater Management, High Plains Aquifer, 2000

By V.L. McGuire, M.R. Johnson, R.L. Schieffer, J.S. Stanton, S.K. Sebree, and I.M. Verstraeten

Circular 1243

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Water in storage and approaches to ground-water management, High Plains Aquifer, 2000 / 

by Virginia L. McGuire ... [et al.].

p. cm. -- (U.S. Geological Survey circular ; 1243)

Includes bibliographical references.

1. Aquifers--High Plains (U.S.) 2. Groundwater--High Plains (U.S.) 3. High Plains

Aquifer. I. McGuire, Virginia L. II. Geological Survey (U.S.) III. Series.

GB1199.7.H5W28 2002

553.7’9’0978--dc21

The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute 

endorsement by the U.S. Government

Free on application to the

U.S. Geological Survey

Branch of Information Services

Box 25286

Denver, CO 80225–0286

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Charles G. Groat, Director

Reston, Virginia 2003

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publications Data
III

T

Robert M. Hirsch

Associate Director for Water

FOREWORD

he High Plains aquifer is the principal source for irrigation and drinking 

water in one of the major agricultural areas in the Nation. For any natural resource 

(for example, water, minerals, or energy), decisions about future utilizations depend 

on having a clear understanding of the status of the resource, the amount that has 

already been extracted, the amount remaining, and the impact of further depletion. 

This Circular reports on the available water in the High Plains aquifer in 2000 

and the changes that have taken place in recent decades. The Circular is intended 

to help those who are interested or involved in the protection, management, and 

sustainable use of the High Plains aquifer to understand it better and make the 

best possible decisions. The information is based on the cooperative efforts of 

local, State, and Federal agencies to monitor water levels throughout the aquifer 

on a regular basis.
V

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................................... III

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

Selected Regional Studies of the High Plains Aquifer.......................................................................................................... 8

Selected Local Studies of the High Plains Aquifer............................................................................................................... 9

Characteristics of the High Plains Aquifer ........................................................................................................................... 12

Water-Level Monitoring........................................................................................................................................................ 18

Water in Storage, 2000.......................................................................................................................................................... 23

Box A. Basic Concepts of Water in Storage in the Aquifer ................................................................................................... 26

Changes in Water in Storage, Predevelopment to 2000 ........................................................................................................ 29

Box B. Increased Energy Costs Caused by Declining Water Levels..................................................................................... 35

Approaches to Ground-Water Management.......................................................................................................................... 36

Colorado...................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Kansas ......................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Nebraska...................................................................................................................................................................... 40

New Mexico ................................................................................................................................................................ 41

Oklahoma .................................................................................................................................................................... 42

South Dakota............................................................................................................................................................... 43

Texas ........................................................................................................................................................................... 44

Wyoming..................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Summary and Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................................................................... 47

References............................................................................................................................................................................. 48

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................................................. 51

CONTENTS
VI

CONVERSION FACTORS AND DATUMS

Degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) by using the following equation:

°C = 5/9 (°F – 32) or °C = (°F – 32)/1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29). If the vertical datum was 

not available, the datum was assumed to be NGVD 29. Historical data collected and stored as North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88) were converted to NGVD 29 for this publication. In previous reports of the High Plains water-level monitoring program, 

the term “sea level” was used to describe the vertical datum.

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). If the horizontal datum was not available, the datum was assumed to be NAD 83. Historical data collected and stored as North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) were converted to NAD 83 for this publication.

Multiply By To obtain

inch 25.4 millimeter

foot 0.3048 meter

mile 1.609 kilometer

square mile 2.509 square kilometer

acre 0.4047 hectare

acre foot 1,233 cubic meter

cubic foot 0.02832 cubic meter

gallon 3.785 liter

gallon per minute 0.06309 liter per second

gallon per day 0.003785 cubic meter per day

foot per day 0.3048 meters per day
1

INTRODUCTION

The High Plains (or Ogallala) aquifer underlies a 111-million-acre area (173,000 square miles) 

in parts of eight States—Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and 

Wyoming (fig. 1). The area that overlies the aquifer 

is characterized as varying “between a semiarid to 

arid environment and a moist subhumid environment” 

(Lohman, 1953) with gently sloping plains, fertile soil, 

abundant sunshine, few streams, and frequent winds. 

Though the area can receive a moderate amount of 

precipitation, precipitation in most of the area generally 

is inadequate to provide economically sufficient yield 

of typical crops—alfalfa, corn, cotton, sorghum, 

soybeans, and wheat. The 30-year average annual 

precipitation ranges from about 14 inches in the western 

part of the area to about 32 inches in the eastern part 

(fig. 2). The High Plains aquifer is generally composed 

of unconsolidated alluvial deposits. About 94 percent 

of the water pumped from the aquifer in 1995 was used 

for irrigation. Through irrigation of crops with ground 

water from the High Plains aquifer, the area overlying 

the aquifer has become one of the major agricultural 

producing regions of the world.

“. . . The whole world depends on the Ogallala 

(High Plains aquifer). Its wheat goes, in large part, 

to Russia, China, and Africa’s Sahel. Its pork ends 

up in Japanese and American supermarkets. 

Its beef goes everywhere . . . .” (Opie, 2000)

Outcrop of the Ogallala Formation, Keith County, 

Nebraska. (Photograph courtesy of R.R. Luckey, 

U.S. Geological Survey.)

Water in Storage and Approaches to Ground-Water 

Management, High Plains Aquifer, 2000

Wheat field, Roger Mills County, Oklahoma. (Photograph 

courtesy of M.H. Belden, Oklahoma Water Resources 

Board.)

By V.L. McGuire, M.R. Johnson, R.L. Schieffer, J.S. Stanton, S.K. Sebree, and I.M. Verstraeten
2

WASHINGTON

ALAMOSA

BOULDER

KIT CARSON

FREMONT

DOUGLAS

CHEYENNE EL PASO

TELLER

KIOWA

MORGAN

CLEAR CREEK

JEFFERSON

PHILLIPS

LINCOLN

ELBERT

PUEBLO

COSTILLA

BACA

LOGAN

HUERFANO

CUSTER

YUMA

DICKINSON

HARPER

CLARK

RAWLINS

REPUBLIC

MITCHELL

GRAY

CLAY

THOMAS

COMANCHE

CLOUD

LANE

FORD

ELLSWORTH

FINNEY

SHERMAN

GOVE

BARTON

KIOWA

ELLIS

SHERIDAN GRAHAM

STEVENS

RENO

HODGEMAN

STANTON

KINGMAN

EDWARDS

RUSH

KEARNY

PAWNEE

WICHITA

LINCOLN

RICE McPHERSON

JEWELL

MAR

MEADE BARBER

OTTAWA

NESS

HARVEY

NORTON

DECATUR

OSBORNE

PHILLIPS

PRATT

RUSSELL

CHEYENNE

STAFFORD

SALINE

SCOTT

WALLACE

SMITH

ROOKS

HASKELL

HAMILTON

GREELEY

GRANT

TREGO

WASHINGT

SUMNER

SEDGWICK

BROWN

BOONE

BOX BUTTE

HARLAN

ARTHUR

HAMILTON

WHEELER

FURNAS

BLAINE

MORRILL

CUSTER

BOYD

KNOX

DAWES

DEUEL

CLAY

BUTLER

GOSPER

JEFFERSON FRANKLIN

NANCE

FILLMORE

SCOTTS BLUFF

HALL

PERKINS

GREELEY BANNER

SIOUX CEDAR

ADAMS HAYES

THAYER

PHELPS

GRANT

CHASE

KIMBALL

SHERMAN

RED WILLOW

KEARNEY

ANTELOPE

NUCKOLLS

LINCOLN

KEITH

HOLT

VALLEY

POLK

GARDEN

PIERCE

WEBSTER

SHERIDAN

HOWARD

SEWARD

CHEYENNE

KEYA PAHA

STANTON

LOGAN

FRONTIER 

THOMAS

HITCHCOCK

McPHERSON

CHERRY

S

WAYNE

CUM

SALINE

YORK

HANSON

GREGORY

CHARLES MIX BENNETT

TURNER

BON HOMME

MELLETTE TRIPP

LARAMIE

ALBANY

GOSHEN

PLATTE

GRAND

SAGUACHE

CONEJOS

CUSTER

SHANNON

TODD

LYMAN

DAVISON McCOOK CAMPBELL WESTON BRULE AURORA MINNEH

LIN

HUTCHINSON

DOUGLAS

YANKTON

CLAY

DIXON

COLFAX

D

PLATTE

MADISON

ROCK

FALL RIVER

NIOBRARA

CONVERSE

HOOKER

LOUP

GARFIELD

MERRICK

DAWSON

SEDGWICK

WELD LARIMER

ADAMS

ARAPAHOE

GILPIN

PARK

DUNDY

BUFFALO

LOGAN

LAS ANIMAS

CROWLEY

BENT

PROWER OTERO

MORTON

SEWARD

Akron

Alamosa

Boulder

Burlington

Canon City

Castle Rock

Cheyenne Wells

Colorado Springs

Cripple Creek

Eads

Fort Morgan

Georgetown Golden

Holyoke

Hugo

Kiowa

Pueblo

San Luis Springfield

Sterling

Walsenburg

Westcliffe

Wray

Abilene

Ashland Anthony

Atwood

Belleville

Beloit

Cimarron

Clay 

Center

Colby

Coldwater

Concordia

Dighton

Dodge City

Ellsworth

Garden City

Goodland

Gove

Great Bend

Greensburg

Hays

Hill City

Hoxie

Hugoton

Hutchinson Jetmore

Johnson

Kingman

Kinsley

La Crosse

Lakin

Larned

Leoti

Lincoln

Lyons McPherson

Mankato

Mar

Meade

Medicine Lodge

Minneapolis

Ness City

Newton

Oberlin Norton

Osborne

Phillipsburg

Pratt

Russell

St. Francis

St. John

Salina

Scott City

Sharon Springs

Smith Center

Stockton

Sublette

Syracuse

Tribune

Ulysses

Wakeeney

Washingto

Wellington

Wichita

W

Ainsworth

Albion

Alliance

Alma

Arthur

Aurora

Bartlett

Beaver City

Brewster

Bridgeport

Broken Bow

Butte

Center

Chadron

Chappell

Clay Center

David City

Elwood

Fairbury

Franklin

Fullerton

Geneva

Gering

Grand Island

Grant

Harrisburg Greeley

Harrison

Hartington

Hayes Center Hastings

Hebron

Holdrege

Hyannis

Imperial

Kimball

Loup City

McCook

Minden

Neligh

Nelson

Ogallala North Platte

O’Neill

Ord

Osceola

Oshkosh

Pierce

Red Cloud

Rushville

St. Paul

Seward

Sidney

Springview

Stanton

Stapleton

Stockville

Thedford

Trenton

Tyron

Valentine

Wayne

W

Wilber

York

Martin Burke Lake Andes

Parker

Tyndall

Winner

CHEYENNE

Laramie

Wheatland Torrington

Cant

Olivet Armour

Yankton

Vermillion

Ponca

Schuyler

Columbus

Madison

Bassett

Hot Springs

Douglas Lusk

Mullen

Taylor Burwell

Central City

Lexington

Julesburg

Greeley

Fort Collins

Brighton

Littleton DENVER

Central City

Fairplay

Benkelman

Kearney

Oakley

Trinidad

Ordway

Las Animas Lamar

La Junta

Elkhart Liberal

COLORADO KANSAS

NEBRASKA

WYOMING SOUTH DAKOTA

U

SOLOMON

RI VE R
3

EDDY

DE BACA

SAN MIGUEL

LEA

MORA

ROOSEVELT

CHAVES

SANTA FE

GUADALUPE

TAOS

JACKSON

CADDO

CUSTER

CAR

ELLIS

CIMARRON BEAVER

HARPER

ALFALFA

ROGER MILLS

GRADY

WASHITA

STEPHENS

CANADIAN

GARFIELD

MAJOR

TILLMAN

LOGAN

TEXAS

KIOWA

HARMON

KINGFISHER

COMANCHE

GREER

GRANT

C

OKLAHOM

GARV

NOB

BECKHAM

DEWEY

COTTON

BLAINE

JEFFERSON

WOODWARD

SHACKELFORD

ANDREWS

JONES

ARCHER

STONEWALL

CALLAHAN

RUNNELS

KNOX

HOWARD

STEPHENS

TERRY

BROWN

HEMPHILL

RANDALL DONLEY

JOH

COLEMAN

MITCHELL

COMANCHE

CROSBY

FOARD

WISE 

DICKENS

CASTRO

MOORE

EASTLAND

FLOYD

TA

BORDEN

GLASSCOCK

SOMERVELL

YOUNG

HOOD

KING

HAMILTON

HASKELL

CLAY

JACK

WINKLER

DAWSON

HOCKLEY

LIPSCOMB

LUBBOCK

MOTLEY

BOSQUE

MONTAGUE

COTTLE

PALO PINTO

CARSON

OCHILTREE

YOAKUM

GARZA

HARDEMAN

COKE

FISHER

GAINES

BAYLOR

BRISCOE

SCURRY

ERATH

STERLING

HUTCHINSON

LYNN

THROCKMORTON

SWISHER

WILBARGER

PARKER

COLLINGSWORTH

WHEELER

TORRANCE

HUDSPETH CULBERSON

LINCOLN

OTERO

LOVING

ECTOR MIDLAND

MARTIN

NOLAN TAYLOR

CURRY

PARMER

QUAY

HARDING

COLFAX

UNION

HALL

KENT

WICHITA

LAMB

BAILEY HALE

DALLAM

SHERMAN HANSFORD

HARTLEY

ROBERTS

GRAY

POTTER

OLDHAM

DEAF SMITH ARMSTRONG

CHILDRESS

McCLAIN

LOVE

WOODS

COCHRAN

Carlsbad

Fort Sumner

Las Vegas

Lovington

Mora

Portales

Roswell

SANTA FE

Santa Rosa

Taos

Altus

Anadarko

Arapaho

Arnett

Beaver

Boise City

Buffalo

Cherokee

Cheyenne

Chickasha

Cordell

Duncan

El Reno

Enid

Fairview

Frederick

Guthrie

Guymon

Hobart

Hollis

Kingfisher

Lawton

Mangum

Medford

Norman

OKLAHOMA C

Pau

Perry

Sayre

Taloga

Walters

Watonga

Waurika

Woodward

Albany

Andrews

Anson

Archer City

Aspermont

Baird

Ballinger

Benjamin

Big Spring

Breckenridge

Brownfield

Brownwood

Canadian

Canyon

Clarendon

Cleb

Coleman

Colorado City

Comanche

Crosbyton

Crowell

Decatur 

Dickens

Dimmitt

Dumas

Eastland

Floydada

For

Gail

Garden City

Glen Rose

Graham

Granbury

Guthrie

Hamilton

Haskell

Henrietta

Jacksboro

Kermit

Lamesa

Levelland

Lipscomb

Lubbock

Matador

Meridian

Montague

Paducah

Palo Pinto

Panhandle

Perryton

Plains Post

Quanah

Robert Lee

Roby

Seminole

Seymour

Silverton

Snyder

Stephenville

Sterling City

Stinnett

Tahoka

Throckmorton

Tulia

Vernon

Weatherford

Wellington

Wheeler

Carrizozo

Alamogordo

Mentone

Odessa

Midland

Stanton

Sweetwater Abilene

Clovis

Farwell

Tucumcari

Mosquero

Raton

Clayton

Memphis

Jayton

Little Wichita Falls field

Muleshoe

Plainview

Dalhart

Stratford Spearman

Channing

Miami

Pampa

Amarillo Vega

Claude

Hereford

Childress

Purcell

Alva

Morton

NEW MEXICO

TEXAS

OKLAHOMA

RIVER

PECOS

0 50 100 MILES0 50 100 KILOMETERS

HIGHPLAINSAQUIFERBOUNDARY

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29o 30' and 45o 30', central meridian –101o

UNITED STATES

HighPlainsAquifer

Figure 1. Location of the High Plains aquifer. The aquifer boundary used in this report is modified, primarily in northeastepreviously published boundary to better match geologic boundaries described in recent studies (Gutentag and others, 198

and Drouillard, 1994; Cederstrand and Becker, 1999a).
4

EXPLANATION

22

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

TEXAS

KANSAS

WYOMING SOUTH DAKOTA

OKLAHOMA

HIGH

PLAINS

AQUIFER

BOUNDARY

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

NEBRASKA

Line of 30-year average annual

 precipitation, 1961–90. 

 Interval 2 inches

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

Albers Equal-Area projection 

Standard parallels 29o 30' and 45o 30', central meridian –101o

18

16

24

26

22

28

30

20

2426

22

28

30

18

16

14

18

16

20 22

14

32

14

16

18

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

24

20

20

18

16

18

18

16

16

20

14

Figure 2. Average annual precipitation in the High Plains area. (Data from the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1996.)
5

In the area that overlies the High Plains aquifer, 

farmers began extensive use of ground water for irrigation in the 1940’s. The estimated irrigated acreage 

increased rapidly from 1940 to 1980 and did not change 

greatly from 1980 to 1997: 1949—2.1 million acres, 

1980—13.7 million acres, and 1997—13.9 million 

acres; irrigated acreage is estimated from farmer surveys 

or from satellite images (fig. 3; Heimes and Luckey, 

1982; Thelin and Heimes, 1987; U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1999). Figure 4 shows the distribution 

of irrigated acres in the early 1990’s. The location of 

irrigated acres was estimated by vegetative conditions 

derived from Landsat satellite imagery and is presented 

as a percentage of a map cell that is 1-minute latitude 

by 1-minute longitude (Qi and others, 2002). During 

the satellite survey, greater than normal precipitation 

occurred in some areas. The greater than normal precipitation resulted in flooding in parts of the area and more 

viable crops in other parts of the area. Therefore, the 

amount of irrigated acreage probably is underestimated 

in some areas and overestimated in others (Qi and others, 

2002).

Annual pumpage from the High Plains aquifer 

for irrigation increased from 4 to 19 million acre-feet 

from 1949 to 1974; annual pumpage did not change 

greatly from 1974 to 1995 (fig. 5; Heimes and Luckey, 

1982; USGS National Water-Data Storage and 

Retrieval System database). These pumpage totals 

were based on estimated and measured pumpage. 

Pumpage was estimated from crop consumptive irrigation requirements, which is the calculated minimum 

supplemental water required to maintain adequate soil 

water for optimal plant growth using factors such as 

crop type, soil, and weather patterns; from power 

usage; or from other data. Pumpage can be measured 

by flowmeters.

IRRIGATED ACREAGE, 

IN MILLION ACRES

1949 1954 1959 19641969 1974 1980 1987 1992 1997 0

5

10

15

Colorado

Kansas

Nebraska Texas

New Mexico, Oklahoma,

 South Dakota, and Wyoming

EXPLANATION

Figure 3. Irrigated acreage in the High Plains 

area, by State, for selected years from 1949 to 1997 

(Heimes and Luckey, 1982; Thelin and Heimes, 1987; 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1999).
6

80 to 100

60 to 79

40 to 59

10 to 39

0 to 9

EXPLANATION

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

TEXAS

KANSAS

NEBRASKA

WYOMING SOUTH DAKOTA

OKLAHOMA

HIGH

PLAINS

AQUIFER

BOUNDARY

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

DENSITY OF IRRIGATED 

ACREAGE, PERCENTAGE OF 

 1- MINUTE MAP CELL

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

Albers Equal-Area projection 

Standard parallels 29o 30' and 45o 30', central meridian –101o

Figure 4. Irrigated acreage in the High Plains area estimated from Landsat 

imagery, nominal date 1992 (Qi and others, 2002).
7

The use of ground water from the High Plains 

aquifer resulted in substantial water-level declines in 

the aquifer. By 1980, more than 100 feet of water-level 

declines occurred in some parts of the aquifer, and by 

1999 withdrawals resulted in more than 40 feet of 

additional water-level decline in larger areas of the 

aquifer (Luckey and others, 1981; McGuire, 2001).

Studies that characterize the aquifer’s available 

water and the water chemistry were conducted beginning in the early 1900’s and are continuing to the 

present time. See “Selected Regional Studies of 

the High Plains Aquifer” for a brief description of 

some of these studies. Additional studies have been 

conducted in selected areas to estimate the effect 

of water-level declines and to evaluate methods to 

increase the usable water in the aquifer. See “Selected 

Local Studies of the High Plains Aquifer” for a brief 

description of some of these studies. 

This report describes the amount of drainable 

water in storage in the High Plains aquifer in 2000 

and the changes in the amount of drainable water in 

storage in the aquifer from the time prior to significant 

ground-water development for irrigation (termed 

predevelopment in this report) to 2000. Drainable 

water in storage is the fraction of water in the aquifer 

that drains by gravity and generally can be withdrawn 

by wells. Remaining water in the aquifer is held to 

the aquifer material by capillary forces and generally 

cannot be withdrawn by wells. Drainable water in 

storage is termed “water in storage” in this report 

and was estimated using data collected from 1920 

to 2000 from more than 20,000 wells screened in 

the High Plains aquifer. This report also summarizes 

approaches to ground-water management implemented 

by the States that overlie the High Plains aquifer. 

Estimates of water in storage depend on the 

accuracy and availability of the water-level altitude 

and base-of-aquifer data in all areas of the aquifer. In 

areas where few water-level data are currently available, such as southeastern Colorado, northwestern 

Nebraska, and parts of Wyoming, published maps 

supplemented available data. Map scale and density of 

water-level altitude and base-of-aquifer data preclude 

showing small areas where the saturated thickness or 

water-level change value might be more or less than 

indicated.

1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1980 1985 1990 1995 0

6

12

18

24

GROUND-WATER PUMPAGE FOR 

IRRGATION, IN MILLION ACRE-FEET

Colorado

Kansas

Nebraska Texas

New Mexico, Oklahoma,

 South Dakota, and Wyoming

EXPLANATION

Figure 5. Ground-water pumpage from the High Plains 

aquifer for irrigation by State for selected years, 1949 

to 1995 (Heimes and Luckey, 1982; U.S. Geological 

Survey National Water-Data Storage and Retrieval 

System database).
8

• The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a 

regional study of the High Plains aquifer in the 

early 1900’s. The study by Johnson (1901, 1902) 

summarized the geographic, physiographic, and 

hydrologic features of the area—scant rainfall, 

high evaporation, few streams, and vast groundwater resources. Johnson determined that farmers 

would need to irrigate fields with ground water 

to cultivate crops. However, because the depth 

to ground water was generally too great for irrigation wells to be economically feasible with the 

available well drilling and pump technology and 

because the recharge rate was very slow, Johnson 

concluded that the High Plains only could be developed for raising livestock and not for cultivated 

agriculture.

• A second regional study of the High Plains aquifer by 

the USGS was conducted by Lohman (1953) in the 

mid-1900’s, after parts of the High Plains aquifer 

were developed for irrigation. Development of the 

aquifer for irrigation became possible because of 

advances in irrigation drilling and pump technology and increased crop prices. Lohman recognized that ground water was almost the sole water 

supply for large parts of the High Plains. In the 

High Plains of New Mexico and Texas, south of the 

Canadian River, ground-water withdrawals greatly 

exceeded ground-water recharge; therefore, water 

levels had already declined and would continue to 

decline. To effectively develop the aquifer, Lohman 

recommended collection of additional data on 

factors such as the amount of ground-water 

discharge to streams, aquifer recharge rates, 

and the amount of water in storage.

• A third regional study of the High Plains aquifer 

was conducted by Weeks and others (1988) in the 

early 1980’s as part of the USGS Regional AquiferSystem Analysis Program. During this study, extensive amounts of data were collected to define the 

aquifer’s hydrogeologic framework, water-quality 

characteristics, and hydrologic budget and stresses. 

These data were used to project water levels for the 

year 2020 under proposed long-term management 

strategies for the aquifer using the first computer 

model of the entire aquifer (Luckey and others, 

1986; Luckey and others, 1988).

• Kromm and White (1992) reviewed (1) the social and 

economic impact related to changes in water availability and water quality in the High Plains aquifer, 

and (2) the approaches to ground-water management 

used in the States that overlie the aquifer.

• Dennehy and others (2002) described a fourth 

regional study of the High Plains aquifer by the 

USGS that began in 1998. The objective of this 

study, part of the USGS National Water-Quality 

Assessment Program, is to evaluate water quality 

in the aquifer. Water-quality issues to be addressed 

by the study include nitrate and pesticide concentrations and elevated salinity from natural and 

anthropogenic processes.

A number of regional studies of the High Plains aquifer were conducted to characterize aquifer conditions; 

quantify the current effect and projected future ramifications of large-capacity pumping on the aquifer; evaluate the 

impact of natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) processes, including pumping, on water quality in the aquifer; 

and consider the importance of irrigation to the economy. Regional studies by Johnson (1901, 1902), Lohman 

(1953), Weeks and others (1988), Kromm and White (1992), and Dennehy and others (2002) are described below:

SELECTED REGIONAL STUDIES OF THE HIGH PLAINS AQUIFER
9

• The usable life of the High Plains aquifer in Kansas 

was estimated by using average annual water-level 

change trends from 1978 to 1988 and from 1988 to 

1998. The 1978 to 1988 and 1988 to 1998 periods 

represent different climatic conditions—1978 to 

1988 was drier, and 1988 to 1998 was wetter. 

Starting with the average saturated thickness of the 

aquifer, 1997 to 1999, the water-level change trends 

were extrapolated to estimate the number of years 

until the end of the aquifer’s usable life for largevolume pumping. For the purpose of their study, the 

end of the aquifer’s usable life in an area was defined 

by Schloss and Buddemeier (2000) as a saturated 

thickness of 30 feet or less.

The map of usable life of the aquifer using the 

more rapid 1978 to 1988 trend shows that about an 

additional 8 percent of the aquifer area in Kansas 

is or will be depleted in less than 25 years. The map 

of usable life using the slower 1988 to 1998 trend 

shows about an additional 4 percent of the aquifer 

area in Kansas is depleted or will be depleted in less 

than 25 years. These maps of aquifer usable life are 

not a prediction of aquifer depletion but represent 

“the range of probable results if past use and climate 

patterns are extended into the future” (Schloss and 

Buddemeier, 2000). 

• A ground-water-flow model of the High Plains 

aquifer in parts of Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, 

New Mexico, and Texas was used to project 2020 

water levels using the 1996 to 1997 pumping rates as 

the annual pumping rate. The simulated results indicate that water levels will decline an additional 25 

to 50 feet in parts of Texas County and 10 to 25 feet 

in parts of Beaver, Ellis, and Cimarron Counties in 

Oklahoma. Ground-water storage is projected to 

decrease by about 50 million acre-feet in the study 

area by 2020 (Luckey and Becker, 1999).

• In northeastern Colorado, the High Plains aquifer 

currently is being depleted at about 1.5 times the 

rate of recharge to the aquifer. To balance recharge 

and discharge, annual pumping would need to be 

reduced from 1.0 million acre-feet to 0.4 million 

acre-feet. This decline in pumping will adversely 

affect crop yields and farm income. The adverse 

impact may be partially offset if improved irrigation 

and farm-management practices are implemented 

and if new Federal farm subsidies for water conservation are enacted (Van Slyke and Dass, 1999).

• Optima Dam and Reservoir, in the Panhandle of 

Oklahoma, originally was proposed and authorized 

by the U.S. Congress in 1936 primarily as a floodcontrol project on the Beaver River, west of 

Guymon, Oklahoma. The project was not planned 

and funded until the mid-1960’s; construction 

began in March 1966, and the dam was finished 

and impoundment began in October 1978 

(Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 1990). During 

the planning and construction phase, the number 

of large-capacity wells withdrawing ground water 

from the underlying High Plains aquifer for irrigation increased substantially. As ground-water withdrawals increased, the water table declined, and 

the number of no-flow days in the Beaver River 

increased (Wahl and Tortorelli, 1997). Currently, 

the river rarely flows, and the reservoir content 

has not exceeded 5 percent of capacity (Ken Wahl, 

U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2002).

Optima Dam and Reservoir on the Beaver River, Texas 

County, Oklahoma, on July 1, 2001. A view looking northwest and upstream at Optima Reservoir from the road on 

top of Optima Dam. The walkway to the top of the dam's 

outlet tower is in the left foreground. (Photograph courtesy of T.L. Wahl, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation.)

Water-resource issues include possible effects of water-level declines and decreased water quality in the High 

Plains aquifer on water availability, streamflow, and viability of riparian areas. Studies that address current and 

projected effects of water-level declines and methods to increase the usable water in the aquifer are described below:

SELECTED LOCAL STUDIES OF THE HIGH PLAINS AQUIFER
10

• The largest sand-dune area in the Western Hemisphere 

and one of the largest areas in the world with grassstabilized dunes is located primarily in Nebraska 

and is called the “Sand Hills” (Bleed and Flowerday, 

1990). The sand-dune area encompasses 12.4 million 

acres (19,300 square miles). Individual dunes are 

as much as 20 miles long, 400 feet high, and have 

as much as a 25-percent slope. The Sand Hills are 

used primarily for cattle ranching—grass or wild hay 

grows on 90 percent of the area. Crops are grown on 

about 5 percent of the area; about 80 percent of the 

cropland is irrigated. Because the soils in the Sand 

Hills are highly erodible and very permeable, cropland must be carefully managed to minimize erosion 

and contamination by agricultural chemicals (Bleed 

and Flowerday, 1990; Miller, 1990). In the Sand 

Hills, the depth to ground water ranges from 0 to 

300 feet; seasonal fluctuations in the water table 

occur, but static water levels generally have not 

changed. 

Precipitation sustains the grasses that cover the 

dunes, recharges the High Plains aquifer, and, with 

ground-water discharge, maintains the numerous 

lakes, marshes, and subirrigated meadows between 

the dunes. Water evaporating from the interdunal

wetlands may help to maintain grasses on the 

dunes by supplying additional water vapor to the 

atmosphere locally (Bleed and Flowerday, 1990; 

Loope and Swinehart, 2000). If ground-water levels 

decline significantly, ground-water discharge to 

lakes, marshes, and subirrigated meadows would 

decrease. If interdunal wetlands dry up or decrease 

in size, the plant and animal communities in the 

interdunal areas would be affected, and grasses 

on the dunes might be adversely impacted.

• Salinity concentrations affect whether water can be 

used for irrigation, and the use of water for irrigation 

can increase the salinity of the underlying ground 

water. One measure of salinity is dissolved-solids 

concentration. The major chemical constituents 

that contribute to salinity are bicarbonate, calcium, 

chloride, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and 

sulfate; these constituents naturally occur in varying 

amounts in soils and rocks. Water can increase in 

dissolved solids as it moves through earth material 

by partially dissolving rocks and minerals. The sand, 

gravel, and clay that compose the High Plains 

aquifer generally contain low amounts of the saline 

constituents; therefore, the dissolved-solids concentration usually is small in ground water from the 

aquifer. However, some older bedrock units of 

Permian age that underlie the High Plains aquifer 

contain rocks and minerals with considerable 

amounts of saline constituents; ground water that 

flows through the Permian-age bedrock units can 

discharge into the High Plains aquifer and increase 

the dissolved-solids concentration in the aquifer 

(Litke, 2001). Ground-water pumping can further 

increase dissolved-solids concentration in the 

High Plains aquifer by inducing a flow gradient 

that increases discharge from the underlying 

bedrock units to the High Plains aquifer. In areas 

where water levels in the High Plains aquifer are 

declining, the volume of water with lower dissolvedsolids concentration available to dilute discharge 

from the underlying bedrock unit is reduced.

A lake in the Nebraska Sand Hills, Arthur County, 

Nebraska. (Photograph courtesy of R.R. Luckey, U.S. 

Geological Survey.)
11

• In the early 1980’s, the Texas Legislature funded 

investigations on the feasibility of “squeezing” 

water from the dewatered part of the Ogallala 

Formation in Texas. The water is “squeezed” 

out by injecting air under pressure from specially 

designed wells screened above the current water 

table. The air pressure forces water in the unsaturated zone, held by capillary forces, down to the 

water table where the water then can be recovered 

by conventional wells. In 1995, the volume of 

additional water that could be recovered from 

the aquifer by using this method was estimated 

to be 360 million acre-feet. The projected cost of 

recovery by this method is about $50 per acre-foot. 

At this cost, the method would likely be “economically feasible (only) for municipal and industrial 

water-supply purposes” (High Plains Underground 

Water Conservation District No. 1, 2000; Texas 

Department of Water Resources, 1982, 1985).

• The High Plains States Groundwater Demonstration 

Project was initiated in 1983 to study the potential 

for artificial recharge of aquifers in 17 Western 

States. Two artificial-recharge demonstration sites 

for the High Plains aquifer were located in southcentral Nebraska, near Wood River and York, and 

one site was located in southcentral Kansas, near 

Wichita. At the two Nebraska sites, ground water 

was used for irrigation, domestic supply, and livestock supply; at the Kansas site, ground water was 

used for public supply and industrial purposes. At 

each site, personnel evaluated one or more recharge 

techniques, including infiltration and spreading 

basins, reservoirs, and passive injection wells. 

The results of these studies, completed in 1999, 

indicate that the various techniques with some 

treatment of the source water recharged the aquifer 

50 to 3,200 acre-feet per year at an estimated cost 

of $25 to $2,300 per acre-foot. Only the site 

near Wichita, Kansas, will be expanded to a fullscale ground-water recharge facility (Bureau of 

Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

2000).
12

The water table, the upper boundary of the High 

Plains aquifer, ranges in altitude from about 6,000 to 

1,200 feet above NGVD 29. Figure 6 is a map of the 

predevelopment water table. A map of the water table 

in the year 2000 would be similar to the predevelopment water table because water-level declines associated with large-scale pumping since predevelopment 

would not show at the 400- to 1,000-foot contour 

interval used in figure 6. In the High Plains aquifer, the 

ground-water flow direction is generally from west to 

east; arrows in figure 6 show the flow pattern. In the 

aquifer, the average ground-water flow velocity is 

about 1 foot per day (Gutentag and others, 1984). 

The High Plains aquifer generally consists of 

one or more hydraulically connected geologic units 

of late Tertiary to Quaternary age. The extent of the 

geologic units in the aquifer is shown in figure 7 and 

described in figure 8. In figure 7, except for dune sand 

and some alluvial deposits associated with streams in 

the Republican River Basin, the Quaternary deposits 

are combined and are only shown where they do not 

overlie Tertiary-age aquifer units. In Texas, some 

collapse structures, filled with Triassic, Jurassic, and 

Lower Cretaceous rocks with secondary permeability, 

are considered part of the High Plains aquifer, but 

because they are a minor part of the aquifer, they are 

not shown in figure 7 (Gutentag and others, 1984). 

In Texas and New Mexico, there are additional small 

areas where the Ogallala Formation is not present, and 

the aquifer consists of rocks of Jurassic, Triassic, and 

Cretaceous age.

The geologic units that form the base of the 

High Plains aquifer are Permian to Tertiary age and are 

described in figure 8 and shown in figure 9. The altitude 

of the base of the aquifer ranges from about 6,000 to 

1,200 feet above NGVD 29 (fig. 9). Three geohydrologic 

sections illustrate the thickness and slope of the aquifer 

and the contact with the underlying bedrock units 

(fig. 10). The locations of the geohydrologic sections 

are shown in figure 9.

Outcrop of the Ogallala Formation near the 

Canadian River in Hemphill County, Texas. 

(Photograph courtesy of K.F. Dennehy, 

U.S. Geological Survey.)

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HIGH PLAINS AQUIFER
13

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

Areas of little or no 

 saturated thickness

2800 WATER TABLE CONTOUR—

 Shows altitude of water table.

 Contour interval, in feet, is

 variable. Datum is NGVD 29.

 Arrow shows the generalized

 direction of ground-water flow

 

2400

SOUTH DAKOTA

NEBRASKA

WYOMING

COLORADO

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

EXPLANATION

HIGH

PLAINS

AQUIFER

BOUNDARY

NEW MEXICO

2400

3600

3200

2000

1600

4000

2800

6000

4000

3200

3600

5000

2400

2800

3200

2800

2000

4000

5

3600

000

3200

3600

3200

2800

4000 3600

1600

5000

5000

4000

1200

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

Albers Equal-Area projection 

Standard parallels 29o 30' and 45o 30', central meridian –101o

Figure 6. Predevelopment water table and direction of ground-water 

flow in the High Plains aquifer. (Modified from Gutentag and others, 1984; 

Cederstrand and Becker, 1999b.)
14

UNITS OF QUATERNARY AGE 

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

Albers Equal-Area projection 

Standard parallels 29o 30' and 45o 30', central meridian –101o

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

TEXAS

KANSAS

WYOMING SOUTH DAKOTA

OKLAHOMA

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETER

HIGH

PLAINS

AQUIFER

BOUNDARY

S

NEBRASKA

EXPLANATION

UNITS OF TERTIARY AGE 

Undivided

Dune sand

Ogallala Formation

Arikaree Group

Brule Formation

Figure 7. Principal geologic units that constitute the High Plains aquifer. (Modified from Gutentag and others, 1984; Bleed and Flowerday, 1990; Dennehy and 

others, 2002.)
15

System Series Geologic

unit

Thickness,

in feet Physical characteristics

QUATERNARY

Pleistocene

and Holocene

Valley-fill deposits 0 to 60

Stream-laid deposits of gravel, sand, silt, and clay associated with the most 

recent cycle of erosion and deposition along present streams. Forms part 

of the High Plains aquifer where saturated and hydraulically connected to 

underlying Quaternary and Tertiary deposits.

Dune sand 0 to 300

Fine to medium sand with small amounts of clay, silt, and coarse sand formed 

into hills and ridges by the wind. Forms part of the High Plains aquifer where 

saturated.

Loess 0 to 250 Silt with lesser amounts of very fine sand and clay deposited as windblown dust.

Pleistocene

Unconsolidated

alluvial deposits 0 to 550

Stream-laid deposits of gravel, sand, silt, and clay locally cemented by calcium 

carbonate into caliche or mortar beds. Forms part of High Plains aquifer 

where hydraulically connected laterally or vertically to deposits of Tertiary 

age.

TERTIARY

Miocene

Ogallala Formation 0 to 700

Poorly sorted clay, silt, sand, and gravel generally unconsolidated; forms caliche 

layers or mortar beds where cemented by calcium carbonate. The Ogallala 

where saturated composes a large part of the High Plains aquifer.

Arikaree Group 0 to 1,000

Predominantly massive very fine to fine-grained sandstone with localized beds 

of volcanic ash, silty sand, siltstone, claystone, sandy clay, limestone, marl, 

and mortar beds. Considered part of the High Plains aquifer.

Oligocene

0 to 700

Upper unit, Brule Formation, predominantly massive siltstone containing sandstone beds and channel deposits of sandstone with localized lenticular beds 

of volcanic ash, claystone, and fine sand. The Brule Formation is considered 

part of the High Plains aquifer only where it contains saturated sandstones or 

interconnected fractures. Lower unit, Chadron Formation, mainly consists of 

varicolored, bentonitic, loosely to moderately cemented clay and silt that 

contains channel deposits of sandstone and conglomerate.

White River

Chadron

Formation

CRETACEOUS

Upper

Cretaceous

Undifferentiated

rocks 0 to 8,000 Shales, chalks, limestone, and sandstones. Upper part may contain lignite and coal beds.

Lower

Cretaceous

Undifferentiated

rocks 0 to 700

Fine- to medium-grained, thin-bedded to massive, cliff-forming sandstone interbedded with shale. Black and varicolored shale to thin- to thick-bedded lime- stone.

JURASSIC

Middle

and Upper

Jurassic

Undifferentiated

rocks 0 to 600 Varicolored shale, fine- to very coarse-grained sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and conglomerate.

TRIASSIC

Upper

Triassic

Dockum Group 0 to 2,000

Upper unit, varicolored siltstone, claystone, conglomerate, fine-grained sandstone, limestone. Lower unit, varicolored fine- to medium-grained sandstone 

with some claystone and interbedded shale.

PERMIAN

Lower

and

Upper

Permian

Undifferentiated

rocks 300 to 3,000 Interbedded predominantly red-shale, siltstone, sandstone, gypsum, anhydrite, dolomite, bedded salt, and local limestone beds.

Figure 8. Generalized description of geologic units that compose (blue shading) and underlie (gray shading) the High 

Plains aquifer. (Modified from Weeks and Gutentag, 1981.)

Brule Formation ---------

----- Group
16

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

Albers Equal-Area projection 

Standard parallels 29o 30' and 45o 30', central meridian –101o 0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

U

U

U

U U

U

U

GEOLOGIC UNITS UNDERLYING 

 HIGH PLAINS AQUIFER

NEW MEXICO

OKLAHOMA

KANSAS

COLORADO

TEXAS

NEBRASKA

WYOMING SOUTH DAKOTA

2800 3200

2400

2000

1600

3600

4000

5000

1200

3600

2000

5000

3200

2800

2800

4000

5000

3200

1200

5000

1200

1200

2800

3600

5000

5000

4000

1600

2800

3600

4000

4000

2000

2400

3200

2400

6000

4000

2400

2400

C C'

B B'

A A'

Rocks of Tertiary age

 Rocks of Upper Cretaceous age

Rocks of Lower Cretaceous age 

 Rocks of Jurassic and Triassic age

 Rocks of Permian age

 Fault— U, upthrown side

EXPLANATION

U

Trace of geohydrologic section (figure 10) A A'

 BASE OF AQUIFER CONTOUR— Shows altitude of aquifer base. Contour interval, in feet, is variable. Datum is NGVD 29

2400

Figure 9. Geologic units underlying the High Plains aquifer, altitude of the base 

of High Plains aquifer, and location of geohydrologic sections in figure 10. (Modified from Weeks and Gutentag, 1981; Cederstrand and Becker, 1998; Torres 

and others, 1999.)
17

GEOLOGIC UNITS UNDERLYING 

 HIGH PLAINS AQUIFER

EXPLANATION

High Plains aquifer

Rocks of Upper Cretaceous age

Rocks of Lower Cretaceous age

Rocks of Jurassic and Triassic age

Rocks of Permian age

Rocks of Tertiary age

CONTACT — Dashed where

 approximately located —---

FAULT — Arrows indicate relative

 direction of movement

———

–—

–

102 W

42 N

Land surface

Unsaturated zone

Water table

Base of aquifer

North Platte River

FAULT

North Loup River

Elkhorn River

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1,000

3,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

1,000

1,000

1,000

VERTICAL SCALE GREATLY EXAGGERATED

DATUM IS NGVD 29 

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

North Fork Solomon River

Beaver River o 102 o

W 102 o

W

o

39 34'N o

36 30'N o

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

WEST

WEST

WEST

EAST

EAST

EAST

0

100 200 KILOMETERS

100

0

200 MILES

A

A'

B

B'

C

C'

Figure 10. Geohydrologic sections through the High Plains aquifer. See figure 9 for section locations. 

(Modified from Weeks and Gutentag, 1981.)
18

A network of 8,641 wells was used to monitor 

water levels in the High Plains aquifer in 2000 (table 1; 

fig. 11). This network consists of many smaller networks 

of wells measured by numerous agencies (table 2). State 

and local agencies are responsible for the majority of 

the water-level measurements. Most of the wells in the 

network are measured one or two times each year—in 

winter, or early spring and fall. Winter or early spring 

measurements generally represent nonpumping conditions, when the water level should show maximum 

recovery from pumping in the previous growing season. 

Fall measurements made after the end of pumping season 

represent the maximum effect from pumping. In 2000, 

127 of the wells were equipped with instruments that 

continually measure and record water levels; the locations of these recorder wells are shown in figure 11. 

In this report, the “predevelopment water 

level” in the aquifer is defined as the water level 

in the aquifer before extensive ground-water pumping. 

The predevelopment water level was generally estimated by using the earliest water-level measurement 

available in more than 20,000 wells. The median 

measurement year in the predevelopment period 

was 1957; depths to water in the predevelopment 

period ranged from ground surface to more than 

300 feet below ground surface (table 1; fig. 12). 

About 4,300 of the wells measured in the predevelopment period also were measured in 2000 or in 1996 

through 2000; the wells measured from 1996 to 1999 

were included only for New Mexico, where wells are 

measured on a rotating 5-year schedule (table 1; 

fig. 13).

Table 1. Number of wells measured in the High Plains ground-water monitoring program in the predevelopment 

period and in 2000

State

Number of wells

measured in the

predevelopment

period

Median

measurement

year in the

predevelopment

period

Number of wells

measured in 2000 Number of wells

measured in the

predevelopment

period and in 2000

Wells

measured

manually

Recorder

wells

Colorado 614 1969 547 2 404

Kansas 4,169 1964 1,211 14 574

Nebraska 6,681 1952 3,654 49 1,714

New Mexico 3,197 1961 162 6 488*

Oklahoma 1,269 1938 215 1 178

South Dakota 72 1978 159 1 71

Texas 4,816 1957 2,538 21 857

Wyoming 26 1977 28 33 20

Eight States 20,844 1957 8,514 127 4,306

*Also includes wells measured in 1996 to 1999.

WATER-LEVEL MONITORING
19

Table 2. State, local, and Federal agencies that participated in the High Plains ground-water monitoring program 

in 2000

State and local agencies

Colorado..............................................................................................Colorado State Engineer’s Office

Kansas.................................................................................................Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources

Kansas Geological Survey

Nebraska .............................................................................................Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District

Harlan County Extension Office

Nebraska Natural Resource Districts

University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Conservation and Survey Division

New Mexico........................................................................................New Mexico Office of the State Engineer

Oklahoma............................................................................................Oklahoma Water Resources Board

South Dakota.......................................................................................South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Texas ...................................................................................................Texas Water Development Board participating with the 

Underground Conservation Districts and other agencies

Wyoming.............................................................................................Wyoming State Engineer’s Office

Federal agencies

U.S. Department of the Interior ..........................................................Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Geological Survey
20

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

 WELL LOCATIONS FOR WELLS MEASURED IN 2000

 Well measured manually

 Recorder well

 Areas of little or no saturated thickness

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

TEXAS

KANSAS

NEBRASKA

WYOMING SOUTH DAKOTA

OKLAHOMA

HIGH

PLAINS

AQUIFER

BOUNDARY

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

Albers Equal-Area projection 

Standard parallels 29o 30' and 45o 30', central meridian –101o

Figure 11. Well locations for wells screened in the High Plains aquifer and measured in 

the year 2000.
21

0 to 25

25 to 50

50 to 100

100 to 200

200 to 300

More than 300

Areas of little or no saturated thickness

EXPLANATION

 WELL LOCATIONS, FOR WELLS MEASURED IN THE 

 PREDEVELOPMENT PERIOD WITH

COLOR INDICATING PREDEVELOP-

 MENT DEPTH TO WATER, IN

 FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

TEXAS

KANSAS

NEBRASKA

WYOMING SOUTH DAKOTA

OKLAHOMA

HIGH

PLAINS

AQUIFER

BOUNDARY

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

Albers Equal-Area projection 

Standard parallels 29o 30' and 45o 30', central meridian –101o 0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

Figure 12. Well locations and depth to water for wells screened in the High Plains aquifer 

and measured in the predevelopment period.
22

 Areas

Well location

 of little or no saturated thickness

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

TEXAS

KANSAS

NEBRASKA

WYOMING SOUTH DAKOTA

OKLAHOMA

HIGH

PLAINS

AQUIFER

BOUNDARY

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

Albers Equal-Area projection 

Standard parallels 29o 30' and 45o 30', central meridian –101o

EXPLANATION

 WELL LOCATIONS, FOR

 WELLS MEASURED IN THE PR

 AND 2000

EDEVELOPMENT PERIOD

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

Figure 13. Well locations for wells screened in the High Plains aquifer and 

measured in the predevelopment period and 2000, except in New Mexico. In 

New Mexico, well locations indicate wells measured in the predevelopment 

period and 1996 through 2000.
23

Water in storage in the High Plains aquifer for 

each State in 2000 was calculated by multiplying the 

average specific yield of the aquifer in the State by 

the volume of aquifer-saturated material underlying 

the State. The State totals were accumulated to calculate the aquifer total (see Box A for a brief description 

of the basic concepts of water in storage).

The specific yield of the High Plains aquifer 

was estimated using a description of the rocks that 

compose the aquifer (Gutentag and others, 1984). The 

average specific yield by State ranges from 7.6 percent 

in Wyoming to 18.5 percent in Oklahoma; the average 

specific yield for the aquifer in all eight States is 

15.1 percent (table 3).

The volume of saturated material in the aquifer 

in each State is estimated from a saturated thickness 

map of the aquifer for 2000. The saturated thickness 

of the aquifer is the vertical distance between the water 

table and the base of the aquifer. A saturated thickness 

map of the High Plains aquifer in 2000 was created by 

superimposing contours of a water table for 2000 over 

contours of the base of the aquifer (modified from 

Weeks and Gutentag, 1981) and then connecting 

points of equal saturated thickness (fig. 14). 

Table 3. Average specific yield in the High Plains 

aquifer (Gutentag and others, 1984)

State Average specific yield,

in percent

Colorado 15.4

Kansas 16.1

Nebraska 15.2

New Mexico 14.8

Oklahoma 18.5

South Dakota 9.2

Texas 15.6

Wyoming 7.6

Eight States 15.1

WATER IN STORAGE, 2000
24

U

U

U

U U U

U

0 to 50

50 to 100

100 to 200

200 to 400

400 to 600

600 to 800

800 to 1,000

1,000 to 1,200

Areas of little or no saturated thickness

SATURATED TH KNESS, IC

IN FEET

U Fault — U, upthrown side

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

TEXAS

KANSAS

NEBRASKA

WYOMING SOUTH DAKOTA

OKLAHOMA

HIGH

PLAINS

AQUIFER

BOUNDARY

EXPLANATION

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

Albers Equal-Area projection 

Standard parallels 29o 30' and 45o 30', central meridian –101o 0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

Figure 14. Saturated thickness of the High Plains aquifer, 2000. (Modified from Weeks 

and Gutentag, 1981.)
25

The volume of water in storage in the 

High Plains aquifer in 2000 is about 2,980 million 

acre-feet. The volume of water in storage by State 

ranges from about 40 million acre-feet in New Mexico 

to about 2,000 million acre-feet in Nebraska (fig. 15). 

The total volume of water in storage in 2000 in the 

aquifer is approximately equal to the volume of Lake 

Huron, the third largest of the Great Lakes; if this 

volume of water were poured into a flat-bottomed 

container that had a bottom area equal to the area 

of the State of Colorado, the water would be about 

45 feet deep.

Not all water in storage is economically available to 

large-capacity wells such as most irrigation and municipal 

wells; estimates of the volume of water in storage available to large-capacity wells ranges from 60 to 80 percent 

(Hansen, 1991). A minimum saturated thickness is 

required to operate a large-capacity well; the actual 

amount of saturated thickness required depends on well 

and pump design and aquifer characteristics. For planning 

purposes, the Kansas Geological Survey estimates that 

more than 30 feet of saturated thickness is required to 

operate a large-capacity well in the High Plains aquifer 

in Kansas (Schloss and Buddemeier, 2000).

COLORADO

KANSAS

NEBRASKA

NEWMEXICO

OKLAHOMA

SOUTHDAKOTA

TEXAS

WYOMING

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

WATER IN STORAGE,

 IN MILLIONS OF ACRE-FEET

Figure 15. Water in storage in the High Plains aquifer, 

2000, by State.
26

The upper boundary of the High Plains aquifer, 

which is an unconfined aquifer, is the water table. The 

lower boundary of the aquifer is generally impermeable 

bedrock. The distance between the water table and the 

base of the aquifer is the saturated thickness of the aquifer, 

and the water in storage is the volume of water that will 

drain by gravity from the aquifer (figs. 16 and 17).

Water beneath the land surface occurs in the 

unsaturated and saturated zones. Within the unsaturated zone, spaces between grains are filled with air 

and water. The water within the unsaturated zone 

is held by capillary forces around the grains and 

can evaporate or be absorbed by plant roots. If the 

volume of water in the unsaturated zone exceeds 

the volume that can be held by capillary forces, the 

water moves down toward the saturated zone, and if 

it reaches the saturated zone, the amount of water in 

the saturated zone increases. In the saturated zone, 

the spaces between the grains are completely filled 

with water.

Air 

Water

around 

grains

Water 

between

grains

Mineral 

grains

Saturated zone (aquifer)

Base of aquifer

Water table

Impermeable bedrock

Saturated

 thickness

U

Figure 16. Schematic of an unconfined aquifer showing unsaturated 

zone, water table, saturated zone (aquifer), base of aquifer, and underlying impermeable bedrock.

A

Basic Concepts of Water 

in Storage in the Aquifer
27

Water in storage in the aquifer fluctuates in 

response to a change in the amount of water recharged 

to or discharged from the aquifer. Prior to development, recharge to the High Plains aquifer was primarily from precipitation and discharge from the 

aquifer was primarily to streams, springs, and seeps. 

After development, recharge to the aquifer is from 

precipitation, irrigation return flow, and seepage from 

structures such as irrigation canals. After development, discharge from the aquifer is to wells, streams, 

springs, and seeps. During predevelopment, the water 

budget, which includes components of recharge and 

discharge, generally was balanced. After development, 

the water budget is in a deficit condition in parts of the 

aquifer; that is, discharge is greater than recharge, and 

water in storage in the aquifer has decreased (Luckey 

and others, 1986). 

A water budget for the south-central High Plains 

aquifer during predevelopment and in 1997 shows an 

18-percent decline in water in storage. Withdrawals 

by wells were the primary cause of the decline in water 

in storage. A decrease in natural discharge and an 

increase in recharge from irrigation return flow 

partially offset the withdrawals by wells (fig. 18).

 Saturated aquifer volume

Aquifer volume 

drained by 

gravity

Volume of water 

in storage, or 

drainable water, 

in a saturated

aquifer volume

Figure 17. Schematic showing the amount of water in storage in a representative 

volume of the High Plains aquifer.
28

Recharge 

from 

precipitation

and irrigation

return flow

0.60

Decrease in water 

in storage, 

predevelopment to 1997

87 million acre-feet

Recharge 

from 

precipitation

0.22

Discharge

to streams

and springs

0.22

Water in storage,

predevelopment

480 million acre-feet

Water in storage,

1997

393 million acre-feet

Predevelopment Conditions

Discharge 

to streams

and springs

0.15

Discharge

to wells

2.67

Development Conditions in 1997 Boundary of 

High Plains

aquifer TEXAS

KANSAS

WYOMING

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

NEBRASKA

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH DAKOTA

South-central 

High Plains

aquifer study

area

100 200 MILES

0 200 KILOMETERS

0 

100 

110°

104°

38°

44°

32°

26°

98°

Figure 18. Ground-water budget in the south-central High Plains aquifer study area 

during predevelopment and in 1997. Values without units are in million acre-feet per 

year (Luckey and Becker, 1999).
29

The changes in water in storage in the High Plains 

aquifer from predevelopment to 2000 can be derived by 

using the volume of aquifer material that has been 

dewatered and the average specific yield of the aquifer 

in each State (table 3). The volume of aquifer material 

that has been dewatered can be derived by using a map 

of water-level changes, predevelopment to 2000 (fig. 19). 

The map (fig. 19) was constructed by superimposing 

maps of the water table in predevelopment (fig. 6) and the 

water table in 2000 and connecting points of equal waterlevel change (modified from Luckey and others, 1981). 

Change in water level at specific locations in 

the High Plains aquifer also can be illustrated using 

hydrographs for selected wells (fig. 20). A hydrograph 

shows the available history of water-level measurements 

in the well and the estimated saturated thickness of the 

aquifer at that location.

The average area-weighted water-level change 

in the High Plains aquifer from predevelopment to 2000 

was a decline of 11.9 feet. The average area-weighted 

water-level change by State ranged from almost no 

change in Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming to a 

decline of about 35 feet in Texas. The area within each 

State with 25 or more feet of water-level decline ranges 

from small areas in South Dakota and Wyoming to 

about 9 million acres in Texas (table 4).

CHANGES IN WATER IN STORAGE, PREDEVELOPMENT TO 2000
30

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

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

Albers Equal-Area projection 

Standard parallels 29o 30' and 45o 30', central meridian –101o

U

U

U

U U U

U

Fault — U, upthrown side U

 Declines

 More than 150 

 100 to 150 

 50 to 100

 25 to 50 

 10 to 25 

 No substantial change

 –10 to 10 

 Rises

 25 to 50

 More than 50 

Area of little or no saturated thickness

 WATER- LEVEL CHANGE,

 IN FEET

EXPLANATION

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

TEXAS

KANSAS

NEBRASKA

WYOMING SOUTH DAKOTA

OKLAHOMA

HIGH

PLAINS

AQUIFER

BOUNDARY

Location and identification for wells

 with hydrographs

10 to 25

G

H

B

C

A

I

J D

K

E

F

D

Figure 19. Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer, predevelopment 

to 2000, and location of selected wells with hydrographs. See hydrographs in 

figure 20.
31

Land surface

Water table

Base of aquifer

19501960

1970

198019902000

3,300

2,700

2,800

2,900

3,000

3,100

3,200

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

ABOVE NGVD 29

K. Hansford County, Texas 1950

19601970

1980

1990

2000

Land surface

Water table

Base of aquifer

2,700

2,800

2,900

3,000

3,100

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

ABOVE NGVD 29

J. Grant County, Kansas

2000

Land surface

Water table

Base of aquifer

I. Scott County, Kansas ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE NGVD 29

2,800

2,900

3,000

1930

194019501960

1970

19801990

Land surface

Water table

Base of aquifer

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

 ABOVE NGVD 29

2,000

2,200

2,400

193019401950

19601970

198019902000

2,500

2,300

2,100

H. Gosper County, Nebraska

Land surface

Base of aquifer

Water table

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2,500

2,800

2,900

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

 ABOVE NGVD 29

2,600

3,000

2,700

G. Bennett County, South Dakota

Land surface

Water table

Base of aquifer

4,500

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

ABOVE NGVD 29

4,100

4,200

4,300

4,400

4,000 1950

1960

1970

198019902000

F. Curry County, New Mexico 

Land surface

Base of aquifer

Water table

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

3,500

3,600

3,700

3,800

3,900

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

ABOVE NGVD 29

E. Castro County, Texas 

Land surface

Water table

Base of aquifer

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

3,500

3,000

3,100

3,200

3,300

3,400

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

ABOVE NGVD 29

D. Texas County, Oklahoma 1950 1960 1970

1980

1990

2000

Land surface

Water table

Base of aquifer

4,100

4,000

3,900

3,800

3,700

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

ABOVE NGVD 29

C. Yuma County, Colorado

in Gosper County, Nebraska

Base of aquifer

Land surface

Water table

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

ABOVE NGVD 29

3,000

3,100

3,200

3,300

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

B. Chase County, Nebraska 1970

1980

1990

2000

Land surface

Base of aquifer

Water table

5,200

5,300

5,400

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

 ABOVE NGVD 29

A. Laramie County, Wyoming

Figure 20. Hydrographs for selected wells. See figure 19 for well location.
32

The volume of aquifer material dewatered from 

predevelopment to 2000 was calculated by multiplying 

the midpoint of each water-level change interval by the 

area of the water-level change interval (fig. 19) and 

summing the result. This method assumes the area 

of the High Plains aquifer within the interval “–10 

to 10 feet” of water-level change (fig. 19) averages 

0 feet of water-level change. If the average water-level 

change in the “+10 to –10 feet” interval areas is, for 

example, a decline of 4 feet, then this method underestimates the average area-weighted water-level 

change. 

The change in the volume of water in storage 

in the High Plains aquifer from predevelopment to 

2000 is a decrease of about 200 million acre-feet, 

which represents 6 percent of the volume of water 

in storage in the aquifer during predevelopment. The 

change by State ranges from an increase of 4 million 

acre-feet in Nebraska to a decrease of 124 million 

acre-feet in Texas (table 5). Most of the decline in 

storage occurred in the 17-million-acre area with 

25 or more feet of water-level declines (fig. 19). In 

this part of the aquifer, the water in storage in the 

aquifer decreased about 190 million acre-feet from 

predevelopment to 2000, which is about 34 percent 

of the water in storage in this part of the aquifer 

during predevelopment.

The effect of a given change in the volume 

of water in storage in an area depends partly on the 

original saturated thickness of the aquifer. The map 

showing percent change in saturated thickness 

(fig. 21) represents the water-level change, predevelopment to 2000, as a percentage of predevelopment 

saturated thickness. The map is constructed by superimposing the map of water-level change, predevelopment to 2000 (fig. 19), on the map of saturated 

thickness, 2000 (fig. 14), calculating the predevelopment saturated thickness and percentage of change 

in predevelopment saturated thickness, and then 

connecting points of equal percent change in predevelopment saturated thickness.

Table 4. Average area-weighted water-level change and area with 25 or more feet of water-level decline 

in the High Plains aquifer, predevelopment to 2000

State

Average area-weighted

water-level change,

in feet

Area with 25 or more feet 

of water-level decline,

in million acres

Colorado –9.0 1.3

Kansas –18.2 3.8

Nebraska 0.7 0.3

New Mexico –14.5 0.8

Oklahoma –13.3 0.9

South Dakota 0.3 0.0

Texas –34.5 9.4

Wyoming –0.1 0.0

Eight States –11.9 16.5

Table 5. Change in water in storage in the High Plains 

aquifer, predevelopment to 2000

State Change in water in storage,

in million acre-feet

Colorado –11

Kansas –47

Nebraska 4

New Mexico –8

Oklahoma –11

South Dakota 0

Texas –124

Wyoming 0

Eight States –197
33

U

U

U

U U U

U

SATURATED THICKNESS

 CHANGE, IN PERCENT

 Declines

 More th an - –50

 –25 to –50

 –10 to –25

 No substantial change

 10 to –10

 Rises

 10 to 25

 More than 25

 Areas of little or no saturated thickness

Fault — U, upthrown side U

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

TEXAS

KANSAS

NEBRASKA

WYOMING SOUTH DAKOTA

OKLAHOMA

HIGH

PLAINS

AQUIFER

BOUNDARY

EXPLANATION

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

Albers Equal-Area projection 

Standard parallels 29o 30' and 45o 30', central meridian–101o

Figure 21. Percent change in saturated thickness of the High Plains aquifer, 

predevelopment to 2000.
34

Figure 21 represents change in available water 

supply caused by declines in water levels. The map 

is similar in some areas to the water-level-change 

map (fig. 19). However, an area of large water-level 

change is not shown on this map if predevelopment 

saturated thickness was large and the change did not 

substantially alter the saturated thickness. Conversely, 

areas with small water-level change may result in a 

large percentage of change in saturated thickness 

because of a small predevelopment saturated thickness. For example, a water-level decline of 10 feet 

in an area where predevelopment saturated thickness 

was 300 feet represents a 3-percent change in 

predevelopment saturated thickness, whereas a decline 

of 10 feet in an area where original saturated thickness 

was less than 50 feet represents a change in saturated 

thickness of more than 20 percent. Decreases in saturated thickness can result in a reduction in well yield 

and an increase in the cost of pumping (see Box B).

In 2000, about 11 percent of the High Plains 

aquifer area had more than a 25-percent decrease in 

predevelopment saturated thickness, and 4 percent of 

the aquifer area had more than a 50-percent decrease. 

Kansas and Texas had the largest areas with more than 

a 25-percent decrease in predevelopment saturated 

thickness.
35

The energy cost to operate an irrigation well 

depends on a number of factors, including aquifer 

characteristics such as saturated thickness and permeability, well and pump characteristics, the distance 

the pump must lift the water, pump efficiency, and, 

for electrical pumps, electric motor efficiency. When 

water levels decline in an area, such as the declines 

that have occurred in parts of the High Plains aquifer 

from predevelopment to 2000 (fig. 22), energy costs 

can increase because the energy required to operate 

the pump is proportional to pump lift: doubling lift 

doubles the energy required. The energy costs also can 

increase because well yield is proportional to saturated 

thickness—as saturated thickness declines, well yields 

decline, and pump operation time increases.

For example, the cost for electricity to pump the 

water required to apply 24 inches on 126 acres of cropland at a pumping rate of 850 gallons per minute, 

assuming 65 percent pump efficiency and $0.07 per 

kilowatt hour, is about $5,900 for 200 feet of lift and 

$8,900 for 300 feet of lift (Broner, 2002). As a second 

example, the yield in a fully screened well decreases 

from 850 to 801 gallons per minute if the saturated 

thickness changes from 200 to 190 feet, assuming that 

aquifer permeability is constant and the radius of the 

cone of depression does not change. If a farmer needs 

to apply 24 inches of water on 126 acres of cropland, 

it would take 67 days at 850 gallons per minute and 

71 days at 801 gallons per minute (Sloggert and Mapp, 

1984). 

Saturated thickness, 

predevelopment Pump lift

Saturated

 thickness, 

2000

Water table, 2000

Base of aquifer

Water table, predevelopment

Bedrock

Base of aquifer

Bedrock

Water table, predevelopment

Pumping water level

Pump

Cone of depression

A

B

Figure 22. Schematic showing 

the water table and saturated thickness (A) during predevelopment and 

(B) after development in an area 

where regional water-level declines 

have occurred.

B

Increased Energy Costs 

Caused by Declining Water Levels
36

This section describes the approaches to groundwater management in each State that overlies the High 

Plains aquifer. The description of the ground-watermanagement approaches in each State includes discussions of ground-water ownership, controls, if any, 

on well installation and use, and regulations on water 

use. A similarity in the approaches to ground-water 

management in all of the States is that the water must 

be used for beneficial purposes, which generally implies 

that the water is used for a reasonable purpose and that 

the water is not wasted. The differences among these 

approaches to ground-water management include the 

legal doctrines, which form the basis for ground-water 

allocations.

On Federal and Indian lands, water rights are 

based on the reserved-rights doctrine. Under the 

reserved-rights doctrine, the Federal agencies and 

Indian Tribes are entitled to sufficient water to fulfill 

the purpose for which the lands were set aside. There 

are about 1.9 million acres of Indian land, mainly in 

South Dakota, and 2.5 million acres of Federal land 

that overlie the High Plains aquifer (Getches, 1997; 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2000). This report does not 

include a description of approaches to ground-water 

management on Federal and Indian lands.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that ground 

water is an article of interstate commerce and, therefore, is subject to constitutional restrictions on State 

regulation of such commerce (U.S. Supreme Court, 

1982). These constitutional restrictions allow States to 

limit interstate transfers of ground water if the limitations are based on legitimate needs of the State’s citizens and not on arbitrary criteria.

Four legal doctrines form the basis for States’ 

rules on allocations of ground water in the High Plains 

aquifer. These legal doctrines are rule of capture, 

reasonable use, correlative rights, and prior appropriation (Ashley and Smith, 1999; Getches, 1997).

• According to the rule of capture or absolute 

ownership doctrine, landowners can withdraw 

ground water for use without regard to the effect 

of the withdrawals on wells owned by adjacent 

landowners.

• According to the reasonable use doctrine, landowners are entitled to withdraw a reasonable 

amount of the ground water that underlies their 

land, as long as the landowners use the water 

for beneficial purposes.

• Under the correlative rights doctrine, landowners 

are entitled to withdraw a reasonable amount of 

the ground water that underlies their land, as 

long as the landowners use the water for beneficial 

purposes. The amount of water that can be withdrawn by a landowner is limited by the needs of 

others whose land overlies the aquifer and who 

have an equal right to a reasonable amount of 

the water.

• According to the prior appropriation doctrine, 

a landowner must apply for a permit from the 

State to use ground water. If the State approves 

the permit application, the State grants the landowner a right to a specified amount of water. 

Landowners whose water right predates the State’s 

permit system can receive a grandfathered right. 

If there is not sufficient water to meet the needs 

of all appropriators, water rights are enforced by 

seniority. A simplified way to explain this system 

is “first in time, first in right.”

APPROACHES TO GROUND-WATER MANAGEMENT
37

In Colorado, ground water is a public resource, 

and individuals or entities can obtain rights to use the 

ground water. Ground water in Colorado is classified 

as tributary, nontributary, or designated. The water 

in the High Plains aquifer in Colorado is considered 

designated ground water. Designated ground water 

is defined by the Colorado Legislature as “. . . ground 

water which in its natural course would not be available to and required for the fulfillment of decreed 

surface rights, or ground water in areas not adjacent 

to a continually flowing stream wherein ground water 

withdrawals have constituted the principal water usage 

for at least fifteen years . . . .” (State of Colorado, 

2002). The Colorado Ground Water Commission 

(Commission) administers designated ground water in 

accordance with legislative intent. Designated ground 

water is administered within areas called designated 

basins, under a system based on a modified prior 

appropriation doctrine, to fully develop the resource 

while at the same time protect vested water rights. In 

designated basins, controls are implemented on well 

installation and water use to prolong the life of the 

aquifer and promote full economic development 

(State of Colorado, 2002).

The Commission has the authority to delineate 

designated basins, to enact rules and regulations 

for the administration of ground water, and to create 

ground-water-management districts to assist in administering the designated basins. The Commission 

formed two designated basins that overlie most of 

the High Plains aquifer in Colorado and established 

Ground-Water Management Districts to administer 

them. The two designated basins are the Northern 

High Plains Designated Basin in northeastern 

Colorado and the Southern High Plains Designated 

Basin in southeastern Colorado. The Ground-Water 

Management Districts have the authority to enact 

additional rules and regulations for the administration 

of ground water in their District (State of Colorado, 

2002). However, only the Commission or the State 

Engineer has the authority to issue, deny, or change 

water rights within the Northern and Southern High 

Plains Designated Basins (State of Colorado, 2002; 

Colorado Supreme Court, 2000). The Commission 

issued policies, which, in 1992, became rules to 

regulate new well permits, changes in water rights, 

replacement well distances, maximum irrigation 

appropriations, metering requirements for wells, 

and requirements for replacement wells. 

The Commission requires permits to use 

designated ground water. The State Engineer has 

the authority to grant permits for small-capacity wells. 

Since 1965, the Commission has had the authority to 

grant permits for large-capacity wells. Large-capacity 

wells in use before 1965 had to be recorded with the 

State Engineer before December 31, 1968, to remain 

in use (State of Colorado, 2002). Starting in 1967, 

the Commission limited the issuance of new, largecapacity well permits in all designated basins so 

no new large-capacity well permits generally would 

be issued closer than 0.5 mile from an existing well 

screened in the same aquifer (Colorado Division of 

Water Resources, 2001).

TEXAS

KANSAS

WYOMING

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

NEBRASKA

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH DAKOTA

Colorado Colorado

Rangeland in Kit Carson County, Colorado. (Photograph 

courtesy of R.R. Luckey, U.S. Geological Survey.)
38

In 1967, the Commission established depletion 

criteria for the Northern High Plains Designated Basin 

so that no new large-capacity well permits would 

be issued if the proposed withdrawal, after 25 years, 

was projected to deplete the aquifer by more than 

40 percent within a 3-mile radius of the well. In 

1990, the Commission issued a policy amending 

the Northern High Plains Designated Basin depletion criteria to 40 percent in 100 years. 

The Commission did not establish depletion 

criteria for the Southern High Plains Designated 

Basin because of the complex geology of the area. 

Five aquifers exist in the Southern High Plains 

Designated Basin: the Alluvium, Cheyenne, Dakota, 

Dockum, and High Plains. Within the Southern 

High Plains, these aquifers are still open for appropriation, provided the new appropriator meets statutory 

and regulatory requirements (Colorado Division of 

Water Resources, 2001). Even though the Commission 

considers that ground water is still available for beneficial use in the Southern High Plains Designated 

Basin, water levels have been declining in the 

Southern High Plains Designated Basin since it originated. As a result, the Southern High Plains GroundWater Management District and the Commission have 

undertaken a research project designed to better quantify the total withdrawal from each aquifer and the 

total amount of ground water in storage within each 

aquifer in the basin (Chuck Roberts, Colorado State 

Engineer’s Office, oral commun., 2001). 

The vast majority of the water extracted from the 

Northern and Southern High Plains Designated Basins 

is used for irrigation. When other needs for water arise 

within the Northern High Plains Designated Basin, such 

as for commercial use or public supply, these new uses 

may be fulfilled through the acquisition of existing 

water rights and subsequent changes to intended use. 

Changing water rights requires that the well be limited 

to the average annual historical consumptive use and 

proof that no material injury will occur to other vested 

water rights. New appropriations within the Northern 

High Plains Designated Basin are difficult to acquire 

because new withdrawals from the majority of the basin 

fail the depletion criteria. When other needs arise within 

the Southern High Plains Designated Basin, water users 

may apply for a new water right. Before granting a 

permit for the new water right within the Southern High 

Plains Designated Basin, the Commission verifies that 

the proposed new appropriation will not cause unreasonable impairment to other vested water rights (State 

of Colorado, 2002; Colorado Division of Water 

Resources, 2001). 

Well permits are considered individual property 

rights that have considerable value and are of substantial importance to the individual owners. Well permits 

can be bought and sold independent of the property on 

which the well is located.
39

In Kansas, ground water is a public resource. 

Since 1978, it has been unlawful in Kansas to use 

water for nondomestic purposes without either holding 

a vested right or receiving a permit to appropriate 

water. Water used for domestic purposes is defined as 

water used to satisfy the needs of a household, of livestock on pasture, and for as much as 2 acres of lawn 

and garden. A vested right is the right to continue the 

beneficial use of water that began before June 28, 1945 

(Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water 

Resources, 2001).

Water rights are property rights connected 

to the land where the water is used. The landowner 

must use the water for beneficial purposes, and all 

uses except domestic are regulated by a permit system. 

The permit system is generally based on the doctrine 

of prior appropriation. The State’s Chief Engineer, 

who heads the Division of Water Resources in the 

Kansas Department of Agriculture, administers the 

permit system. Eligible voters and the State Engineer 

created five Groundwater-Management Districts in 

Kansas, which overlie most of the High Plains aquifer 

in Kansas. These Districts play a significant role 

in managing ground-water resources in their local 

area.

The Chief Engineer is responsible for administration of laws related to water rights and conservation and for the management of water resources in 

the State. Groundwater-Management District boards 

can propose regulations, which must not conflict with 

State law, and develop plans for the management of 

local ground-water supplies for nondomestic use within 

the District. These regulations and plans, which must 

be reviewed and adopted by the Chief Engineer, then 

become the regulations for that local area (Sophocleous, 

1998; Huntzinger, 2001).

The Chief Engineer and Groundwater-Management 

District boards manage water resources by using either 

the concept of “safe yield” or “allowable depletion,” 

depending on conditions in the area. The “safe yield” 

concept considers existing appropriations within a specified radius of the proposed well and limits total appropriations to a percentage of the estimated recharge to the 

aquifer in that radius. The “allowable depletion” concept 

considers existing appropriations within a specified radius 

of the proposed well and limits total appropriation to a 

level that will deplete the aquifer by a specified amount in 

a specified timeframe in that radius. The two Groundwater 

Management Districts in southwest Kansas and westcentral Kansas use an “allowable depletion” approach; 

for example, in southwest Kansas, the District allows a 

40-percent decrease in saturated thickness over a period 

of 25 years in that part of the aquifer. Many townships in 

southwest Kansas are now closed to additional appropriations because the township exceeds the allowable limits. 

The other Groundwater Management District in northwest 

Kansas that overlies the aquifer in that area of the State 

uses a safe yield approach. Other areas of the State limit 

new permits to “safe yield” or are closed and do not allow 

any new permits (Sophocleous, 1998; Kansas Department 

of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources, 2002).

The permit application date establishes the priority 

to continue the use of water during periods of shortage. 

A permit to appropriate water may be approved if the 

proposed annual rate of use and quantity are reasonable 

for the intended purpose and if the use of water will not 

impair existing water rights or unreasonably affect the 

public interest. The holder of a water right may change 

conditions of the permit, such as the proposed use, with 

approval from the Chief Engineer (Sophocleous, 1998).

TEXAS

KANSAS

WYOMING

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

NEBRASKA

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH DAKOTA

Kansas

Irrigated cropland, Morton County, Kansas. (Photograph 

courtesy of K.F. Dennehy, U.S. Geological Survey.)
40

In Nebraska, ground water is a public resource, 

and the use of ground water is governed by a modified 

correlative rights doctrine and by numerous legislative 

enactments. Except as provided by the legislature, 

landowners are entitled to withdraw a reasonable 

amount of the ground water under their land for beneficial use on that land. In those areas where no local 

or State regulations supersede, the Nebraska correlative rights doctrine provides for proportionate sharing 

whenever the natural supply of ground water becomes 

insufficient for all overlying landowners’ needs 

(Mossman, 1996).

The Nebraska Legislature has substantially 

supplemented and modified many aspects of the judicially adopted correlative rights doctrine, including 

the “overlying land” limitation on use of ground water. 

Authority to transfer water off the overlying land has 

been granted for the following water uses, the first three 

of which require a permit from the Nebraska Department 

of Natural Resources (NDNR): public water supply, 

interstate use, industrial use, agricultural use, and 

domestic use of less than 50 gallons per minute. In 

addition, there are statutory preferences for the use 

of ground water, which courts can apply to resolve 

conflicts between well users. Domestic use, which 

includes normal livestock operations, has preference over 

all other uses. Agricultural use has preference over manufacturing and industrial uses (State of Nebraska, 2002). 

Twenty-three Natural Resource Districts (NRDs) 

were created by the legislature in the early 1970’s 

and were assigned multiple responsibilities relative to 

the management of Nebraska’s soil and water resources. 

With limited State oversight, NRDs are given authority 

to manage and control ground-water use. Each NRD 

prepared a ground-water-management plan that was 

approved by the NDNR. The ground-water-management 

plan identifies ground-water depletion and water-quality 

issues in the district and specifies the regulatory or other 

procedures that the NRD will enact to address these 

issues. The High Plains aquifer underlies all or part 

of 21 NRDs.

An NRD may establish a ground-watermanagement area to mitigate issues with groundwater supply, ground-water quality, or issues between 

ground- and surface-water users. With a few exceptions, 

a new well may not be constructed in a ground-watermanagement area without an NRD well-construction 

permit (State of Nebraska, 2002). As of April 2003, 

ground-water-management areas are located in 18 of 

the 21 NRDs that overlie the High Plains aquifer in 

Nebraska; a goal of eight of these ground-watermanagement areas is to address ground-water supply 

problems (Tina Kurtz, Nebraska Department of 

Natural Resources, oral commun., 2003). Approaches 

to ground-water-supply issues include moratoriums on 

installation of new wells and restrictions on the amount 

of ground water that can be withdrawn. 

Except for water wells constructed before 

September 1993 and used exclusively for domestic 

purposes, and for test holes and dewatering wells 

used for less than 90 days, all wells in the State must be 

registered with the NDNR. In most situations, the date a 

well is drilled generally does not give it a priority date or 

other basis for preferential treatment over other wells. 

However, spacing rules are imposed to prevent interference between a new well and existing wells (State of 

Nebraska, 2002).

TEXAS

KANSAS

WYOMING

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

NEBRASKA

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH DAKOTA

Nebraska Nebraska

A center-pivot irrigation system with drop tubes in 

Dundy County, Nebraska. (Photograph courtesy of 

M.K. Landon, U.S. Geological Survey.)
41

In New Mexico, ground water is a public 

resource, and the right to use ground water is governed 

by the prior appropriation doctrine. However, a process 

to regulate ground-water rights exists only in areas 

termed designated ground-water basins. The State 

Engineer can declare a ground-water basin by assuming 

jurisdiction over the appropriation of ground water in an 

area. There are six designated ground-water basins that 

encompass most of the High Plains aquifer in New 

Mexico (New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

2001).

Within a designated ground-water basin, a water 

user must obtain an approved permit for a new water 

right or for changes to an existing water right from the 

State Engineer. The State Engineer generally approves 

permits for livestock, lawn and garden irrigation, and 

other domestic purposes. For other types of water uses, 

the State Engineer approves permits for the new or 

revised water rights if (1) no objections are filed, 

(2) unappropriated water exists in the basin, (3) no 

infringement on the water rights of prior appropriators 

occurs, and (4) it is not detrimental to the public 

welfare or the water conservation goals of the State. 

The State Engineer determines whether unappropriated water exists in the basins by monitoring waterlevel declines within a 9- to 25-square-mile area, 

depending on aquifer properties, around the site of 

a proposed new appropriation. If the annual watertable decline exceeds 2.5 feet, the State Engineer 

will not approve the permit because the rate of decline 

is excessive. Appropriators may appeal all decisions 

of the State Engineer to District Court. Outside designated ground-water basins, permits are not required, 

and individuals claiming that new appropriations will 

impair their senior water right can pursue legal action 

(Ashley and Smith, 1999; Templer, 1992). 

In New Mexico, water rights can be bought and 

sold separately from the property on which the well is 

located. Water rights can be acquired for out-of-State 

use if approved by the State Engineer. 

TEXAS

KANSAS

WYOMING

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

NEBRASKA

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH DAKOTA

New Mexico New Mexico

Irrigated and nonirrigated cropland, Lea County, 

New Mexico, and Gaines County, Texas. (Photograph courtesy of Phillip Ross, Ross Group, Hobbs, 

New Mexico.)
42

In Oklahoma, ground water is owned by the 

landowners whose property overlies the aquifer. 

Use of ground water is governed by the reasonableuse doctrine and is subject to regulation by the 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB). In 1949, 

the Oklahoma Legislature required that landowners 

or their lessees must obtain a license from the OWRB 

before using water from an aquifer, but that the OWRB 

could not issue a license if the annual amount of water 

used would exceed annual recharge to the aquifer. 

In 1972, the legislature repealed the 1949 law and 

replaced it with a new law; however, those landowners 

with previously established ground-water rights could 

continue to use their authorized amount. The 1972 law 

provided that landowners or their lessees must obtain a 

permit from the OWRB before using ground water for 

use other than domestic. The permit authorizes annual 

withdrawal of an amount based on acres to be irrigated 

and “maximum annual yield” for the aquifer in the 

area. “Maximum annual yield” is the amount of water 

that can be withdrawn annually from the aquifer in 

the area while ensuring the aquifer will yield water 

for at least 20 years. The OWRB evaluates the hydrogeologic characteristics of each aquifer to determine 

maximum annual yield in an area. Before approving 

a permit, the OWRB verifies that the proposed use 

is beneficial and will not cause pollution of water 

in the aquifer and that well-spacing requirements are 

met. Although State law does not prioritize beneficial 

use, water used for drinking, domestic use, and vital 

economic activity could receive precedence during 

drought or other local water emergencies (Ashley 

and Smith, 1999; Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 

2001a; 2001b). 

The High Plains aquifer in Oklahoma was 

subdivided into two administrative areas by the 

OWRB. The maximum annual yield in the Panhandle 

Region, which includes most of Beaver, Cimarron, 

and Texas Counties, is 2.0 acre-feet per acre. The 

maximum annual yield in the Northwest Region, 

which includes parts of Ellis, Harper, Dewey, and 

Woodward Counties, has been recently reduced 

from 2.0 acre-feet per acre to 1.4 acre-feet per acre 

for new permits; however, existing permit holders 

are allowed to continue to withdraw 2.0 acre-feet 

per acre (Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2002).

Each year, all permit holders must report the 

amount of water used to the OWRB. A permit holder 

must receive approval from the OWRB to change the 

terms of their permit—for example, to change the 

annual amount of water used. A permit holder may 

transfer all or part of the ground-water right to another 

entity (Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2001a; 

2001b).

TEXAS

KANSAS

WYOMING

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

NEBRASKA

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH DAKOTA

Oklahoma Oklahoma

Cattle grazing on corn stubble, Cimarron County, 

Oklahoma. (Photograph courtesy of R.R. Luckey, 

U.S. Geological Survey.)
43

South Dakota Codified Law declares that all 

water within the State is a public resource, and the 

right to water use may be acquired by appropriation. 

Management of water quantity in South Dakota is 

accomplished through the water-rights permit 

program, established in 1955, and State Water Plan, 

established in 1972, and is administered by the South 

Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (SDDENR). The Water Management Board 

(WMB) is a citizen board who work in conjunction 

with the SDDENR to regulate water use, approve 

and deny permits, validate vested rights, and cancel 

water-right permits or vested rights. However, most 

of the land overlying the High Plains aquifer in South 

Dakota lies within the boundary of either the Pine 

Ridge or Rosebud Indian Reservations, and the Tribes 

assert the right to control the development and use of 

ground-water resources within reservation boundaries 

(State of South Dakota, 2002; Syed Y. Huq, Rosebud 

Sioux Tribe, written commun., 2002).

The State requires a water-right permit for all 

uses except small domestic uses. The WMB generally 

does not issue a permit if the water to be withdrawn 

annually from a ground-water source will exceed the 

estimated annual recharge of water to that source; 

however, the WMB can make exceptions for publicsupply wells. The spacing of large-capacity wells can 

be specified to prevent interference with other wells 

(State of South Dakota, 2002; State of South Dakota, 

Water Management Board, 2002). 

An individual can obtain a water right for use 

at another location, including out-of-State. However, 

in the case of irrigation, the water right is linked to 

the irrigated land and is subject to transfer to the new 

owner upon property sale. Irrigation water rights can be 

transferred to a municipality or other water distribution 

system, such as a rural water system, and the use can be 

changed from irrigation to municipal or domestic (State 

of South Dakota, 2002).

TEXAS

KANSAS

WYOMING

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

NEBRASKA

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH DAKOTA

South Dakota South Dakota

A well house for a municipal well, Tripp County, 

South Dakota. (Photograph courtesy of K.M. Neitzert, 

U.S. Geological Survey.)
44

In Texas, no one has title to ground water 

until the water is withdrawn from the aquifer. The 

landowners whose land overlies the aquifer own the 

right to withdraw available water from the aquifer, 

subject to limitations. In addition, landowners can 

sell the withdrawn water for use at other locations. In 

1998, the Texas Supreme Court upheld this method of 

allocating ground-water rights, which was established 

in Texas in 1904 and called the rule of capture (Texas 

Supreme Court, 1999). Limitations to the rule of 

capture in the High Plains aquifer in Texas are that 

(1) the person withdrawing the water cannot dewater 

a neighbor’s well for malicious reasons or willfully 

waste the water, and (2) in areas with Ground-Water 

Conservation Districts, the district can enact some 

limitations on the ground-water withdrawal rate, the 

total amount withdrawn, and the well spacing (State 

of Texas, 2002). 

In 1949, the Texas Legislature created a petition 

process for designating ground-water-management 

areas and established the structure for Ground-Water 

Conservation Districts. The legislature or the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality can create 

Ground-Water Conservation Districts either in 

response to a petition by landowners in the area or 

in response to critical water-quality or water-quantity 

issues identified in the area by hydrologic studies 

conducted by the Texas Water Development Board. 

If the district is to be funded by property taxes, local 

voters must approve the property tax assessment (State 

of Texas, 2002). 

In the High Plains area of Texas, 14 GroundWater Conservation Districts (May 2002) exist. The 

Ground-Water Conservation Districts regulate to 

a varying extent more than 81 percent of the area 

that overlies the High Plains aquifer in Texas (Texas 

Water Development Board, 2001). Where groundwater-management areas exist within a Ground-Water 

Conservation District, the district can regulate specific 

types of ground-water withdrawal by requiring 

ground-water-withdrawal permits and by controlling 

approval for permits to install new wells. However, the 

Ground-Water Conservation Districts cannot require 

permits for domestic or livestock wells, for wells that 

are designed to produce less than 25,000 gallons per 

day, or for wells to supply water for certain hydrocarbon or mineral production activities permitted 

through the Railroad Commission of Texas (State 

of Texas, 2002).

In Texas, water is an asset that can be sold 

and transferred to other locations, including outof-State locations, with some exceptions. The possible 

exceptions occur in ground-water-management areas 

in which local Ground-Water Conservation Districts 

require a permit for water transfers and limit the transferred amount, depending on the proposed use of 

the water and the District’s needs. The Ground-Water 

Conservation District cannot limit water-transfer 

agreements in effect before June 1997 (State of 

Texas, 2002).

TEXAS

KANSAS

WYOMING

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

NEBRASKA

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH DAKOTA

Texas

Irrigated peanut field, Terry County, Texas. (Photograph 

courtesy of K.F. Dennehy, U.S. Geological Survey.)
45

In Wyoming, all natural waters are the property 

of the State. Individuals and entities, including municipalities and corporations, can acquire the right to use 

the water by appropriation. Wyoming water law, with 

some exceptions, is based on the doctrine of prior 

appropriation. The exceptions are that (1) municipalities can acquire water rights through the power of 

eminent domain if proper procedures are followed 

and the water-right holder is compensated, and 

(2) domestic and livestock use customarily have 

precedence over other water users (Richard Stockdale, 

Wyoming Deputy Engineer, written commun., 2001).

The State Engineer administers State laws and 

regulations related to water-right permits. The State 

Engineer generally issues water rights to anyone 

who plans to make beneficial use of the water. Recognized beneficial uses include, but are not limited to, 

irrigation, municipal, industrial, power generation, 

recreational, stock, domestic, pollution control, 

and instream flows. Water-rights holders for ground 

water are not limited to a specified amount of water 

(Wyoming State Engineer’s Office, 2001). 

The term “instream flow” refers to the flow 

in a stream that is adequate to meet specific needs, such 

as fish and wildlife habitat, or management objectives, 

such as interstate streamflow. Such flows, once set by 

the courts or the Wyoming Legislature, are a water right 

under the law and have priority over later water rights. 

The State Engineer issues instream-flow permits for 

ground-water withdrawals only to the Wyoming Water 

Development Commission (WWDC). The WWDC uses 

ground water withdrawn under instream-flow permits 

to increase streamflows to comply with mandated flow 

requirements (Richard Stockdale, Wyoming Deputy 

Engineer, oral commun., 2001). 

Windmill-powered well and livestock-watering tank 

in Platte County, Wyoming. (Photograph courtesy of 

J.P. Mason, U.S. Geological Survey.)

TEXAS

KANSAS

WYOMING

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

NEBRASKA

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH DAKOTA

Wyoming Wyoming
46

The State Engineer has been registering groundwater rights for all uses except stock and domestic 

since 1947. Since 1957, permits from the State Engineer 

have been required before drilling all wells except stock 

and domestic; since 1969, a permit has been required 

before the drilling of all water wells with no exceptions. 

The State Engineer also issues permits for groundwater diversion and may recommend designation of 

an area as a ground-water-control area. In a groundwater-control area, the voters elect an Advisory Board 

to make recommendations for water administration to 

the State Engineer. Some of the recommendations may 

be ground-water-control measures such as limits on 

permits for new wells or on ground-water withdrawals. 

There are three ground-water-control areas in the High 

Plains of Wyoming—in northern Goshen, Laramie, 

and Platte Counties. In the Goshen and Platte County 

ground-water-control areas, no ground-water-control 

measures have been enacted. In Laramie County, permit 

applications for new wells are reviewed by the Advisory 

Board and the State Engineer with the result that few 

new permits have been granted since the groundwater-control area was established (Richard Stockdale, 

Wyoming Deputy Engineer, written commun., 2001; 

Ashley and Smith, 1999; Wyoming State Engineer’s 

Office, 2001).

The Wyoming Board of Control (WBOC) is 

responsible for the adjudication of water rights and 

for assuring that the water is not wasted. The WBOC 

also must approve any changes to the terms of a permit, 

such as a change from one type of use to another or a 

change in the point or area of use, including use out 

of State. If a water-right holder wants to transfer more 

than 1,000 acre-feet per year for use out of State, authorization from the Wyoming Legislature must be obtained 

(Richard Stockdale, Wyoming Deputy Engineer, written 

commun., 2001; Wyoming State Engineer’s Office, 

2001).
47

The High Plains aquifer underlies parts of eight 

States—Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. By 

irrigating crops with ground water from the High 

Plains aquifer, the area that overlies the High Plains 

aquifer has become one of the major agricultural 

regions in the world. However, the use of ground 

water has resulted in substantial water-level declines 

in parts of the aquifer. 

In 2000, the High Plains aquifer contained 

about 2,980 million acre-feet of water in storage. 

The volume of water in storage by State ranged 

from about 40 million acre-feet in New Mexico to 

2,000 million acre-feet in Nebraska. The volume of 

water in storage in the High Plains aquifer in 2000 

was about 197 million acre-feet, or 6 percent, less than 

the total water in storage prior to development of the 

aquifer for irrigation. About 95 percent of the loss 

of water in storage in the aquifer from predevelopment 

to 2000 is from an approximately 17-million-acre area 

with greater than 25 feet of water-level declines. In 

this 17-million-acre area, the decline in water in 

storage is about 34 percent of the water in storage 

in that part of the aquifer during predevelopment. 

The change in water in storage in the aquifer by State 

ranges from an overall rise in storage of 4 million 

acre-feet in Nebraska to an overall decline in storage 

of 124 million acre-feet in Texas. 

All States that overlie the High Plains aquifer 

require that ground water withdrawn must be used 

for beneficial or reasonable purposes. Some of the 

States—Colorado, parts of Kansas, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, and Texas—formally recognize that, 

in some areas of the State, water is being withdrawn 

from the aquifer at rates greater than the aquifer 

is being recharged. The ground-water-management 

approach in a State’s area of jurisdiction can include 

restrictions on installation of new wells, on the 

amount of water that can be withdrawn from new 

and existing wells, and on the well owner’s ability 

to change the use of water withdrawn from a well. 

The States designed these ground-water-management 

approaches to prevent aquifer depletion, to manage 

aquifer development, and to ensure the availability 

of aquifer resources for at least a specified number 

of years. In some States—Kansas, Nebraska, and 

Wyoming—some of the ground-water-management 

approaches in the High Plains aquifer area also are 

designed to limit water-level declines to try to maintain an acceptable amount of ground-water discharge 

to surface water.

State and local agencies compute available 

ground-water resources based on estimates of recharge 

and discharge from the ground-water system, aquifer 

characteristics, and other information about the hydrologic system. States monitor the effects of groundwater discharge by measuring water levels and, where 

ground water is connected to surface water, streamflow. Improved methods to calculate ground-water 

recharge would help the States to better determine 

available withdrawals. More accurate information on 

pumpage and acres irrigated could aid decision makers 

in resolving resource-allocation issues. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
48

Ashley, J.S., and Smith, Z.A., 1999, Groundwater management in the West: Lincoln, Nebraska, University of 

Nebraska Press, 310 p.

Bleed, A.S., and Flowerday, C.A, 1990, Introduction, in

Bleed, A.S., and Flowerday, C.A., eds., An atlas 

of the Sand Hills: Lincoln, Nebraska, University of 

Nebraska—Lincoln, Conservation and Survey Division, 

Resource Atlas 5b, 260 p.

Broner, Israel, 2002, Center-pivot irrigation systems 

(originally published in 1991; updated January 2002): 

Colorado State University Cooperative Extension, 

Report 4.704, accessed May 2002 at URL 

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/04704.pdf

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

2000, High Plains States Groundwater Demonstration 

Program, Program Summary Report—Part I and II: 

Denver, Colorado, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

145 p.

Cederstrand, J.R., and Becker, M.F., 1998, Digital map 

of base of aquifer for the High Plains aquifer in 

parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 98–393, accessed 

June 2001 at URL http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/

getspatial?ofr98-393_aqbase

———1999a, Digital map of aquifer boundary 

for the High Plains aquifer in parts of Colorado, 

Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South 

Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 99–267, accessed 

June 2001 at http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/

getspatial?ofr99-267_aqbound

———1999b, Digital map of predevelopment water 

levels for the High Plains aquifer in parts of Colorado, 

Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South 

Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 99–264, accessed 

June 2001 at URL http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/

getspatial?ofr99-264_predwlv

Colorado Division of Water Resources, 2001, Rules 

and regulations for the management and control 

of designated ground water: Colorado Division 

of Water Resources data accessed October 2002 

at URL http://water.state.co.us/cgwc/rules-regs/

DBRulesFeb01withFigs.pdf

Colorado Supreme Court, 2000, Upper Black Squirrel Creek 

Groundwater Management District v. Goss, in West’s 

Pacific Reporter, Second Series: St. Paul, Minnesota, 

West Group, v. 993, p. 1177–1190.

Dennehy, K.F., Litke, D.W., and McMahon, P.B., 2002, The 

High Plains aquifer, USA—Groundwater development 

and sustainability, in Hiscock, K.M., Rivett, M.O., and 

Davison, R.M., eds., Sustainable groundwater development: London, Geological Society, Special Publications, 

193, p. 99–119. 

Getches, D.H., 1997, Water law in a nutshell: St. Paul, 

Minnesota, West Publishing Co., 455 p.

Green, G.N., 1992, The digital geologic map of Colorado 

in ARC/INFO format: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 92–0507, accessed June 2001 at URL 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1992/ofr-92-0507/

Green, G.N., and Drouillard, P.H., 1994, The digital 

geologic map of Wyoming in ARC/INFO format: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94–0425, 

accessed June 2001 at URL http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/

1994/ofr-94-0425/

Gutentag, E.D., Heimes, F.J., Krothe, N.C., Luckey, R.R., 

and Weeks, J.B., 1984, Geohydrology of the High 

Plains aquifer in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and 

Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1400–B, 63 p.

Hansen, C.V., 1991, Estimates of freshwater storage and 

potential natural recharge from principal aquifers in 

Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 87–4230, 100 p. 

Heimes, F.J., and Luckey, R.R., 1982, Method for estimating irrigation requirements from ground water in 

the High Plains in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and 

Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 82–40, 64 p.

High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1, 

2000, Secondary recovery of capillary water viewed as 

water plan strategy: Lubbock, Texas, The Cross Section, 

v. 46, no. 11, 4 p.

Huntzinger, T.L., 2001, Water rights and water use data help 

set regulatory priorities in a depleting aquifer in Kansas: 

State of Kansas data available on the World Wide Web, 

accessed June 2001 at URL http://www.accesskansas.org/

kda/dwr/wa/hp/index.html

Johnson, W.D., 1901, The High Plains and their utilization: 

U.S. Geological Survey 21st Annual Report, pt. 4—

Hydrography, p. 601–741.

———1902, The High Plains and their utilization: U.S. 

Geological Survey 22d Annual Report, pt. 4—

Hydrography, p. 631–669.

REFERENCES
49

Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water 

Resources, 2001, Administering Kansas water laws: 

State of Kansas data available on the World Wide Web, 

accessed June 2001 at URL http://www.accesskansas.org/kda/dwr/admin_water_laws.htm

———2002, Areas closed or restricted to water appropriations: State of Kansas data available on the 

World Wide Web, accessed July 2002 at URL 

http://www.accesskansas.org/kda/dwr/Data-Maps/

CR-area_map_page.htm

Kromm, D.E., and White, S.E., 1992, Groundwater problems, 

in Kromm, D.E., and White, S.E., eds., Groundwater 

exploitation in the High Plains: Lawrence, Kansas, 

University of Kansas Press, 240 p.

Litke, D.W., 2001, Historical water-quality data from the 

High Plains regional ground-water study area in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South 

Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming, 1930–98: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4254, 

65 p.

Lohman, S.W., 1953, High Plains of west-central United 

States, general aspects, chapter 4 of Subsurface facilities 

of water management and patterns of supply-type area 

studies, v. 4 of The physical and economic foundation 

of natural resources: U.S. 83d Congress, House 

Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs, p. 70–78.

Loope, D.B., and Swinehart, J.B., 2000, Thinking like a dune 

field—Geologic history of the Nebraska Sand Hills: 

Lincoln, Nebraska, Great Plains Research, Center for 

Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska—Lincoln, 

v. 10, no. 1, p. 5–35.

Luckey, R.R., and Becker, M.F., 1999, Hydrogeology, water 

use, and simulation of flow in the High Plains aquifer in 

northwestern Oklahoma, southeastern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, northeastern New Mexico, and northwestern Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 99–4014, 68 p.

Luckey, R.R., Gutentag, E.D., Heimes, F.J., and Weeks, J.B., 

1986, Digital simulation of ground-water flow in the 

High Plains aquifer in parts of Colorado, Kansas, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 

Texas, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1400–D, 57 p.

———1988, Effects of future ground-water pumpage on 

the High Plains aquifer in parts of Colorado, Kansas, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 

Texas, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1400–E, 44 p.

Luckey, R.R., Gutentag, E.D., and Weeks, J.B., 1981, Waterlevel and saturated-thickness changes, predevelopment to 

1980, in the High Plains aquifer in parts of Colorado, 

Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South 

Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey 

Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA–652, 2 sheets, 

scale 1:2,500,000.

McGuire, V.L., 2001, Water-level changes in the High 

Plains aquifer, 1980 to 1999: U.S. Geological Survey 

Fact Sheet 029–01, 2 p.

Miller, S.A., 1990, Land development and use, in

Bleed, A.S., and Flowerday, C.A., eds., An atlas 

of the Sand Hills: Lincoln, Nebraska, University of 

Nebraska—Lincoln, Conservation and Survey 

Division, Resource Atlas 5b, 260 p.

Mossman, S.D., 1996, Whiskey is for drinkin’ but water 

is for fightin’ about—A first-hand account of Nebraska’s 

integrated management of ground and surface water 

debate and the passage of L.B. 108: Omaha, Nebraska, 

Creighton Law Review, Creighton University School of 

Law, v. 30, p. 67–104.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1996, 

Climatological data set TD–3220: Asheville, N.C., 

National Climatic Center.

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 2001, Declared 

groundwater basins: New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer data available on the World Wide Web, 

accessed July 2001 at URL http://www.seo.state.nm.us/

water-info/misc-maps/GroundwaterBasins.html

Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 1990, Oklahoma 

water atlas: Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 

Publication 135, 360 p.

———2001a, Oklahoma Water Resources Board rules, 

Chapter 30, Taking and use of groundwater: 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board data available 

on the World Wide Web, accessed July 2001 at URL 

http://www.oklaosf.state.ok.us/~owrb/rules/Rules.html

———2001b, 1995 Update of the Oklahoma comprehensive 

water plan: Oklahoma Water Resources Board data 

available on the World Wide Web, accessed July 2001 at 

URL http://www.state.ok.us/~owrb/ocwp/Ocwp.html 

———2002, Oklahoma Water News, March–April 2002: 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board data available on the 

World Wide Web, accessed November 2002 at URL 

http://www.state.ok.us/~owrb/features/wn03_2002.pdf

Opie, John, 2000, Ogallala, Water for a dry land, 2d edition: 

Lincoln, Nebraska, University of Nebraska Press, 475 p.

Qi, S.L., Konduris, Alexandria, Litke, D.W., and Dupree, 

Jean, 2002, Classification of irrigated land using satellite 

imagery, the High Plains aquifer, nominal date 1992: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 02–4236, 35 p.

Schloss, J.A., and Buddemeier, R.W., 2000, Estimated usable 

lifetime, in Schloss, J.A., Buddemeier, R.W., and 

Wilson, B.B., eds., An atlas of the Kansas High Plains 

aquifer: Lawrence, Kansas Geological Survey, Educational Series 14, 92 p.
50

Sloggert, G.R., and Mapp, H.P., 1984, An analysis of rising 

irrigation costs in the Great Plains: Water Resources 

Bulletin, v. 20, no. 3, p. 229–233.

Sophocleous, M.A., 1998, Water resources of Kansas—

A comprehensive outline, in Sophocleous, M.A.,

ed., Perspectives on sustainable development of 

water resources in Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey 

Bulletin 239, 239 p.

State of Colorado, 2002, Colorado Statutes, Title 37, 

Article 90: State of Colorado Statutes accessed 

October 2002 at URL http://198.187.128.12/

colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0 

State of Nebraska, 2002, Nebraska Statutes, Chapter 46: 

State of Nebraska Statutes accessed October 2002 

at URL http://statutes.unicam.state.ne.us/corpus/

chapall/chap46.html

State of South Dakota, 2002, Codified laws: State of South 

Dakota Statutes accessed October 2002 at URL 

http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/Index.cfm?FuseAction=

DisplayStatute&FindType=Statute&txtStatute=46

———Water Management Board, 2002, Water Management 

Board Rules: State of South Dakota data accessed 

October 2002 at URL http://legis.state.sd.us/rules/

rules/7402.htm

State of Texas, 2002, Texas Statues, Chapter 35 and 36: 

State of Texas Statutes accessed October 2002 at URL 

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/watoc.html

Templer, O.W., 1992, The legal context of groundwater use, 

in Kromm, D.E., and White, S.E., eds., Groundwater 

exploitation in the High Plains: Lawrence, Kansas, 

University of Kansas Press, 240 p.

Texas Department of Water Resources, 1982, Investigation of 

the feasibility of secondary recovery of ground water 

from the Ogallala aquifer: Austin, Texas, A Report to the 

Sixty-Eighth Legislature of Texas: Texas Department of 

Water Resources, Report LP–185, 58 p.

———1985, Investigation of the feasibility of secondary 

recovery of ground water from the Ogallala aquifer: A 

Report to the 69th Legislature of Texas: Austin, Texas, 

Texas Department of Water Resources, Report LP–202, 

12 p.

Texas Supreme Court, 1999, Bart Sipriano and others 

versus Great Springs Waters of America: Texas 

Supreme Court opinion accessed October 2002 at 

URL http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/

as_web.exe?sct_99.ask+D+1591259

Texas Water Development Board, 2001, Map of current 

Ground-Water Conservation Districts: Texas 

Water Development Board data available on 

the World Wide Web, accessed July 2001 at URL 

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/mapandphotos/

mp_twdbmaps/gcd_num.pdf

Thelin, G.P., and Heimes, F.J., 1987, Mapping irrigated cropland from Landsat data for determination of water use 

from the High Plains aquifer in parts of Colorado, 

Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South 

Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1400–C, 38 p.

Torres, J.M., Litke, D.W., and Qi, S.L., 1999, HPBEDROCK—

Bedrock formations underlying the High Plains aquifer: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–214, 

accessed May 2002 at URL http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/

getspatial?ofr99-214_hpbedrock

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1999, 1997 Census of agriculture—v. 1, Geographic area series: National Agricultural Statistics Service CD-ROM AC97–CD–VOL1–1B.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2000, Federal and Indian lands in

National atlas of the United States, accessed April 2002 

at URL http://nationalatlas.gov/

U.S. Supreme Court, 1982, Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. 

Douglas, in United States Reports: Washington, D.C., 

Government Printing Office, v. 458, p. 941–965.

Van Slyke, G.D., and Dass, Purushottam, 1999, Curtail 

farming to continue farming; a sustainability dilemma, 

in Geological Society of America, 1999 annual meeting, 

Abstracts with Programs: Boulder, Colorado, Geological 

Society of America, p. 492.

Wahl, K.L., and Tortorelli, R.L., 1997, Changes in flow 

in the Beaver-North Canadian River Basin upstream 

from Canton Lake, western Oklahoma: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96–4304, 

58 p.

Weeks, J.B., and Gutentag, E.D., 1981, Bedrock geology, 

altitude of base, and 1980 saturated thickness of the 

High Plains aquifer in parts of Colorado, Kansas, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 

Texas, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA–648, scale 1:2,500,000, 

2 sheets.

Weeks, J.B., Gutentag, E.D., Heimes, F.J., and Luckey, 

R.R., 1988, Summary of the High Plains regional 

aquifer-system analysis in parts of Colorado, Kansas, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 

Texas, and Wyoming: U.S Geological Survey Professional Paper 1400–A, 30 p.

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office, 2001, Administering 

Wyoming’s water resources: Wyoming State Engineer’s 

Office data available on the World Wide Web, accessed 

June 2001 at URL http://seo.state.wy.us/about/about.html
51

The authors thank William Fronczak, Colorado 

State Engineer’s Office; Thomas Huntzinger, Kansas 

Department of Agriculture; James Cook, Nebraska 

Department of Natural Resources; Paul Saavedra, Chief 

of Water Rights Division in the New Mexico Office 

of the State Engineer; Michael Mathis, Oklahoma 

Water Resources Board; Ron Duvall, South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources; 

Garland Erbele, Chief Engineer, Water Rights Program, 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources; Janie Hopkins, Texas Water Development 

Board Office of Planning; and Richard Stockdale, 

Deputy Engineer in the Wyoming State Engineer’s 

Office, for assistance with the descriptions of the 

State approaches to ground-water management.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS