ANCH C. H, Pierc

If y»u do not need this report after it has served your purpose, please return it to 

the Geological Survey, using the official mailing label at the end

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Harold L. Ickes, Secretary LIBRARY

WATER RESOURCES DIVK *C 

REPORTS SECTION

W. C. Mendenhall, Director

Water-Supply Paper 796 G

MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935

BY

TATE DALRYMPLE AND OTHERS Q

Prepared in cooperation with the 

TEXAS BOARD OF WATER ENGINEERS

Contributions to the hydrology of the United States, 1937 

(Pages 223-290)

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON: 1939

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. Price 15 cents
WATER RESOURCES DIVISION 

REPORTS SECTION

CONTENTS

	Page 

Abstract______________________________________ 223

Introduction____________________________________________________ 224

Definition of terms_---_____-__________________________ 227

Administration and personnel______________________________ 227

Acknowledgments-________________________________________________ 228

Physical features of Texas as related to the general character of the streams. 22&

Determination of flood discharges_________________________________ 229»

May flood on Seco Creek____________________________ 232'

Precipitation_____________.________________________ 233;

Maximum discharge-_______________-___.___________ 234

Previous floods _______________________________________ 236'

June floods------_______________________________ 236-

Precipitation____-_______________________________________ 237"

Colorado River Basin__________________________ 239?

Colorado River flood_______ __________________ 239

Llano River flood_________________________.-___ 241

Nueces River Basin._ __________________________________. 245

Nueces River flood____________________________________ 245

West Nueces River flood____________.____________-___ 249

Determination of discharge near Brackett ville_________ 252

Frio River flood____________________________ 256

Atascosa River flood_____-_________________________________ 256

Rio Grande Basin____-_-_-_ _________________________________ 257

Stages and discharges of May and June floods __.-_ ______ 257

Colorado River near San Saba________________________________ 258

Colorado River at Austin______ _ _____________ _ ____ 259"

Colorado River at Smithville______________________ 26Q

Colorado River near Eagle Lake_____________________________ 2621

North Llano River near Junction.______________________________ 263;

Llano River near Junction______________________________________ 264

Llano River near Castell_______________________________________ 264'

Pedernales River near Spicewood--___-------__--_---_---_-_____ 266

Guadalupe River near Spring Branch_____-________-_____________ 266

San Antonio River near Falls City__________________ ________ 267

Cibolo Creek near Falls City_________________________ 267

Nueces River at Laguna___________________ f _______________ 268

Nueces River near Uvalde__--_______________-___-___-_-_-_-____ 2691

Nueces River at Cotulla________________________-____________-__ 270

Nueces River near Three Rivers_______________________________ 272

Frio River at Concan___________________________ _ ________ 273;

Frio River near Derby________________________________-________ 274

Frio River at Calliham_________________________________ 275-

Atascosa River at Whitsett______________-__________________ 275

m
IV CONTENTS

Page 

December flood on Buffalo Bayou__.___-._____-__-_--_-_--_--_--_-._ 276

Precipitation__________________-_..._________ 276

Maximum discharge------.---.----.__-__-.__-_--_------------__ 277

Previous floods_______________._._______.____ 280

Summary of maximum discharges._________________________________ 282

ILLUSTKATIONS

Page 

PLATE 54. Map of Texas showing principal towns and streams mentioned

in the text-__________.___________________ 224

55. Map of Texas showing major topographic divisions and major

drainage basins______________________________________ 224

56. Llano River at Llano at about peak of flood of June 14, 1935- 240

57. Bridges destroyed by flood of June 14, 1935: A, Llano River 

on Mason-Fredericksburg highway; B, Nueces River on 

Uvalde-La Pryor highway_--____-_-___--__---------___- 240

58. Isohyetal map of the major part of the Colorado and Nueces

River Basins and parts of adjacent river basins.___________ 240

59. Congress Avenue bridge, Colorado River, at Austin: A, At

about peak of flood of June 15, 1935; B, At low water______ 240

60. A, Colorado River at Austin, looking north on Congress Avenue 

from right bank at about peak of flood of June 15, 1935; 

B, South Llano River at Junction, near peak of flood of June 

14, 1935____________-___-__--___---_--_-_----_--__ 248

61. Nueces River on Uvalde-La Pryor highway: A, View from left 

bank at about 10 feet below peak stage on June 14, 1935; 

B, View from right bank made about 30 minutes before 

bridges were destroyed. ________________________________ 248

62. West Nueces River near Brackettville: A, Looking upstream 

from just below lower cross section; B, Looking toward right 

bank and upstream from about lower cross section.________ 249

FIGURE 34. Isohyetal map of the Seco Creek drainage basin above

D'Hanis_________________________________ 235

35. Hydrographs of discharge, Colorado River near San Saba, at 

Austin, at Smithville, and near Eagle Lake, June 14-24, 

1935______________________________________________ 242

36. Isohyetal map of the Llano River Basin_________________ 244

37. Hydrographs of discharge, North Llano River near Junction, 

Llano River near Junction, and Llano River near Castell, 

June 14-17, 1935__--_-_-__--_ ____.-___-__-_---_-__-_ 246

38. Hydrographs of discharge, Nueces River at Laguna, near 

Uvalde, at Cotulla, and near Three Rivers, June 14-27, 

1935_ -_----___---____--__---_---_-_-_-_--____,.___ 248

39. Isohyetal map of the West Nueces River Basin____-_-_--_ 251

40. Profiles of high-water marks and sections of slope-area reach

on the West Nueces River near Brackettville-_____.__-- 253

41. Isohyetal map of the Buffalo Bayou Basin_______________ 278

42. Hydrograph of discharge, Buffalo Bayou at Eureka Cutoff

railroad bridge at Houston, December 7-12, 1935_______ 279

43. High-water and stream-bed profiles of Buffalo Bayou from

Post Oak Road to the turning basin at Houston__________ 281
CONTENTS "

TABLES

Page 

TABLE 1. Precipitation records for June 1-15, 1935__________________ 238

2. Altitude and average descent of the Colorado River from a

point near San Saba to the mouth_____________________ 240

3. Maximum discharge at river-measurement stations on the Colorado and Pedernales Rivers, June 1935__________________ 241

4. Altitude and average descent of the North Llano, South Llano,

and Llano Rivers from source to mouth.__________________ 243

5. Maximum discharge determined at places in the Llano River

Basin, June 1935__ _ _ ___ ___________ ___ 245

6. Altitude and average descent of the Nueces River from source

to mouth________-________________.____-____--___-_____ 247

7. Maximum discharge at river-measurement stations on the

Nueces River, June 1935______________________________ 249

8. Altitude and average descent of the West Nueces River from

source to mouth_____________________________________ 250

9. Computations for slope-area determination of discharge of the

West Nueces River near Brackettville_____-.______--____ 252

10. Precipitation in Buffalo Bayou and adjacent drainage basins,

December 6-8, 1935_____________________ __. 277

11. Maximum discharge, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, at Houston, December 9, 1935_________.___________ 277

12. Run-off and discharge on Buffalo Bayou at Eureka Cutoff

Bridge, Houston, December 7-12, 1935______________ 280

13. Crest stages, flood of December 9,1935, and stream-bed altitudes

determined June 1929, Buffalo Bayou at Houston.. _______ 282

14. Maximum stages and discharges on certain streams in Texas.. 283
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935

By TATE DALRYMPLE and others

ABSTRACT

In Texas in 1935 exceptional floods occurred in May on Seco Creek, in June 

on the Colorado and Nueces Rivers and their tributaries, and in December on 

Buffalo Bayou.

A very heavy rainstorm occurred early in the morning of May 31 over the 

Seco Creek Basin. The maximum rainfall reported was 22 to 24 inches in B% 

hours. This extremely heavy rain occurred at the Woodward ranch about 17 

miles above D'Hanis and 50 miles west of San Antonio. The resulting flood in 

Seco Creek exceeded any previously known. A slope-area measurement of discharge made in a reach about 11 miles above D'Hanis gave a peak discharge of 

230,000 second-feet from a drainage area of 153 square miles, or 1,500 second-feet 

per square mile.

Heavy rains, amounting to probably 20 inches at some places, fell over the 

Colorado and Nueces drainage basins the first 2 weeks in June, causing floods 

greater than ever had been recorded in these basins. The greatest floods occurred 

on the Llano River, tributary to the Colorado, and the West Nueces River, 

tributary to the Nueces.

The South Llano and Llano Rivers reached the highest stages ever known, the 

former stream being 3 feet higher at Junction and the latter 8.6 feet higher near 

Castell than the previous highest stages, which occurred in 1889. The South 

Llano River near Telegraph had a peak discharge of 160,000 second-feet from a 

drainage area of 540 square miles, and the Llano River near Castell had a peak 

discharge of 388,000 second-feet from an area of 3,514 square miles.

The flood from the Llano River, when joined by a smaller flood from the 

Pedernales River, caused the Colorado River at Austin to reach a stage of 41.2 

feet, which is 1 foot lower than the maximum stage of record, which occurred in 

1869. The peak discharge of the Colorado River at Austin on June 15, 1935, 

was 481,000 second-feet from a drainage area of 26,350 square miles (excluding 

11,800 square miles of noncontributing area). Below Austin there was little rainfall, and the flood peak decreased considerably.

The maximum discharge of the West Nueces River at a reach about 28 miles 

north of Brackettville was 580,000 second-feet from a drainage area of 402 square 

miles, which is equivalent to 1,440 second-feet per square mile. So far as known 

this is the highest discharge ever recorded from an area of like size.

The greatest recorded discharge on the Nueces River was near Uvalde, below 

the mouth of the West Nueces. At the river-measurement station at this place 

the peak discharge was determined as 616,000 second-feet; the drainage area is 

1,930 square miles. The peak stage of 36.9 feet exceeded by 10.5 feet the previous maximum known stage, which occurred in June 1913.

223
224 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

A rain of 8 to more than 18 inches fell over the Sycamore Creek Basin, tributary to the Rio Grande a few miles below Del Rio, causing the greatest flood 

ever known on this stream.

From December 6 to 8 torrential rainfall in the Buffalo Bayou Basin, in Harris 

County, amounted to over 20 inches in some places. The resultant floods in 

the Buffalo Bayou and tributaries exceeded previously recorded stages and 

caused considerable damage in the city of Houston. The maximum discharge 

of Buffalo Bayou at Lockwood Drive Bridge, below the mouth of Whiteoak 

Bayou, was measured as 52,750 second-feet from the drainage area of 458 square 

miles, equivalent to 115 second-feet per square mile.

During the floods of May, June, and December, 1935, approximately 50,000 

square miles of drainage area contributed extraordinarily high discharges and 

about 16,000 square miles contributed discharges greater than had been recorded 

previously.

The information in this report includes records of peak stages and discharges 

and of mean daily discharges during the flood periods at about 19 river-measurement stations, results of 25 peak discharge determinations, hydrographs of discharge at 12 river-measurement stations, records of rainfall at 108 places, 5 

isohyetal maps showing rainfall over various areas, and other data pertinent to 

the Texas floods.

INTRODUCTION

Texas is peculiarly subject to floods resulting from intense precipitation, commonly called cloudbursts, over relatively small areas. 

Such floods occur in many regions, as they have recently in New 

York,1 in California,2 in Nebraska and Kansas,3 and in other places, 

and they occur more frequently in some regions than in others. 

Eastern and central Texas and certain sections of neighboring States 

appear to be especially subject to such floods. Every year Texas 

has several floods of greater or lesser magnitude caused by rains of 

the cloudburst type.

Several exceptional floods, all associated with rainfall of unusual 

intensity, occurred in Texas in 1935. Out of this group, floods in 

five streams, caused by three distinct periods of high precipitation, 

have been chosen for presentation in this report, as follows: Seco 

Creek in May, the Llano, Colorado, and Nueces Elvers in June, 

and Buffalo Bayou in December. (See pi. 54.) There were other 

floods in the State in 1935, some of which may have been worthy of 

presentation if more facts had been available.

So-called cloudburst floods are peculiarly difficult to describe 

satisfactorily. The intense precipitation may and very frequently 

does occur in a region where there are no rain gages and almost always 

in a region where there is no recording rain gage that would yield 

reliable information as to the intensity of precipitation. The information on precipitation must therefore be compiled from available

 Johnson, Hollister, The New York State flood of July 1935: U. S. Oeol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 

773-E, 1936.

'Troxell, H. C., and Feterson, J. Q., Flood in La Canada Valley, California, January 1, 1934: U. S, 

Qeol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 796-C, 1937.

* Follansbee, Robert, and Spiegel, J. B., Flood on Republican and Kansas Rivers, May and June 1935: 

U. S. Qeol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 796-B, 1937.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

106°

WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 7S6 PLATE 51

94°

0 K L! A H 0

104° IOZ° 100° 96°

MAP OF TEXAS SHOWING PRINCIPAL TOWNS AND STREAMS MENTIONED IN THE TEXT.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 796 PLATE 55

____________102"________________________IU

i ~l ~l 7 ~ r ~ 1~ ~ 

102° W0°

MAP OF TEXAS SHOWING MAJOR TOPOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS AND MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS.
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 225

sources, and, although it may be reasonably reliable, it is generally 

not closely accurate in regard to total quantity and largely fails to 

show the intensity of precipitation for short periods. Similarly, 

information as to rates of flood run-off is also largely lacking. Generally, there is no river-measurement station on the stream most 

affected. Except on the largest streams a flood may come and go 

within a few minutes or, at most, a few hours. Usually no opportunity is afforded for direct and accurate measurements of stage or 

discharge. The rates and quantities of discharge must be computed 

by indirect methods, such as by formulas for flow over dams of 

different shapes of crest, by the draw-down at contracted openings, 

or, most commonly, by open-channel slope formulas, and all information used in such computations is obtained, of course, after the 

floods have passed.

Difficult though the conditions may be, and unsatisfactory though 

the resulting reports may be, any available information with respect 

to cloudburst floods is of great value, because such floods are especially 

disastrous in creeks and small rivers, in which they yield record 

stages and discharges. Because of the inherent difficulties there is 

at best relatively little reliable information as to either their frequency 

or their magnitude.

The Texas floods described in this report caused the loss of 30 lives 

and heavy property damage, amounting in the aggregate to over 

$28,500,000.* The greater part of the damage was caused by floods 

on the Colorado and Nueces Rivers and the area in Harris County 

tributary to Buffalo Bayou, including the city of Houston.

May 1935 was a month of unusually heavy rainfall at many places 

in Texas, and the precipitation was well distributed over the State, 

with the result that most of the rivers reached flood stages. In the 

Monthly Weather Review for May 1935, page 170, the following 

statement is made:

Except in the Rio Grande, where there was only a slight flood, there were 

moderate to severe floods in all the rivers of Texas which empty into the Gulf of 

Mexico. Ten persons were drowned.

Heavy rainfall over parts of northeastern, central, western, and 

southwestern Texas during a period of several days near the middle 

of June produced disastrous floods on the Colorado, Guadalupe, and 

Nueces Rivers and less severe floods on the Rio Grande, Trinity, and 

other rivers. The Monthly Weather Review for June 1935, page 

200, contains the following statement:

There was a moderate flood in the upper Trinity River in Texas. This flood 

was most severe on the East Fork of the Trinity River, where levees were overtopped and broken in many places.

4 See Monthly Weather Review, December 1935, pp. 364-365.
226 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDEOLOGY, 1937

The official in charge, Weather Bureau office, San Antonio, Tex., makes the 

following statements * * *:

"Heavy to excessive rains over the watersheds of the Colorado, Guadalupe, 

and Nueces Rivers from June 12 to 16 caused severe floods in these river systems. 

The highest stages known occurred at Marble Falls, Austin, and Smithville, on 

the Colorado, and at New Braunfels and Victoria, on the Guadalupe; also at 

Cotulla, on the Nueces.

"Timely warnings were issued for these floods, and large amounts of property 

saved thereby. * * * However, losses were heavy, especially to bridges and 

highways. Thousands of pecan trees were lost, and many farm buildings entirely 

disappeared. Eight people are known to have been drowned."

There were widespread rains on June 13 in the lower Rio Grande Valley. The 

heaviest 24-hour fall of record occurred at Del Rio, Tex., and a very rapid rise in 

the Rio Grande followed. The Rio Grande had previously reached the flood 

stage at Mercedes and Brownsville. The property damage was not heavy, but 

four persons were drowned when their home was washed away.

The flood on Buffalo Bayou at Houston in December is described 

in the Monthly Weather Review for December 1935, page 361, as 

follows:

The outstanding flood of December 1935 was the record-breaking overflow of 

Buffalo and Whiteoak Bayous at Houston, Tex., on the 8th and 9th. This 

destructive flood was caused by excessive rainfall over Harris County, Tex., 

during a 42-hour period on the 6th, 7th, and 8th, with amounts ranging from 5/4 

inches at Houston to approximately 20 inches near the center of the 406 square 

mile watershed. The following report made by the Weather Bureau office at 

Houston, Tex., is of interest:

"Torrential rainfall over Harris County on December 6, 7, and 8 caused phenomenal rises in Buffalo and Whiteoak Bayous. These streams have their courses 

almost entirely in Harris County, and their confluence is near the center of the 

wholesale district of the city of Houston. The Buffalo Bayou flows through the 

center of the city and enters into Galveston Bay. The lower course from the 

eastern part of the city to Galveston Bay has been deepened to form the Houston 

Ship Channel. There has been the usual encroachment on the channel through 

the city, and this operated to retard the flow of flood waters and caused exceptionally destructive flooding in the business district, as well as in some residential 

districts. More than 100 city residential blocks were flooded. Homes had to be 

abandoned, and much hardship followed. Fortunately, mild weather prevailed. 

Eight persons were drowned. The property loss is conservatively estimated at 

$2,500,000, consisting of damage to roads, bridges, buildings, and contents. 

Several buildings in the wholesale district were completely wrecked by the undermining of their foundations. Stocks of goods in several warehouses were ruined.

"The greatest 24-hour rainfall in Houston was 5.38 inches on the 7th and 8th, 

but the catch in a standard rain gage exposed at Satsuma, a pumping station of 

the Humble Oil Co., in the northwestern part of Harris County, was 16.49 inches, 

and catches of 21 inches were reported, but these were measured in improvised 

gages and cannot be accepted as entirely reliable.

"Levels run by the city engineer show a stage of 40.3 feet above mean tide 

level immediately below the confluence of the Buffalo and Whiteoak Bayous, as 

compared with 34.3 feet on May 31, 1929, and 34.3 feet in 1879 (date unknown). 

The crest passed in the early morning of December 9."

The determinations of discharge for the peak stages of these floods 

necessarily were made from field data collected subsequent to the
MAJOE TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 227

floods. In general the field data consisted of measurements of slopes 

and areas of cross sections corresponding to high-water marks and 

the determinations of proper values of the roughness factor n for use 

in the Kutter or Manning formula. The computations of discharge 

by slope formulas, using the best information obtainable for slopes, 

cross sections, and values of n, indicate that not only were these 

floods of unusual magnitude, but some of the rates of discharge in 

second-feet per square mile of drainage area were greater than any 

determinations previously made for areas of similar size in Texas or 

elsewhere in the United States.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

The volume of water flowing in a stream the "run-off" or "discharge" is expressed in various terms, each of which has become 

associated with a certain class of work. These terms may be divided 

into two groups (1) those that represent a rate of flow, as secondfeet, gallons a minute, miner's inches, and discharge in second-feet 

per square mile; and (2) those that represent the actual quantity of 

water, as run-off in inches of depth on the drainage basin, acre-feet, 

and millions of cubic feet. The principal terms used in this report 

are "second-feet," "second-feet per square mile," and "acre-feet." 

They may be denned as follows:

"Second-feet" is an abbreviation for "cubic feet per second." A 

second-foot is a rate of flow of 1 cubic foot per second, or the rate of 

discharge of water flowing in a channel when the cross-sectional area 

is 1 square foot and the average velocity is 1 foot per second. It is 

generally used as a fundamental unit from which others are computed.

"Second-feet per square mile" is the average number of cubic feet 

of water flowing per second from each square mile of area drained, on 

the assumption that the run-off is distributed uniformly as regards 

both time and area.

An ''acre-foot," equivalent to 43,560 cubic feet, is the quantity 

required to cover 1 acre to the depth of 1 foot. This term is commonly used in connection with storage for irrigation.

"Stage-discharge relation" is an abbreviation for the term "relation of gage height to discharge."

"Control" is a term used to designate the natural section, reach of 

the channel, or artificial structure below the gage, which determines 

the stage-discharge relation at the gage.

"Isohyetals" or "isohyetal lines" are lines joining points on the 

earth's surface having equal depths of rainfall in a given interval 

of time.

ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL

The field and office work incident to the preparation of this report 

was performed by the water-resources branch of the Geological
228 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

Survey, under the general administrative direction of N. C. Grover, 

chief hydraulic engineer, and C. G. Paulsen, chief of the division of 

surface water. The field work and the collection and tabulation of 

the basic information with respect to stages and discharges were done 

by Tate Dalrymple and others, under the immediate direction of 

C. E. Ellsworth, district engineer. The general technical direction 

of the special work and assembling of the report was carried on under 

the division of water utilization, R. W. Davenport, chief.

ACKNO WLED GMENTS

The river-measurement work of the United States Geological Survey in Texas is carried on in cooperation with the State Board of 

Water Engineers, C. S. Clark (chairman), A. H. Dunlap, and John W. 

Pritchett.

Acknowledgment is made to the United States Weather Bureau for 

many of the data on rainfall and storms, and to M. J. McCall, of the 

county engineers' office, Harris County, and the engineering department of the city of Houston for most of the data on the Houston flood.

Many miscellaneous rainfall records were obtained from local observers to whom no individual acknowledgment is made but to whom 

special credit is due, for these data have added very materially to the 

knowledge of the rainfall.

Information appearing in this report has been obtained from many 

supplemental sources, including individuals, corporations, and city 

officials. So far as practicable, acknowledgments for individual contributions are given at appropriate places in the report.

PHYSICAL FEATURES OF TEXAS AS RELATED TO 

GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE STREAMS

Texas may be divided topographically into three general regions 

the Staked Plains, the Central Plateau, and the Coastal Plain. (See 

pi. 55.) The dividing lines between these sections are the Cap Rock 

and the Balcones fault zone, at each of which there is a pronounced 

change in the topographic character.

The Staked Plains extend from the Cap Rock to the northern and 

western boundaries of the State. This region is comparatively flat, 

ranges in altitude from 2,500 to 4,000 feet, has very few trees and not 

many streams, and receives a sparse rainfall. It contributes little if 

any run-off to the lower reaches of the river systems that head in it.

The Central Plateau ranges in altitude from 800 to 2,500 feet, 

consists mostly of low hills, is fairly well wooded, has a considerably 

greater rainfall than the Staked Plains, to the northwest, and the rain 

that falls on it feeds many streams. The southern and eastern edge 

of this region lies along the Balcones fault zone, which forms the 

boundary between the Central Plateau and the Coastal Plain. This
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 229

fault zone crosses the State from a point near Dallas through Waco, 

Austin, and San Antonio to the Rio Grande at Del Rio. The escarpment along this fault is a rather prominent topographic feature from 

Waco to Del Rio. The rise from the Coastal Plain to the plateau 

ranges from 200 or 300 feet to over 1,000 feet and is rather abrupt over 

much of its course. This fault area is characterized by steep slopes 

and shallow rocky soil, with narrow flood plains along the streams.

The Coastal Plain region, extending from the Balcones fault zone 

to the Gulf of Mexico, consists mostly of rolling flat hills in the inland 

part and of relatively flat areas along the coast. A large part of the 

eastern section is covered with timber. Much of the Coastal Plain is 

devoted to farming and is more densely populated than the other 

sections of the State. The streams in this region are comparatively 

large and have wide overflow channels.

DETERMINATION OF FLOOD DISCHARGES

On the lower reaches of the streams the peak discharges for the 

floods of 1935 were determined by stage-discharge ratings based on 

current-meter measurements, but on the upper reaches peak discharges 

were obtained by slope-area methods. There are few opportunities 

on Texas rivers for computing flow over dams or falls or through 

contracted openings.

In selecting a site for a slope-area determination of discharge the 

following factors were considered and the best possible selections 

made: (1) Straightness of channel, (2) concentration of flow in 

uniformly deep, narrow channel, (3) adequate length of reach, (4) 

permanence of channel during flood, (5) absence of trees, brush, and 

other obstructions, (6) uniformity of cross sections and slope, (7) 

quality and quantity of high-water marks, (8) favorable approach 

and get-away conditions, (9) freedom from debris movement, and 

(10) uniformity of bed slope.

After the tentative selection of a site, levels were run to determine 

the altitude of the high-water line on both banks over the length of 

the reach selected. A profile of the high-water points so obtained 

was plotted in the field, and a study made of the uniformity of the 

indicated surface slopes. If a sufficiently long reach was found to 

have satisfactorily uniform slopes on both banks, two or more cross 

sections were surveyed in the reach. If the slopes were not uniform, 

another measuring site was selected and investigated in a like manner; 

this procedure was followed until a satisfactory reach was found. 

Photographs were made of the reach finally selected, enough views 

being taken to show the pertinent characteristics of the channel.

Close attention was paid to the evidence of debris carried by the 

stream. In some places a considerable quantity of gravel may have 

been moved by the stream in flood, but in this investigation no place
230 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

was found in which the quantity appeared sufficient to affect the 

accuracy of the measurement appreciably.

The computations for determining the discharges were made in 

the office after all field data had been obtained. For each slope-area 

measurement profiles of the altitude of the high-water marks were 

plotted, and the surface slopes were determined. The cross sections 

were also plotted, and the characteristics of each part of the channel 

were described by notes.

In computing flood discharge by the slope-area method the average 

velocity in feet per second was determined either from Manning's 

formula,

v=s 1.486 « 

n 

or from Kutter's formula,

V=

0.00281 ,1.811

J

in both of which V= average velocity, in feet per second. 

n= coefficient of roughness.

r=hydraulic radius, in feet, equivalent to area of 

cross section divided by wetted perimeter 

(w. p.}. 

s=slope of energy gradient.

Originally Kutter's formula was used for determining discharges 

by the slope-area method, but owing to its greater simplicity Manning's formula has been used for later determinations and for recomputations of previous slope-area measurements.

Guidance in the selection of values of n, the coefficient of roughness, 

has been obtained from figures computed from measurements of 

discharge by current meter and measurements of slopes. Such 

studies of the value of n have been made at various river-measurement 

stations over the State. The results have been compared and checked 

against the general experience in the use of this coefficient elsewhere 

in this country.

Cross sections of reaches of channel were divided into parts to 

provide for variation in the hydraulic radii and coefficients of roughness in the different parts. Where a subdivided part of a channel 

was bounded by dense vegetation or trees, such boundary was treated 

as a part of the wetted perimeter.

At many points, owing to a difference in the area of the upstream 

and downstream cross sections, it was necessary to consider the 

velocity head and to correct the surface slope to a value representing
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 231

the energy grade line. Where the velocity at the downstream section was less than at the upstream section, it was assumed that there 

was a 50-percent recovery of the theoretical kinetic-energy head.

The application of the slope-area method is shown by computations for discharge of the West Nueces River near Brackettville 

(table 9, p. 252).

The mean daily discharge and the volume of run-off were computed at all gaging stations on the flooded streams. The discharge 

is treated as a function of the stage, or gage height. The discharge 

for an appropriate interval of time was found by taking the mean 

gage height for that interval and applying it to the rating curve. 

Rating curves were developed from discharge measurements at the 

station by plotting discharges as abscissas and gage heights as 

ordinates.

Efforts were made to obtain sufficient data to determine the stages 

satisfactorily and to define the rating curves throughout the range 

of stages observed.

The stilling wells at several float-recorder stations were destroyed, 

and the chart records for the flood lost. At these stations careful 

inquiry was made of local residents as to the time of flood stages 

observed by them, and the altitudes in relation to the gage were 

determined by levels. Generally such stations were visited by an 

engineer within a day or two after being destroyed, while the details 

of the flood were still fresh in the minds of local residents. The 

gage-height records obtamed in this manner are subject to possible 

error but are the best obtainable under the circumstances. The 

figures of discharge computed at such stations were carefully compared with records at other stations on the same or adjacent streams, 

in order to avoid large errors.

In constructing a rating curve from which the discharge is computed, the curve must often be extended beyond the point defined by 

current-meter measurements to the point defined by the determination 

of peak discharge by some less reliable method. The logarithmic 

plotting of stage and discharge has been found helpful in drawing a 

rating curve. This method is especially helpful in interpolating or 

extrapolating a rating curve for any considerable range in stage. The 

graph of the relation thus developed usually tends to be a very flat 

curve or nearly a straight line, provided certain adjustments are 

made to the observed gage heights to make them conform to the 

physical conditions of the site. This adjustment consists of the addition or subtraction of some constant amount, which is determined 

by a study of such conditions. For example, at a river-measurement 

station with a riffle control of uniform depth to the bed across the 

channel, the gage height of zero flow should be subtracted from each 

observed gage reading. The straight line or flat curve usually produced
232 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

may be extended within appropriate limits without great error provided no marked changes take place in the cross section within the 

range of such extension. In a logarithmic extension the measurement of peak discharge may not seem consistent with the relation 

indicated by lower measurements. In such circumstances, after a 

study of the control section or reach, the direction of the rating curve 

was usually changed at or near the gage heights corresponding to the 

stages at which the characteristics of the control changed. After the 

logarithmic rating curve was drawn it was transferred to rectangular

coordinates.

MAY FLOOD ON SECO CREEK

GENERAL FEATURES

Seco Creek rises in southwestern Bandera County at an altitude of 

about 2,000 feet, flows southeastward across Medina and Frio Counties, and at an altitude of about 600 feet joins Hondo Creek, a tributary of the Nueces River through the Frio River. Seco Creek is about 

60 miles long. At D'Hanis (population 400), about 50 miles west of 

San Antonio and 20 miles above its mouth, the creek is crossed by the 

Southern Pacific Railroad. The creek crosses the Balcones fault zone 

a few miles above D'Hanis. Above the fault zone the country is 

hilly, sparsely wooded, and utilized mostly for ranching. For a distance of about 8 miles above D'Hanis Seco Creek is parallel to Parkers 

Creek, which is from 2 to 3 miles to the east. Between these two 

creeks the country is low, fairly level, and almost entirely cultivated. 

East of Parkers Creek and west of Seco Creek there are low hills.

A heavy rainfall over the Seco drainage basin above D'Hanis in the 

early morning of May 31 caused the creek to rise rapidly and reach a 

stage much greater than ever known before. About 6 miles above 

D'Hanis the stream overflowed and merged into Parkers Creek. Between this point and a point below D'Hanis Seco Creek covered the 

country between the two streams, with the concentration or main 

thread of the current swinging from side to side in the combined 

valleys and destroying houses, fences, crops, and livestock. A very 

small part, perhaps 2 percent, of this water came from Parkers Creek. 

The following account is quoted from an article by Miss Josie Rothe 

in the Hondo Anvil Herald of June 7, 1935:

In the business section [of D'Hanisl the water reached its highest stage about 

10 a. m. [May 31], having risen rapidly for several hours. At 7 o'clock water was 

flowing into basements, and it continued to rise until it stood from 1 to 3 feet deep 

in the business houses. * * * Both the Seco and Parkers Creeks broke out 

along new courses, and near their banks homes that had never been in danger 

before were flooded at this time. * * * Hardly a house anywhere near the 

Seco escaped the overflow, which carried with it the homes of hundreds of Mexicans, together with all their clothing and household goods. The greatest tragedy 

of the day was the loss of lives of four Mexican children. * * * About 1 mile 

of railroad track was washed out and the rails twisted beyond belief; a boxcar
MAJOK TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 233

floated away, * * * automobiles, fences, wash houses, car sheds, cattle, 

mules all were swept along by the terrific current. * * * A cyclone and 

severe electrical storm accompanied the rain, putting out telephone and telegraph 

lines and isolating the town for several hours.

The total amount of the damage done by the flood on Seco Creek is 

not known. Many houses, fences, roads, small bridges, and other 

improvements were destroyed. Crops were destroyed and livestock 

drowned. Household goods, merchandise, automobiles, and other 

personal goods were considerably damaged by submergence. The 

damages by this flood are included in the total shown for the Nueces 

River Basin for June on page 237. The damage to the Southern 

Pacific Railroad amounted to $32,500, and to the State highways 

$16,000. Four children and one woman were drowned.

PRECIPITATION

There are no United States Weather Bureau rainfall stations in the 

Seco Creek drainage basin, and comparatively little reliable information as to precipitation is available for this storm. All receptacles 

ordinarily used for measuring rainfall ran over or were washed away. 

The following information was obtained:

1. Lutz ranch, 2% miles above D'Hanis: Mr. Lutz reported 12.5 inches of rain 

measured in a can; rained from 3:45 to 5:00 a. m. May 31.

2. A. Rothe ranch 11 miles by road above D'Hanis: Armin Rothe measured 

in a standard United States Weather Bureau type gage 9.56 inches of rain from 

11:00 p. m. May 30 to 8:00 a. m. May 31 and 0.26 inch from 8:00 a. m. to noon 

May 31. Most of this rain probably fell between 5:00 and 8:00 a. m. May 31, 

but the gage was not read between 11:00 p. m. May 30 and 8:00 a. m. May 31, 

A record of rainfall has been obtained at this gage since 1880.

3. Woodward ranch, 17 miles by road above D'Hanis: Mr. Smith, ranch manager, reported that 22 to 24 inches of rain fell in 3J^ hours, from 1:45 to 5:15 

a. m. May 31. This estimate was based on measurements in a masonry trough 

and in a large paint can. Mr. Smith also furnished the following information 

obtained from different ranches: 16 inches of rain about 4 miles west of the 

Woodward ranch, 16 inches about 5 miles northwest of the Woodward ranch, 

15 inches about 3 miles north of the Woodward ranch, 6.5 inches about 6 miles 

north of the Woodward ranch, 11 inches about 6 miles northeast of the Woodward 

ranch, and 6 to 7 inches about 8 miles west of the Woodward ranch.

4. Tarpley, about 23 miles due north of D'Hanis and just east of the Seco 

Creek drainage basin: C. G. Leighton measured 5.38 inches of rain on May 31 

in a glass jar 12 inches deep, 7 inches in diameter, and flat on the bottom. He 

has kept a record of rainfall at Tarpley for many years.

5. D'Hanis: Various reports range from 12 to 14 inches; no actual measurements made.

6. Sabinal, about 12 miles west of D'Hanis: 7.70 inches between 5:00 and 11:00 

a. m. May 31, United States Weather Bureau station.

7. Hondo, about 9 miles east of D'Hanis: 9.15 inches between 5:00 a. m. and 

11:00 a. m. May 31, United States Weather Bureau station.

58805 39 2
234 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

J. H. Jarboe, official in charge of the United States Weather Bureau 

office at San Antonio, made a survey of the area above D'Hanis and 

submitted the following report to the Geological Survey:

The number of rainfall measurements is too small to support a definite statement of amounts. The circular tank at the Woodward ranch, cleaned and dry 

before the rain as affirmed by all, is the best measurement obtained. This tank 

holds 21.84 inches and ran over in less than 3 hours. Carbide can holds 11.50 

inches, ran over at the Lutz ranch. All ranchmen state that rain fell in less 

than 3 hours. Using the high crest stages reached at the different ranches as 

part evidence, the following conclusions have been reached:

That apparently 20 inches or more rainfall occurred over a small area on the 

Seco Creek, approximately 12 miles above D'Hanis, and that 12 to 14 inches 

occurred at other points, with an average amount of more than 9 inches over the 

entire watershed of approximately 80 square miles,5 and that the time required 

for the rain was less than 3 hours.

Figure 34 shows the drainage area of Seco Creek above D'Hanis 

and isohyetal lines for the rain of May 31 as estimated from available 

information.

MAXIMUM DISCHARGE

A reach of Seco Creek at the Eothe ranch, about 11 miles above 

D'Hanis, was selected for making a discharge determination by the 

slope-area method. The right bank at this point was overflowed for a 

quarter to half a mile, but there was not much flow outside the channel, as the depth of water was not great and the velocities were low, 

as indicated by small erosion in fields and by statements of observers. 

The discharge in the overflow area was estimated as about 8 percent 

of the total. Slopes were determined over a length of about 1,800 

feet by levels to high-water marks on the left bank, which indicated 

a uniform slope over a distance of about 1,100 feet. Two cross sections 700 feet apart were measured in the reach of uniform slope. As 

the lower cross section was about 21 percent smaller than the upper 

section, a velocity-head correction was applied. There was evidently 

some movement of gravel in the main channel during the flood, but the 

amount was not considered sufficient to affect the discharge appreciably.

The peak discharge was computed as 230,000 second-feet. The 

drainage area above the slope reach, measured on the Hondo and 

Bandera topographic maps of the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, is 

153 square miles, which indicates that the peak discharge per square 

mile was 1,500 second-feet.

There is no river-measurement station in the Seco Creek drainage 

basin at which continuous and systematic records of stages and discharges are kept. Some indication of the quantity of water passing 

down the creek may be had from the records of mean daily discharge

6 Later measurement shows this area to be 153 square miles.
MAJOE TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 235

Number refers to discharge 

measurement station In 

table 14

Rainfall stations. May 31, 

I Lutz ranch 12.5 In. 

A. Rothe ranch 9.82 In. 

Woodward ranch 22 to 24 In 

Tarpley 5.38 In. 

D'Hanis 12 to 14 In. 

Sabinal (TJ.S.W.B.) 7.70 In. 

Woodward ranch, 4 ml. W., 16 In 

Woodward ranch, 5 ml 

Woodward raiich, 3 ml 

Woodward ranch, 6 ml 

Woodward ranch, 6 ml. HE., 11 In

FIGURE 34. Isohyetal map of the Seco Creek drainage basin above D'Hanis, showing total rainfall, in

inches, observed May 31,1935.
236 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

of the Frio River at Concan (p. 273) and near Derby (p. 274), rivermeasurement stations above and below the mouth of Seco Creek. 

However, the difference in the discharge of these two stations represents the discharge from some other streams in the intervening drainage area besides Seco Creek.

PREVIOUS FLOODS

The flood of July 1932 was the highest on Seco Creek for many years 

prior to that of May 31, 1935. F. H. Wolff, who lives in a rock house 

built in 1873 in the eastern part of D'Hanis just west of Parkers 

Creek, stated that the highest water between 1873 and May 1935 

occurred in July 1932, when the water came to his doorstep. In May 

1935 the water was more than waist deep inside the house. A slopearea measurement of the 1932 flood at the Lutz ranch, 2% miles above 

D'Hanis, gave a peak discharge of 35,800 second-feet, or 212 secondfeet per square mile.

The following reference to a previous flood is quoted from the Hondo 

Anvil Herald for June 7, 1935:

Mr. Wolff is the son of a pioneer settler at D'Hanis and says that since the 

founding of D'Hanis in the late 40's there has never been a flood in the valley that 

approached this one [May 31]. He recalls, however, a conversation he had 

when a boy with an old frontiersman, who ranged over this country before permanent white settlements had been attempted, in which the old man told him of 

seeing drift high up on the side of Cross Hill, and he warned him D'Hanis and the 

Seco Valley might some day see another such flood. His prophesy seems to have 

been fulfilled in the flood of May 31, 1935.

A section was cut from a live oak tree which was undermined and 

fell within the reach where the slope-area measurement was made, 

and 95 annual growth rings were counted. From the position of this 

tree in relation to the channel it was inferred as probable that no flood 

as great as that of May 31, 1935, had occurred in nearly a century.

A flood on July 24, 1935, less than 2 months after the flood of May 

31, reached a stage at the Lutz ranch only 3 inches lower than that of 

July 1932. Eight or nine inches of rain was measured at the A. Rothe 

ranch, about the same as on May 31, but there was only a light rain 

in the basin above.

JUNE FLOODS

GENERAL FEATURES

Heavy rains over the Colorado and Nueces drainage basins caused 

floods in June 1935 that were greater than had been known before. 

The Llano Eiver, tributary to the Colorado, and the West Nueces 

River, tributary to the Nueces, experienced extraordinary floods. 

Although record-breaking stages occurred, none of the reported rainfall appeared to be particularly excessive or intense when compared
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 237

with other rains in Texas. There had been general rains in the region 

for 6 weeks before the flood, and all streams were above normal stage. 

Heavy rains, ranging between 4 and 12 inches, fell in the 24 hours 

before the floods. Fortunately the rapid rises and high stages did not 

result in loss of life, but great amounts of property were destroyed. 

The damages would have been far greater if there had been any cities 

within the flooded region.

Volume of run-off and maximum discharges for the flood period in 

June were computed for all river-measurement stations in the flooded 

region. At other places peak discharges were determined by the slopearea method, but data were insufficient for computing the volume of 

run-off.

There were few official rainfall records in the area, but unofficial 

records were compiled from many sources. There were no recording 

rain gages in the region of great precipitation, and consequently no 

records of intensity for short periods are available.

The Monthly Weather Review for December 1935, pages 362-365, 

gives the total losses for the year in the Colorado River Basin as 

$12,956,500 and in the Neuces River Basin as $9,345,000. These 

losses in the Colorado River Basin include $221,000 that was not due 

to the June flood, and those in the Neuces River Basin include the 

loss due to the flood of May 31 in Seco Creek. The total damage to 

railroads amounted to $444,390, and the damage to the highway system as reported by the State Highway Department was $1,897,000. 

The State Highway Department estimated the loss caused by the 

destruction of major bridges as about $1,424,000.

Plate 56 presents views of the Llano River at Llano. One span of 

the highway bridge that fell into the river was found several miles 

downstream after the flood had subsided. Plate 57 gives views on 

the Llano and Nueces Rivers where bridges were destroyed.

PRECIPITATION

There were no standard rain gages in the West Nueces River Basin 

and few in other basins affected by the June floods. In the West 

Nueces area all cans, buckets, and other receptacles ordinarily used to 

measure rainfall were filled and running over, and some were washed 

away; in the upper part of the basin fairly reliable information was 

obtained from measurements made in rock tanks.

The total rainfall for the period June 1 to 8 and the daily and total 

rainfall from June 9 to 15 are given in table 1. Plate 58 is a map 

showing isohyetals for the area most affected by the storm for the 

period June 9 to 15. The available information in some regions was 

insufficient for a highly accurate determination of isohyetals.

There were several small areas on which the rainfall was greater than 

that indicated on plate 58, but no satisfactory records of the amounts
238 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

could be obtained. A heavy rain, probably 10 to 20 inches, fell in afew hours on June 13-14 over the Barrons Creek Basin above Fredericksburg. Considerable damage was done to highways and county 

roads, and several bridges were destroyed in that small basin. Creeks 

a short distance from Barrons Creek showed only moderate floods, 

indicating that the very heavy rain must have been confined to a 

comparatively small area. At Cleo, in Kimble County, a heavy rain 

is known to have fallen over a small area, but no information was 

obtained of the amount. Undoubtedly there were other similar 

localities of heavy rainfall of which information is lacking.

In the following table "T" indicates precipitation less than 0.01 inch, 

and "leaders" indicate zero precipitation.

TABLE 1. Precipitation, in inches, prior to floods of June 1935

1

1.. __ .. ....

2- ____ ......

4 _____ . _ .

5 ...........

6 ..... ... ...

7 ........ ...

8. __ . __ ...

8 ... ........

10 . -

11 

12 . 

13 _ ..

14......... __ .

15 _ ..... ...

16 . ...

17 ... _ .....

18 

19 

20 _ . ...

21 _ ... ...

22 ...

23 .

24 

25 

26 .......

27 ...

28 

29 ...

30 

31. _ ...

32 ..... ...

33 

34......... _ ..

35 

36 .

37 ..

38 .

39 .........

40 . .....

41 . .....

42. _ ..........

43 . .....

44. _ ..... __ .

45 -

Weather Bureau records:

Big Wells. __ . ___ ...

Del Eio.... __ . __ ....

Dilley. ... 

Eden.... _____ .....

Hallettsville 

Rocksnrinss _ .... 

1-8

4.10

5.15

1.32

2.57

1 «4

1.99

1.55

2.01

1.57

1.55

1.88

3.48

1.58

9 fvi

1.56

3.78

.62

2.88

1.42

2.34

.62

1 Q1

.82

.63

1.04

1.42

.31

2 fifi

.84

1.27

1.33

2.66

2 34

1.94

2.80

.76

2.30

1.33

1

OQ

2.18

.37

.40

1.21

1.26

1.60

9

T

0.17

T

.07

T

.71

.46

.18

T

T

.98

.57

.41

.58

T

.26

.86

10

1.14

.90

.29

.15

1.26

.06

.30

.05

.49

.06

.45

.15

1.30

T

.22

1.25

.95

.34

.60

.68

.47

.04

.55

OA

.11

.40

.11

.91

11

1.69

T

.30

1.25

2.12

.26

.04

.62

2.06

.50

2.09

1.13

.70

.03

.01

1.25

.22

T

1.77

.04

.76

.10

.48

.43

.65

.93

.16

.79

.68

.32

.03

.03

1.45

1.05

1.30

June

12

2.65

1.21

.34

.24

.05

2.20

.95

.13

.23

.71

.02

.21

.44

.24

.52

.40

.59

.44

1.01

.06

.61

2.70

.10

.40

9.75

.12

.45

.53

.03

.02

1.25

.62

1.20

.82

1.04

1.02

1.25

.50

13

0.33

.96

1.42

.19

.27

1.42

.91

1.00

.55

.33

.40

.90

1.78

8.79

1.39

.26

1.14

.51

.99

1.15

2.75

1 34

.90

.95

.70

.10

.25

1.79

.36

.56

.36

.75

2.15

1.67

1.60

.20

3.62

1.13

1.27

3.80

.25

.75

14

0.28

.04

.33

.76

1.40

.04

.07

.18

1.22

.32

.13

.04

.33

.19

.04

2.70

1.18

.66

T

.93

1.50

6.00

2.47

.58

.45

T

1.30

.15

1.00

1.12

2.05

5.92

.16

T

.93

.53

9.50

15

1.89

.79

2.11

2.00

.08

.90

.09

.50

1.11

T

T

1.10

.37

1.33

.43

.06

.05

T

.57

4.90

T

3.90

.09

1.46

1.50

3.23

1.67

.67

.43

1.02

.10

1.75

9-15

5.81'

4.34-

3.17

2.80'

2.73

4.29'

6.99

3. 29

.83

2.32

.49-

2.62

2.83.

2.17

12.14

3.53

3.48

2.25

4.91

4.26-

1.72

4.83

5.16-

2.06

1.51

7.26-

7.24

8.81

11.68

9.44

1.90'

2.60

2.87

3.25

6.86

3.65

4.27

3.28

8.82

9.11

3.70

5.34

3.40

6.60

12. 05-
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 239 

TABLE 1. Precipitation, in inches, prior to floods of June 1935 Continued

46..............

47..............

48..............

49..............

50... ______ .....

51..............

52..............

53..............

54..............

55..............

56..............

57..............

58.. ___ .......

59...... ........

60 _ ........

61... _ ........

62..............

63..............

64......... _ ..

65...,. _ . __ .

66..... .........

67.... ...

68.......... _ .

69 .

70.. .......

71 

Sinton. _____ ... ....

Smithville. .............

Substation 14. ..........

TayJor. _____ . __ .

Temple- ________

Whitsett..... ...........

Supplementary records:

east ...................

1-8

1.04

1.77

1.04

2.12

.46

.50

1.25

.99

4.07

2.47

2.61

2.31

.51

.73

2.76

1.75

1.84

1.38

2.90

9 sn

1 97

1.00

1.03

2.65

1.06

9

T

.42

.01

.73

.54

.25

.13

1.00

1.75

10

.55

.40

1.15

T

.02

.02

.05

1.33

.40

.60

.25

(< )

.90

1.32

.50

.88

11

.03

.60

.21

.03

.10

.17

.02

3.60

.44

.50

.88

1 10

(a\

1.06

1.65

(«)

.32

.75

1.08

C)

.38

June

12

.77

1.20

2.18

.66

.40

.53

.83

.15

.30

1.27

2.57

2.00

1.00

(a\

2.05

1.15

fa\

1.14

2.50

.77

2.65

1.38

13

5.46

1.25

2.00

.85

3.17

1.25

.08

.60

.31

.39

.27

5.37

1.32

6.00

.34

.06

C)

.79

.08

C)

.56

.75

.28

14

.35

1.03

.95

21

.01

2.32

T

1.75

.73

.64

.15

.20

.88

C)

.50

(a)

6.86

.75

7.30

1.25

15

.10

.45

.38

.51

.59

2.95

.16

T

.89

1.20

.04

2.31

4.97

.05

7.50

.30

1.33

.14

.88

9-15

6.91

4.25

7.37

2.31

4.69

1.78

6.05

1.61

5.86

2.01

2.11

7.63

4.42

7.14

3.16

6.32

2.25

5.10

4.45

4.78

7.50

10.50

8.33

9.57

2.65

6.33

No. on 

pi. 58

72.........

73..... _ .

74.........

75.........

76.. ...

77.........

78.........

79. 

80. ...

81.........

82.........

83.... __ .

84. ____ .

85. 

86..... .

87........

88.........

89... .

Locality

Carta Valley ________ .

Carta Valley. .... ......

north. 

ISFoxville

Miscellaneous records

May, 4 inches; June 1-12, 6 inches; June 13-14, 10 inches.

Rainfall included in the next measurement.

COLORADO RIVER BASIN

COLORADO RIVER FLOOD

The upper part of the Colorado River drainage basin lies in eastern 

New Mexico near the Texas line, at an altitude of about 4,000 feet. 

The river flows southeastward across Texas and enters the Gulf of 

Mexico near Matagorda. Its total length is about 600 miles, and its
240 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

drainage area is 41,530 square miles.6 The head of the basin is in 

the semiarid plains, from which there is practically no run-off. Above 

Ballinger the river has a drainage area of 16,840 square miles,8 of 

which it is estimated that about 11,500 square miles probably contributes no flow. Below Ballinger the river drains a mountainous 

country until it reaches the Coastal Plain at Austin. Below Austin 

the basin becomes comparatively narrow and has a maximum width 

of only about 35 miles.

The following table shows the altitude of the stream bed at various 

places and the average descent between those places from a point 

near San Saba to the mouth:

TABLE 2. Altitude and average descent of the Colorado Riverfront a point near San

Saba to the mouth

Place of determination

Marble Falls...... _. _._ ._ _ ....... __ ... __ ...

Eagle Lake, gaging station near ________________

Altitude

above mean 

sea level

(feet)

1,096

1,000

960

800

700

590

500

422

270

140

0

River distance above 

mouth

(miles)

449

417

405

373

356

331

300

264

191

77

0

Average descent between 

points (feet

per mile)

3.0

3.3

5.0

5.9

4.4

2.9

2.1

2.1

1.1

1.8

There was no flood of consequence on the Colorado River above the 

mouth of the Llano River when the Llano River flood of June 1935 

reached the Colorado. The Pedernales River added its flow to the 

Colorado about halfway between the mouth of the Llano and Austin. 

The peaks from the two tributaries nearly joined in the Colorado. 

There was not much rain near or below Austin, and little flow was 

added below the mouth of the Pedernales.

Gaging stations are maintained on the Colorado River at Ballinger, 

near San Saba, at Austin, at Smithville, and near Eagle Lake, all of 

which are equipped with water-stage recorders. At Austin and 

Smithville the recorders were submerged, but a reliable gage-height 

record was obtained at each station from a partial recorder-graph 

record, engineer's gage readings, United States Weather Bureau 

readings, and levels to high-water marks.

A discharge measurement was made by current meter at Austin 

near the peak of the flood, and the maximum discharge was determined by a short extension of the rating curve. At Smithville the 

maximum discharge was computed by the slope-area method, using 

Kutter's formula. The maximum discharges of the Colorado River

8 Figures revised since publication In Water-Supply Paper 488, p. 29.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATEK-SUPPLY PAPEK 796 PLATE 56

}

A. SECOND SPAN OF ORIGINALLY 4-SPAN BRIDGE FALLING INTO RIVER.

B. LOOKING JUST DOWNSTREAM FROM BRIDGE; STEEL SPAN IN CENTER OF PICTURE 

BEING CARRIED DOWNSTREAM.

LLANO RIVER AT LLANO AT ABOUT PEAK OF FLOOD OF JUNE 14, 1935.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 796 PLATE 57

1

A. LLANO RIVER ON MASON-FREDERICKSBURG HIGHWAY.

B. NUECES RIVER ON UVALDE-LA PKYOR HIGHWAY.

BRIDGES DESTROYED BY FLOOD OF JUNE 14, 1935.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 796 PLATE 58 

87° 9S°

 ^ Numbers refer to discharge

measurement stations In tables

39 Numbers refer to precipitation 

stations in table 1

ISOHYETAL MAP OF THE MAJOR PART OF THE COLORADO AND NUECES RIVER BASINS AND PARTS OF ADJACENT RIVER BASINS.

Shows rainfall, in inches, June 9-15, 1935.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 796 PLATE

A. AT ABOUT PEAK OF FLOOD OF JUNE 15, 1935.

B. AT LOW WATER.

CONGRESS AVENUE BRIDGE, COLORADO RIVER, AT AUSTIN.
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 241

near San Saba and near Eagle Lake were determined from welldefined rating curves. The maximum discharge for the station on 

the Pedernales River near Spicewood was obtained from a rating 

curve defined principally by slope-area measurements of previous 

floods.

The mean daily discharges and the total run-off for the period of 

the June flood were computed for all river-measurement stations on 

the Colorado River below San Saba (see fig. 35), on the Llano River, 

and on the Pedernales River near Spicewood. These records are 

presented under "Stages and discharges" (pp. 258-266). At certain 

places in the Llano River Basin only the peak discharges were determined. Data on the Llano River are presented on pages 241-245.

The maximum discharges at stations on the Colorado and Pedernales Rivers are summarized in table 3. This table also gives the 

effective drainage area and discharge per square mile for each item.

TABLE 3. Maximum discharge at river-measurement stations on the Colorado 

and Pedernales Rivers, June 1935

No. on 

pi. 58

5.. .......

6.. ....

7.........

8.........

14.. .......

Stream

Colorado River near San Saba ___

Colorado River near Eagle Lake.... 

Pedernales River near Spicewood...

Drainage 

area 

(square 

miles)

"18,800 

« 26, 350 

« 27, 850 

« 29, 140 

1,294

Maximum discharge

Time

June 15, 2:45 p. m ..... 

June 15, 3:45 p. m _ 

June 16, 4:30 p. m. .... 

June 19, 2:30 a. m_. ...

Second 

feet

71, 000 

481, 000 

305, 000 

177, 000 

105,000

Secondfeet per 

square 

mile

3.78 

18.3 

11.0 

6.07 

81.1

« 11,800 square miles deducted for noncontributing area.

Table 14 (p. 283) gives a summary of maximum discharges measured 

during the major floods of 1935; for comparison, the previous known 

maxima are given.

Plates 59, A, and 60, A, show the Colorado River at Austin at 

about the peak of the flood.

The peak stage at Austin in June 1935 is about 1 foot lower than 

the peak stage in July 1869, which was the highest stage known. 

Below Austin the flood of June 1935 was considerably lower than that 

of 1869. A record of previous high stages and discharges at Austin 

since the river-measurement station was established in 1898 is given 

in Water-Supply Paper 771, Floods in the United States, magnitude 

and frequency, page 335.

LI/ANO RIVER FLOOD

The Llano River is formed by the confluence of the North Llano 

and South Llano Rivers at the town of Junction. These rivers have
P

Cfq

500

400

300

17 18 19 20 14 15 16 

FIGURE 35. Hydrographs of discharge, Colorado River near San Saba, at Austin, at Smith
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 243

Table 4 shows the altitude of the stream bed at various places on 

the North Llano, South Llano, and Llano Rivers from source to 

mouth and the average descent between those places. The altitudes 

and distances in the table were taken from topographic maps.

TABLE 4. Altitude and average descent of the North Llano, South Llano, and 

Llano Rivers from source to mouth

Place of determination

.North Llano River:

Do.. _ .... ___ ............ _ ................. _ ..

 South Llano Eiver:

Do....... .... - __--.-. _. __ .....

Llano River: 

Head. . . .. _ -.. ..... .. .. . __ ...

Do....................................................

Altitude 

above mean 

sea level 

(feet)

2,325

2,200

2,000

1,700

1,660

2,300

2,200

2,000

1,895

1,840

1,660

1,660

1,630

1,500

1,360

1,125

1,000

850

800

River distance above 

mouth 

(miles)

50.0

45.0

29.0

3.0

0

63.5

59.5

32.0

24.5

19.5

0

103.0

100.0

78.5

62.5

38.0

24.5

.6.5

0

Average descent between points 

(feet per 

mile)

25.0

12.5

11.5

13.3

25.0

7.3

14.0

11.0

9.2

10.0

6.5

8.8

9.6

9.3

8.3

7.7

The June storm in the Llano River Basin was heaviest over the 

South Llano River, the Johnson Fork of the Llano River, and the 

upper reaches of the James River. (See fig. 36.)

River-measurement stations are maintained on the North Llano 

River 3 miles northwest of Junction, on the Llano River 3% miles 

east of Junction, and on the Llano River 4K miles east of Castell. 

These stations are equipped with water-stage recorders, but the 

recorders at the two stations on the Llano River were submerged, 

and complete records of stage were not obtained. Gage-height 

.graphs were completed for these two stations on the basis of partial 

recorder graphs, levels to high-water marks, and local information.

The maximum discharges were determined by the slope-area 

method, using Kutter's formula on the Llano River at the riverjneasurement stations near Junction and near Castell, on the South 

Llano River near Telegraph, about 24 miles above Junction, and on 

Paint Creek (tributary to the South Llano River about 19 miles 

above Junction) 1% miles above its mouth and near Telegraph.

The mean daily discharges and the total run-off for the period of 

the flood were computed for river-measurement stations on the North 

Llano and Llano Rivers near Junction and on the Llano River near 

'Castell. (See fig. 37.) These records are presented under "Stages
M Numbers refer to discharge measurement 

stations In tables 5 and 14

Op

 Numbers refer to precipitation 

stations in table 1

98P301

Isohyetal map of the Llano River Basin showing tributaries, places at which maximum discharges we

in inches, for the period June 9-15,1935.
MA JOE TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 245

and discharges" (pp. 263-265). On the South Llano River and Paint 

Creek near Telegraph only the peak discharges were determined.

The maximum discharges determined at various places in the Llano 

River Basin are summarized in table 5. This table also gives for 

each item the drainage area and discharge per square mile.

TABLE 5. Maximum discharge determined at places in the Llano River Basin,

June 1935

No. on 

fig. 36 and

pi. 58

9.

10..... _ .

11.........

12... ___ .

13 __ .....

Stream

North Llano River near Junction...

South Llano River near Telegraph..

Drainage 

area 

(square 

mile)

914 

1,762 

3,514 

540 

218

Maximum discharge

Hour, June 14 Secondfeet

-47, 400 

319, 000 

388, 000 

160,000 

69,300

Secondfeet per 

square 

mile

51.0

181 

110 

296 

318

"Discharge determined from poorly defined rating curve.

The maximum discharges measured during the major floods of 

1935 are summarized in table 14 (p. 283); for comparison, the previous 

known maxima are given.

Plate 60, B, shows the South Llano River at Junction at about the 

peak of the flood on June 14, 1935.

The floods of June 14, 1935, on the South Llano and Llano Rivers 

reached the highest stages ever known. At Junction the South 

Llano was 3 feet higher than in 1889, and according to local information the 1889 flood was the highest known theretofore. The previous 

highest stage on the Llano River near Junction since the rivermeasurement station was established in 1915 was 27.15 feet on September 1, 1932, which may be compared with a stage of 43.3 feet in 

June 1935. The peak discharge of the flood of September 1932 was 

106,000 second-feet.

At the river-measurement station on the Llano River near Castell 

the highest stage known prior to June 1935 was in 1889, when a stage 

of about 28.4 feet was reached, according to local information, which 

may be compared with a stage of 37.0 feet in June 1935. The highest 

stage prior to 1935 since the river-measurement station was established in 1923 was 22.3 feet on October 6, 1930, when there was a 

discharge of 89,800 second-feet.

NUECES RIVER BASIN

NUECES RIVER FLOOD

The Nueces River rises in the central part of Edwards County at 

an altitude of about 2,400 feet, flows south for about 100 miles and 

east for about 240 miles, and enters the Gulf of Mexico through
246 CONTKIBUTIONS TO HYDKOLOGY, 1937

Llano River near Castell, Tex

I /Llano River near Junction, Tex.

FIGURE 37. Hydrographs of discharge, North Llano River near Junction, Llano River near Junction, and 

Llano River near Castell, June 14-17,1935.
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 247

Corpus Christi Bay. The total drainage area is 16,950 square miles. 

The river flows for about 60 miles across the Edwards Plateau and 

enters the Coastal Plain about 10 miles northwest of Uvalde. Above 

Uvalde the river traverses a mountainous country having steep slopes 

and quick run-off from rainstorms. The country is largely covered 

by cedar and is utilized principally for ranching.

The altitude of the stream bed at various places and the average 

descent between those places from a point 338 miles above to the 

mouth of the Nueces River are given in table 6. The data given were 

compiled from topographic maps.

TABLE 6. Altitude and average descent of the Nueces River from source to mouth

Place of determination

Do... . ._ 

Do........... ..........................................

Do..... . .. _ . .......... ..........

Do . . .............................

Do.. ........... ..................................

Do... . ........... ...... _... .....

Pulliam Creek, mouth _____ . .. ....... ...............

West Nueces River, mouth.. .................................

Contour crossing _______________________

Three Rivers, gaging station __________________

Altitude 

above mean 

sea level 

(feet)

2,325

2,300

2,200

2,100

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,450

1,248

1,125

955

900

860

800

376

101

0

River 

distance 

above mouth 

(miles)

338.0

337.8

336.9

334.7

333.3

328.8

315.5

305.5

293.3

285.8

272.8

268.2

263.0

256.3

169.0

77.0

0

Average 

descent 

between 

points (feet 

per mile)

125.0

111.1

45.5

71.4

44.5

15.0

15.0

16.6

16.4

13.1

12.0

7.7

9.0

4.9

3.0

1.3

Gaging stations are maintained on the Nueces River at Laguna, 

near Uvalde, at Cotulla, and near Three Rivers. The concrete gage 

well at the station near Uvalde was destroyed, and the gage-height 

record was lost. A gage-height graph for this station was reproduced 

from a partial recorder chart, readings of stage at a railroad bridge 4.7 

miles upstream, and information obtained from local residents. The 

recorder instrument at Cotulla was removed to avoid submergence; a 

gage-height graph was drawn on the basis of readings of a staff gage 

and levels to the high-water mark.

The peak discharge was determined by the slope-area method, 

using Kutter's formula, at Laguna, near Uvalde, and at Cotulla; the 

peak discharge near Three Rivers was determined from a short 

extension of the rating curve. The largest flood came from the West 

Nueces River, which enters the Nueces River between Laguna and 

Uvalde. (See fig. 38.)

The mean daily discharges and the total run-off for the period of 

the flood were computed for all river-measurement stations on the 

Nueces River. These records are presented under "Stages and discharges."
700

600

 500

o 400

300

,. Hueoes River near Uvalde, Tex.

200

100

i TV

. Hueces River at Laguna, Tex.

Nueces River at Cotulla, Tex. 

* 

14 15 16 17 18 22 

19 20 21

June 

FIGURE 38. Hydrographs of discharge, Nueces River at Laguna, near Uvalde, at Cotulla, and 
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 796 PLATE 60

A. COLORADO RIVER AT AUSTIN, LOOKING NORTH ON CONGRESS AVENUE FROM RIGHT 

BANK AT ABOUT PEAK OF FLOOD OF JLNE 15, 1935.

B. SOUTH LLANO RIVER AT JUNCTION, NEAR PEAK OF FLOOD OF JUNE 14, 1935.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 7C6 PLATE 61

A. VIE\S FROM LFFT BANK AT ABOUT 10 FEET BELOW PEAK STAGE ON JUNE 14. 1935.

B. VIEW FROM RIGHT BANK ABOUT 30 MINUTES BEFORE BRIDGES WERE DESTROYED.

Water went over and removed highway embankment on opposite bank. The remains of bridges after flood 

had passed are shown on plate 57, B.

NUECES RIVER ON UVALDE-LA PRYOR HIGHWAY.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 796 PLATE 62

A. LOOKING UPSTREAM FROM JUST BELOW LOWER CROSS SECTION.

B. LOOKING TOWARD RIGHT BANK AND UPSTREAM FROM ABOUT LOWER CROSS SECTION.

WEST NUECES RIVER NEAR BRACKETTVILLE.

Slope reach used in determining discharge for flood of June 14,1935. 

(See also fi? . 40.)
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 249

The maximum discharges determined at stations on the Nueces 

River are given in table 7, also the drainage area and discharge per 

square mile. (See also table 14, p. 283.)

TABLE 7. Maximum discharges at river-measurement stations on the Nueces 

River for the flood of June 1935

No. on pi. 

58

18... _ ...

19.........

on

91

Location

Do. __ -. . -... 

Drainage area 

(square 

miles)

764 

1,930 

5,260 

15, 600 

15, 600

Maximum discharge

Time

June 14, 11 a. m .......

June 14, 4 p. m._ ......

June 23, 7 p. m "... ...

Secondfeet

213, 000 

616 000 

82, 600 

66,700 

56, 000

Secondfeet per 

square 

mile

279 

319 

15.7 

4.28 

3.59

« Probably same peak as at other stations.

Plates 57, B, and 61, A, B, show views of the Nueces Kiver between 

Uvalde and La Pryor at about 10 feet below the peak stage on June 14, 

1935.

A stage of about 29 feet occurred at Laguna in June 1913, which is 

the maximum known at that place. The stage in June 1935 was 26.0 

feet. The flood of September 1923 reached a stage of 26.5 feet, and 

the flood of 1903 reached a slightly higher stage.

The highest stage known at Uvalde previous to the stage of 36.9 

feet in June 1935 was 26.4 feet in June 1913. A section was cut from 

a pecan tree washed down in June 1935, and by counting the annual 

growth rings this tree was found to be 115 years old. It is inferred 

from the position of the tree in relation to the river channel that the 

period elapsed since the occurrence of a flood of magnitude similar to 

that of 1935 must have exceeded the life of the tree.

The highest stage recorded at Cotulla prior to 1935 was 26.8 feet, 

September 7, 1932. A stage of 29.7 feet is reported to have occurred 

in June 1889. The stage in June 1935 was 32.4 feet.

The highest stage known at Three Kivers was 46.0 feet, September 

18, 1919, with a discharge of 85,000 second-feet determined from an 

extension of the rating curve. The maximum stage in June 1935 was 

44.67 feet.

WEST NUECES RIVER FLOOD

The West Nueces River rises in the central part of Edwards County, 

flows south and southeast about 100 miles, and enters the Nueces 

River at the edge of the Edwards Plateau about 10 miles northwest of 

Uvalde. The drainage basin has an area of 923 square miles, is rough 

and rocky with steep slopes, extensively covered with cedar, and is 

utilized largely for ranching.

58805 39 3
250 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDKOLOGY, 1937

The altitude of the stream bed at various places and the average 

descent between those places are given in table 8. The data presented were compiled from topographic maps.

TABLE 8. Altitude and average descent of the West Nueces River from source to mouth

Place of determination

Contour crossing ___ ,. __________________

Do.... 

Do......-....-,........ ..............................

Do........ ............. ............................... .

Do... ....... ........... ...... .............

Do.. . . _ . _.. ___

Do.. . ........ ........ . __. 

Do. .... ... ...... .......... ........... ......

Do.., . -.......... .

Contour crossing... _________________________

Do... ._. . ... ..................... .............

Do...... ......... ......

Do........ ... ...... -. _. 

Do... ... . _. . __ 

Do- .---- 

Cline, measuring section 8 miles above __ . __________

Do. _ _ .......

Altitude 

above mean 

sea level 

(feet)

2,300

2,250

2,200

2,150

2,100

2,000

1,900

1,800

1,700

1,650

1,550

1,400

1,300

1,200

1,100

1,050

1,000

055

River distance above 

mouth 

(miles)

101.0

100.0

97.3

94.3

91.5

89.2

85.0

78.8

73.1

70.5

68.1

60.5

44.5

38.1

24.2

14.5

13.0

9.7

3.8

0

Descent between points 

(feet per 

mile)

60.0

16.7

17.9

43.5

23.8

16.1

17.5

10.0

13.2

9.4

15.6

7.2

10.3

10.4

8.5

11.8

The heaviest rain of the June storm fell over the upper part of the 

West Nueces River Basin, and most of the flood in the Nueces River 

came from this tributary. (See fig. 39.)

There are no river-measurement stations on the West Nueces River, 

and no data from which the run-off could be computed were available. 

The peak discharge was determined 28 miles above Brackettville and 

8 miles above Cline by the slope-area method, using the Manning 

and Kutter formulas, respectively. The peak discharge near Brackettville was computed as 580,000 second-feet from an area of 402 square 

miles, or a discharge of 1,440 second-feet per square mile. The peak 

discharge near Cline was computed as 536,000 second-feet from an 

area of 880 square miles, or 609 second-feet per square mile.

The drainage areas were measured from topographic maps published 

by the Geological Survey of the United States Department of the 

Interior and the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army.

A very small part of the drainage area not shown on these sheets 

was determined from a county road map and a Geological Survey 

map of Texas on the scale of 1:500,000.

The flood of June 1935 was the greatest ever known on the West 

Nueces River, according to statements of ranchmen who have been 

living near the stream for many years. No one could be found who 

had ever heard of a flood that was comparable in extreme magnitude 

with this one.
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 251

30°00'

Numbers refer to discharge 

measurement stations in

Numbers refer to precipitation 

stations in table 1

ioo°oo' 

29°sa'

.Brackeltville

O 2 4 6 6 10 MILES

0Cline wo-oo1

FIGURE 39. Isohyetal map of the West Nueces Eiver Basin showing discharge measuring places, intermediate drainage areas, and total rainfall, in inches, June 9-15,1935, as estimated from somewhat meager 

information.
252 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937 

DETERMINATION OF DISCHARGE NEAR BRACKETTVHIE

The computed maximum discharge per square mile of drainage 

area of the West Nueces River 28 miles above Brackettville exceeds 

any rates known previously for areas of similar size. A thorough 

investigation and survey was made in the field, and the field data 

were carefully analyzed. Because of the unparalleled features of 

the result, some descriptive details as to its determination are given 

below.

Figure 40 shows the plotting of observed high-water marks, the 

adopted slope lines, and the cross sections used to determine the 

maximum discharge. Plate 62 shows views of the slope reach. All 

computations are summarized in table 9.

TABLE 9. Computations for slope-area determination of discharge, West Nueces 

River near Brackettville, June 14, 1935

[For meaning of symbols see p. 230] 

Determination of discharge unconnected for velocity head

Cross section

A...... ...

B.. ..........

Average

Area 

(square 

feet)

26, 222 

25, 119

discharge

w. p.

746 

720

uncorrec

r

35.15 

34.89

ted for v<

rvs

10.73 

10.68

locity he

s

0.00305 

. 0030S

ad 

S»/2

0. 05S2 

.0552

n

0.030 

.030

1.486 

n

49.5 

49.5

V

29.3 

29.2

Discharge 

(secondfeet)

770, 000 

733, 000

751,500

Correction for velocity head

T/2

[Assume discharge of 580,000 second-feet; velocity head=-g- (g=acceleration of gravity)]

Cross section

A...... .-.... .-.. .-

B. .. .._ .. ...

V

580,000 nn 26, 222 ""' 

580,000 , ,

25, 11 ~"d- 1

^ (feet)

(22. 1)> 64. 3 7< 6l

64. 3 S- "*

Correction to slope

7. 61-8. 31

568 (length of reach)

= -0.001233

Corrected 

slope

S, =0.00305

-. 001233

=.001817

[Recompute discharge using corrected slope]

Cross section

A...... ......

B... ......

Average

Area 

(square 

feet)

26,222 

25, 119

discharge

w. p.

746 

720

to three

r

35.15 

34.89

signiflcar

r'/»

10.73 

10.68

t figures

c

0.001817 

.001817

«l/8

0.0427 

.0427

n

0.030 

.030

1.486 

n

49.5 

49.5

V

22V6 

22.5

Discharge 

(secondfeet)

593, 000 

566, 000

580,000

The discharge as recomputed, using slope corrected for velocity head, checks the assumed discharge; 

therefore the adopted discharge is 580,000 second-feet.

The factors considered in selecting this site for a slope-area determination of discharge and other pertinent information concerning it 

are as follows: (1) The channel was straight for about 1 mile above
60

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 

Feet along center of channel

Profiles of high-water marks

30

Water surface

30

Wa1;er surface

Section B

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5

Distance in feet from left edge of high wate

FIGUEB 40. Profiles of high-water marks and sections]of slope-area reach on the West N
254 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDKOLOGY, 1937

the reach and for about 500 feet below, where it bends slightly to 

the right. (2) All flow was in one channel about 712 feet wide and 

with depths ranging from about 33 feet near the left bank to about 

45 feet near the right bank. (3) Cross sections were measured 568 

feet apart; the altitudes of the high-water marks on the right bank 

were determined from a point about 200 feet above the upper cross 

section to a point about 300 feet below the lower cross section without 

a noticeable break in the slope. (4) The sides of the channel were 

of solid rock and could not have changed during the flood; the bed 

was of gravel, showed no evidence of appreciable shifting, and, according to statements of local residents, appeared to be in the same 

condition after the flood as before except for filling in of a pool on the 

right side of the channel to a depth of 1 or 2 feet. (5) The channel 

was free of vegetation except for light brush along the higher part of 

both banks. (6) The area of the lower cross section was 4 percent 

smaller than that of the upper cross section; the distribution of the 

change was apparently uniform. (7) The high-water marks on the 

left bank were very well defined and were well distributed over the 

reach. Those on the right bank were not so well distributed, but 

well-defined marks found above and below the reach aided in defining 

the slope of the water surface. (8) The channel above and below 

the measuring section is clean and open and offers no obstruction to 

the approach or get-away of the stream. (9) No evidence of any 

movement of debris was apparent except the small amount of gravel 

mentioned above (4), either at the measuring section or for several 

miles above and below. However, with mean velocities hi excess of 

20 feet a second (see table 9) and the material of gravel as indicated 

in plate 62, it seems possible that there may have been bed movement. (10) The slope of the bed through the reach was uniform, 

and there was no adverse slope either within or immediately adjacent 

to the reach.

High-water marks indicated that the water surface was about 3 

feet higher on the right bank than on the left bank. The deeper 

part of the channel is near the right bank. The association of the 

higher marks with the deeper channel is consistent with a study of 

many slope-area measurements made in Texas, in which it has been 

found that if the water surface is not level in a channel cross section 

it is usually higher on a side where the channel is deeper and the 

velocity of flow presumably greater than elsewhere in the channel.

The selection of the value of 7i=0.030, the coefficient of roughness 

used in the application of Manning's formula, was made in the light 

of experience in the determination of n in measurements of the discharge of Texas streams, where rating curves based on slope-area 

determinations of discharge have been satisfactorily checked later by 

current-meter measurements. The value of n selected is consistent
MA JOE TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 255

with values used for other slope-area measurement reaches in Texas 

and in other parts of the United States. Studies of n have been made 

on the Brazos and Colorado Rivers for discharges up to 481,000 

second-feet. Many of the n's computed from measured discharges 

on these streams in reaches with apparently rougher beds than in the 

reach on the West Nueces River near Brackettville have been less 

than 0.030.

The altitudes of the high-water points were averaged in groups, and 

the slope line was drawn through the mean position of the points so 

determined. Upper enveloping lines of the points plotted in figure 40 

indicate slopes substantially parallel to those drawn.

The discharge was computed in table 9, using each cross section as 

a single channel. For comparison and check the discharge was 

computed by dividing the cross sections into several parts having 

different hydraulic radii and coefficients of roughness; the results of 

this determination gave discharges within a small percentage of the 

discharge as originally determined.

A computation of discharge was also made using only the left-bank 

slope, which was the natter and lower of the slopes defined by the highwater marks on the two banks. This condition seems to conform to 

the flattest slope and the smallest cross-sectional area of the channel 

that could be selected. The discharge so computed was 537,000 

second-feet, which is seemingly near the minimum result that coiild 

be obtained from the base data. This method ignores the observations made on the right bank, which when taken into account produced 

the adopted discharge.

A reconnaissance was made of the West Nueces River from its 

headwaters to a point several miles below the slope-area reach. At 

no place was evidence found that would suggest that the flood peak 

was a momentary wave due to the release of a channel obstruction, or to 

any other cause. No section above was found where it would have 

been possible for the channel to be blocked.

The computed mean velocity of about 22.5 feet a second is a rate 

of travel of slightly more than 15 miles an hour. Had the peak remained stationary for only 15 minutes it would have filled a length 

of channel of 3.8 miles. Local residents stated that they believed the 

river remained at maximum stage for as long as 30 minutes. This 

condition would seem to have led to the establishment of reasonably 

steady flow and hence to preclude the possibility that the high-water 

marks were produced by a sharp momentary wave.

The result of 580,000 second-fee t was obtained by the application 

of the Chezy and Manning formulas in a slope-area determination. 

The result is naturally subject to such limitations of accuracy as are 

involved in the application of these formulas to a combination of 

conditions more or less outside the range of ordinary experience. It
256 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

ignores any effect of the expenditure of the energy of flow in the movement of sUt and gravel as bed load and assumes that the section of 

channel was the same during the time of peak discharge as after the 

flood, when the survey was made. As indicated in the above discussion, this procedure seemed justified by the available evidence.

However, such uncertainties must be kept in mind in any comparison of the discharge with those obtained on other streams by more 

accurate methods, and any user of the data is cautioned to remember 

the method of derivation and, if thought desirable, to make such 

allowance therefor as may seem appropriate.

FRIO RIVER FLOOD

The Frio River rises in Real County about 20 miles east of the 

Nueces River and flows roughly parallel to the Nueces throughout its 

length. The Frio did not go as high in 1935 as in 1932, when the 

maximum known flood occurred. The Dry Frio River, tributary to 

the Frio, was higher than ever known before.

The Dry Frio River rises in central Real County and flows south 

about 40 miles (air-line distance) to its confluence with the Frio 

River near Knippa. It traverses a rocky, hilly region, about 250 

square miles in area, from 1,000 to 2,000 feet in altitude, and covered 

by cedar and oak trees. Its drainage basin is adjacent to that of the 

Nueces River.

A slope-area measurement was made on the Dry Frio River 4 miles 

below Reagan Wells for determining the maximum discharge. The 

discharge as computed by Kutter's formula was 64,700 second-feet, 

which is equivalent to 539 second-feet per square mile for the drainage 

area of 120 square miles.

The maximum previous flood of which there is reliable information 

occurred in July 1932 and reached a stage at Reagan Wells about 3.0 

feet lower than the 1935 flood. The peak discharge of the 1932 flood 

as determined by the slope-area method at a section 2.6 miles below 

Reagan Wells was 30,700 second-feet.

No river-measurement station is maintained on the Dry Frio River, 

but records of flow during the flood at the river-measurement stations 

on the Frio River at Concan, near Derby, at Cotulla, and at Calliham, 

are presented under "Stages and discharges" (pp. 273-276).

ATASCOSA RIVER FLOOD

The Atascosa River rises in the northern part of Atascosa County 

and flows east and south about 80 miles to its confluence with the 

Frio River near the town of Three Rivers. The drainage basin lies 

entirely within the Coastal Plain and is utilized to a great extent for 

farming.
MAJOK TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 257

The highest stage known occurred at the river-measurement station 

at Whitsett on June 14. The peak discharge of 38,300 second-feet 

was determined by the slope-area method.

A station description and a table of mean daily discharges and the 

total run-off for the period of the flood are presented under "Stages 

and discharges" (pp. 258-276).

BIO GRANDE BASIN

From 8 to more than 18 inches of rain fell over the Sycamore Creek 

Basin, which lies to the west and adjacent to the Nueces River Basin, 

during the period June 9-15, causing the greatest flood known. High 

but not record-breaking floods occurred in adjacent basins. Data pertaining to the floods in the Rio Grande Basin may be found in Water 

Bulletin 5 of the International Boundary Commission, United States 

and Mexico. This organization maintains several river-measurement 

stations on the Rio Grande and its tributaries. The stations mostly 

affected by the June floods are those on San Felipe, Sycamore, and 

Pinto Creeks near Del Rio. The difference in flow past dischargemeasurement stations on the Rio Grande at Del Rio and at Eagle 

Pass will indicate the run-off from the area receiving the intense precipitation.

The maximum discharges past the river-measurement stations mentioned above are shown in table 14 (p. 283). All figures are taken 

from Water Bulletin 5, above noted.

STAGES AND DISCHARGES OF MAY AND JUNE FLOODS

On the following pages are presented stage and discharge records at 

the river-measurement stations experiencing unusual floods as above 

discussed. These records consist essentially of a station description, 

a table of mean daily discharges and the total run-off for the flood 

periods, and a table of discharges at indicated times during the floods 

in sufficient detail for reasonably reliable delineation of hydrographs. 

The last-mentioned table may be used to determine the rating curve 

for the station provided account is taken of the limits to which gage 

heights were applied, as given in the "Gage-height record" paragraph 

of the station description, and of periods when the shifting-control 

method of determining discharge was used. For some river-measurement stations on streams adjacent to those experiencing unusual floods 

there are given records of mean daily discharges and the total run-off 

for the flood period.

In the "Drainage area" paragraph of the station description for 

some stations the probable noncontributing area is noted. This is 

the area that lies above the Cap Rock and is believed never to contribute any surface run-off to the lower reaches of the streams. The
258 CONTKIBUTIONS TO HYDKOLOGY, 1937

drainage areas were measured from such topographic maps as were 

available and from soil maps and county road maps.

The paragraph "Maxima" in the station description is divided into 

three subparagraphs. The first subparagraph, headed "1935," gives 

the maximum discharge and gage height occurring during the floods 

of June 1935. The second subparagraph, headed by the inclusive 

dates of systematic records, gives the maximum gage height and the 

corresponding discharge, if determined, during the period of systematic 

records prior to September 30, 1934. The third subparagraph, headed 

by the inclusive dates, gives the maximum stage and discharge, if determined, during the period prior to the beginning of systematic 

records. The information in this third subparagraph is based mostly 

on information from local residents and is of varying degrees of accuracy and reliability.

COLORADO RIVER NEAR SAW SABA, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 31° 13', long. 98°34', at Red Bluff Crossing, 5.7 miles below

confluence with San Saba River and 9.2 miles east of San Saba, San Saba

County. Zero of gage is 1,096.22 feet above mean sea level. 

DRAINAGE AREA. 30,600 square miles, of which about 11,800 square miles is

probably noncontributing. 

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph. Gage heights used to half

tenths between 3.9 and 6.8 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above

these limits. 

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below

120,000 second-feet. 

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge for flood

June 15 (gage height, 38.50 feet).

May 19 (gage height, 41.00 feet).

1916-34: Discharge, 163,000 second-feet Apr. 26, 1922 (gage height, about

54 feet, present site and datum).

1900-1915: Discharge, 184,000 second-feet Sept. 25, 1900 (gage height,

about 57.5 feet, present site and datum). 

REMARKS. Small diversions above station for irrigation and municipal supply

affect low flow only.

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 19S5

period, 71,000 second-feet 2:45 p. m. 

Discharge for year, 86,000 second-feet

Day

11 _ ....

12.......

13 _ ....

14. _ ...

15.......

Ru

Secondfeet

1,960 

1,760 

2,860 

5,630 

54,600

i-off, in £

Acrefeet

3,890 

3,490 

5,670 

11, 170 

108, 300

cre-feet,

Day

16 

17 

18 

19 

20

or perioc

Secondfeet

64,100 

39,200 

14, 400 

5,500 

3,400

June 11-

Acrefeet

107, 300 

77, 750 

28, 560 

10, 910 

6,740

-30

Day

21

22 

23 

24 

25

Secondfeet

2,410 

2,250 

1,920 

1,410 

2,250

Acrefeet

4,780 

4,460 

3,810 

2,800 

4,460

Day

26 

27 

28 

29 

30

Secondfeet

2,160 

2,600 

3,440 

1,490 

1,210

Acrefeet

4,280 

5,160 

6,820 

2,960 

2,400

405, 700
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 259 

Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 1935

Time

June 10 

12 midnight.... 

June 11

June 12 

3a.m. ____

12 noon. ___ 

12 midnight ....

June IS

5... ____ .....

6... __ . __ ..

9...............

11.. _ . _ . ....

June 14 

la. m. .........

4...............

7......... ......

12 noon.. ......

Ip. m ..........

2...............

4 _____ .....

8...............

11.. _ .........

12 midnight .... 

June IB

2

4 ____ .......

6 ____ . __ ...

8........ ...... .

Feet

5.67 

5.42

5.15 

5.28 

5.25 

5.16

5.14 

5.20 

6.30 

7.25 

8,60 

8.85

8.65 

7.90 

7.40 

7.16 

7.32 

7.90 

8.95 

9.23 

9.28 

9.42

15.00 

17.00 

20.50 

28.20 

34.20

Secondfeet

2,160 

1,920

1,720 

1,840 

1,800 

1,720

1,720 

1,760 

2,680 

3,800 

6,230 

6,600

6,230 

4,960 

4,110 

3,800 

3,950 

4,960 

6,960 

7,320 

7,510 

7,690

18,000 

22,000 

28,900 

44, 200 

56, 600

Time

June 15 Con.

4... ___ . .....

5. ..............

7 ............

9.-.. ..... ... 

12 midnight _ .

June 16

6 ... ... ... ...

12 midnight. ... 

June 17

12 midnight .... 

June 18 

6 a. m ..........

12 noon. .......

6 p. m _ . .....

12 midnight .... 

June 19

12 midnight.... 

June iO

12 midnight _ .

Feet

36.40 

37.90 

38.40 

38.50 

38.50 

38.40 

38.20 

37.60 

36.90 

36.00

35.20 

34.30 

32.80 

30.10

28.30 

25.90 

23.00 

20.10

15.60 

12.00 

10.07 

8.92

8.18 

7.45

6.90 

6.72 

6.35

Secondfeet

62,500 

68, 100 

70, 500 

71, 000 

71, 000 

70,500 

69, 500 

66,900 

64,200 

61,200

59, 000 

56,800 

53,500 

48,000

44,400 

39, 600 

33,800 

28,100

19,200 

12,400 

8,960 

6,780

5,500 

4,110

3,370 

3,120 

2,790

Time

June SI 

6 a. m ..........

9 -_ .__...-

12 noon ____

6 p. m ..........

9 _ .........

12 midnight .... 

June SS 

3 a. m ..........

9...............

12 midnight .... 

June SS

June 24 

4a.m. .........

8 ...

12 midnight .... 

June IS

12 midnight .... 

June 86

12noon_._ .....

7.. ___ ... .

9.... _ . _ .

12 midnight....

Feet

5.76 

5.67 

5.80 

6.25 

6.36 

6.40

6.28 

5.84 

5.65 

5.55 

5.47

5.44 

5.42 

5.30

4.90 

4.79 

4.70

4.95 

5.40 

6.00 

6.05 

6.00 

5.74

5.50 

5.55 

5.80 

5.87 

6.13 

5.75

Secondfeet

2,250 

2,160 

2,250 

2,580 

2,790 

2,790

2,680 

2,250 

2,080 

2,040 

1,960

1,960 

1,920 

1,840

1,520 

1,450 

1,380

1,560 

1,920 

2,410 

2,410 

2,410 

2,160

2,000 

2,040 

2,250 

2,330 

2,500 

2,250

COLORADO BIVEK AT AUSTIN, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 30°16', long. 97°45', at Congress Avenue viaduct in Austin, 

Travis County. Zero of gage is 421.86 feet above mean sea level.

DRAINAGE AREA. 38,150 square miles, of which about 11,800 square miles is 

probably noncontributing.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECOBD. Water-stage recorder graph or graph drawn from frequent gage readings. Gage heights used to half tenths between 1.4 and 3.6 

feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 481,000 second-feet 3:45 p.m. June 15 (gage height, 

41.2 feet from floodmarks on gage structures at bridge pier; 42.0 feet to same 

datum from U. S. Weather Bureau gage on bridge at center of first span 

from left bank).

1898-1934: Discharge, about 236,000 second-feet a few minutes after

failure of Austin Dam Apr. 7, 1900 (gage height, 33.5 feet). At time of

failure, depth of water over dam was 11.07 feet (computed discharge, 151,000

second-feet); flood appeared to be practically at its crest when dam failed.

1843-97: Stage, about 43 feet July 7, 1869 (discharge not determined).

Remarks. Low flow partly regulated by diversions and reservoirs upstream.
260 CONTKIBTJTIONS TO HYDKOLOGY, 1937

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 1935

Day

12.....

13.....

14 

15.....

16. .

B

Secondfeet

4,970 

8,840 

13, 700 

323, 000 

143, 000

un-oft,lni

Acrefeet

9,860 

17, 530 

27, 170 

640, 700 

283,600

ware-feet, fc

Day

17 

18.... 

19.... 

20 

21 

>r period

Secondfeet

81, 200 

57, 500 

32, 400 

17,900 

13,000

June 12-3

Acrefeet

161, 100 

114, 000 

64,260 

35, 500 

25, 790

g

Day

22.... 

23. _ 

24 

25 

26. _

Secondfeet

10, 300 

17, 200 

10,300 

7,880 

5,660

Acrefeet

20,430 

34, 120 

20, 430 

15, 630 

11,230

Day

27 . 

28 

29 

30 .

Secondfeet

5,050 

5,050 

5,660 

6,600

Acrefeet

10,020 

10, 020 

11,230 

13, 090

1,526,000

Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 1985

Time

June 11 

12 midnight....

June It

12 midnight ....

June IS

12 noon ........

6 __ . ..........

7...............

10...... ........

4 a. m _____

12 noon ........

6 ________ .

9..... __ ......

10 .... __ .

11 _______ ..

12 midnight _ .

June IB

la.m.. ........

2 _____ . __ .

3.... .......

4. __ ..

5 ________ .

6 ________ .

8..... .

9 ____ . _ ....

10..............

11 __ . ____ .

12 noon.. ......

3 ____ . .......

4-..... .-...

Feet

2.40

2.20

2.23

2.42

2.90

3.90

4.76

4.76

4.66

4.30

3.69

3.60

3.70

3.85

4.80

10.70

14.30

16.50

19.00

24.00

27.1

30.0

31.8

36.3

38.2

38.9

39.1

39.8

40.8

41.1

41.2

Secondfeet

5,480

4,800

4,970

5,480

7,200

10,800

14, 400

14, 400

14,000

12, 400

10, 100

9,700

10, 100

10, 800

14, 400

45, 700

64, 600

76, 400

95, 300

128, 000

157, 000

191, 000

219, 000

319, 000

377, 000

400, 000

406, 000

431, 000

467, 000

478, 000

481, 000

Time

June 15 Cont. 

5 p. m ..........

6 ...............

9... ............

12 midnight _

3 a m ..........

6..... ___ . _ .

9... ............

6 ____ . ......

9 __ ...........

6 a. m ..........

12 noon ........

12 midnight ....

12 midnight ....

Feet

40.9

40.3

37.5

34.6

31.6

28.3

oc 7

23.7

99 d

91 ^

20.55

1 n o

1Q A

17.2

16.0

15.0

14.1

13.1

12.15

11.02

9.85

8.62

6.65

6.03

5.35

5.10

Secondfeet

470, 000

449, 000

354, 000

276, 000

215, 000

170, 000

143, 000

124, 000

113,000

105, 000

100, 000

95,900

01 ann

80, 600

73, 500

68,200

63, 400

57, 500

61, 600

45, 200

38, 700

qi Af\n

25, 800

22, 100

19, 000

17, 300

16, 100

15, 300

Time

June 11

12 midnight ....

June SS

10. 

4 ______ . _ .

7 ___ ......

8 ..........

9 __ ... ...

10 ..

11 .. _ ....

12 midnight. 

12 midnight ....

June S5

12 midnight- ...

12 midnight ....

Feet

4.37

3.78

3.37

3.20

4.00

4.84

5.30

5.93

6.05

6.11

6.09

6.00

5.85

4.75

4.08

3.76

3.02

2.80

2.60

2.13

1.83

1.62

Secondfeet

13,000

11, 000

9,990

9,330

12,000

15, 300

17, 300

19,900

20,300

20,800

20,800

20,300

19,500

15, 300

12,700

11,700

9,000

8,360

8,040

6,600

5,660

4,900

NOTE. Discharge determined by shifting-control method except from 2 a. m. June 15 to 9 a. m. June 16. 

COLORADO RIVER AT SMTTHVHLE, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 30°01/, long. 97°10', 1,200 feet above highway bridge at Smithville, Bastrop County. Zero of gage, 270.14 feet above mean sea level;

DRAINAGE AREA. 39,650 square miles, of which about 11,800 square miles is 

probably noncontributing.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph except for short time on June 

16 when recorder was submerged and graph was drawn from gage readings
MAJOK TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 261

and record of peak stage. Gage heights used to half tenths between 2.9 and 

5.2 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below 

148,000 second-feet; extended to peak stage on basis of one slope-area measurement of that peak.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 305,000 second-feet 4:30 p. m. June 16 (gage height, 

42.5 feet, from floodmarks).

1930-34: Discharge, 67,500 second-feet Oct. 9, 19, 1930 (gage height, 21.40 

feet).

1913-29: Stage, about 47.4 feet December 1913 (discharge not determined).

REMARKS. Low flow partly regulated by diversions and reservoirs upstream.

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 1935

Day

12......

13......

14......

15......

16-.. 

Rt

Secondfeet

5,940 

7,860 

17,800 

29,000 

219, 000

m-off, in £

Acrefeet

11, 780 

15, 590 

35, 310 

57,520 

434,400

icre-feet, f<

Day

17 

18 

19 

20 

21

>r perioc

Secondfeet

184, 000 

101,000 

60,500 

28,400 

17,400

I June 12-

Acrefeet

365, 000 

200,300 

120,000 

56, 330 

34, 510

30

Day

22 

23

24 

25 

26

Secondfeet

13,300 

12,000 

15,200 

9,560 

7,630

Acrefeet

26,380 

23,800 

30, 150 

18, 960 

15, 130

Day

27 

28 

29 

30

Secondfeet

6,260 

5,770 

5,610 

6,090

Acrefeet

12,420 

11,440 

11, 130 

12,080

1,492,000

Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 1935

Time

June 11

June IS

10 ...........

4...... _ ......

6.. ____ ... ...

8...... _

10..... _

June 14

4....... _ .. ...

8_....... . 

4. ___ ..... _

8.. _ ..... _ ..

12 midnight ....

11..... ___ ...

2.. _ ..........

3... ____ . ....

4... ___ ......

Feet

8.14

7.40

7.35

7.17

6.97

7.00

7.30

8.40

10.00

10.40

10.25

9.95

9.83

10.13

10.90

12. 35

13.05

13.15

13.00

12.20

11.20

9.80

10.00

10.50

12.2

15.0

16.4

17.2

Secondfeet

7,110

5,770

5,610

5,450

5,150

5,150

5,610

7,630

11, 500

12, 500

12,000

11, 500

11, 000

12,000

14, 000

18, 700

20, 500

21. 100

20,800

18, 100

15, 100

11, 000

11, 500

12,700

17, 800

27,800

33,900

37,800

Time

June IB Con.

6..... _ .......

7......... _ ...

8.. ____ . ....

9.. ___ .......

10..............

12 midnight ....

June 16

6... ___ ......

9....... ........

2 p. m ..........

3 __ . ____ 

4..... ..........

5........... ....

6...............

9...............

12 midnight- ...

12 midnight ....

June 18 

6 a. m _____

6 p. m ..........

12 midnight..

12 midnight ....

Feet

17.8

18.3

19.5

20.2

21.1

22.3

24.4

27.6

32.7

37.2

40.2

41.6

42.1

42.5

42.4

42. 1

41.3

40.3

38.1

35.5

32.7

30.4

28.6

27.3

25.8

24.1

21.0

17.5

Secondfeet

40,400

43, 000

49, 500

53. 500

58,800

66, 100

80, 000

104, 000

148, 000

203, 000

254, 000

284, 000

295, 000

305, 000

303, 000

295, 000

277,000

256,000

217,000

180, 000

148, 000

126, OCO

112, 000

102, 000

91, 300

80, 000

60,600

40,900

Time

June SO

12 midnight .... 

June 88

June US

12 noon ........

June 84

6. _____ .. ...

9...............

12 midnight. ...

June 25

12 midnight. ...

June 86

12 midnight ....

Feet

14.5

12 7

12 4

11.6

10.8

10.35

10.00

9.30

9.80

11.40

11.85

11.96

11.73

11.30

10.40

9.87

9.02

8.43

8.12

7.65

Secondfeet

27, 000

20,800

19, 600

17,200

14,600

13, 300

12,200

10, 500

11, 700

16,000

17, 800

18,100

17 ^fift

16, 000

10 Of-lfl

12, 000

9,560

Q 9K(\

7,810

6,940

NOTE. Discharge determined by shifting.control method except June 16-20.
262 CONTKIBUTIONS TO HYDKOLOGY, 1937

COLORADO RIVER WEAR EAGLE LAKE, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 29°35', long. 96°25', at Lakeside Irrigation Co.'s pumping

plant, 5 miles southwest of Eagle Lake, Colorado County. Zero of gage is

139.56 feet above mean sea level. 

DRAINAGE AREA. 40,940 square miles, of which about 11,800 square miles is

probably noncontributing. 

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph. Gage heights used to half

tenths between 2.7 and 5.5 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these

limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements. 

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 177,000 second-feet 2:30 a. m. June 19 (gage

height, 29.45 feet).

1930-34: Discharge, 57,500 second-feet Oct. 21, 1930 (gage height, 20.48

feet).

1913-29: Stage, about 32.0 feet December 1913, present site and datum

(discharge not determined). 

REMARKS. Diversions above for irrigation and municipal supply affect low flow

only.

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 1935

Day

13 _ ..

14.....

15.. 

16 _ ..

17 

E

Secondfeet

7,550 

7,550 

14,400 

27,900 

58, 700

un-ofif, in

Acrefeet

14,980 

14, 980 

28,560 

55, 340 

116, 400

acre-feet,

Day

18 

19.... 

20 

21 

22 

or perio

Secondfeet

116,000 

164, 000 

123,000 

67,800 

24,300

d June 13

Acrefeet

230, 100 

325, 300 

244,000 

134, 500 

48,200 

-30.......

Day

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Secondfeet

16,100 

13,000 

14,600 

10, 900 

8,670

Acrefeet

31, 930 

25, 790 

28, 960 

21, 620 

17,200

Day

28. _ 

29.... 

30 

Secondfeet

7,420 

6,480 

6,430

Acrefeet

14,720 

12,850 

12, 750

1,378,00-

Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 1935

Time

June IS

12 midnight. ... 

June 14

9 __ .... _ ...

12 midnight ....

6 a. m _____

12 noon... ..... 

2 p. m . .

4 _ . _ _____

7 .....

10 ____ . ...

June 16

4............... 

6 .......

6...............

9... _ . ........

8 .. _ ...

12 midnight ....

Feet

8.94

7.90 

7.73

7.73

7.88

8.98

10.00

11.20

11.77 

11.80 

11.77

11.64 

11.50

10.95

10.95 

11.10

11.55

13.80

15.75

17.50

18.65

19.40

Secondfeet

9,260

7,350 

6,750

6,190

6,190 

6,550

8,820

11, 000

14, 000

15, 000 

15, 500 

15, 500 

15, 500

15, 000 

14, 800

13, 200

13, 200 

13, 700

21, 500

28,400

35, 900

41, 900

45,900

Time

June 17

8 ___ ...

8....... .....

12 midnight .... 

June 18

4 a. m .......... 

8....... .....

12 noon... .....

8 

12 midnight ....

June 19

3 a. m .......... 

6.......... _ ..

9 ... .........

12 noon.... .... 

4 p. m... .......

12 midnight ....

6 a. m ..........

6 p. m .. 

12 midnight 

June SI

12 midnight ....

Feet

20.15

20.70

21.25

21.72

22.36

23.16

23.75 

24.63

25.90 

27.22

28.44

29.35

29.45 

29.35

29.00

28.77 

28.56

*io. ou 

27.95

27.37 

26.77

25.94 

25.00

23.80

22.60

20.83

18.45

Secondfeet

50,500

53, 900

57, 700

61,800

68, 000

75, 700

82, 200 

91, 700

110, 000 

133, 000

156, 000

177, 000

177, 000 

177, 000

168, 000 

164, 000 

160, 000

lOrt, UUU

148, 000

136, 000 

125, 000

110, 000 

97, 000

82, 200

68, 900

52, 500

38, 800

Time

June 22

12 midnight 

June 2S

6 a. m _____ 

12 noon... __

12 midnight ....

2 p. m..._ ...... 

6 ........

12 midnight .... 

June 25

3 a. m. ......... 

5.. _____ .....

7 _ ........

9. ... ... .... 

12 noon... .....

6 p. m .......

12 midnight ....

6 a. m. __ ..

12 midnight 

Feet

16.10

14.40

13.48

12.92

12.75 

12.53

12.05 

11.55

11.10

10.87

10.87 

11.18

11.90

12.10 

12.14

12.11

12.05 

11.86

11.34 

10.82

10.42

10.06

9.75

9.49

Secondfeet

28,400

22, 200

19, 300

17,500

16, 900 

16, 400

15, 300 

13, 700

12, 700

12, 200

12, 200 

13, 000

14,800

15, 500 

15, 500

15, 500

15, 300 

15, 000

13, 500 

12,200

11, 300

10, 600

9,920

9,260

NOTE. Discharge determined by shifting-control method except June 17 to 6 a. m. June 21.
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 

NORTH LLANO RIVER NEAR JUNCTION, TEX.

263

LOCATION. Lat. 30°30', long. 99°47', 500 feet above remains of old Wilson Dam

and 3 miles northwest of Junction, Kimble County. Zero of gage is 1,699.9

feet above mean sea level. 

DRAINAGE AREA. 914 square miles. 

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph. Gage heights used to

half tenths between 4.0 and 6.0 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above

these limits. 

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below

33,700 second-feet and extended above the peak stage. Definition doubtful

above 33,700 second-feet and subject to revision. 

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 47,400 second-feet 12:20 p. m. June 14 (gage height,

20.70 feet).

1915-34: Discharge, 48,100 second-feet Oct. 6, 1930 (gage height, 20.9

feet).

1875-1914: Stage, about 22.9 feet in 1889. 

REMARKS. Diversions for irrigation materially reduce low-water flow but do not

affect flood flow.

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 1935

Day

13.......

14.......

15... _ .

16. ___ .

17.......

Eu

Secondfeet

647 

22,300 

4,890 

646 

403

i-oflf, in £

Acrefeet

1,283 

44, 230 

9,700 

1,280 

799

icre-feet,

Day

18 __ .

19 __ . 

20..... 

21..... 

22....,

for perio<

Seocjndfeet

625 

436 

274 

242 

219

1 June IE

Acrefeet

1,240 

865 

543 

480 

434

-30

Day

23. 

24, .... 

25..... 

26..... 

27 

Secondfeet

200 

185 

166 

155 

140

Acrefeet

397 

367 

329 

307 

278

Day

28 

29..... 

30 ..

Secondfeet

136 

129 

118

Acrefeet

270

256 

234

63,290

Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 1985

Time

June IS

1 a. m .......... 

4. ...........

4 p. m ..........

12 midnight __

3 ..........

4 _______ . ...

5 . 

6.. _ .... 

7..... .......

8...... ....... , .

9 ....... ...

10...... ___ ...

11, ________

1 p. m .......... 

2.. _ . .. .. 

3.. ____ ...... 

4.. _ .... ....

5.... _ ........ 

6............... 

7_. ........... .. 

8..............

9. ...........

10 ..........

11... _ .. .. ..

12 midnight .

Feet

3.82 

3.36

3.00 

2.57 

2.38

2.44

2.56

3.40

5.55

8.30 

13.90

15.35

16.30

17.60

19.00

20.50 

19.00 

16.10 

14.30

13.10 

12.35 

12.10 

12.50

12.80

12.20

11.40

10.40

Secondfeet

1,290 

942

700 

462 

379

474

538

1,130

4,560

10, 700

30, 000

36, 900

41, 600

46, 700

46, 700 

41, 600 

32, 200 

26, 700

23, 300 

21, 300 

20, 500

22, 400

20, 800

18, 600

15, 900

Time

June 15

2 a. m.__ _ ... 

4... ... ......

6. __ 

9....... ........

8 ...... ...

12 midnight ....

June 17

12 noon ......... 

6 p. m ..........

7 __ _____

9.... .. 

10 .... 

12 midnight ....

6. ... . .... .

Feet

9.10 

8.00

6.95 

5.55 

4.72

4.00

3.50

3 90

2.70

2.46

2.31

2.13 

2.10 

4.10

3.85 

3.22 

3.13

2.92

2.46

Secondfeet

12,600 

10, 000

7,700 

4,560 

2,860

1,790

1,220

Q79

620

484

408

325 

312 

1,920

1,600 

988 

918

764

484

Time

June 19 Con.

12 noon. -- 

12 midnight .

June 90

June K

June 24 

12 noon.. __ .

June 25

12 noon..... 

Feet

2.23

2.07

2.01

1.93

1.87

1.82

1.78

1.73

1.70

Secondfeet

370

299

274

242

219

200

185

160

155
264 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

LLANO RIVER NEAR JUNCTION, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 30°30', long. 99°44', 100 feet north of Kerrville-Junction road, 3 

miles below confluence of North Llano and South Llano Rivers, and 3J4 

miles east of Junction, Kimble County.

DBAINAGE AREA. 1,762 square miles.

GAGE-HEIGHT EECOED. Water-stage recorder graph except June 11-17, when it 

 tfas determined from graph drawn from a partial recorder graph, gage readings, and floodmarks. Gage heights used to halftenths between 3.5 and 5.4 

feet to hundredths below and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below 

35,000 second-feet; extended to peak discharge on basis of four slope-area 

measurements.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 319,000 second-feet 12 noon June 14 (gage height, 

43.3 feet, from floodmarks).

1915-34: Discharge, about 106,000 second-feet Sept. 1, 1932 (gage height, 

27.15 feet).

1889-1935: Discharge and stage, that of June 14, 1935.

REMARKS. Small diversions and storage above station affect low flow only.

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 1935

Day

13- 

14.. 

15.. _ ..

16.. .

17.. 

Rui

Secondfeet

465 

124, 000 

15, 700 

3,310 

1,400

i-ofl. in £

Acrefeet

922 

246, 000 

31, 140 

6,570 

2,780

cre-feet, f

Day

18 

19 

20 ___

21 ___ 

22 .-

or period

Secondfeet

1,420 

1,430 

813 

649

586

June 13-

A crefeet

2,820 

2,840 

1,610 

1,290 

1,160

30 

Day

23 

24 __ . 

25.-.. 

26 

27 ___

Secondfeet

546 

485 

452 

420 

387

Acrefeet

1,080 

962 

897 

833 

768

Day

28 

29 

30 

Secondfeet

381 

362 

337

Acrefeet

756 

718 

668

303, 800

Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 19S5

Time

June 18

12 midnight ....

5. 

6 _

7 

8 

9 

10 ___ 

11 ___ . .......

2 

3 

6.. _ 

7... __ 

8- _ .... 

10. _ 

12midnieht--_-

Feet

2.31

2.32

2.43

2.64

3.33

4.00

9.00

17.0

29.0

37.0

41.0

42.9

43.3

41.2

39.2

36.6

33.4

29.6

25.8

22.0

17.7

15.6

Secondfeet

434

442

523

687

1,400

2,150

11, 300

37, 400

123, 000

221, 000

282, 000

312, 000

319, 000

285, 000

254, 000

215, 000

173, 000

130, 000

94, 600

65. 200

40, 600 31. son

Time

June 15

8 

12 midnight ....

8 ........

9- .

10 . . ...

11 

12 midnight ....

10 

Feet

13.1

11.4

8.6

7.2

5.80

4.50

3.54

3.32

3.14

2.90

3.57

5,50

5.00

4.52

4.20

3.37

3.12

Secondfeet

22, 900

17, 800

14, 400

10, 400

7,350

4,650

2,730

1,920

1,640

1,390

1,190

940

1,270

1,640

4,160

3,410

2,750

2,390

1,450

1,170

Time

June 19 Con.

2 __ ... ... __ .

6 ..... ... ...

12 midnight ....

12 noon. _ . ...

Feet

3.41

3.44

3.40

3.17

2.95

2.75

2.57

2.48

9 49

2.33

2 28

2-23

Secondfeet

1,490

1,520

1,480

1,230

990

795

649

686

546

485

452

420

LLANO RIVER NEAR CASTELL, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 30°43', long. 98°53', 4 miles above mouth of Hickory Creek

and 6 miles east of Castell, Llano County. 

DBAINAGE AREA. 3,514 square miles.
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 265

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Graph drawn from fragmentary staff-gage readings, 

floodmarks, and local information. Gage heights used to half tenths between 1.5 and 4.4 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below 

10,000 second-feet; extended to peak stage on basis of one float and one 

slope-area measurement.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 388,000 second-feet 1 p. m. June 14 (gage height, 

37.0 feet, from floodmarks).

1923-34: Discharge, 89,800 second-feet Oct. 6,1930 (gage height, 22.3 feet). 

1889-1922: Stage, 28.4 feet in 1889 (discharge not determined).

REMARKS. Small diversions above station affect low flow only.

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 1985

Day

9. 

10.. -

11. _ 

12 .......

13 

14..- ...

Eui

Secondfeet

 "562

216, 000 

i-off. in a

Acrefeet

 '1,110

428, 400 

cre-feet,

Day

15 .. 

16 .....

ITIS- ... 

19 

20 

for period

Secondfeet

84, 700 

7,940 

3,690 

1,780 

1,190 

1,060

June 9i

Acrefeet

168, 000 

15, 750 

7,320 

3,530 

2,360 

2,100

30 

Day

21. ....

22. _ . 

23..... 

24..... 

25..... 

26.....

Secondfeet

1,010 

950 

950 

880 

770 

723

Acrefeet

2,000 

1,880 

1,880 

1,750 

1,630 

1,430

Day

27 _ .. 

28..... 

29.....

30. ....

Secondfeet

1,530 

750 

696 

656

Acrefeet

3,030 

1,490 

1,180 

1,100

650. 300

o Average for period June 9-13. * Average daily run-off for period June 9-13. 

Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 1935

Time

June 10

June IS

2

4.... ___ ......

6. _ . _ ..

8- ____

10 

4. ...... __ .

6... .... .....

7 .

8 ____ . ..

10 

11... . ..........

12 midnight 

June 15

6.. _ - ___ .

Feet

3.35

3.20

3.10

3.06

4.00

5.40

8.60

16.00

25.40

33.40

36.80

37.00

36.30

33.40

30.60

30.00

31.40

35.70

36.00

36.70

32.60

28.00

21.70

18.70

Secondfeet

620

520

470

450

1,310

3,900

11,500

45,800

149, 000

305, 000

383, 000

388,000

371, 000

306, 000

243, 000

230,000

260, 000

367, 000

364, 000

357, 000

287, 000

192, 000

98,200

66,900

Time

June 15 Con.

4 _________

6 .. ......

8- _ ..... .....

10 

12 midnight 

June 16 

2 a. m ..........

4... ___ .......

6.. _ ..........

8. .........

10 

8 . ......... ..

12 midnight .

12 midnight 

June 19

2p.m. 

Feet

16.70

15.10

13.70

12.60

11.70

10.90

10.30

9.60

9.10

8.60

8.10

7.70

7.40

7.00

6.60

6.20

6.90

5.62

5.28

4.98

4.70

4.35

4.06

3.80

3.65

3.65

3.68

Secondfeet

50,800

39, 700

31,200

26, 800

22,000

18,900

16, 700

14,400

12, 900

11, 500

10, 200

9,150

8,420

7,460

6,540

5,640

4,980

4,320

3,690

3,090

2,600

1,860

1,380

1,070

900

800

830

Time

June 19 Con.

6 ...............

8- __ .........

10 

June SI

June 8&

June 84

Feet

4.00

4.24

4.07

3.97

3.89

3.68

3.55

3.50

3.50

3.43

3.32

3.27

Secondfeet

1,310

1,670

1,410

1,270

1,180

1,050

1.010

1950

950

880

770

723

NOTE. Discharge determined by shifting-control method June 20-26. 

58805 39 i
266 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

PEDEENAIES RIVER NEAR SPICE WOOD, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 30°25'15", long. 98°04'50", in Travis County, 5.4 miles above

confluence with Colorado River and 8 miles southeast of Spicewood, Burnet

County. Zero of gage is 624.8 feet above mean sea level. 

DRAINAGE AKEA. 1,294 square miles. 

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Graph drawn from two or more gage readings daily.

Gage heights used to half tenths between 1.6 and 2.8 feet; to hundredths

below and tenths above these limits. 

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below

3,500 second-feet; extended to peak discharge by one slope-area measurement

and three slope-area computations. 

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 105,000 second-feet 10 a. m. June 15 (gage height,

32.0 feet, from graph based on gage readings).

1923-34: Discharge, 155,000 second-feet May 28, 1929 (gage height, 40.4

feet, from floodmarks).

1869-1922: Stage, about the same height as in 1929, occurred in 1869. 

REMARKS. No regulation or diversions.

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 1935

Day

19

13. _ .........

14 _ . _ ......

15 ___ ...........

16. . . _ . _

Run-off, in a

Secon - 

feet

167 

368 

3,250 

6,360 

68,700 

2,820

cre-feet,

Acrefeet

331 

730 

6,450 

12, 610 

136, 300 

5,590

or perioc

Day

17 ___ . .....

18.. _ . ___ . _ .

19 .... ___ ..

20 ... __ .. 

21..... _ - __ ..

99

oq

June 11 30

Second- Acrefeet feet

-106 t210 

i'3,210 d 6,370

Day

24 

25... ___ ..

26 

27....... ....

9Q

30 

Secondfeet

 330 

174

Acrefeet

/655

345 

180, 100

« Average for period June 17-21.

'Average daily run-off for period June 17-21.

 Average for period June 22, 23.

^Averase daily run-off for period June 22, 23.

 Average for period June 24-29.

/Average daily run-off for period June 24-29.

GUADAIUPE RIVER NEAR SPRING BRANCH, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 29°52', long. 98°23', at New Braunfels-Blanco highway bridge

4 miles southeast of Spring Branch, Comal County. Zero of gage is 947.37

feet above mean sea level. 

DRAINAGE AREA. 1,432 square miles. 

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph. Gage heights used to half

tenths between 4.7 and 5.0 feet; hundredths below and tenths above these

limits. 

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below

70,000 second-feet; extended above. 

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 114,000 second-feet 5 a. m. June 15 (gage height,

41.30 feet).

1922-34: Discharge, 121,000 second-feet 2 a. m. July 3, 1932 (gage height,

42.10 feet).

1900-1921: Stage, 45 to 50 feet in 1900 (discharge not determined). 

REMARKS. Small diversions and regulation upstream affect low flow only.
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 267 

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 19S5

Day

11... ....

12.......

13 ___ ..

14... ....

15... ....

Rui

Secondfeet

336

585 

2,190 

5,890 

66, 100

a-off. in £

Acrefeet

666 

1,160 

4,340 

11, 680 

131, 100

icre-feet.

Day

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

for nerioc

Secondfeet

12, 300 

4,030 

2,810 

2,190 

1,770

June 11

Acrefeet

24,400 

7,990 

5,570 

4,340 

3,510

-30 

Day

21..... 

22 

23.....

9d

25 

Secondfeet

1,520 

1,340 

1,910 

1,340 

1,070

Acrefeet

3,010 

2,660 

3,790 

2,660 

2,120

Day

26 

27 

28 

29..... 

30 

Secondfeet

945 

845 

770 

695 

645

Acrefeet

1,870 

1,680 

1,530 

1,380 

1,280

216, 700

SAN ANTONIO RIVER NEAR FALLS CITY, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 28°57'05", long. 98°03'55", at highway bridge half a mile 

above Scared Dog Creek and 3.4 miles southwest of Falls City, Karnes 

County.

DRAINAGE AREA. 2,067 square miles.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph; no record June 18-25 (discharge estimated). Gage heights used to half tenths between 3.9 and 4.6 

feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these limits. 

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements. 

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 14,300 second-feet 3 p. m. June 15 (gage height, 

17.97 feet, affected by backwater); maximum gage height, 22.3 feet June 13, 

1935 (affected by backwater).

1925-34: Discharge, 10,100 second-feet May 29, 1929 (gage height, 11.15 

feet).

1875-1924: Stage, 28.36 feet in October 1913 (discharge not determined). 

REMARKS. Flow partly regulated by 254,000 acre-feet of storage in Medina 

Reservoir, on Medina River.

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 19S5

Day

11 .......

12.. __ .

13.. .....

14.......

15 .......

Secondfeet

582 

2,290 

10, 800 

12, 400 

13, 800

Acrefeet

1,150 

4,540 

21, 420 

24,600 

27, 370

Day

16 

17.. ... 

18 

19..... 

20 

Secondfeet

10, 800 

7,820 

"3,270 

"3,270 

"3,270

Run-oft, in acre-feet, for period June 11

Acrefeet

21,420 

15, 510 

66,490 

66,490 

'6,490

-30

Day

21..... 

22 

23 

24. .... 

25- ...

Secondfeet

«3,270 

«3,270 

"3,270 

"3,270 

"3,270

Acrefeet

'6,490 

66,490 i>6,490 

66,490 

66,490

Day

26 

27. .... 

28 

29 . 

30 .....

Secondfeet

704 

658 

626 

595 

564

Acrefeet

1,400 

1,310 

1,240 

1,180 

1,120

174, 200

»Average for period June 18-25. * Average daily run-off for period June 18-25.

CIBOIO CREEK NEAR FALLS CITY, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 29°01', long. 97°56', 200 feet downstream from Cestohowa 

Bridge, 6 miles above confluence with San Antonio River, and 6 miles northeast of Falls City, Karnes County.

DRAINAGE AREA. 831 square miles.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph except parts of June 12, 13, 

14, 16, and 17 when recorder was submerged and graph drawn based on 

floodmarks and local information. Gage heights used to half tenths between 2.6 and 4.9 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below 

15,400 second-feet; extended above.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, about 28,600 second-feet 4 a. m. June 14 (gage 

height, 33.0 feet, from flood marks).

1931-34: Discharge, 6,390 second-feet July 30, 1933 (gage height, 21.5 

feet, from floodmarks).

1913-30: Stage, about 38 feet in October 1913 (discharge not determined).

REMARKS. No large diversions or regulation above station.
268 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 1985

Day

11. _ ...

12.......

13.. 

14.... 

15 ___ .

Rui

Secondfeet

270 

1,120 

11, 000 

18, 100 

1,980

i-ofi, in £

Acrefeet

536 

2,220 

21, 820 

35, 900 

3,930

icre-feet.

Day

16 

17 

18 . 

19 

20 .

for perioc

Secondfeet

3,140 

3,290 

960 

608 

465

June 11

Acrefeet

6,230 

6,530 

1,900 

1,210 

922

-30. 

Day

21 - 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Secondfeet

339 

248 

188 

154 

182

Acrefeet

672 

492 

373 

305 

254

Day

26 

27 _ .. 

28 

29 

30 ___

Secondfeet

110 

93 

81 

73 

66

Acrefeet

218 

184 

161 

145 

131

84. 130

NFECES RIVER AT IAGUNA, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 29°26', long. 100°00', half a mile below Sycamore Creek and

1 mile northeast of Laguna, Uvalde County. 

DRAINAGE AREA. 764 square miles. 

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph. Gage heights used to half

tenths between 4.4 and 7.6 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these

limits. 

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below

40,000 second-feet; extended to peak discharge on basis of one float and one

slope-area measurement. 

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 213,000 second-feet 11 a. m. June 14 (gage height,

26.0 feet, from floodmarks).

1924-34: Discharge, about 87,200 second-feet June 15, 1930 (gage height,

20.1 feet).

1903-23: Discharge, 226,000 second-feet Sept. 21, 1923 (gage height, 26.5

feet). Stage, about 29 feet in June 1913 (discharge not determined). 

REMARKS. No diversions or regulation.

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 19S5

Day

11... 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Rui

Secondfeet

459 

1,060 

12,600 

107, 000 

12,100

i-ofi, in a

Acrefeet

910 

2,100 

24, 990 

212, 200 

24,000

cre-feet,

Day

16 _ - 

17 

18 

19 

20«. ...

or perioc

Secondfeet

3,780 

2,600 

2,030 

1,700 

1,520

June 11-

Acrefeet

7,500 

5,160 

4,030 

3,370 

3,010

-30

Day

21 

22 _ .. 

23 

24 

25 

Secondfeet

1,300 

1,170 

1,090 

932 

828

Acrefeet

2,580 

2,320 

2,160 

1,850 

1,640

Day

26 __ .

27 _ .. 

28 

29 

30 

Secondfeet

759 

695 

643 

595 

562

Acrefeet

1,510 

1,380 

1,280 

1,180 

1,110

304, 300

Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 19S5

Time

June 10

6. ......

8 

12 midnieht __

Feet

4.02

4.00

4.12

4.30

4.14

Secondfeet

435

425

483

578

493

Time

June 18

3 ___ ...

5 ____ .......

7 _ ......

8 .... ......

10 _ .

11 

12 midnieht ....

Feet

4.15

4.40

5.25

5.10

5.57

5.40

5.70

5.74

5.65

Secondfeet

498

633

1,490

1,240

2,050

1,750

2,280

2,350

2.190

Time

June IS

2 ...............

3. _ . ___ . ....

5 ___ . _ .....

8 _____ .. _ .

11 

2 P. m. __ -.

Feet

5.50

5.70

6.63

6.50

6.72

6.60

6.70

6.60

Secondfeet

1,920

2,280

5,050

4,900

5,210

5,050

5,210

5.050
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 269 

(rage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 1985 Contd.

Time

 June IS Con.

4 ____ . .......

5 ....... . .......

6 _ __ ...

7... ......... ...

8.-. .........

« 

10.... .. ..

12 midnight ....

June 14

1 a. m ..........

2 ___ ..........

3 ____ .. ......

4 __ . _ .......

5 ...

«.. . 

7 ____ . ......

8

fl 

10..............

11..... ____ .

12 noon ........

2 ...............

3.. _______ . 

4 ...............

5 _________ .

 ___ . ___ ..

7 _______ .. 

8 ____ . ......

«. ..... .

10..............

Feet

7.70

9.80

13.60

14.10

13.30

15.50

16.20

15.70

13.75

13.30

13.50

14.30

15.65

17.60

20.00

22.00

24.30

25.80

25.70

26.00

25.05

24.80 

25.60

25.30 

24.65

22.90

20.60

17.10

15.70

14.85

Secondfeet

11,300

23,200

25,200

22,100

31,800

36, 400

33,000

24,000

22,000

22,800

26,100

32, 400

49,200

85, 500

122, 000

171, 000

208, 000

206,000

213, 000

188,000

loo, UUU

203, 000

196, 000 

178, 000

140, 000

95,800

67, 400 

44,000

33,000

28, 300

Time

June U Con. 

11...... _ .. ...

12 midnight ....

June 15

2.... ____ ...

3-... _ . ......

4....-..- __ .

5..-.- .......

6...... _____ .

7 __ ......

8. . .

Q

10 , 11.- _ - _ ...

Q

8 __ ...

12 noon. -. .....

12 midnight ....

6 p. m ..........

Feet

14.10

13.30

12.60

11.95

12.75

12.65

12.20

11.65

12.40

12.88

10.55

9.75

9

QQ

8.53

8.00

7.20

6.65

6

90

5.85

5.63

5

09

5.06

* O/

4.70

4.54

4 40

Secondfeet

25,200

22,100

19, 500

17,400

20,200

19,500

18,100

16,200

18,800

20,600

16,500

13, 400

11, 300

10, 200

8,500

7,530

6,060

5,050

3,920

3,660

3 9QH

2,990

2,760 

2,600

2,440

2,280

Time

June 18

12 midnight....

12 noon ........

June *4

12 noon ........

12 noon ........

Feet

4.23

4.08

3 94

3.82

3.60

3.34

3.22

3.10

2.90

2.76

2.66

Secondfeet

O 19ft

1,980

1,840

1,700

1,520

1,300

1,170

1,090

932

828

759

NUECES RIVER NEAR UVAIBE, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 29°11', long. 99°54', at Tom Nunn Crossing, 4K miles below 

Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway bridge, 7 miles west by south 

of Uvalde, Uvalde County.

DRAINAGE AREA. 1,930 square miles, a large part of which is noncontributing 

at low stages owing to water entering fault a few miles above gage.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph prior to June 12, 1935; 

graph drawn from information furnished by local residents, readings of stage 

by railroad company at railroad bridge 4.5 miles upstream, and floodmarks 

subsequent to June 11, 1935. Gage heights used to half tenths between 

3.2 and 5.1 feet prior to June 14 and between 1.2 and 2.6 feet after June 14; 

to hundredths below and tenths above these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below 

50,000 second-feet, extended to peak stage on basis of two slope-area measurements.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 616,000 second-feet at 4 p. m. June 14 (gage height, 

36.9 feet, from floodmarks).

1927-34: Discharge, 188,000 second-feet Sept. 1, 1932 (gage height, 23.25 

feet).

1910-26: Discharge, 229,000 second-feet June 1913 (gage height, 26.4 feet).

REMARKS. No diversions or regulation.
270 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 1935

Day

12 .......

13 .

14. ......

15 .....

16 

Em

Secondfeet

395 

1,760 

147, 000 

45, 000 

19, 000

a-off, in £

Acrefeet

783 

3,490 

291, 600 

89, 260 

37, 690

icre-feet,

Day

17..... 

18.-... 

19 

20 

21 -

for perioc

Secondfeet

12, 200 

7,820 

4,980 

3,020 

2,120

I June 12

Acrefeet

24, 200 

15, 510 

9,880 

5,990 

4,200

-30

Day

22 

23.. ... 

24 

25. ... . 

26 

Secondfeet

1,630 

1,260 

990 

790 

678

Acrefeet

3,230 

2,500 

1,960 

1,570 

1,340

Day

27. . 

28 

29- 

30 

Secondfeet

605 

570 

505 

505

Acrefeet

1,200 

1,130 

1,000 

1,000

497, 500

Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 1935

Time

June 11 

12 midnight 

«a. m __ ._

2 a. m _____

4. _ . __ .. ....

6 ______ . ....

8 .........

9 _____ ......

10 ___ .... __ .

11. . .........

2. ....-

3 .... .... ...

4 ___

6 

6 ___ ..... .....

7 __ . _ .......

8 ....... ....

9 .....

10 ______ ....

11. .....

12 midnightFeet

1.82

1.80

2.50

2.95

3.65

5.15

5.80

6.60

8.20

13.20

17.40

19.30

20.80

22.10

22.80

23.30

36.90

36.20

33.40

30.50

27.70

24.30

22.40

21.00

19.90

Secondfeet

404

395

960

1,640

2,730

5,600

6,900

8,740

12, 800

33, 200

67,400

89, 900

110, 000

132, 000

145, 000

155, 000

616, 000

585, 000

471, 000

362,000

267, 000

177, 000

138, 000

113, 000

97, 700

Time

June 15

4 _______ ..

6 ________ ..

8.. __ . ___ .

10 __ .....

6 __ .... _ ....

9 ... ...

12 midnight ....

12 midnightFeet

18.40

17.20

16.20

15.40

14.70

14.10

13.30

12.70

12.20

11.70

10.90

10.20

9.50

8.90

8.40

7.90

7.50

7.00

6.50

6.00

5.50

Secondfeet

78,800

65, 200

55, 000

48,200

42,900

38, 700

33, 800

30, 500

28,000

25, 500

21, 600

18, 800

16, 500

14, 700

13, 300

12,000

11, 000

9,700

8,510

7,360

6,240

Time

June 19 

8 a. m ..........

June £0

June £1

12 noon ........

June £5

3 p. m ..........

Feet

5.10

4.70

4.30

3.85

3.20

2.82

2.45

2.15

1.92

1.70

Secondfeet

5,390-

4,590

3,860

3,020

2,120

1,630

1,260

990

790

640

NUECES RIVER AT COTULIA, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 28°26', long. 99°16', at Cotulla-Laredo highway bridge in 

Cotulla, LaSalle County. Zero of gage is 368.08 feet above mean sea level.

DRAINAGE AREA. 5,260 square miles, a large part of which is noncontributing at 

low stages owing to water entering fault near Uvalde.

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph except June 15-20, when 

graph was drawn from frequent gage readings. Gage heights used to half 

tenths between 11.6 and 12.8 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above 

these limits.

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below 

37,000 second-feet, extended to peak stage on basis of one slope-area measurement of the peak.

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 82,600 second-feet at 7 a. m. June 18 (gage height, 

32.4 feet, from floodmarks).

1923-34: Discharge, 49,500 second-feet June 3, 1925 (gage height, 24.8 

feet, present site and datum).

1899-1922: Stage, 29.7 feet, present site and datum, June 19, 1899 (discharge not determined).

REMARKS. Regulation and diversions affect low flow only.
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 271 

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 1935

Day

l

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Secondfeet

994

1,600

2,270

4,290

6,480

5,600

3,770

3,300

Acrefeet

1,970

3,170

4,500

8,510

12,850

11, 110

7,480

6,550

Day

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Secondfeet

3,420

3,890

4,480

4,480

4,010

3,180

3,300

4,480

Run-off, in acre-feet, for period June 1-

Acrefeet

6,780

7,720

8,890

8,890

7,950

6,310

6,550

8,890

Day

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Secondfeet

32, 200

79,000

57, 600

35, 300

21, 500

12, 600

7,550

4,740

Acrefeet

63, 870

156, 700

114, 200

70,020

42, 640

24,990

14, 980

9,400

Day

25

26

27

28

29

30

Secondfeet

2,890

2,120

1,700

1,390

1,170

1,010

30. ____________ ... _______________ ..

Acrefeet

5,730

4,200

3,370

2,760

2,320

2,000

635,300

Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 1985

Time

June 9 

12 midnight ....

June 10

6 p. m ..........

12 midnight ....

12 midnight 

June IS

12 midnight .

6 p. m ..........

12 midnight ....

6 p. m ..........

12 midnight ....

6... . __ ...

12 noon ........

8_ . .........

2 a. m ..........

4 ___ ...... ...

6 ............

10-, _ . .....

1 p.m ..........

Feet

13.49

13.75

14.14

14.39

14.43

14.47

14.41

14.41

14.35

14.18

13.96

13.77

13.56

13.35

13.13

12.98

12.96

13.10

13.15

13.20

13.42

13.62

13.55

13.65

13.95

14.26

14.55

14.60

Secondfeet

3,420

3,770

4,240

4,480

4,480

4,480

4,480

4,480

4,480

4,240

4,010

3,770

3,650

3,420

3,180

2,950

2,950

3,060

3,180

3,180

3,420

3,650

3,650

3,650

3,890

4,240

4,600

4,720

Time

June 16 Con. 

1 p. m ..........

11 __ .........

June 17

3 ____ ...

4 ...............

5 ...............

6 _ . _ . _ ....

7 _ . _ ... .....

8 _ ... .........

9.. _ . .........

10.. ........

4 __ ...........

6 ____ ..... ...

8 _ ... _ . _ ..

10 

12 midnight ....

4 _ ...... __ ..

6 .... ___ ...

8 ___ .........

10 _ ....

4 _ ............

6.. __ .. ___ .

9 ........ ....

12 midnight ....

8 ..........

8 .. ....

12 midnight ....

8 _________ .

Feet

14.60

14.75

14.85

15.00

15.13

15.35

15.95

17.20

18.30

19.45

20.60

23.00

25.40

27.60

29.30

30.60

31.40

31.90

32.20

32.30

32.40

32.40

32.30

32.20

32.10

31.90

31.75

31.45

31.10

30.65

30.15

29.50

28.90

28.25

27.60

27.00

26.35

Secondfeet

4,720

4,840

5,470

5,730

5,880

6,330

7,280

9,500

11, 800

14,300

17, 300

24,700

33, 600

44, 600

56,200

66, 600

73,600

78, 100

80,800

81, 700

82, 600

82, 600

81, 700

80, 800

79, 900

78, 100

77, 200

73, 600

70,900

66,600

63, 400

57, 800

53,300

48, 400

44,600

41, 000

38,000

Time

June SO Con. 

12 noon ........

8 _ .....

12 midnight....

8 ____ ___ .

8 __ . ____ ...

12 midnight 

6 a. m ___ . ...

12 midnight 

June 84

6a.m. .........

12 noon. . ...

6 a. m ..........

6 p. m _ . .....

12 midnight ....

12noon._ ......

Feet

25.75

25.10

24.50

23.90

23.25

22.60

22.00

21.35

20.80

20.25

19.43

18.65

17.92

17.25

16.68

16.17

15.72

15.25

14.75

14.23

13.72

13.28

12.95

12.67

12.45

12.30

12.15

12.02

11.93

11.83

Secondfeet

35,200

32,400

30,100

27,900

25,400

23,300

20,400

19,600

17, 800

16,200

14,300

12,400

10, 900

9,500

8,530

7,620

6,800

6,030

5,470

4,720

4,130

3,650

3,300

2,890

2,650

2,470

2,300

2,120

2,060

1,950

NOTE. Discharge determined by shifting-control method June 10-16.
272 CONTEIBUTI05TS TO HYDKOLOGY, 1937

NUECES RIVER NEAR THREE RIVERS, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 28°26'10", long. 98°11'10", 100 feet below San Antonio*

Uvalde and Gulf Railroad and 2 miles southeast of Three Rivers, Live

Oak County. Zero of gage is 101.08 feet above mean sea level. 

DBAINAGB AREA. 15,600 square miles, part of which is noncontributing at low

stages owing to water entering fault near Uvalde. 

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph. Gage heights used to half

tenths between 3.5 and 4.8 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above

these limits. 

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below

55,000 second-feet and extended to peak stage. 

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 66,700 second-feet at 6 a. m. June 15 (gage height,

44.67 feet).

1915-34: Discharge, about 85,000 second-feet Sept. 18, 1919 (gage height,

46.0 feet).

Peak of Sept. 18, 1919, is maximum known. It is rumored that a

similar height occurred about 1882. 

REMARKS. Small diversions for irrigation above station.

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 1986

Day

1... __

2_. _ ..

3.. _ 

4.......

5_.._ 

6.. 

7 

8.. ......

Ru

Secondfeet

9,840 

15,400 

18, 000 

17, 400 

16, 300 

19, 500 

25,400 

22, 600

n-ofl, in

Acrefeet

19, 520 

30, 550 

35, 700 

34, 510 

32, 330 

38, 680 

50, 380 

44,830

acre-feet,

Day

9. .....

10.....

11-. 

12 

13 _ .. 

14..... 

15 

16 

for perio

Secondfeet

16,400 

12, 100 

11,200 

13, 200 

22, 600 

61, 900 

63,400 

44, 400

d June 1-

Acrefeet

32,530 

24,000 

22, 210 

26, 180 

44, 830 

102, 900 

125, 800 

88,070

-30

Day

17..... 

18. _ . 

19 

20 

21.....

22., ... 

23 

24.. ...

Secondfeet

23, 800 

16,500 

16,400 

22,400 

26, 500 

34,000 

53,500 

51, 000

Acrefeet

47, 210 

32, 730 

32,530 

44, 430 

52, 560 

67, 440 

106, 100 

101, 200

Day

25..... 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30. ....

Secondfeet

40,000 

30,900 

23,300 

17, 500 

12, 400 

9,040

Acrefeet

79, 340 

61,290 

46, 210 

34, 710 

24, 600 

17, 930

1, 501, 000

Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 1935

Time

June 1 

la. m ..........

6. ____

10 _ ........

3 p. m. ........

12 midnight- ...

4 a. m ..........

12 midnight ....

8 a. m ..........

12 midnight ....

12 midnight 

June 5

12 noon .........

12 midnight. ...

Feet

26.20

28.35

30.86

32.58

33.70

34.35

34.87

35.68

36.25

36.78

37.05

37.15

37.02

36.78

36.45

36.17

36.04

36.04

36.47

Secondfeet

6,910

7,850

9,270

10,700

12 000

12, 900

14, 000

15, 300

16, 200

17, 400

17, 800

18, 300

17, 800

16,200

15,800

15, 800

16. 800

Time

June 6

6.... _ . .......

12 midnight 

June 10

12 midnight. ...

Feet

Q7 f\>7

37.92

qo 07

39.47

39.66

qQ 47

38.98

QQ 00

37.54

36.70

QQ m

32.60

32.60

Secondfeet

18, 000

20, 000

90 onn

25,600

26, 500

t)K fif\f\

91 °.nn

19, 000

17, 200

14,300

12,000

11, 100

in onn

10. 900

Time

June 11

12 midnight _ .

12 midnight ....

12 midnight ....

8 . .....

12 midnight _ . 

June IB

8 ____ . ___

Feet

32.77

33.02

33.42

33.95

34.63

35.50

36.60

38.45

39.85

41.30

42.33

43.43

43.93

44.30

44.53

44.65

44.67

44,65

Secondfeet

11, 100

11, 300

11, 800

12, 600

13, 500

15, 000

17,000

21, 600

26, 900

35, 100

42, 700

53, 000

58,000

62, 300

64,500

65, 600

66, 700

65, 600
MAJOE TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 273 

Gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, at indicated time, 1935 Contd.

Time

June 15 Con.

B... ......... ...

12 midnight 

June 16 

6 a. m _____

12 midnight 

6 a. m _____

12 midnight 

12 midnight 

12 midnight ....

Feet

44.56

44.37

44.12

43.80

43.20

42.52

41.68

40.75

39.78

38.85

33.13

37.50

36.86

36.26

35.88

35.75

35.85

36.20

36.75

37.37

Secondfeet

65,600

63,400

60, 100

57, 000

51,000

44,500

37, 900

32, 000

26,900

20,600

19,000

17, 600

16, 400

15, 600

15, 500

15,500

16, 200

17, 400

18,800

Time

June SO

12 midnight ....

9 _ .......

11 ....... ....

6 ........ ...

12 midnight. ...

Feet

38.05

38.70

39.25

39.63

39.82

39.85

39.70

39.65

39.65

39.79

40.05

40.98

41.95 49 an

43.37

43.62

43.70

43.60

Secondfeet

20, 300

22,500

24, 400

26, 100

26, 900

26, 900

26,500

26, 100

26, 100

27, 000

27, 800

33, 000

40, 000

47, 200

53,000

55, 000

56, 000

55, 000

Time

June S4-

June %5

12 midnight 

12 midnight 

12 midnight ....

12 midnight _ .

12 midnight ....

Feet

43.44

43.22

42.98

42.72

42.04

41.36

40.63

39.80

38.90

38.02

36.85

35.43

33.87

32.15

30.25

28.20

Secondfeet

53,000

51, 000

49, 000

46, 300

40,000

35, 800

30,900

26,900

23,200

20,300

17, 400

14,800

12, 500

10, 500

9,000

7,850

FRIO EIVEK AT CONCAN, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 29°29', long. 99°42', half a mile below Concan post office, Uvalde

County.

DRAINAGE AREA. 485 square miles. 

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph. Gage heights used to half

tenths between 3.1 and 4.2 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these

limits. 

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below

440 second-feet; extended to peak discharge on basis of two slope-area measurements. 

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, about 86,900 second-feet 1:30 a. m. June 14 (gage

height, 29.4 feet, from floodmarks).

1924-34: Discharge, 162,000 second-feet July 1, 1932 (gage height, 34.44

feet, from floodmarks).

1913-23: Stage 28.8 feet Sept. 18, 1923, from floodmarks (discharge not

determined). 

REMARKS. No diversions or regulation.
274 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, 1935

Day

May 

27........ ...

28..............

29... _____ .

30 ____ . __ .

31 

June 

1 ________

2...............

3 __ .. _ .....

4... ___ . .....

5

6 ____ .... ....

Eun-oflf, it 

Run-off, it

Secondfeet

209 

3,740 

1,570 

863 

2,380

824 

622 

596 

480 

707 

499

i acre-fee 

i acre-fee

Acrefeet

415 

7,420 

3,110 

1,710 

4,720

1,630 

1,230 

1,180 

952 

1,400 

990

t, for perk 

t, for perk

Day

June 

7 _____ . ....

8 ____ . __ .

9... _ .. ......

10. ..........

11 __ .... .....

12. __ . ____ .

13 __ ..... .....

14. __ .... .....

16.. . _ . ___ .

17 __ . _ .

18 ...........

19. _______ .

d May 27 to June 

d June 13-30. ....

Secondfeet

421 

395 

362 

336 

473 

668 

7,690 

22,700 

2,770 

1,760 

1,440 

1,240 

1,080

12

Acrefeet

835 

783 

718 

666 

938 

1,320 

15, 250 

45,020 

5,490 

3,490 

2,860 

2,460 

2,140

Day

June 

20 _______

21... _ . .......

22 ..............

23. ___ .......

24. __ .........

25...... _ .....

26. .............

27 _____ - ....

28. ___ .. _ ...

00

30. _______ ..

Secondfeet

948 

876 

804 

733 

694 

648 

616 

570 

544 

512 

486

Acrefeet

1,880 

1,740 

1,590 

1,450 

1,380 

1,290 

1,220 

1,130 

1,080 

1,020 

964

30, 020 

91. 450

FRIO RIVER NEAR DERBY, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 28°44', long. 99°09', at International-Great Northern Railroad

bridge 900 feet below mouth of Leona River and 4 miles south of Derby,

Frio County. Zero of gage is 449.3 feet above mean sea level. 

DBAINAGB ABBA. 3,493 square miles, a large part of which is noncontributing

at low stages, owing to water entering fault a few miles below Concan. 

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph except June 1 to 4 and 14

to 19 when graph was drawn from numerous gage readings and floodmarks.

Gage heights used to half tenths between 2.6 and 4.0 feet; to hundredths below

and tenths above these limits. 

STAGE-DISCHARGE BELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below

40,000 second-feet, extended to peak discharge on basis of one slope-area

measurement of the peak. 

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 68,300 second-feet at 4:30 a. m. June 2 (gage height,

23.68 feet, from floodmarks).

Discharge, 49,000 second-feet at 7 a. m. June 16 (gage height, 20.8 feet,

observed at peak).

1915-34: Discharge, 230,000 second-feet July 4, 1932 (gage height, 29.45

feet, from floodmarks).

Peak of July 4, 1932, is maximum known. 

REMABKS. Small diversions for irrigation above station.

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, 1935

Day

May 

27 ..............

28..............

29 ___ ........

30..............

31........ ..

June 

1 _______ .

2... ............

3 _____ . _ .

4........ .......

5 ____ ........

6 .... ..... ...

Run-off, i: 

Run-off, ii

Secondfeet

361 

155 

3,360 

15,900 

7,780

16,700 

55,400 

17,500 

5,640 

3,020 

2,290

i acre-fee 

i acre-fee

Acrefeet

716 

307 

6,660 

31, 540 

15, 430

33, 120 

109, 900 

34, 710 

11,190 

5,990 

4,540

t, for perk 

t, for perk

Day

June 

7..............

8. _____ . _ .

9 ____ .......

10..............

11. _ . ___ .

12...... _ .....

13. _ ..... _ ..

14..............

15..............

36... ..... ___ .

17..............

18.. _ . ___ ...

19... ___ .....

>d May 27 to June 

>d June 13 30

Secondfeet

2,700 

1,600 

922 

528 

412 

937 

2,280 

9,960 

26,800 

45, 800 

24, 100 

6,980 

3,850

12

Acrefeet

5,360 

3,170 

1,830 

1,050 

817 

1,860 

4,520 

19, 760 

53,160 

90, 8-10 

47, 800 

13, 840 

7,640

Day

June 

20. 

21 

22. ______ ...

23.. ___ . ......

24.. _____ ...

25..............

26 _____ ..

27... ____ ....

28. ___ .....

29.. ___ . __ .

30 _______ ...

Secondfeet

2,920 

2,280 

1,910 

1,590 

1,250 

1,010 

882 

806 

733 

663 

595

Acrefeet

5,790 

4,520 

3,790 

3,150 

2,480 

2,000 

1,750 

1,600 

1,450 

1,320 

1,180

268, 200 

266, 600
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 275

FRIO KITES AT CAIUHAM, TEZ.

LOCATION. Lat. 28°29'30", long. 98°20'45", at Calliham-Whitsett highway

bridge 1 mile north of Calliham, MeMullen County. Zero of gage is 153.47

feet above mean sea level. 

DRAINAGE AREA. 5,491 square miles, a large part of which is noncontributing at

low stages owing to water entering a fault below Concan. 

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph except June 5 to 25, when

graph was drawn from numerous gage readings. Gage heights used to half

tenths between 4.5 and 5.3 feet; to hundredths below and tenths above these

limits. 

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below

14,000 second-feet; extended to peak discharge on basis of one slope-area

measurement of the peak. 

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 28,600 second-feet at 7:40 a. m. June 6 (gage

height, 33.42 feet, from graph based on gage readings.

Discharge, 21,400 second-feet at 2 a. m. June 14 (gage height, 31.4 feet,

from graph based on gage readings).

Discharge, 26,600 second-feet at 7 a. m. June 20 (gage height, 32.9 feet,

from graph based on gage readings).

1924-26, 1932-34: Discharge, 109,000 second-feet July 6, 1932 (gage

height, 39.20 feet).

Peak of July 6, 1932, is maximum known. 

REMARKS. Small diversions for irrigation above station.

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 1985

Day

1.. ......

2... .....

3 ___ ...

4. __ ...

5 __ . ...

6... ..

7... .....

8... 

Seeondfeet

4,590 

5,180 

8,650 

10,900 

18,100 

27,100 

19, 000 

10, 600

Acrefeet

9,100 

10, 270 

17, 160 

21,620 

35, 900 

53,750 

37, 690 

21, 020

Day

9...... 

10 

11 ..... 

12..... 

13..... 

14..... 

15 ..... 

16 

Secondfeet

5,500 

3,640 

5,110 

4,930 

14,500 

17, 600 

10,500 

7,410

Run-off, in acre-feet, for period June 1-

Acrefeet

10, 910 

7,220 

10, 140 

9,780 

28, 760 

34, 910 

20, 830 

14, 700

30

Day

17 

18 

19.. ... 

20 

21 

22..... 

23 ..... 

24.....

Secondfeet

5,120 

9,120 

20, 500 

25,600 

17,900 

9,200 

4,400 

3,030

Acrefeet

10, 160 

18,090 

40, 660 

50, 780 

35,500 

18, 250 

8,730 

6,010

Day

25 

26 

27 

28 

29..... 

30 

Secondfeet

2,310 

1,920 

1,640 

1,410 

1,240 

810

Acrefeet

4,580 

3,810 

3,250 

2,800 

2,460 

1,610

550,400

ATASCOSA RIVER AT WHITSETT, TEX.

LOCATION. Lat. 28°39', long. 98° 18', 0.9 mile west of Whitsett, Live Oak County,

and 4 miles below mouth of La Parita Creek. 

DRAINAGE AREA. 1,171 square miles. 

GAGE-HEIGHT RECORD. Water-stage recorder graph except June 13 to 15, when

graph was drawn from local information and floodmarks. Gage heights

used to half tenths between 5.5 and 7.2 feet; of hundredths below and tenths

above these limits. 

STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATION. Defined by current-meter measurements below

7,500 second-feet, extended to peak discharge on basis of one slope-area

measurement of the peak. 

MAXIMA. 1935: Discharge, 38,300 second-feet June 14 (gage height, 38.0 feet,

from floodmarks).

1924-26, 1932-34: Discharge, 2,780 second-feet July 12, 1925 (gage height,

19.7 feet, present datum).

1922-23: Discharge, about 20,100 second-feet in April 1922 (gage height,

32.1 feet, present datum).

Peak of June 14, 1935, maximum known. 

REMARKS. No diversions or regulation.
276 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

Mean discharge, in second-feet, and run-off, in acre-feet, June 1935

Day

1 ____

2 __ ...

3.. ...

4 ........

5........

6........

7........

8 -..

RUJ

Secondfeet

2,140 

5,800 

1,110 

340 

735 

351 

175 

807

n-ofl, in «

Acrefeet

4,240 

11,500 

2,200 

674 

1,460 

696 

347 

1,600

cre-feet,

Day

9 _. 

10. . 

11 

12 - 

13 

14 

15 

16 

for perioc

Secondfeet

1,560 

1,920 

5,840 

5,480 

15,100 

36, 800 

17,300 

3,210

[ June 1-

Acrefeet

3,090 

3,810 

11,580 

10, 870 

29,950 

72, 990 

34, 310 

6,370

30

Day

17 

18 

19 

20.. ... 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Secondfeet

2,680 

463 

295 

225 

176 

148 

131 

114

Acrefeet

5,320 

918 

585 

446 

349 

294 

260 

226

Day

25 

26. . 

27 

28 

29- ... 

30 

Secondfeet

100 

88 

80 

66 

61 

56

Acrefeet

198 

175 

159 

131 

121 

111

205,000

DECEMBER FLOOD ON BUFFALO BAYOU

GENERAL FEATURES

The following is quoted from the United States Weather Bureau's 

"Climatological data," Texas section, for December 1935, page 96:

Torrential rains in Harris County from December 6 to 8 caused phenomenal 

rises in Buffalo and Whiteoak Bayous. Authentic rainfall measurements during 

the period mentioned ranged from 5.52 inches at Houston to 16.49 inches at 

Satsuma, in the northwestern portion of the county. The two bayous have 

their confluence near the wholesale business district of Houston, from whence 

Buffalo Bayou flows through the city to Galveston Bay.

Buffalo Bayou heads in southeastern Waller County at an altitude 

of about 180 feet and flows eastward about 55 miles across Harris 

County and through the city of Houston to its confluence with the 

San Jacinto Kiver, 7 miles above Galveston Bay. The area drained 

by Buffalo Bayou is entirely in the Coastal Plain. There is a heavy 

growth of trees and brush along the streams, but otherwise the area 

is not heavily wooded.

Whiteoak and Little Whiteoak Bayous, tributary to Buffalo and 

Whiteoak Bayous respectively, drain a region to the north and east 

of and adjacent to the Buffalo Bayou drainage basin above the 

city of Houston.

No detailed estimate of the damage caused by the flood was obtained. Most of the damage occurred in the city of Houston. The 

following relevant information is taken from the United States 

Weather Bureau publication cited above:

Approximately 100 blocks in the business and residential sections of the city 

were inundated, causing property damage of some $2,500,000, while 8 persons 

were drowned. Damage was done to buildings, household furnishings, bridges, 

roads, and merchandise.

PRECIPITATION

The rainfall data obtained are given in table 10, below. The 

rainfall records at Houston, Houston airport, Kichmond, and Sugarland are quoted from the published reports of the United States 

Weather Bureau. The records at other points were obtained from
MAJOR TEXAS FLOODS OF 1935 277

individual observers; some of the observers measured the rainfall in 

standard Weather Bureau type gages belonging to the city of Houston, 

and others measured the rainfall in tubs, barrels, cans, and other 

receptacles.

TABLE 10. Precipitation in inches in Buffalo Bayou and adjacent drainage basins,

December 6-8, 1935

No. on fig. 41

1..... ___ ......

2_ .............

3 ___ . _ . ...

4... ____ .......

6,... .............

7.. ____ . __ ..

8.. ...............

10 

11.. _______ ..

12...... .... ....

Station

Houston airport _____________ ..

Westfleld... ..... .... __ . __ ..........

6

0.10

1.05

3.24

3.06

3.25

8.00

M( )

7.30

( )

5.16

7

4.95

2.22

4.15

6.10

4.12

11.0

7.30

17.0

17.5

9.19

20.8

15.48

8

0.47

2.99

6.10

.07

6-8

5.52

6.26

10.25

9.41

7.18

14.25

15.30

17.0

17.5

16.49

20.8

20.64

 Rainfall included in the next measurement.

Figure 41 is a map showing the Buffalo Bayou drainage basin above 

Lockwood Drive bridge in Houston and parts of adjacent river 

basins, and other features.

MAXIMUM DISCHARGE

The maximum discharges at several points were determined from 

rating curves based on current-meter measurements made during 

the flood by M. J. McCall, bridge engineer, Harris County. All 

discharge figures are taken from a report by Mr. McCall. The 

drainage areas were measured on topographic maps. Table 11 

gives the results of discharge measurements made on Buffalo Bayou 

and tributaries. Figure 42 shows a hydrograph of the discharge of 

Buffalo Bayou at the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railroad 

Eureka Cutoff bridge. The run-off for the flood period at this 

bridge is given in table 12.

TABLE 11. Maximum discharge, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries at Houston, for

flood of December 9, 1935

No. on fig. 41

1 ___ ......

2 

3 - 

4 _ ..... _ ..

Place of determination

Whiteoak Bayou at railroad bridge west of Stude Park ......

area 

(square 

mile)

319 

458 

85.3 

18.1

Maximum discharge

Secondfeet

40,030 

52, 750 

14, 750 

4,950

Secondfeet per 

square 

mile

125 

115 

173

273
95050' 

X Numbers refer to discharge 

measurement stations In 

tables 11 and 14

95°so'

Numbers 'refer to precipitation 

stations in table 10

Sugar Land

J 01

FIOUBE 41. Isohyetal map of the Buffalo Bayou Basin showing discharge measuring places, intermediate drainage a

&-8,1935.
45

40

35

30

20

15

10

/

7

10 

December 

FIGUEB 42. Hydrograpb of discharge, Buffalo Bayou at Eureka Cutoff railroad bridge at 
280 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

TABLE 12. Run-off, in acre-feet, gage height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, 

on Buffalo Bayou at Eureka Cutoff bridge, Houston, December 7-12, 1935

Day

Dec. 7, noon to midnight 

Dec. 8

Time

Dec. 7 

1 p. m ..........

6 _ ...... ...

12 midnight ....

Dec. 8

12 midnight--

Gage 

height 

(feet)

25.0 

30.7 

37.7

45.0 

52.0 

59.0 

60.7

Discharge 

(secondfeet)

3,300 

6,420 

10,940

16,400 

23, 700 

35,700 

39,840

Acrefeet

6,350 

50,600 

71,800

Time

Dec. 9

2 a. m _____

6-_.._

12 now 

6 p. m 

12 mid

D

12 nooi 

6 p. m 

12 mid

I... .....

night . 

 c.10

night. ...

Day

Dec. 1 

Dec. 1 

Dec. 1

T

Gage 

height 

(feet)

60.8 

60.7 

59.1 

57.7 

55.6

53.2 

50.6

47.4 

44.5

3 . -.- .. . ..

L _ _____ __ . __ _ _ . _ _ _

2, midnigl 

otal

Discharge 

(secondfeet)

40,030 

39,840 

35,980 

32, 830 

29, 020

25,320 

22, 060 

18, 700 

16,000

Time

Dec. 11 

12 noon.. ......

12 midnight __ 

Dec. It

Gage 

height 

(feet)

39.8 

36.3

34.5

Acrefeet

44,000 

25,000 

9,120

206,900

Discharge 

(secondfeet)

12, 410 

9,960

8,725

High-water altitudes along Buffalo Bayou were determined at 

several places by the Department of Public Works, city of Houston, 

and the data presented in table 13 were taken from profiles prepared 

therefrom. Figure 43 shows profiles plotted from the data presented 

in this table.

PREVIOUS FLOODS

The following information regarding previous floods in relation to 

that of December 1935 is quoted from the Monthly Weather Keview 

for December 1935, page 361:

Levels run by the city engineer show a stage of 40.3 feet above mean tide level 

immediately below the confluence of the Buffalo and Whiteoak Bayous, as compared with 34.3 feet on May 31, 1929, and 34.3 feet in 1879 (date unknown). The 

crest passed in the early morning of December 9.

An unusually high stage is reported as having occurred in 1854, but 

no information concerning it is available.
30

__^

1 < K

M 

&

4*

m 

o

0.

^--- -.

--- ^ s-H

 -

igh water,

- - -.

2 

\

.-Bot

Dec. 9, 1

- -^

3 

]

;om of chai

935

 ~ .

mel, June

<s*'^.

~T~ 

T 5

 f

1929

^ Ms

"\r

V 9 

T

vf\

x

\

in Str

[crown 

^-

v7 X

14 13 12 11 10 98765 

Distance In miles above turning basin 

FIGTJBE 43, High-water and stream-bed profiles of Buffalo Bayou from Post Oak Road to the t
282 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HYDROLOGY, 1937

TABLE 13. Crest stages, flood of December 9, 1985, and stream-bed altitudes 

determined June 1929, of Buffalo Bayou at Houston

Post Oak Road _ ___________ , ____________

Eureka Cutofl bridge _______________________

Shepherd Drive bridge.. _____________________

Waugh Drive bridge- ____________________

Sabine Street bridge ________________ ______

Capitol Avenue bridge. ______________________

Smith Street bridge __ .. ____________________

Franklin Avenue bridge _______________________

Main Street bridge _ ______________________

San Jacinto Street bridge _ ___________________

Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. bridge.. ____________

San Antonio & Aransas Pass R. R. bridge. ___________

Turning basin

Distance 

above

basin 

(miles)

14.90

14.06

12.31

10.31

9.50

9.06

7.94

7.10

6.78

6.70

6.60

6.50

6.39

6.25

5.81

5.62

5.31

5.00

4.82

4.19

3.12

1.25

.88

.12

0

Altitude

Flood 

crest

62.4

60.2

56.3

52.0

50.1

49.9

47.9

47.1

46.7

46.5

44.9

41.0

40.3

39.7

38.3

37.2

36.5

35.8

34.1

32.1

26.2

19.4

18.1

13.5

12 7

above mea 

(feet)

Stream 

bed

8.7

7.1

3.9

.6

2.0 -3.9

-3.9

-7.9

-4.9

-4.4

-3.9

-8.2

-9.3

-14.0

-10.0

-11.9

-13.9

-13.0

-13.0

-13.0

-14.0

 15.9

-16.5

-25.9

Q sea level

Roadway

56.5

41.9

46.9

44.6

40.5

36.0

36.7

35.9

28.4

 56.0

41.7

a Crown of concrete arch.

SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM DISCHARGES

Table 14 presents a summary of the maximum discharges that 

occurred on various streams in Texas during the major floods of 1935. 

The drainage area and discharge per square mile are given for each 

gaging station. For purposes of comparison the maximum previously 

recorded stages and the discharges, if known, are given.
TABLE 14. Maximum stages and discharges on certain s

No. on 

maps

1 

2 

3

4

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14

15 

16

17

Stream and place of determination

Buffalo Bayou Basin 

Buffalo Bayou at Eureka Cutoff bridge,

Buffalo Bayou at Lockwood Drive bridge,

Whiteoak Bayou at railroad bridge west of

Little Whiteoak Bayou at Sylvester Street,

Colorado River Basin

Ouadalupe River Basin 

Quadalupe River near Spring Branch .........

Cibolo Creek near Falls City... ___ . _ .. ...

Latitude

0 /

29 45 

29 45 

29 47 

29 49

31 13 

30 16 

30 01 

29 35 

30 30 

30 30 

30 43 

30 15 

30 18 

30 25

29 52 

28 57 

29 01

Longitude

0 1

95 27 

95 19 

95 23 

95 23

98 34 

97 45 

97 10 

96 25 

99 47 

99 44 

98 53 

99 57 

99 53 

98 05

98 23 

98 04 

97 56

Drainage 

area 

(square 

miles)

319

458 

85.3 

18.1

<« 30, 600 

<« 38, 150 

<« 39, 650 

<« 40, 940 

914 

1,762 

3,514 

540 

218 

1,294

1,432 

2,067 

831

Period of 

record

1855-1935 

1855-1935 

1855-1935 

1855-1935

1900-1935 

1843-1935 

1913-1935 

1913-1935 

1875-1935 

1889-1935 

1889-1935

1923-1935 

1869-1935

1900-1935 

1875-1935 

1913-1935

Maximum stag

previousl

Date

May 1929 

May 1929

Sept. 1900 

July 1869 

Dec. 1913 

Dec. 1913 

1889

1889

May 1929

July 1932 

Oct. 1913 

Oct. 1913

St

(f

( 

*4

» 

* 

See footnotes at end of table.
TABLE 14. Maximum stages and discharges on certain streams 

No. on 

maps

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29

30

31 

32 

33 

34

Stream and place of determination

Nueces River Basin

Nueces River near Uvalde.. __________

Frio River at Calliham _____________

Rio Grande Basin

Latitude

29 26 

29 11 

28 26 

28 26 

29 44 

29 20 

29 29 

28 44 

28 30 

29 31 

29 26 

28 39

29 20 

28 43 

29 21 

29 15 

29 12

Longitude

0 /

100 00 

99 54 

99 16 

98 11 

100 24 

100 06 

99 42 

99 09 

98 21 

99 49 

99 17 

98 18

100 54 

100 31 

100 53 

100 46 

100 42

Drainage 

area 

(square 

miles)

764 

1,930 

5,260 

15, 600 

402 

880 

485 

3,493 

5,491 

120 

153 

1,171

123, 318 

126, 962 

62 

524 

229

Period of 

record

1903-1935 

1910-1935 

1899-1935 

1915-1935

1913-1935 

1915-1935 

1924-1935

1922-1935

1900-1935 

1900-1935 

1931-1935 

1932-1935 

1928-1935

Maximum stag

previously 

Date

June 1913 

June 1913 

June 1899 

Sept. 1919

July 1932 

July 1932 

July 1932

Apr. 1922

Sept. 1932 

Sept. 1932 

Sept. 1934 

Sept. 1932 

Aug. 1932

Sta

(fe

2

2

2

* 4

* 3

*2

* 3

3

3

4

2

« Record from Engineering Department, city of Houston.

 Record from M. J. McCall, engineer for Harris County.

 Stage less than in 1935.

d 11,800 square miles noncontributing.

 Discharge from extension of rating curve. 

/ Discharge from well-defined rating curve.

 Based on effective area.

* Greatest stage known to local residents.

' Discharge by slope-area method.

< Discharge from poorly defined rating cur

* Stage 45 to 50 feet in 1900, discharge not 

' Maximum stage June 13, 22.3 feet (backw

*» Record from Water Bull. 5, Internation

» Maximum for June, not maximum for y
INDEX

A Page

Abstracts of reports ______________ 1,

21, 53-54, 99-100, 163, 181-182, 223-224

Acknowledgments for aid ____ 25, 55, 104, 183, 228

Acre-foot, definition of ___________ 227

Agriculture, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz ___ 170-171

Gila and San Simon Valley , Ariz. . . __ 187-188

Alluvial land, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz., waterbearing qualities of ______ 173, pi. 41 

Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz., wells in. 175-177, pi. 41 

Gila Valley, Ariz., features of.... 163-164, pi. 47

Andrews, D. A., Ground water in Avra-Altar

Valley, Ariz _ __ . 163-180, pis. 41-44

Arikaree River, Colo.-Nebr., discharge of. __ 36,45

flood on... __________________ 32-33

flood on, damage by ___________ 40-44

progress of crests ___________ 33-34

Arroyo Seco, Calif. , discharge of _______ 97

Artesian conditions, in Avra-Altar Valley

Ariz... .......... ................. 174

in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz. _ 208-212 

in Ogden Valley, Utah....- ______ . 120-122

Artesian reservoir, Ogden Valley, Utah, discharge from ___________ 137-140 

probable effect of Pine View Reservoir

on........................ _ ... 143-144

relation of, to stream flow ____ 144-146, pi. 37 

Artesian Park, Utah, Middle Fork of Ogden

River near ___________ 112, 113 

North Fork of Ogden River at, discharge

of. ....... ................... 114, pl.39

South Fork of Ogden River near, discharge

of.... ................ 111,113, pis. 37-38

wells at, analyses of water from ____ 160-161 

discharge from __________ 125, pi. 37 

Atascosa River, discharge of, at Whitsett,

Tex_ ............... _ ..... 275-276, 284

flood on. _ ................. __ ...... 256-257

Atlantic City area, N. J., wells in, salt-water

leaks in ______________ 4 

Austin, Tex., Colorado River at, discharge

Of .... _ ......... 241, 242, 259-260, 283

B

Baboquivari Mountains, Ariz., geologic character of.. ___________ 172, pi. 42 

Balcones fault zone, Tex., features of ____ 228-229 

Barnston, Nebr., Big Blue River at, discharge

of.. . ..... .......... 47

Bell, J. A., and Hawgood, H., quoted.. ___ 69 

Beloit, Kans., Solomon River at, discharge of. 47 

Big Blue River, discharge of, at Barnston,

Nebr... ....................... _ 47

discharge of, at Hull, Kans. ____ . __ 48 

at Manhattan, Kans_ _________ 52 

at Randolph, Kans __________ 48

Tan

Blackwood Creek, Nebr., flood crest on___ 36 

Blanchard Canyon, Calif., discharge of. 67,82 

Bloomington, Nebr., Republican River at,

discharge of_ 45 

Bonner Springs, Kans., Kansas River at, discharge of__________ 39,46, pi. 13 

Bonneville. See Lake Bonneville. 

Bostwick, Nebr., Republican River at, discharge of.__...- 49 

Brackettville, Tex., West Nueces River near,

discharge of . 252-256,284, pi. 52 

Brand Canyon, Calif., discharge of . 67-98 

Brand Park, Glendale Highlands, Calif., landslide in__.__.........__ 95, pi. 32

Brown, R. W., fossils identified by_____ 199 

Bryan, Kirk, quoted.__.______. 166,197-198 

Buffalo Bayou, discharge of, at Houston,

Tex.... _....__... 277-282,283

flood in, damage by.___ 276 

precipitation contributing to. 276-278

0

Calliham, Tex., Frio River at, discharge of. 275,284 

Cambrian quartzite, in Gila and San Simon

Valley, Ariz.__..... ___ 195

Cambridge, Nebr., Republican River at. pi. 12 

Carrizo Springs, Tex., wells near, study of. 6-8, pi. 1 

Castell, Tex., Llano River near, discharge

of .. 245,246,264-265,283 

Central Plateau of Texas, features of____.. 228 

Cerro Colorado, Ariz., geologic character

of .. . 172, pi. 42 

Chambers, A. A., analyses by____ 179-180 

Champion, Nebr., Frenchman Creek near,

discharge of___ 48 

Check dams, Calif., features of....__ pis. 20,33

Chief of Engineers, United States Army,

quoted.._______ 49 

Cibolo Creek, discharge of, near Falls City,

Tex....__ .......... 267-268,283

Clay Center, Kans., Republican River at, discharge of._ . 45 

Climate, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz. __ 167-168 

Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz. ..- 186-187 

Ogden Valley, Utah.- . 105-106, pi. 35 

Coastal Plain of Texas, features of____... 229 

Colorado River, altitude and descent of 240 

discharge of, at Austin, Tex_____ 241, 

242,259-260,283

at Smithville, Tex 241,242,260-261,283

near Eagle Lake, Tex_._ 241,242,262,283

near San Saba, Tex. . 241,242,258-259,283

flood on...._... 236-237,239-241,242, pis. 59-60

Concan, Tex., Frio River at, discharge of. 273-

274,284 

Control, definition of____________ 227

285
286 INDEX

Page 

Cotulla, Tex., Nueces Eiver at, discharge

of......__..._... 248,249,270-271,284

Coyote Mountains, Ariz., geologic character

of-...... .. 171

Cretaceous rocks, in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz 172 

Culbertson, Nebr., Frenchman Creek at, discharge of..... -.--. .- 46

Eepublican Eiver at, discharge of 45

Daingerfield, L. H., quoted......... .. 60-61,98

Dalrymple, Tate, and others, Major Texas

floods Of 1935._..... 223-284, pis. 54-62

Debris, composition of ..- _... 88-92, pi. 30

measurement of__________ 92-93, pi. 30

movement of, across debris cone_____ 80-87

adaptation of stream bed to_ 74-80, pi. 24

by La Canada Valley flood__.__ 69-93

factors influencing- . ..__ 74,88-92

sources of_______ 93-9C, pis. 17,21-22,31-34

Deer Canyon, Calif., discharge of_.____ 83

Definition of terms. _ . . 227

Del Eio, Tex., Pinto Creek near, discharge of. 284

San Felipe Creek near, discharge of.___ 284

Delaware Eiver, discharge of, at Valley Falls,

Kans___ - ..._____ 48

Derby, Tex., Frio Eiver near, discharge of.. 274,284

D'Hanis, Tex., Seco Creek near, discharge of. 284

Drainage, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz___ 167, pi. 43

Ogden Valley, Utah ..........___ 106-107

Texas....__._....._._..... 224-227, pi. 54

Dry Frio Eiver. discharge of, near Eeagan

Wells, Tex....................... 284

flood on... ___. ......___ 256

Dunsmore Creek, Calif., debris in, composition of__ __________ 91 

erosion by____________ 84-86, pis. 27-28

E

Eagle Lake, Tex., Colorado Eiver near, discharge of .. 241,242,262,283

Eagle Pass, Tex., Eio Grande at, discharge of.. 284

Electrical-conductivity method of locating

salt-water leaks in wells_ 12-19, pis. 3-9

Ellsworth, Kans., Smoky Hill Eiver at, discharge of._ ...________. 47,52

Endicott, Nebr., Little Blue Eiver near, discharge of_ 

Engineer quoted________________ 97-!

Enterprise, Kans., Smoky Hill Eiver at, discharge of_ .. ..______ 47

Erosion, causes of, in Gila Valley, Ariz___ 190-194,

pis. 47,49 

causes of, in San Simon Valley, Ariz__ 188-190

F

Falls City, Tex., Cibolo Creek near, discharge

Of ____.._._______ 267-268,283 

San Antonio Eiver near, discharge of. _ 267,283 

Faults, occurrence of, in Gila and San Simon

Valley, Ariz.. .........___ 194-195

occurrence of, in Ogden Valley, Utah___ 107 

Fiedler, A. G., quoted...___________ 8 

Field work_____ 3,23,55,100-101,165,183,227-228 

Fire, Pickens Canyon, character and extent of. 60

Page

Fish Creek, Calif., discharge of 97

debris in____________ 81-82,84, pis. 26-27

Flood, damage by, in Colorado 43

damage by, in Kansas 43-44

in La Canada Valley, Calif . 68-69, pi. 19

in Nebraska. 43

in Eepublican Eiver-Kansas Eiver

Basin________________ 40-44 

in Texas.. 237,276, pis. 56-57,60-«1 

Flood discharges, in Eepublican EiverKansas Eiver Basin, general 

features of__. 32-33 

in Eepublican Eiver-Kansas Eiver Basin,

measurements of. 44-52 

in Texas ___.. _. _________ 257-284 

determination of.__ 229-232 

Fluorine, relation of, to mottled enamel of

teeth... ........... . ... 220

Follansbee, Eobert, and Spiegel, J. B., Flood 

on Eepublican and Kansas Eivers 

May and June 1935.. 21-52, pis. 10-15 

Frenchman Creek, discharge of, at Culbertson,

Nebr... . 46

discharge of, near Champion, Nebr. 46

near Hamlet, Nebr_ 46

flood crest on. __.. . 36

Frio Eiver, discharge of, at Calliham, Tex... 275,284

discharge of, at Concan, Tex......... 273-274,284

near Derby, Tex__.. 274,284 

flood on___________..... .. 256

G

Gazin, C. L., fossils identified by. ... 198 

Geography, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz . 165-171,

pis. 41-44

Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz.. 183-188, pi. 45 

Geologic history, Gila and San Simon Valley,

Ariz., summary of... 204-205

Geology, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz 171-174, pi. 41

Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz.. 194-205, pi. 46

Ogden Valley, Utah, general features of.. 107-110

Gila conglomerate, character, thickness, and

distribution of.. 196-198, pis. 45-46,50-52 

fossils from............................. 198-200

occurrence of....__..... 195

wells in.. ....... .. 208-212, pi. 46

Gila Mountains, Ariz., geologic character of... 195 

Gila Eiver near Solomonsville, Ariz., discharge of__ ________ 207, pi. 47 

Gila Valley, Ariz., features of . 190-194, pi. 47 

Gilbert, G. K., quoted .... ... .... 74,75,197

Glaciation, effect of, on Ogden Valley, Utah _ 108 

Graham Mountains, Ariz., geologic character

of __.....___ 195, pi. 49

Green, Eobert A., analyses by. .. . 179-180 

Ground water, development of, in Avra-Altar

Valley, Ariz..... 174-177, pi. 41

discharge of, Ogden Valley, Utah____ 136-141 

occurrence of, Ogden Valley, Utah___ 119-120,

pi. 36

quality of, in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz 177-180

in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz.. 217-222

in Ogden Valley, Utah .. 142,160-161

recharge of, Ogden Valley, Utah..___ 131-136

source of, in Gila and San Simon Valley,

Ariz______.__-______ 207-217 

in Ogden Valley, Utah..______ 120-121
INDEX 287

Page 

Quadalupe River, discharge of, near Spring

Branch, Tex ..____ 266-267,283

H

Haigler, Nebr., Arikaree River at, discharge of. 39,45

Haines Canyon, Calif., check dam in_____ pi. 33

dischargeof .... . ......____ 65-67

debris in, composition of ______ 91-92, pi. 30 

measurement of________ 92-93, pi. 30 

source of..___________ 96, pi. 34 

Hamlet, Nebr., Frenchman Creek near, discharge of... 46 

Hardy, Nebr., Republican River near, discharge of..._____________ 45 

Hawgood, H., and Bell, J. A., quoted_____ 69 

Hondo, Tex., Anvil Herald quoted..__ 232-233,236 

Honolulu, Hawaii, wells in, study of._____ 8 

Houston, Tex., Buffalo Bayou at, discharge of. 283 

Hull, Elans., Big Blue River at, discharge of_ 48 

Huntsville area, Utah, South Fork of Ogden

River near, discharge of...____ 111, 

113, pis. 37-38 

Huntsville Spring Creek near, discharge

of.............................. 112-113

Igneous rocks, occurrence of, in Gila and San

Simon Valley, Ariz________ 195

Indian traditions regarding floods, in the Republican River-Kansas River 

Basin......____________. 50-51

Isohyetals, definition of ____________ 227

Jarboe, J. H., quoted. .. .... ____ 234

Johnson grass, Avra-Altar Valley, irrigation

of.._.__...._______... 171,173 

Junction, Tex., Llano River near, discharge of. 245,

246,264,283

North Llano River near, discharge of___ 245,

246,263,283

Junction City, Kans., Kansas River near, discharge of.... ..... 39 

Republican River at...... ......___ 52

K

Kansas City, Kans., Kansas River at, dischargeof...____._______ 39 

Kansas River, discharge of.______ 37-39, pi. 13 

discharge of, at Bonner Springs, Kans

39,46, pi. 13

at Kansas City, Kans. ..__ 39 

at Lecompton, Kans__... ____ 39,52 

at Ogden, Kans_______... 39,45, pi. 13 

at Topeka, Kans_____ 39,46, pis. 11,13 

at Wamego, Kans. 39,46, pi. 13 

near Junction City, Kans.______ 39 

near Manhattan, Kans________ 39 

early floods on . . .....__ 49 

flood on, damage by___________ 40-44 

Kansas River Basin. See Republican RiverKansas River Basin.

Fan

Kansas State Historical Society Transactions,

quoted..._________.__ 51

Kidwell, C. H., analyses by________ 179-180

Kleberg County, Tex., wells in, study of _ 10, 

16-18,19, pis. 6-9

Knechtel, M. M., Geology and ground-water 

resources of the valley of Gila 

River and San Simon Creek, 

Graham County, Ariz. 181-222, pis. 45-53

Kramer, E. W., quoted. ___________ 68

La Canada Valley, Calif., discharge of 65-68 

fire adjacent to._________.__.. 60 

flood in, damage by________ 68-69, pi. 19 

debris in__________________ 69-93 

rainfall in. _______________ 58,60-65 

soil of... .__ 58

topography and drainage of.. 56-58, pis. 16-18

vegetation in . 59

Laguna, Tex., Nueces River at, discharge of.. 248,

249,268-269,284

Lake beds. See Gila conglomerate. 

Lake Bonneville, Utah, history of 108-110 

Landslides, in La Canada Valley, Calif., features of.________. 94-95, pis. 32, 34 

Lawrence, Kans., Wakarusa River near, discharge of.._.. 48 

Lecompton, Kans., Kansas River at, discharge

of._ 39,52

Leggette, R. M., and Taylor, G. H., Geology 

and ground-water resources of Ogden Valley, Utah. . 99-161, pis. 35-40 

Limestone, commercial production of, in AvraAltar Valley, Ariz.....__...... 172

Lindsborg, Kans., Smoky Hill River at, discharge of._______ 47 

Litigation, suspension of, among Ogden Valley,

Utah, water users______ 103 

Little Blue River, discharge of, at Waterville,

Kans__________ 48 

discharge of, near Endicott, Nebr__ 48 

Little Whiteoak Bayou, discharge of, at Houston, Tex _..___.__.... 283

Livingston, Penn, and Lynch, Walter, Methods of locating salt-water leaks in 

water wells... 1-20, pis. 1-9 

Llano River, altitude and descent of 243 

discharge of, near Castell, Tex.245,246,264-265,283 

near Junction, Tex_____ 245,246,264,283 

flood on__....___ 236-237,241-245,246, pi. 56

Location of Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz. 163-165, pi. 41 

Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz. 183-184, pi. 45 

of Ogden Valley, Utah.. 101-103 

Lohman, K. E., diatoms identified by.. 193-200 

Lohr, E. W., analyses by...__... 160-161,179-180 

Chemical character of the ground water in 

the valley of Gila River and San 

Simon Creek, Graham County, 

Ariz______.__. _____ 217-222 

Los Angeles River, discharge of, at Los Angeles. . 87

Lynch, Walter, with Livingston, Penn, Methods of locating salt-water leaks in 

water wells____ 1-20, pis. 1-9
288 INDEX

Page

M

Manhattan, Kans., Big Blue River at, discharge of.______________ 52 

Kansas River near, discharge of_____ 39 

Mansfield, W. C., fossils identified hy____ 199 

Max, Nehr., Repuhlican River at, discharge

Of._______._____........_ 45

Medicine Creek, Nebr., flood on, damage by.. 40-44 

Meinzer, 0. E., quoted____________ 209 

Metainorphic rocks, occurrence of, in Qila and

San Simon Valley, Ariz_____ 195 

Methods of locating salt-water leaks in wells.. 4-19,

pis. 1-9

Mining, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz ..___ 171 

Monthly Weather Review quoted.__ 225-226,280 

Mottled enamel, cause of, in teeth______ 220

N

Newspapers quoted ______________ 41,42

Niles, Kans., Solomon River at, discharge of. 47,52

North Llano River, altitude and descent of 243

discharge of, near Junction, Tex. 245,246,263,283

Nueces River, altitude and descent of.___ 247

discharge of, at Cotulla, Tex. 248,249,270-271,284

at Laguna, Tex 248,249,268-269,284

near Three Rivers, Tex. 248,249,272-273,284

near Uvalde, Tex....... 248,249,269-270,284

flood on.... . 236-237, 245, 246-249, pis. 57, 61

Ogden, Kans., Kansas River at, discharge of. 39,

45, pi. 13

Ogden, Utah, City of, cooperation with__ 99-161

Ogden River, Utah, analysis of water from.. 160-161

discharge of..__.________ 114-118, pi. 39

Middle Fork of, analyses of water from. 160-161

discharge of. .. __ 112-113

North Fork of, analyses of water from.. 160-161

discharge of____________ 114, pi. 39

South Fork of, analyses of water from.. 160-161

discharge of.._.......... Ill, 113, pis. 37-38

Ogden Valley, Utah, section in________ 109 

Oro Blanco Mountains, Ariz., geologic character of......................... 171-172

Paint Creek, discharge of, near Telegraph,

Tex_......................... 245,283

Paleozoic rocks, occurrence of, in Avra-Altar

Valley, Ariz. .................... 172

Pedernales River, discharge of, near Spicewood, Tex-_.__ 241,266,283 

Pediments, in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz., geologic character of______ 166,172-173 

in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz., wells in__ 174-175,

pi. 41

in Gila Valley, features of____ 192-193, pi. 49 

Peloncillo Mountains, Ariz., geologic character

of__ ._ 195 

Permeability coefficient, definition of____ 120 

Peterson, J. Q., with Troxell, H. C., Flood in 

La Canada Valley, Calif., January 

1,1934...........____ 53-98, pis. 16-34

Page

Pickens Canyon, Calif., debris in, composition

oL._ . . 88-89, pl.30

debris in, measurement of..__ __ 93

movement of ._______...__ 71-74,

77-80,86-88, pis. 16-17,19-26,28-30

source of... . 93-96,pis. 17,21-22,32-33

discharge of ____ .___________ 66-68,83

Pickna well. See Winter Haven, Tex., well

near. 

Final schist, occurrence of, in Qila and San

Simon Valley, Ariz________ 195 

Pine View Reservoir, Ogden Valley, Utah,

capacity of__........._..... 142-143

probable effect of, on artesian reservoir. 143-144 

Pinto Creek, discharge of, near Del Rio, Tex._ 284 

Pleistocene time, events of, in Qila and San

Simon Valley, Ariz_____... 188-189 

Pleistocene(i) terrace gravel, character and 

distribution of, in Qila and San 

Simon Valley, Ariz_... 200 

Population, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz. 170 

Qila and San Simon Valley, Ariz._. __ 186 

Pozo Verde Mountains, Avra-Altar Valley,

Ariz., geologic character of- 171-172 

Pre-Cambrian rocks, occurrence of, in AvraAltar Valley, Ariz ......... 171-172

occurrence of, in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz .._ -.. .. 195 

Previous investigations, in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz____________.__ 165 

in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz___ 185 

in Ogden Valley, Utah..__._...._ 103-104

Pumping method of locating salt-water leaks

in wells, operation of . . 4-8, pi. 1

Q

Quaternary alluvium, character and distribution of, in Qila and San Simon 

Valley, Ariz__........ 200-201, pi. 46

wells in, in Gila and San Simon Valley,

Ariz.. 207-208

Quaternary rocks, occurrence of, in AvraAltar Valley, Ariz. .. 172 

occurrence of, in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz.. . 195

Quinlan Mountains, Ariz., geologic character

of.. . 171

R

Rainfall, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz 168 

Gila River and San Simon Creek Valley,

Ariz .. . . 187 

La Canada Valley 58-59,60-65 

Ogden Valley, Utah... 105-106, pi. 35 

Republican River-Kansas River Basin 24-29,

pi. 10

Texas 233-234, 237-239,244,251,276-278, pi. 58 

Randolph, Kans., Big Blue River at, discharge of. . 48 

Red Cloud, Nebr., Republican River at-..-, pi. 12 

Republican River at Cambridge, Nebr. pi. 12 

at Red Cloud, Nebr . pi. 12 

at Wakefield, Kans . pi. 14
INDEX 289

Republican River discharge of . 32-33,37-39, pi. 13 

discharge of, at Bloomington, Nebr__ 45 

at Bostwick, Nebr.. 49 

at Clay Center, Kans______ 45, pi. 13 

at Culbertson, Nebr. 45, pi. 11 

at Junction City, Kans __ 52 

at Mas, Nebr.- __ _____ 45 

at Scandia, Kans..___.__ 45, pis. 13,14 

near Hardy, Nebr.________ 45, pi. 13 

near Superior, Nebr. . .. 49-50 

earlier floods on_ .. __..... 49-51

flood on, damage by...__ __..... 40-44

crests of__________ 33-36, pis. 11-14 

North Fork of, discharge of_--___.-- 46 

South Fork of, discharge of- ...- 32-34,37-39 

Republican River-Kansas River Basin, gaging

stations in.._____.___ 44, pi. 15

gaging stations in, daily discharge at.. 46-48,52

previous floods in_____________ 49-51

Indian traditions regarding_____ 50-51

rainfall in______________ 24-29, pi. 10

topography of... ___ _____ 29-31

Rio Qrande, discharge of, at Eagle Pass, Tes. 284

discharge of, near Del Rio, Tes_____ 284

Rio Qrande Basin, flood in_...._._.__ 257

Rio Hondo, discharge of, near Montebello,

Calif- . 97

Roberts Canyon, Calif., debris in, composition

of __....__... 88-89

Rogers Creek, Calif., debris in, composition

of.. .. 88-S9

discharge of_______.....____.. 97

Roswell, N. Mes., wells near, study of.-__ 8 

Rothe, Josie, quoted____________ 232-233

Saline River, discharge of, at Tescott, Kans.. 47

discharge of, near Salina, Kans._____ 52

near Wilson, Kans____._____.. 47

Salt-water leaks in wells, electrical-conductivity method of locating.. 12-19, pis. 3-9 

pumping method of locating..____ 4-8, pi. 1 

sampler method of locating_._ 10-12, pis. 3-4

San Antonio River, discharge of, near Falls

City, Tes 267,283

San Felipe Creek, discharge of, near Del Rio,

Tex- _ 284

San Gabriel River, discharge of, at Pico, Calif. 97

San Jose Creek, Calif., discharge of._____ 97

-San Luis Mountains, Ariz., geologic character

of ......... 171-172

San Saba, Tex., Colorado River near, discharge of___________... 258-259

San Simon Creek, Ariz., age of._____ 189, pi. 48

San Simon Valley, Ariz., features of___ 188-190,

pis. 47-48

Sanitation, emergency measures for_____ 43-44

Santa Ana River, Calif., debris in, composition of . 88-89

Santa Paula Creek, Calif., crest discharge of 97

Santa Teresa Mountains, Ariz., geologic character of.______.___....__ 195

Sarasota County, Fla., wells in, study of__ 10,

18,19, pis. 3-6, 8

Sawpit Creek, Calif., debris in, composition

of.... . .____... 88-89

Page

Scandia, Kans., Republican River at, flood

discharge of .... . 45, pis. 13,14

Schwennesen, A. T., quoted_ ... 191

Seco Creek, discharge of, near D'Hanis, Tex.. 284

earlier floods on_.....__ __ 236

flood on, discharge from.. . 234-236 

general features of-- 232-233 

rainfall causing ____.....__ 233-234

Second-feet, definition of ___ -- 227 

Second-feet per square mile, definition of 227 

Sedimentary rocks, formations of, in Gila and

San Simon Valley, Ariz......... 196-205

Sediments, character and thickness of, in Ogden Valley, Utah... .__.... 107-110

Sespe Creek, Calif., discharge of..---__-. 97 

Shields Canyon, Calif., crest discharge of 67,82 

Sierrita Mountains, Ariz., geologic character

Of- . 171,172, pis. 43-44 

Silverbell Mountains, Ariz., geologic character of __- 172

Smith, H. V., and Smith, M. C., quoted 220 

Smithville, Tes., Colorado River at, discharge

of...._.......__ 241,242,260-261,283

Smoky Hill River, discharge of, at Ellswortb,

Kans_._._________ 47,52

discharge of, at Enterprise, Kans 47

at Lindsborg, Kans__ 47

Snyder Hill, Ariz., geologic character of. 172

Soil, conservation of, in Gila Valley, Ariz 194

erosion of, relation of, to rainfall 93-94,

pis. 31-32, 34

features of, in La Canada Valley, Calif. 58 

Soldier Creek, discharge of, at Topeka, Kans. _ 48 

Solomon River, discharge of, at Beloit,

Kans....__._.__ __ 47, pi. 11

discharge of, at Niles, Kans ..._ 47,52 

Solomonsville, Ariz., Gila River near.... 207, pi. 47

San Simon Creek near________ pi. 48 

South Llano River, altitude and descent of-... 243 

discharge of, near Telegraph, Tex 245,283 

Spicer, H. C., depth-temperature study of

wells by.__ _..___ 217 

Spicewood, Tes., Pedernales River near, discharge of-_--___-- 266 

Spiegel, J. B., with Follansbee, Robert, Flood 

on Republican and Kansas Rivers, 

May and June 1935..-. 21-52, pis. 10-15 

Spring Branch, Tes., Guadalupe River near,

discharge of . 266-267

Springs, in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz 172 

in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz... 214-217, 

pis. 46, 52, 53 

in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz.,

water from, analyses of- 222 

in Ogden Valley, Utah... 115,136,137,139 

Stage-discharge relation, definition of_ 227 

Staked Plains of Tesas, features of____ 228 

Stranger Creek near Tonganosie, Kans., discharge of--____ _ 48 

Stream flow, in Ogden Valley, Utah_... 144-146 

Structure, features of, in Gila and San Simon

Valley, Ariz. _. 194-195 

Superior, Nebr., Republican River near, discharge of_._ . 49-50 

Surface water, analyses of, from Ogden Valley,

Utah...... ... 160-161
290 INDEX

Page 

Surface water, discharge measurements of, in

Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz. 207 

in Odgen Valley, Utah.. 111-118, pis. 37-39 

irrigation with, in Gila and San Simon

Valley, Ariz..___..... 206-207, pi. 47

Sycamore Creek, discharge of, near Del Rio,

Tex ...... .................. 284

Sycamore Creek Basin, flood in_______ 257

T

Tanque, Ariz., San Simon Creek near__ pis. 47-48

Taylor, G. H., with Leggette, R. M., Geology 

and ground-water resources of 

Ogden Valley, Utah.. 99-161, pis. 35-40

Telegraph, Tex., Paint Creek near, discharge

of............................... 245,283

South Llano River near, discharge of_ 245,283

Terms, definition of.._____________ 227

Tertiary rocks, occurrence of, in Avra-Altar

Valley, Ariz_________ 172, pi. 42 

occurrence of, in Gila and San Simon

Valley, Ariz____________ 195

Tertiary time, events of, in Gila and San

Simon Valley, Ariz. ......_.. 188

Tescott, Kans., Saline River at, discharge of_ 47

Texas Board of Water Engineers, cooperation

with._____________ 1-20, 223-284

Three Rivers, Tex., Nueces River near, discharge of ___ 248, 249, 272-273,284

Tonganoxie, Kans., Stranger Creek near, discharge of...... ......_..__ 48

Topeka, Kans., Kansas River at, discharge

of.._____________ 39, 46, pi. 13 

Soldier Creek at, discharge of______ 48

Topography, Gila and San Simon Valley,

Ariz____________. 183-184, pi. 45 

La Canada Valley.._____ 56-58, pis. 16-18 

Republican River-Kansas River Basin__ 29-31 

Texas_____._____.__ 228-229, pi. 55

Transportation and settlements, Avra-Altar

Valley, Ariz_____..___ 169-170 

Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz____ 185-186

Troxell, H. C., and Peterson, J. Q., Flood in 

La Canada Valley, Calif., Jan. l, 

1934_ __________ 53-98, pis. 16-34

Tucson Mountains, Ariz., geologic character

of 172

Turnbull Mountains, Ariz., geologic character

of __.. 195

Twin Falls South Side project, Idaho, wells in,

study of __ __._____ 8

U

United States Army, Chief of Engineers,

quoted____________ _ 49 

United States Weather Bureau quoted___ 276 

Uvalde, Tex., Nueces River near, discharge

Of.......__........ 248, 249,269-270,284

Valley Falls, Kans., Delaware River at, discharge of-__________.__ 48

Vegetation, Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz.. 169, pis. 43-44 

Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz__ .. 187 

La Canada Valley_____________ 59 

Ogden Valley, Utah..____._____ 106

Pagt

Velocity method of locating salt-water leaks in

wells, operation of______ 8-10, pi. 2

Verdugo Canyon, discharge of, at Wabasso

Way, Calif.. .. 67-68-

Verdugo Mountains, Calif., run-off in..... 98, pi. 34

W

Wabasso Way, Calif., Verdugo Canyon at,

discharge of______.___.... 67-68-

Wakarusa River, discharge of, near Lawrence,

Kans_________...___ 48- 

Wakefleld, Kans., Republican River at___ pi. 14 

Wamego, Kans., -Kansas River at, discharge

of.......... 39, 46, pi. 13

Water, history of use of, in Ogden Valley,

Utah............... ... . 10$

municipal supplies of, in Gila and San

Simon Valley, Ariz_______ 206 

quality of, in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz.... 177-180-

in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz. 217-222 

in Ogden Valley, Utah......... 142,160-161

uses of, in Gila and San Simon Valley,

Ariz.............................. 205-

Water level, in Ogden Valley, Utah, fluctuations of_____________ 126-131 

In Ogden Valley, Utah, records of 154-1591 

Water spreading, in Ogden Valley, Utah, possibilities of. 135-136-

Waterman Mountains, Ariz., geologic character of_____________.. 172 

Waterville, Kans., Little Blue River at, discharge of..___ __ . 48- 

Wells, construction of, to avoid contamination

by salt water_. .. 19-201 

deep, in Gila and San Simon Valley,

Ariz..... . ... 212-214, pi. 5*

depth-temperature relations in.. 217 

in Avra-Altar Valley, Ariz. _ 174-177, pi. 41 

water from, analyses of__ 179-180* 

in Gila and San Simon Valley, Ariz., logs

of .. . 202-20*

records of._____ .... 222 (Inserts)

water from, analyses of. 222" 

in Gila conglomerate, Gila and San Simon

Valley, Ariz. ..____ 208-212, pi. 46

in Ogden Valley, Utah, logs of.. pi. 40-

records of......... 122-131,146-153, pis. 37-38

water from, analyses of. 160-161 

in Quaternary alluvium, Gila and San

Simon Valley, Ariz....... 207-208, pi. 46-

locating salt-water leaks in 1-20, pis. 1-9 

observation, in Ogden Valley, Utah. 122-123, pis.

36-3»

salt-water leaks in, areas studied 3

West Nueces River, altitude and descent of 250-

flood on._....__..... 236-237,247,249-256

discharge of, near Brackettville, Tex__252-256,

284, pi. 62-

near Cline, Tex___ . 284 

Whiteoak Bayou, discharge of, at Houston,

Tex.-.._......_ _ - 283-

Whitsett, Tex., Atascosa River at, discharge

Of _._.___.__ 275-276,284 

Wilson, Kans., Saline River near, discharge of. 4T 

Winter Garden area, Texas, wells in, study

of__.._- 5,9-10,13,14,15,19, pis. 3-» 

Winter Haven, Tex., well near, study of.. 5-6,16, IT