Future Development of the 

Ground-Water Resource in the 

Lower Great Miami River 

Valley, Ohio Problems and 

Alternative Solutions

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 605-D

Prepared in cooperation with the Miami 

Conservancy District and the Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Water, Columbus, Ohio

Future Development of the 

Ground-Water Resource in the 

Lower Great Miami River 

Valley, Ohio Problems and 

Alternative Solutions

By ANDREW M. SPIEKER

GROUND WATER IN THE LOWER GREAT MIAMI RIVER VALLEY, OHIO

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 605-D

Prepared in cooperation with the Miami 

Conservancy District and the Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Water, Columbus, Ohio

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1968
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

William T. Pecora, Director

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

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 20 cents (paper cover)
CONTENTS

Abstract.__________________________________________

Introduction ________________________________________

Purpose of report_____________________________

Cooperation and acknowledgments______________

Ground-water problems.________________________

Variable availability of water_________________

Local overdraft and declining ground-water levels_ 

Economy and efficiency in water use__________

Potential for future ground-water development. 

Flow augmentation and artificial recharge___

Page

Dl

1

1

1

2

2

2

5

7

11

Ground-water problems Continued 

Contamination-_-___-_--_----.

Water-rights law_____________

Ground-water law in Ohio..

Cincinnati well field case .

Summary and conclusions ____.

Selected references._ ____________

Dll 

12

12

13

14

15

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1. Map showing areas of present and future development of large supplies of ground water .

2. Hydrograph of observation well in Hamilton South well field._____________________

3. Hydrograph of observation well at Armco East Works ________-________-___---_--

4. Drawdown map of the Fairfield-New Baltimore area, 1952-62______________________

5. Probable-drawdown map of the Fairfield-New Baltimore area for the period 1962-82_ _

D3

4

6

8

10

GROUND WATER IN THE LOWER GREAT MIAMI RIVER VALLEY, OHIO

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCE IN THE LOWER GREAT 

MIAMI RIVER VALLEY, OHIO PROBLEMS AND ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

By ANDREW M. SPIEKER

ABSTRACT

The valley-train sand and gravel aquifers of the Great Miami 

River valley below Dayton, Ohio, can be expected to yield an 

initial withdrawal of 300 million gallons per day nearly three 

times their present rate of pumpage of 110 million gallons per 

day provided that future developments are sufficiently distant from the present pumping centers. Most of the used ground 

water is returned to the river as sewage and could be recycled 

as induced recharge to the aquifers. This recycling would 

increase the total potential yield of the aquifers to much more 

than the initial withdrawal yield. The only limit on this recycling would be imposed by deterioration of quality of the 

used water or by the cost of treatment necessary to maintain 

adequate quality.

Probably the greatest future problems will be declining 

ground-water levels and local overdraft, both resulting from 

increased water use, ground-water contamination, and the aplication of existing law to situations involving water rights. 

Overdraft can best be avoided by careful spacing of future 

ground-water developments and location of these supplies in 

favorable hydrogeologic environments. Reuse of water by industry is an alternative to developing new supplies, for it can 

materially reduce water consumption. Ground-water contamination, most of which is derived from water induced from 

streams by pumping, can best be controlled by maintaining 

water of good quality in the streams. Plans for management 

of the ground-water resource should include careful consideration of the close interrelation of surface water and ground 

water.

INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE OF REPORT

This report is the final chapter in a series dealing with 

the ground-water resource in the lower Great Miami 

River valley. In planning the investigation it was decided that the overall report would be more useful if it 

were oriented toward specific ground-water problems. 

Thus, each preceding chapter in this series deals with a 

definite aspect of the occurrence of ground water in this 

area, and this chapter provides a summary

Four ground-water problems of particular importance were identified: (1) variable availability of water 

in place and time, (2) local overdraft and declining 

ground-water levels resulting from increased water use,

(3) ground-water contamination, and (4) water-rights 

law. Chapters A, B, and C provide the hydrogeolog'> 

framework necessary for dealing with these problem^ 

Chapter A (Spieker, 1968) deals with the occurrence of 

ground water in relation to its natural environment, tH 

distribution of water in place and time, pumpage of 

ground water, and chemical quality of ground water; 

chapter B (Watkins and Spieker,1 ) will cover geophysical and geological interpretation of seismic refraction surveys conducted to determine the extent ard 

the configuration of the area's buried interglacial valleys; and chapter C (Spieker, 1968) describes an analog-model study of the Fairfield-New Baltimore are-% 

where the city of Cincinnati has proposed the development of a large ground-water supply. Chapter D (tl ^ 

present report) defines existing and anticipated hydrologic, socio-economic, and legal problems connected 

with the future development of the ground-water resources of the lower Great Miami River valley.

COOPERATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological 

Survey in cooperation with the Miami Conservancy 

District, Max L. Mitchell, chief engineer, and the Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, 

C.V. Youngquist, chief. The project was supervised I y 

Stanley E. Norris, district geologist of the U.S. Geological Survey's Ground Water Branch in Ohio, under 

the general direction of the Ohio Water Resources 

Division Council.

A list of representatives of industry and municipalities who assisted in the completion of the investigation 

by providing data and access to their facilities appears 

in the first chapter of the series. In connection with 

the present chapter, the author expresses his appreciation to Messrs. J. E. Barker, R. L. Bookwalter, R. Tr. 

Getter, and H. F. Hansell of Armco Steel Corp. for

1 Report in preparation.

Dl
D2 GROUND WATER IN THE LOWER GREAT MIAMI RIVER VALLEY, OHIO

their cooperation in furnishing the data on which the 

discussion of ground-water problems at the Arrnco 

East Works is based. Charles M. Bolton, Superintendent of the Cincinnati Water Works, Harold F. Augenstein, Superintendent of the Hamilton Water Works, 

and Robert C. Lewis, General Manager of the Southwestern Ohio Water Co., were most cooperative in 

providing the author with data. The material pertaining 

to the water-rights law in Ohio is based largely on 

research by George D. Dove, formerly with the U.S. 

Geological Survey.

GROUND-WATER PROBLEMS

VAKIABLE AVAILABILITY OF WATER

The most general and basic problem regarding development of the ground-water resources of the lower 

Great Miami Biver valley arises from variations in the 

availability and distribution of water with respect to 

place and time. These variations are discussed in some 

detail in chapter A (Spieker, 1968a) of the present series and will be only briefly summarized here. 

Also in chapter A, the area has been classified 

into 11 hydrogeologic environments on the basis of 

hydrologic and geologic factors affecting the ability of 

each part of the area to sustain the development of 

large ground-water supplies. The key factor, then, is 

the availability (or the lack) of water for recharge by 

induced stream infiltration. Figure 1 is a generalized 

map of the area simplified from the more detailed map 

in chapter A. It shows those parts of the study area 

most favorable for the development of large groundwater supplies owing to the availability of stream water 

for induced recharge; those parts less favorable for 

large supplies owing to the lack of available water for 

induced recharge; those areas of existing ground-water 

development; and one area where local overdraft is a 

problem.

The existing centers of pumping are mainly in and 

around the area's major cities, and the only area of 

chronic overdraft is southeast of Middletown. The 

areas most favorable for the development of large 

ground-water supplies are between West Carrollton and 

Miamisburg, between Franklin and Middletown, in the 

vicinity of Trenton, between Fairfield and Koss, southwest of New Baltimore, and in the lower Whitewater 

River valley south of Harrison. The last-mentioned 

area has the greatest untapped ground-water potential 

of any part of the lower Great Miami Eiver valley.

Variations in the storage of ground water with respect to time are best expressed by a hydrograph, or a 

graph showing fluctuations in the elevation of the water 

surface which reflect changes in storage in the aquifer. 

Figure 2 is the hydrograph of observation well Bu-7,

which is in the Hamilton South well field. The fluctuations shown by this graph are typical of these observed 

in the valley-train aquifers of the lower Great Miami 

River valley. An annual cyclic fluctuation <cf 8-10 feet, 

caused by recharge during the winter and spring and by 

discharge during the summer and fall, fc observed. 

Since 1956 the Hamilton South well field has been 

pumping an average of 7.5 mgd (million gallons per 

day). This pumping has caused a lowering of the water 

surface of aJbout 4 feet and has slightly accentuated the 

peaks of the hydrograph (fig. 2) but has caused no 

persistent downward trend. The cone of depression appears to have become stabilized fairly soon after pumping started. Such an absence of any persistent downward trend indicates that the hydrologic system in this 

area is capable of sustaining pumping at the existing 

rate. The next section considers water-level fluctuations 

in a part of the area where the aquifer h?s been subjected to long-term overdraft.

LOCAL OVERDRAFT AND DECLINING 

GROUND-WATER LEVELS

Total ground-water pumpage in the lower Great 

Miami River valley in 1964 is estimated to have been 

110 mgd, mostly concentrated in and around the larger 

cities, as indicated in figure 1. Historical records are not 

sufficiently complete to show just how fast the amount 

of ground-water pumpage has increased H the area; 

however, pumpage is estimated to have approximately 

doubled from the beginning of World War II to 1964, 

the year used as an example in the present investigation. Ground-water pumpage is known to have increased from 90 mgd in 1954 to 110 mgd in 1964.

The trend of increasing waiter use is expected to continue. As the area's industrial capacity increases, so 

does the water demand. Increased industrialization is 

expected to bring about population increases, which 

will place added demands on the area's municipal water 

supplies, nearly all of which depend on ground water 

as the source. Per capita water demand probably will 

also continue to increase owing, at least in part, to expected increases in the use of automatic washing appliances. The most conservative estimate is tl at the 1964 

rate of water use is likely to be doubled by tH year 2000. 

According to some estimates, water use will double by 

1980. The truth probably lies somewhere between these 

two extremes. In any event, the gravel aquifers of the 

lower Great Miami River valley will undoubtedly be 

required to meet greatly increased water demands in 

the future.

If water is withdrawn from an aquifer at a rate that 

exceeds the rate of recharge over a period of years, 

overdraft of the system results, as indicated by per-
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCE, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS D3

84°30'

39°30'

Kettering

West Carrollton

// 

I Miamisburg

^Cincinnati

_

PREBLE_COUNTY WARREN COUNTY""

BUTLER COUNTY

Approximate boundarji 

of major buried valley

GROUND-WATER AREAS

I '^^WygggSffg K /tfijrimr 'ik^4j*-*&^im

Less favorable for 

future development 

of large supplies

FIGURE 1. Areas of present and future development of large supplies of ground water.
UJ UJ

u-0

10

15

Observation well Bu-7

LU t/) 20

25

t- _1

0. UJ 

LU 0} 

Q

30

35

40

45

^6-ft recovery due to cessation 

of pumping at FWA well field .4-ft drawdown caused/ 

by pumping at 

Hamilton South well 

field

1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1

FIGURE 2. Effects of recharge and pumping on water levels in the Hamilton South well field.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCE, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS D5

sistently declining water levels. In 1964 this situation 

exists in only one part of the lower Great Miami 

River valley, near the Annco East Works, southeast 

of Middletown. Figure 3 is the hydrograph of observation well Bu-3 at this plant. Average daily pumpage 

of ground water for each year of record is shown 

below the graph. The hydrograph indicates alternating 

periods of overdraft and recharge, varying largely 

with the rate of pumping at the plant. During this 

period of record, ground-water levels generally remained stable or rose when the pumping rate was less 

than 8.5 mgd, and they generally declined when pumpage exceeded this amount. The foregoing statement is 

simply an empirical observation, as other factors can 

significantly affect rates of recharge, such as variations 

in precipitation and evapotranspiratioii rates. The 

record of ground-water levels indicates that the perennial yield, or "safe" yield, of the aquifer in this vicinity 

is about 8.5 mgd. Thus, the water supply of the plant 

is very limited.

Two alternatives are available to any industry that 

has a water-supply problem. The industry can either 

make more efficient use of its available supply or seek 

additional sources of supply. For example, Armco 

could pipe water from additional wells developed on 

company-owned land near Trenton or it could make 

more efficient use of the available supply. The procedures for water reuse adopted by Armco are an example of how more efficient use can be made of an 

existing resource.

ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY IN WATEGR, USB

Water is generally abundant in the Great Miami 

Kiver valley. As a result, the area's economy, which is 

largely industrial, is keyed to this abundance. Most 

industries in the lower Great Miami River valley have 

taken water for granted and have not seriously attempted to conserve water, as industries in areas where 

water is scarce have been forced to do. Up to now, the 

present report series has considered problems of supply 

and has not considered what is done with the water 

once it is taken from the ground. Economical utilization 

of water, however, can have a pronounced effect on 

supply if processes can be developed whereby industrial 

capacity can be maintained while water consumption is 

reduced. How one plant effected such economies can be 

seen in the pumping history of the Armco East Works.

The East Works of Armco Steel Corp. at Middletown 

is the largest industry in that city and one of the largest 

in the mapped area. As a producer of rolled steel 

products, this factory requires a large amount of water, 

mostly for cooling purposes. The plant is located on 

the east side of the buried valley of the ancestral Great

2S2-1ZJ

Miami River at the mouth of the buried valley of 

ancestral Todds Fork, in the southeastern part of 

Middletown. The sand-and-gravel aquifer in this buried 

valley is less than 100 feet thick and is covered t^ a 

layer 100 feet or more thick of till and lake clay that 

acts as a semiconnning bed. Much of the sand and 

gravel is fine grained and of low permeability. The 

Great Miami River, about a mile and a half distant, is 

the nearest adequate source of water either for recha rge 

to the aquifer or for an alternate supply. These factors 

combine to limit the development of a large water 

supply in the immediate vicinity of the Armco East 

Works.

Because of the plant's location, the ground-water 

supply in the vicinity has been taxed to the utmost. 

From 1939 to 1955 Annco pumped between 7.2 and 10.5 

mgd of ground water and required, in addition, as 

much as 19 mgd of surface water. The hydrograph of 

observation well Bu-3 (fig. 3) at the plant shows 

gradual depletion of the aquifer. From a depth of 

about 100 feet when the record was begun in 1939, the 

water level in this well declined steadily (broken only 

by partial recovery in years of abundant rainfall and 

relatively low pumping) to 145 feet in 1955. Clearly, 

pumping at the then prevailing rate could not be continued indefinitely. The company had three poss;ble 

ways of solving their water-shortage problem: cutting 

production, seeking alternate sources of water, or using 

less water. The last course of action was chosen.

In 1955 Armco initiated a program of improving its 

utilization of water. A clarifier capable of treating and 

recycling 23 mgd of water and five cooling towers 

capable of recirculating about 40 mgd were put into 

operation. As a result of these procedures the plant was 

able to double its production while reducing its use of 

ground water to around 8 mgd and its use of surface 

water to around 10 mgd. The plant's total water demrnd 

is over 80 mgd, of which less than 20 mgd is actually 

replenished from ground- and surface-water sources. 

The remainder is recycled. The recovery of the ws^ter 

level in Bu-3 in 1956, though partially due to abundant 

rainfall, reflects the effect of this reduction of pumpg^e.

After the water conservation measures were put into 

effect, however, increased plant production again forced 

ground-water pumpage beyond the critical level of 8.5 

mgd. From 1959 through 1964 (fig. 3), pumpage averaged 9.7 mgd. Pumping at this rate, together with the 

generally dry conditions that prevailed during this period, caused the water level to decline steadily, frori a 

high of 78 feet below the surface in 1959 to a low of 132 

feet by the end of 1964. Unless abundant recharge in the 

near future reverses the trend, the plant will again be 

forced to reevaluate its water utilization.
FEET IN WATER, TO DEPTH 

SURFACE LAND BELOW 

H3>LVA!L KCI HUM, IPSEVDNC H3AIH ' OIHO 
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCE, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS D7

In 1965 Armco began expanding its facilities with a 

new plant, about a mile southeast of the existing East 

Works. Test drilling at the plant site indicates that an 

abundant ground-water supply is available. The static 

water level in test wells ranged from 14 to 35 feet below 

the surface. The water surface is relatively high at present, but because the new plant is situated in the same 

hyclrogeologie environment of limited supply as is the 

present East Works, the cone of depression caused by 

pumping at the new plant may eventually intersect the 

cone around the existing production wells and result in 

further spreading of the overall cone of depression in 

the area. Water levels in this vicinity should be monitored so that corrective measures can be taken if the 

aquifer should appear to be in danger of being 

dewatered at some future date.

The foregoing example of efficient water utilization is 

cited to suggest one possible solution to the problems of 

increased water use. When similar situations arise elsewhere in the Miami River valley, more efficient utiliza,- 

tion of water should be considered as an alternative to 

developing additional supplies. The abundance of water 

in the Great Miami River valley implies that little effort 

has had to be made to conserve it. Water-conservation 

measures such as those effected by Armco may involve 

considerable expense and are not likely to be undertaken 

unless there is no less costly method. In the future there 

may indeed be no less costly alternative. When problems 

of overdraft or declining water levels arise, the amount 

of water pumped usually is reduced, which may involve 

curtailment of plant operations. It would be well in the 

future to design plant facilities that require a minimum 

of makeup water in recirculation systems.

The overdraft problem at the Armco East Works is 

an exceptional situation in the lower Great Miami River 

valley. At the present rate of increase in the area's water 

requirements, overdraft of this magnitude probably will 

not become widespread in the foreseeable future, unless 

major well fields are developed near or within the present pumping centers.

POTENTIAL! FOB FUTURE GROUND1 -WATER 

X>EVEIiOPMiE!NT

The potential sustained yield of the lower Great 

Miami River valley's aquifers exceeds present use. Figure 1 shows that less than half the total area of these 

aquifers has been developed. Even the areas shown in 

figure 1 as developed have not necessarily been tapped to 

their maximum potential. The area's present pumpage 

of 110 mgd is largely concentrated around the major 

cities; vast segments of the aquifer remain virtually 

untapped.

The term "sustained yield" as used in the following 

discussion refers to the initial withdrawal which can be 

achieved without exceeding the rate of recharge to the 

aquifers over an extended period of time. As discussed 

in chapter A of the present series (Spieker, 1968a), 

the pumping of ground water from an aquifer hydraulically connected with a stream will, on the average, redroe 

the flow of the stream between the point of withdrawal 

and the point of sewage return. However, since most of 

the water withdrawn from the aquifers is returned to the 

Great Miami River as sewage at a point near the point 

of withdrawal, the net effect on streamflow is slight. 

Thus, some of the streamflow consists of used water; 

through induced recharge, some of this used water is 

recycled back into the aquifers. As both the withdrawal 

of ground water and the discharge of sewage into the 

stream are expected to increase in the future, it is possible to visualize repeated recycling of water from the 

ground to its point of use, to the river, and then back into 

the aquifers. The system's sustained yield can thus be 

exceeded without depleting the aquifer.

An indication of the sustained yield of the area's 

aquifers can be obtained by projection of the results of 

an analog-model study of the Fairfield-New Baltimore 

area, southwest of Hamilton. This study, a part of the 

present investigation, was undertaken to determine the 

hydrologic effects of a large ground-water supply being 

considered by the city of Cincinnati. The results of the 

study are described in detail in chapter C (Spieker, 

1968b). The following brief summary is intended to 

show that the hydrologic system in this part of the project area is capable of sustaining nearly four times the 

present rate df initial withdrawal.

The Fairfield-New Baltimore area is underlain almost 

entirely by the 32-square-mile segment of the valleytrain aquifer immediately southwest of Hamilton (f g. 

1). Figure 4 is a map showing the drawdown caused by 

pumping in this area through the end of 1962. Total 

pumpage in the area averages 22 mgd, concentrated 

mainly at two centers: the Southwestern Ohio Water 

Co. well field in the western part of the area, pumping 

about 13 mgd, and the Hamilton South well field in the 

eastern part of the area, pumping 7.5 mgd (fig. 4). T\e 

maximum drawdown is 15 feet, at the Southwestern 

Ohio field. As the saturated thickness of the aquifer is 

more than 150 feet in most of the area, this drawdowr is 

not considered to be excessive. Analysis of analog-model 

data indicates that the cone of depression had ceared 

spreading long before 1962, the end of the modeled 

pumping period.

Figure 5 is a drawdown contour map of the same 

area showing the predicted effect of pumping of 40 

mgd (in addition to all present pumping) at the site
39°16' 

Pumping w

Nonpumping 

Letter symbol is wel

number indicates draw

Line of equal water-le

Interval 1, x,', and 

Valley boun

Arbitrary model 

2 MILES 

I

FIGURE 4. Map of the Fairfleld-New Baltimore area showing drawdown caused by pumping, 1952-62. Data based on analo
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCE, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

proposed by Cincinnati for the period 1962-82. Pumping at existing well fields is doubled for the period 1972- 

82, simulating the anticipated increase in future water 

demands. The total pumpage in this simulated run is 

84 mgd nearly four times the present rate. The cone 

of depression caused by this anticipated pumping increase extends beneath the entire area. The maximum 

drawdown is 32 feet, at the Southwestern Ohio and the 

proposed Cincinnati well fields. As in the previous example, model studies (Spieker, 968b, fig. 23) indicated that equilibrium will have been attained long before the end of the pumping period. Under these modeled conditions the aquifer system of the Fairfield-New 

Baltimore area can sustain indefinitely pumping of 

84 mgd without any further spreading of the cone of 

depression.

The analog-model study of the Fairfield-New Baltimore area can be used as a basis to estimate the sustained yield of the valley-fill aquifers of the entire lower 

Great Miami River valley. This study shows that the 

Fairfield-New Baltimore area can yield 62 mgd more 

than the present initial withdrawal rate of 22 mgd, a 

total initial withdrawal of 84 mgd. The parts of the 

report area shown in figure 1 as favorable for groundwater development total about l1/^ times the size of the 

Fairfield-New Baltimore area.

Owing to the similarity of the hydrogeologic environment of these favorable areas the valley-fill aquifers 

to that of the Fairfield-New Baltimore area, the analog-model study can be projected to estimate the sustained yield of the favorable areas to be 126 mgd, or 

l!/2 times that of the Fairfield-New Baltimore area. 

The present pumpage of 110 mgd in the lower Great 

Miami River valley, added to the preceding 126 mgd 

for the favorable areas and the additional 62 mgd for 

the Fairfield-New Baltimore area total 298 mgd, which 

can be regarded as a conservative estimate of the sustained yield of the lower Great Miami River valley 

aquifers. The estimate is conservative for three reasons. 

First, 84 mgd is less than the maximum possible sustained yield of the Fairfield-New Baltimore area. Second, the estimate does not include any further development that might be possible in the areas already tapped 

by pumping wells. These areas are by no means fully 

developed. Chronic overdraft is likely to result only if 

additional large ground-water supplies are clustered 

near existing centers of pumping or if present pumping 

rates are substantially increased. These centers are defined in greater detail in chapter A (Spieker, 1968a), 

pis. 1, 2). Finally, the foregoing estimate does not include development of the less favorable areas, which 

might yield as much as 20 mgd. Therefore, the sustained 

yield of the report area is, in round figures, at least 300

mgd, which is close to the discharge of 316 mgd, or 490 

cubic feet per second, of Great Miami River at Hamilton that is equaled or exceeded 90 percent of the time.

The initial-withdrawal sustained yield estimated in 

the preceding discussion is meaningful only as a minimum amount of water which can be withdrawn from 

the valley-fill aquifers without exceeding recharge. 

Most large ground-water supplies, both existing and 

proposed, will be sustained by induced stream recharge. 

Availability of such recharge depends in large part on 

maintaining adequate streamflow. The withdrawal of 

ground water, as explained previously, will not cau^e 

any substantial net reduction of streamflow, because 

most of the water withdrawn from the aquifer is returned to the river as sewage.

Pumping at well fields from which water is trarsferred out of the Great Miami River drainage basin, 

such as the well field now operated by the Southwestern 

Ohio Water Co. and the one proposed by the city of 

Cincinnati, would result in a net reduction of streamflow. Southwestern Ohio Water Co. at present pumps 

about 15 mgd, and Cincinnati proposes to pump not 

more than 40 mgd. Even if Southwestern Ohio should 

double its present pumping rate, the total withdrawn 

from the drainage basin would be 70 mgd, which is less 

than one-quarter of the discharge of Great Miami River 

at Hamilton that is equaled or exceeded 90 percent of 

the time. Therefore, the interbasin transfer of 70 mgd 

would not result in any serious depletion of streamflow.

As long as the rate of interbasin transfer does not 

increase to the point where it becomes a major part 

of the river's base flow, the aquifer could be developed 

well beyond its initial-withdrawal sustained yield by 

recycling the water from the aquifer to the point of 

use, to the river as sewage, and then back to the aquifer 

as induced recharge. If quantity were the only factor 

involved, there is no reason why this cycle could not 

be repeated indefinitely.

Constraints are certain to be imposed on the use of 

the aquifer system beyond its initial withdrawal sustained yield, however, by considerations of water quality and economics. The water returned to the river is 

generally of poorer quality than that initially withdrawn from the aquifers. Such deterioration of quality 

may result from both the addition of wastes and an increase of the water temperature. Increased pumping, 

accompanied by increased discharge of sewage into the 

river, is therefore likely to result in ground-water contamination through the infiltration of contaminated 

used water. For this reason, any increase in the withdrawal rate substantially beyond the sustained yield 

of 300 mgd would have to be accompanied with either
39°16' 

84°41'

Proposed Cincinnati 

well field

Nonpumping 

Lt'tter symbol is wel

number indicates draw

Line of equal water-le

Interval 1, 2, and 

Valley boun

Arbitrary model 

2 MILES

FIGURE 5. Probable drawdown in the Fairfield-New Baltimore area caused by anticipated pumping, 1962-82. Data based on analog study. 

proposed Cincinnati well field assumed to be 40 mgd, and at existing well fields, 44 mgd.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCE, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS Dll

a higher degree of sewage treatment or an augmentation of the river's low flow.

Although measures to improve the quality of river 

water with increased ground-water use may prove to 

be technologically feasible, the cost may be prohibitive. 

On the other hand, improvements in technology might 

also reduce the cost of treating wastes. In the final analysis, the ultimate limit on the use of the ground-water 

resource in the lower Great Miami Eiver valley may 

be dictated by economic considerations rather than by 

technology or the capacity of the aquifer system.

The ultimate extent of development of the area's 

ground-water resource will have to be based 011 consideration of the close interconnection of the groundwater and surface-water components of the hydrologic 

system. Any well-integrated and well-coordinated plans 

for development of the area's water resources must 

balance water supply needs with needs for waste dilution, recreation, and the esthetic objective of maintaining clean and attractive streams.

Two techniques which may be used to accomplish 

these other objectives in conjunction with the effective 

development of the ground-water resource are flow augmentation and artificial recharge.

FX.OW AUGMENTATION AND ARTIFICIAL 

RECHARGE

Most large ground-water supplies in the lower Great 

Miami Eiver valley are at the present time sustained by 

induced recharge from the river. It is estimated that 

such induced recharge could sustain three times the 

present rate of initial withdrawal provided future 

ground-water developments are properly spaced and 

located favorably with respect to the stream. Development of supplies with yields in excess of this quantity, 

however, may require such measures as artificial recharge. At the present time, artificial recharge is not 

practiced in the lower Great Miami Eiver valley, 

mainly because it has not yet been necessary. The city of 

Dayton, however, has depended on artificial recharge 

for many years to sustain the major part of its municipal water supply of over 40 mgd. Water from the Mad 

Eiver is diverted into a series of interconnected lagoons 

from which it is allowed to infiltrate the sand and gravel 

aquifer. This system was described by Norris and 

Spieker (1966, p. 83-88). Thus, the city of Dayton can 

pump as much as 60 mgd from its Eohrers Island well 

field while maintaining water levels generally less than 

30 feet below land surface.

Artificial recharge as a means of increasing aquifer 

yields in the lower Great Miami Eiver valley might be 

used in connection with any of the various proposals for 

augmentation of the low flow of the Great Miami Eiver.

Low-flow augmentation, whereby peak runoff is stored 

in reservoirs and gradually released during extended 

periods of low flow, is intended primarily to improve 

the chemical quality of the river water during these 

periods by diluting contaminants. Maintaining a high 

flow of water of reasonably good quality would merer se 

the amount available for artificial recharge during dryweather periods. Such measures might best be used as 

part of an overall program of basin-wide water 

management.

CONTAMINATION

One of the principal advantages of a ground-water 

supply over a surface-water source in the lower Great 

Miami Eiver valley is that the chemical quality of the 

ground water is superior in some important aspects. The 

Great Miami Eiver, like most streams in heavily populated and industrialized areas, has been subjected to 

contamination by sewage and industrial wastes, particularly during periods of low flow. The dependence 

of many large ground-water supplies on recharge by 

induced stream infiltration therefore raises the distinct possibility that these supplies might become 

contaminated.

The foregoing statement does not imply that induced 

recharge from polluted streams will invariably result 

in the serious contamination of ground-water supplies. 

The relation between pollutants in surface waters and 

the ground-water environment is a complex one. Some 

contaminants may be eliminated or reduced in concentration by nitration, sorption, dilution, or ion exchar ge 

while passing through the aquifer materials (Deutsch, 

1965, p. 39). Other contaminants may not be so affected. 

Many of the bacteria present in polluted streams will be 

killed in the anaerobic environment of ground water. 

Generally, ground water receiving induced recharge 

from a polluted stream can be expected to be of better 

quality than the stream water. Much additional research 

is needed to fully understand the effects of induced 

infiltration on various pollutants present in streams.

Whereas contamination of a stream is a transient 

phenomenon and will disappear quickly once correct: ve 

measures are taken, contamination of a ground-water 

supply is far more persistent. Once contaminants get 

into an aquifer, it might take many years for the ground 

water to flush them out owing to its slow movement.

Water in some wells recharged by induced stream 

infiltration has become slightly contaminated chiefly 

in wells in and near the major pumping centers of 

Chautauqua, Middletown, Hamilton, Fairfield, and 

Eoss. Evidence of contamination consists of the presence of minute quantities of substances such as detergents (ABS), phenols, and ammonia nitrogen which 

do not occur naturally in waters. Although the degree
D12 GROUND WATER IN THE LOWER GREAT MIAMI EIVER VALLEY, OHIO

of contamination is not yet sufficient to render the water 

unfit for consumption or even to be considered serious, 

the quality of water from wells known to be receiving 

induced recharge should be periodically checked so that 

corrective measures can be taken should the contamination appear to become serious.

As more and more ground-water supplies become 

dependent on recharge by induced stream infiltration, 

the problem of ground-water contamination can be expected to become more widespread. The only possible 

means of averting this problem is to go to the source of 

the contaminants and either prevent or regulate their 

dissemination. (This would involve preventing contaminants from entering the streams, or, alternatively, 

ensuring that the concentrations of contaminants are 

maintained at acceptable levels.) Flow augmentation 

appears to be one acceptable solution to the problem of 

contamination. Other solutions might be a more complete treatment of sewage and industrial wastes or an 

alternate means of disposal for the most highly toxic 

substances. In short, the only way to prevent contaminated stream water from entering the valley aquifer 

is to maintain an acceptable quality of water in the 

streams.

WATER-BIGHTS LAW 

GROUND-WATER I^ATT IN OHIO

As the withdrawal of water from a hydrologic system approaches the capacity of that system, conflict is 

bound to develop among the various users of water. 

Resolution of such conflicts is achieved in courts of 

law. Thus, to examine the water laws of Ohio and to 

discuss their relation to both the problems of today and 

those anticipated in the future is pertinent to the present investigation.

Two basic types of water-rights law exist in the 

United States: the doctrine of riparian rights and the 

doctrine of appropriation. The doctrine of riparian 

rights, which dates to early English common law, is 

based on ownership of land and applies generally in the 

Eastern States, where the climate is humid. In general 

terms, the doctrine of riparian rights as modified by 

courts in the United States holds that the owner of land 

adjacent to a stream or lake is entitled to reasonable 

use, on the riparian land, of the water of said stream or 

lake and to underground water from any well or spring 

on his property. The owner retains his right to this 

water whether he uses it or not. Such a doctrine would 

not be adequate where the climate is arid, as in the western part of the United States, where the water supply 

is smaller than the demand. Consequently, the doctrine 

of appropriation has been adopted by many of the 

Western States. This doctrine is a statutory law which

considers all water as public property and grants rights 

to citizens based on use of the water. A generalized 

statement of the doctrine of appropriation in its original form might be that the first user to be granted a 

water right by the State has precedence over subsequent 

users, and he must continue to use the water in order 

to maintain his right to its use. The doctrine has been 

modified in several States so that a user need not continually use the full amount of his appropriation in 

order to maintain his right. The preceding explanations are, of course, considerably simplified; the waterrights law of many States contains elements of both 

these doctrines.

Water-rights law in Ohio is based on the doctrine of 

riparian rights, as modified by various court decisions. 

Three decisions are particularly significant in the application of water rights to ground water in Ohio.

In the case of Frazier v. Brown, 12 O.S. 294 (1861), 

the plaintiff claimed that the defendant dug a hole on 

his own property but near a spring on plaintiff's property. The plaintiff contended that, in digging the hole 

and withdrawing water from it, the defendant had 

destroyed the plaintiff's spring and a stream which had 

been fed by the spring and had flowed over the plaintiff's property. The court, in disregarding the plaintiff's allegation, classified all waters into four 

categories: (1) surface streams which flow in permanent, distinct, and well-defined channels; (2) surface 

waters without any distinct channel; (3) subterranean 

streams; and (4) subsurface percolating voters. The 

court then decided that the case should be treated as 

involving only rights in percolating water, not recognizing that ground water and surface wate" are interrelated. In recognizing no rights of ownership of 

percolating waters, the court stated the following 

opinion (p. 311) :

Because the existence, origin, movement, and course of 

such waters, and the causes which govern and direct their 

movements are so secret, occult, and concealed, that an 

attempt to administer any set of legal rules in respect to 

them would be involved in hopeless uncertainty, and 

would be, therefore, practically impossible.

This decision reflected the general knowledge of the 

hydrologic cycle in 1861.

An Ohio court in 1887, however, rendered a decision 

which follows a line of reasoning opposite to that of the 

Fra&ier v. Brown case. The case of Warder and Barnett 

v. City of Spring-field, 9 Ohio Dec. Eep. 855 (1887), 

arose when the City of Springfield excavated below the 

water table for its public water supply near Buck Creek 

in Clark County. Pumping of water from this hole 

reversed the natural hydraulic gradient and caused 

water to flow from the stream into the aauifer. The 

plaintiff contended that this pumping and the resultant
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCE, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS D13

reduction of streamflow reduced the flow through his 

mill race. The lower court granted an injunction against 

the defendent based on the following opinion:

No man can rightfully dig a channel from a running 

stream, and thus divert the waters thereof to the injury of 

a lower proprietor. What he cannot do directly, he cannot do 

indirectly. He therefore has no right to construct a well, 

trench, or reservoir upon his own land, in such manner that 

by filtrating or creating artificial underground channels, he 

will withdraw water through the soil from a running stream 

to the injury of a lower proprietor.

Here, the court recognized that the stream and the aquifer are parts of the same hydrologic system and that 

taking water from the ground would, in efl'ect, reduce 

the flow of the stream.

In a later case, a lower court reverted to the philosophy of the Frailer v. Brown case. The Miami Conservancy District in 1924 deepened the channel of the 

Mad Elver near Dayton, resulting in a lowering of the 

water table. A landowner adjacent to the river sought 

damages (in re Mi-ami Conservancy District, 25 Ohio 

N.P. (ns.) 325 (1925)), claiming that said lowering of 

the water table put him to considerable expense in deepening his well. The court denied his claim, holding that 

the water in the aquifer was moving toward the stream, 

rather than away from it, and hence should be regarded 

as percolating water.

Contamination of ground-water supplies has not as 

yet become a generally serious problem in Ohio. Consequently, there is little legal precedent. The common law, 

as clarified in Frazier v. Broivn, holds that "the considerations of policy which govern the right to take 

water do not apply to its pollution. Pollution of percolating water is a wrong for which an action will lie 

and * * * the liability does not depend on negligence" 

(Callahan, 1957, p. 22). In other words, the liability for 

pollution is absolute. Ohio Revised Code (1951), section 

6111 states: "Under this law it is unlawful * * * to discharge harmful substances into any of the waters in the 

state except under a valid permit issued by the pollution 

control board." [Italics added by the author.]

These laws and legal precedent pertaining to pollution appear to be adequate to deal with any situation 

involving ground-water contamination; but contamination of ground water, unlike contamination of a stream, 

is not a transient phenomenon. Once a contaminant is in 

the ground, it may be several years, or even decades, 

after the contaminant is discovered and its source isolated before it is completely discharged from the aquifer. Although adequate legal control must be maintained the only real remedy for the contamination of 

ground water is its prevention.

So far in the history of Ohio, relatively few cases 

involving water rights have had to be settled in courts

of law, owing chiefly to the general abundance of water 

and the lack of conflict over its use. In the future, however, as the demand for water increases while the supj *y 

remains constant, it is highly probable that an increasing number of water-rights cases will come to court. The 

doctrine of riparian rights as modified by judicial decisions has generally been adequate for dealing with 

problems involving water rights up to the present; however, in the future these laws may not prove adequate.

Legislation may be required in the future to eliminr.te 

any confusion and to set up well-defined standards for 

the solution of water-rights problems. To be effective, 

such legislation should be based on sound scientific 

principles.

CINCINNATI WELL FIELD CASE

In recent years a situation involving water rights in 

part of the lower Great Miami Eiver valley has generated considerable interest. The city of Cincinnati announced plans in 1961 to develop a large ground-water 

supply near Fairfield, southwest of Hamilton. Details 

of the proposal and the hydrogeologic setting of the 

Fairfield-New Baltimore area are discussed in chapter 

C of the present series (Spieker, 1968b). Cincinnati, 

whose population exceeds that of the entire lower Gre,at 

Miami River valley area, is not so fortunately situated 

with respect to ground-water supplies. Its present 

source, the Ohio River, is relatively distant from the 

rapidly expanding northwestern suburban area and is 

subject to pollution during periods of low streamflow. 

The perennial yield of the sand and gravel aquifer in 

the Mill Creek valley Cincinnati's major industrial 

district is only about 8.5 mgd.

On two previous occasions, Cincinnati industry h n,s 

sought relief from water shortages by coming to the 

more plentiful sources in the Great Miami River valley. 

First, in World War II the Federal Works Agency 

developed a well field in the valley south-southwest of 

Hamilton to supply the Wright Aeronautical Corp. 

plant at Lockland. From July 1943 through August 

1945 this well field yielded an average of about 8 mgd 

(Bernhagen and Schaefer, 1947, p. 20). After the wr,r, 

pumping was discontinued, and the well field was sold 

to the city of Hamilton, which reactivated it in 1956 as 

the South well field.

In 1952 a group of 13 industries in the Mill Creek vr,lley area formed the Southwestern Ohio Water Co., a 

cooperatively owned subsidiary whose sole purpose is to 

supply water to the plants. A well field was developed 

near Ross, from which water is pumped through a, pipeline over the divide and into the Mill Creek valley to a 

reservoir near Sharonville. Pumpage at the well field 

averages about 13-15 mgd.
D14 GROUND WATER IN THE LOWER GREAT MIAMI RIVER VALLEY, OHIO

Cincinnati's present proposal, then, is the third | 

time that interests in the Cincinnati metropolitan 

area have turned to the Great Miami Biver valley for 

ground water. The proposal has met with considerable 

opposition owing to the location of the well-field site in 

Butler County the county adjacent to Hamilton 

County, in which Cincinnati is located (fig. 1). When the 

proposal was first announced, Butler County civic leaders expressed fears that the new well field might endanger existing water supplies. Although the results of 

several hydrologic investigations (Spieker, 1968b) suggest that the new well field can be developed without 

endangering existing supplies, the proposal still has 

opposition.

In 1963 the Butler Water Conservancy District (not 

affiliated with the Miami Conservancy District) was 

created (No. 80379, Butler County Common Pleas 

Court) for the stated purpose of conservation of the 

ground-water resources of Butler County. The Conservancy Act of Ohio, enacted in 1914, permits citizens of 

any area to organize a conservancy district for flood control or other water-management purposes. In December 

1963 the Butler Water Conservancy District obtained a 

temporary injunction against the city of Cincinnati that 

halted construction of the new well field.

The legal point in question in this case is whether or 

not a conservancy district has the right to prevent or 

regulate the development of a ground-water supply. The 

Conservancy Act (Section 6101. 1-84, Ohio Revised 

Code) specifies that a district may regulate streamflow. 

Inasmuch as the proposed ground-water supply would 

be sustained partly by induced stream infiltration, 

streamflow could conceivably be affected. Thus, the law 

could possibly be interpreted to mean that a district can 

regulate streamflow indirectly by controlling groundwater pumpage.

On December 27, 1963, Cincinnati filed a petition in 

quo warranto in the Ohio Supreme Court, challenging 

the right of the Butler Water Conservancy District to 

prevent construction of the well field. In a unanimous 

decision on February 2, 1966, the Supreme Court (No. 

38578, State, ex rel. City of Cincinnati v. Butler Water 

Conservancy District, 5 Ohio St. 2d) dismissed Cincinnati's petition, maintaining that Cincinnati does not 

have authority to invoke the original jurisdiction of the 

Supreme Court, thereby bypassing the Court of Common Pleas and the Court of Appeals. This decision, in 

effect, has settled only a point of law and has thrown the 

question of Cincinnati's right to develop its well field 

back to the Butler County Common Pleas Court.

Another legal question pertinent to the Cincinnati 

case, though not an issue in the current litigation, concerns the matter of interbasin transfer of water.

Although such transfer is a common practice in Ohio, as 

well as elsewhere, to the author's knowledge it has never 

been challenged in Ohio courts. There exists however, 

a precedent in the case of Forbell v. City of New York 

(1900 164 N.Y. 522, 58 N.E. 644), in which the court 

ruled that the use of ground water must be reasonable, 

and that the use on land not overlying the wrter source 

was not reasonable. This decision, though it has been followed in other States, predates modern concepts of water 

management, which recognize and even advocate interbasin transfer as a desirable management practice.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Increased use of ground water appears certain in the 

future development of the lower Great Miami River valley. If future ground-water supplies are locrted where 

they can be sustained by induced stream infiltration and 

away from existing centers of pumping, th^ area can 

probably sustain an initial withdrawal rate of 300 mgd, 

or nearly three times the present pumping rate of 110 

mgd. The rate of 300 mgd should not, however, be considered as a limit on the development of the area's 

ground-water resource. Unless a substantial part of the 

initial withdrawal is removed from the Great Miami 

River basin, most of the ground water initially withdrawn will be eventually returned to the river as sewage. Therefore, increased ground-water punpage will 

result in little depletion of streamflow, as the water will 

be, in effect, recycled from the aquifers, tl rough the 

point of use, back to the river as sewage, and finally, 

back to the aquifers as induced recharge. Th°- only limits on the number of times the water can be recycled are 

imposed by the deterioration of water quality with each 

reuse and the cost of more complete treatment than is 

presently accomplished. Artificial recharge of the aquifers and augmentation of low flow in the river can 

enhance both the efficient development of the groundwater resource and the maintenance of adequate quality 

of the river water. Much more research into the interrelation of surface water and ground water as components of the hydrologic system will be needed to ensure 

the optimum development of the area's ground-water 

resource.

The two most serious problems likely to be encountered relate to declining ground-water leveLs and local 

overdraft caused by increased water use and to groundwater contamination. The problem of overdraft can be 

partially averted by giving careful consideration to the 

location of large ground-water supplies whe^e the aquifer is not yet extensively developed. Good examples 

of such places are the segments of the Great Miami 

River valley between Franklin and Middletown, the 

vicinity of Trenton, the area between Fairfield and Ross
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCE, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS D15

(where Cincinnati proposes to build its well field), and 

in the lower Whitewater River valley south of Harrison. This last part of the area is the largest untapped 

source of ground water in southwestern Ohio.

Overdraft of the ground-water supply can also be 

curtailed by economical use of water by industry. If the 

demand for water at any locality approaches and threatens to exceed the supply, industries should consider 

management of use (including reuse of water) as an 

alternative to developing new supplies.

Ground-water contamination is not yet a serious 

problem in the lower Great Miami River valley. Since 

nearly all contaminants in the aquifer are derived from 

induced stream recharge, the obvious way to eliminate 

ground-water contamination is to clean up the river. 

Low-flow augmentation is being considered for this 

purpose. Ground-water supplies receiving recharge by 

induced stream infiltration should be checked periodically so that corrective measures can be taken before 

contamination becomes serious.

The problem of water-rights law has not yet affected the area as a whole, although Cincinnati's proposal to construct a new well field has created some 

controversy. Should legislation become necessary to 

resolve problems involving water rights, a thorough 

understanding of the hydrologie principles would be 

helpful in governing the situation.

The lower Great Miami River valley is favored with 

an abundance of ground water. If this valuable resource is wisely managed, it should be sufficient for the 

requirements of several generations yet to come. Plans 

for management of the ground-water resource, howevor, 

must include careful consideration of all components 

of the hydrologie system and, in particular, the effects 

on the surface-water regimen caused by increased 

pumping of ground water.

SELECTED REFERENCES

Bernhagen, R. J, and Schaefer, E. J., 1947, Ground-water conditions in Butler and Hamilton Counties, Ohio, 1946: Ohio

Water Resources Board Bull. 8,35 p. 

Callahan, C. C., 1957, Principles of water rights law in Ohio:

Ohio Div. Water Misc. Kept MR-10,34 p. 

Deutsch, Morris, 1965, Natural controls involved in shallow

aquifer contamination: Ground Water, v. 3, no. 3, July,

p. 37-40. 

Hanson, J. R., 1956, Ohio's secret substance: Ground Water,

v. 3, no. 2, April, p. 28-31. 

Norris, S. E., and Spieker, A. M., 1966, Ground-water resources

of the Dayton area, Ohio: U.S. Geol. Survey Water Supply

Paper 1808,167 p. 

Ohio Division of Water, 1959, The conservancy district l^w

(1961 addenda) : Ohio Div. Water Misc. Rept. MR-9, 6f p. 

Spieker, A. M., 1968, Ground-water hydrology and geology of

the lower Great Miami River valley, Ohio: U.S. Geol. Surrey

Prof. Paper 605-A (in press). 

 1968b. Effect of increased pumping of ground water in

the Fairfleld-New Baltimore area, Ohio a prediction by

analog model study: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 60T-O

(in press).

o