PLEASE DO NOT DESTROY OB THROW AWAY THIS PtTBtlCAtlON. It yon b»T« n* 

farther use for it, write to the Geological Snrvcy at Washington and ask for a frank to return It

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GROUND WATER 

IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Prepared In cooperation with the 

TENNESSEE DIVISION OF GEOLOGY

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 640

I
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ray Lyman Wilbnr, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

W. C. Mendenhall, Director

Water-Supply Paper 640

GROUND WATER 

IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

BY

ARTHUR M. PIPER

Prepared in cooperation with the 

TENNESSEE DIVISION OF GEOLOGY

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1932

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. - - - Price 35 cents (paper cover)
CONTENTS

	Pager 

-Abstract.________________________________________________________ VH

Introduction ______________________________-----_-_-_---____ 1

Purpose and scope of the investigation...________________________ 1

Location and extent of the area______________________.__________ l

Previous geologic investigations.________________________________ 2

Acknowledgments. ____________________________________________ 3

Geography _______________________________________________________ 4

Transportation. ______________________________________________ 4

Natural resources and industries__________________-______-____-_ 4

Climate _..___ ___________________________________________ 5

General features-....___________________________________ 5

Temperature _____________________________________________ 5

Rainfall____________________________________________ 9>

Surface features of central Tennessee._______________________________ 15

Physiographic districts.-_______________________________________ 15

General features._____ ____ ___________--.-__ 15

Highland Rim plateau__»______________________________ 1ft

Nashville Basin_____________________________________ 18

Physiographic history________________________________________ 18

Cumberland cycle-_______-__________-_____-__----_--____-- 18

Highland Rim cycle__________-___________ ____________ 19

NashviHe Basin cycle____--___________________---___-_-_--- 20

General features.______-_-____________-___--_____-_-_- 20

High-terrace stage___________________________________ 21

Peneplain stage.______-_______________-__--__--__-_--- 21

Recent cycle____________________________________________ 22

Drainage system..-.-.....-..........-..--.-...--------^------ 23

Surf ace streams_________________________________________ 23

Underground drainage.________________-____-___--_-_-___-- 24

Stratigraphy _________________________________________________ 24

Sequence and general character of the rocks______________________ 24

Quaternary system___________________________-___---_-_-___-_- 30

Alluvium______________________-______ 30

Tertiary (?) system (Miocene?or Pliocene?)____ __------___--__ 30

High-terrace gravel______________________________________ 30

Cretaceous system.___________________________________________ 31

Upper Cretaceous series__________________________________ 31

Eutaw formation____________________________________ 31

Tuscaloosa formation._________________________________ 31

Carboniferous system________________________________________ 3$

Mississippian series______________________________________ 33;

St. Louis limestone-__-_______-_----------------------- 33;

Warsaw formation____________________________________ 34r

Fort Payne formation.______________-__-----___-_-_--_ 35-

New Providence shale-___-____-__________--------_---- 37

Ridgetop shale______________________________________ 38-

HI
IV CONTENTS

Stratigraphy Continued. Page

Carboniferous or Devonian system ____________________________ 39

Chattanooga shale_____ ______________________________ 39

Devonian system___________________________________________ 41

Middle Devonian series___________________________________ 41

Pegram limestone _____________________________________ 41

Camden chert._______________________________________ 43

Lower Devonian series_____________________________________ 44

Harriman (?) chert____________________________________ 44

Birdsong limestone__-____-_-_-_____-_-___-___-________ 44

Silurian system______________________________-________________ 44

Ordovician system___________-._____-_-___-_-_-._________-_-____ 45

General features_____-_---___-___-_______-______--_______-. 45

Upper Ordovician series ________________________________ 46

Fernvale formation___________________________________ 46

Arnheim limestone-__________________.._______-___-__..-. 46

Leipers limestone__-_-_-___-________--._______-_-____-- 46

Middle Ordovician series ________________________________ 48

Catheys limestone__-________________________________ 48

Cannon limestone-----___-_-________--_-_____-_______- 49

Bigby limestone______________________________________ 50

Hermitage formation__________________________________ 51

Lowville limestone____________________________________ 52

Lower Ordovician series___________________-_______-_____-__ 54

Lebanon limestone___-___-_________-_.________________ 54

Ridley limestone-----__---_-_--__-__--_--__-________ 54

Pierce limestone___________________-___-_________-_-_- 55

Murfreesboro limestone____________________________ 56

Pre-Lowville rocks of the Wells Creek Basin____________ 57

Rocks not exposed at the surface___________«________________ 58

General features_-__---________________--_-_--_--___------ 58

St. Peter (?) sandstone____________________________________- 61

Geologic structure__________________-_-_______--__-_-_-_-_-_-_-__ 62

Nashville dome_______________________________________________ 62

Secondary folds-______________________________________________ 63

Wells Creek uplift_______ ____ _________________ 65

Faults and joints____________________________________________ 67

Ground water-_______________ _________________________________ 69

Occurrence of ground water in limestone__________-_-_-____--____ 69

Types and origin of water-bearing openings________________ 69

Sources and circulation of ground water____________________ 74

Cycles in the formation of underground-drainage systems ______ 78

Relations of water-bearing openings to geologic and physiographic history-______________________________________ 82

Relation to utilization of ground water_____________________ 86

Springs _______________________________ _ _____________________ 89

Gravity springs-__________________________________________ 89

General features________________________________.______ 89

Seepage springs_______________________________________ 90

Fracture springs________________________________ 92

Tubular springs_____________________________________ 92

Artesian springs________________________________________ 96

Artesian conditions______________________________ 96
OOHTBHTS V

Ground water Continued. Page

Quality of ground water_______________________________________ 99

Chemical constituents in relation to use____________________ 99

Sanitary considerations____________________________________ 108

Analytical data_ __ ______ ____________ 111

Relation to stratigraphy.________________________________ 120

Summary descriptions by counties________________________________ 124

Cheatham County____________________________________________ 124

Davidson County______________________________ 131

Dickson County___ ___ _____________________ 140

Houston County ___ _______________________ 148

Humphreys County._______ _________________________ 153

Montgomery County____________________._____________________ 163

Robertson County___^___________________________ 170

Rutherford County________.________________ 177

Stewart County______________________________ 190

Sumner County ____ ___________________ 198

Williamson County__________________________ 207

Wilson County_______________________________ 220

Index_________________________________________ 235

ILLUSTRATIONS

PLATE 1. Index map of Tennessee, showing physiographic districts and

progress in survey of ground-water resources-______________ 24

2. A, Typical topography of the interstream tracts of the Highland Rim plateau; B, Sink-hole topography on upland plain__ 24

3. Map showing area covered by this report in relation to drainage

basins of the Tennessee, Cumberland, and Green Rivers____ 24

4. Geologic map of north-central Tennessee, showing location of

typical wells and springs _____________________________ In pocket,

5. A, Subsurface drainage channel of the Nashville Basin peneplain, 

near Gladeville, Wilson County; B, Love Davis Cave, 3 

miles southwest of Smyrna, Rutherford County____________ 24

6. A, Nodular chert in lower part of St. Louis limestone on State 

highway 11, about 3 miles northwest of Adams, Robertson 

County; B, Residual clay overlying St. Louis limestone 1 

mile west of Erin, Houston County; C, Tabular chert in 

limestone of Fort Payne formation at Cedar Spring, Stewart 

County.______________________________________________ 40

7. A, Bigby limestone exposed in abandoned quarry south of Tennessee Central Railroad at Loveman's Crossing, East Nashville; B, Sandy cross-bedded limestone near base of Bigby 

limestone, exposed in weathered outcrop in small quarry at 

Hamilton and Morrison Streets, Nashville.________________ 41

8. Chemical character of water from representative seepage springs

in north-central Tennessee_____________________________ 88

9. A, Orifice of tubular spring in Ridley limestone on south bank 

of West Fork of Stone River, 2% miles northeast of Florence, 

Rutherford County; B, Big Spring, 6>£ miles east of Lebanon 

on the Nashville Basin peneplain_-__---------_-_-_______- 88
VI CONTENTS

Page 

FIGUBE 1. Map of central Tennessee showing approximate variation in

average mean annual temperature________-_________.L____ 6

2. Average mean monthly temperature and extremes of monthly

temperature in north-central Tennessee__________________ 8

3. Map of central Tennessee showing approximate variations in

normal rainfall______________________________;-_____-___ 12

4. Variations in annual rainfall at stations in central Tennessee 14

5. Chemical character of water from representative tubular springs

in north-central Tennessee___--__-_-_---------__----___- 94

6. Chemical character of representative ground waters from the

Murfreesboro limestone-.______________________________ 182

7. Sketch plan showing location of wells in Lebanon that yield

more than 100 gallons a minute_ ________________________ 223
ABSTRACT

This report describes briefly the physiography, stratigraphy, and geologic 

structure and the sources and chemical character of the ground water in a region 

covering 5,800 square miles on the northwest slope of the Nashville dome, in northcentral Tennessee. It includes Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Houston, Humphreys, Montgomery, Roberfcson, Rutherford, Stewart, Sumner, Williamson, 

and Wilson Counties.

The region includes parts of two physiographic districts, the Nashville Basin 

and the Highland Rim plateau, both of which are sections of the Interior Low 

Plateaus province. The Highland Rim plateau comprises remnants of a regional 

peneplain, which was formed in the interval between late Upper Cretaceous and 

early upper Oligocene time and was subsequently arched and uplifted. Its 

present altitude within the region described is between 1,350 and 600 feet above 

sea level. The Nashville Basin is an elliptical depression 85 miles long by 50 

miles wide formed by stream planation in the Ordovician limestones on the crest 

of the Nashville dome, and its floor is 700 to 550 feet above sea level. The period 

of stream planation has been ascribed to the middle Pleistocene. The principal 

streams are now intrenched 100 feet or more below the floor of the Nashville 

Basin.

The primary structural feature of the region is the Nashville dome, the southerly one of two domes on the axis of the Cincinnati geanticline. The Nashville 

dome is a flat elliptical flexure whose major axis strikes N. 20°-30° E. across the 

eastern part of the region. From the apex of the dome, in the southeast corner 

of the region, the axis plunges northward and southward between 5 and 10 feet 

to the mile. The flanks dip about 15 feet to the mile within 50 miles of the apex, 

but the western flank flattens in the more remote parts of the region. Superposed upon the Nashville dome are many secondary anticlines, synclines, and 

domes, which generally are less than 5 miles long and 100 feet high. Where the 

secondary folding is most intense the rocks are much jointed. One of the two 

principal sets of joints is approximately parallel and the other normal to the major 

axis of the Nashville dome. In the northwestern part of the region the rocks 

are complexly faulted and folded in an area which is roughly circular in plan and 

about 8 miles in diameter; this is the Wells Creek uplift. The deformation that 

produced the Nashville dome began at least as early as the Lower Ordovician and 

recurred as late as upper Oligocene time.

The oldest consolidated rock of the region is a cherty magnesian limestone of 

Lower Ordovician (Beekmantown?) age, which crops out only in the center of 

the Wells Creek Basin. The rocks exposed elsewhere on the Nashville dome 

range in age from Lower Ordovician (Chazy) to upper Mississippian, and each 

of the geologic systems within this range is represented. However, the geologic 

column is broken by one major unconformity, the complete hiatus including the 

Upper Ordovician and all of the Silurian and Devonian. At least 16 minor 

stratigraphic breaks occur. With the exception of the Chattanooga and Ridgetop shales, the strata are limestones, massive and thin bedded, pure, earthy, and 

cherty. Many of these limestones did not cross the axis of the Nashville dome, 

so that they overlap one another most complexly. The total maximum thickness 

of the exposed strata is about 2,530 feet, although the actual thickness in any one 

section is much less. A well drilled near the apex of the Nashville dome penetrates sandstone from 610 to 620 feet below the surface; the remaining strata 

include limestone, dolomite, and chert to a depth of 1,930 feet.

The unconsolidated rocks include sand and gravel of Upper Cretaceous age, 

which rest upon the Highland Rim plateau in a few small areas, stream terrace 

deposits, and the alluvium that forms the present flood plains.

vn
ABSTRACT

Most of the rocks, being dense limestone, are devoid of original interstices, so 

that in general the ground water circulates in joints and openings formed by solution. The number and capacity of water-bearing openings are dependent upon 

the number and continuity of open joints, the solubility of the limestone, and the 

positions of the several strata with respect to present and past equilibrium profiles 

of solution channeling. Therefore, as many of the limestones are essentially 

equal in solubility, the occurrence of ground water is not related to stratigraphy 

but rather to geomorphologic history. No large body of cavernous limestone has 

been depressed with relation to the water table so as to become saturated with 

water. A few discontinuous beds of permeable sandstone exist.

Ground-water supplies adequate for domestic use can be obtained at most 

places from the limestone by drilled wells less than 200 feet deep, although some 

wells are dry, and comparatively few yield more than 10 gallons a minute. The 

largest wells that tap cavernous limestone yield as much as 300 gallons a minute 

perennially. It is generally inadvisable to drill much more than 350 feet in search 

of water, because of the tightness of the rocks and of the inferior chemical character of the water at great depths. In many parts of the region the most reliable 

sources of water are the large springs, especially those that issue from solution 

channels in the limestone. Twelve such springs within the region are known to 

discharge 1,000 gallons a minute or more each, and one, Hurricane Rock Spring, 

discharges about 27,000 gallons a minute from a single solution channel.

Generally the unconsolidated rocks other than the alluvium are drained and 

are not promising as sources of large supplies of water. The alluvium underlies 

flood plains that are subject to overflow, so that extensive development of its 

ground water is generally not feasible, even though some of its beds may be rather 

highly permeable.

Rowing artesian wells in the vicinity of Nashville tap the St. Peter (?) sandstone, but the area of artesian flow covers only the lower land along the Cumberland 

River, the water is inferior in chemical character, and the specific capacities of the 

wells seem to be small. Moreover, this stratum is itself discontinuous, so that it 

is not a source of water over an extensive area. Flowing wells also exist in several 

other small areas, all of which are below the Highland Rim plateau and most of 

which are on or below the Nashville Basin peneplain. In at least one area the 

artesian flow is assisted if not caused by the presence of gas in the water. Usually 

it is not possible to predict the depth or location at which flowing wells can be 

obtained.

In general most of the waters fall into three classes, according to the amount and 

kind of dissolved mineral matter. One class includes the calcium bicarbonate 

waters, which contain 50 to 500 parts per million of total solids and 30 to 300 

parts per million of carbonate hardness and are essentially free from iron and 

hydrogen sulphide. Such are the waters which circulate freely through permeable 

beds and channeled limestone and issue from most of the springs and from wells 

less than 200 feet deep. A second class includes those highly concentrated calcium or calcium-magnesium sulphate waters with considerable noncarbonate 

hardness, and the third includes the brines or sodium chloride-sulphate waters. 

The waters of the last two classes can not be sharply discriminated. They occur 

both in deeply buried permeable beds and in slightly permeable beds at moderate 

depth; they issue from a few springs and from some wells less than 50 feet deep 

but generally occur in strata more than 100 feet below the surface. So far as is 

known they occur in all strata more than 350 feet below the surface. The dissolved solids range from 1,000 to 26,000 parts per million. Many of the moderately and highly concentrated sulphate waters, especially those in which magnesium is relatively concentrated, contain large quantities of hydrogen sulphide 

gas. There seems to be no relation between the stratigraphic position of most 

water-bearing beds and the chemical character of the ground water.
GBOUND WATEB IN NOBTH-CENTBAL TENNESSEE

By ARTHUR M. PIPER

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

The investigation upon which the present report is based is the first 

unit of a proposed survey of the conditions of ground-water occurrence 

throughout Tennessee. This survey seeks to inventory the principal 

sources of ground water and, so far as possible, to establish such general rules of occurrence as will measure the adequacy of those sources 

to meet the growing needs of urban, rural, and industrial development. 

Furthermore, it seeks to establish a proper basis for the detailed study 

of problems of local development, although economy of time prevents 

any full analysis of those problems.

This state-wide project was conceived by the division of geology of 

the Tennessee Department of Education in 1927, and active investigation was undertaken by the United States Geological Survey in 

financial cooperation with the State organization. The writer was 

assigned to the north-central portion of the State, a region which 

centers about Nashville, and spent the four months from mid-July to 

mid-October, 1927, in the field analyzing features of ground-water 

occurrence in relation to the stratigraphy and other geologic factors. 

Samples of water were collected from 101 representative wells and 

springs as a guide to the chemical composition of the ground waters. 

O. E. Meinzer, chief of the division of ground water of the United 

States Geological Survey, made a reconnaissance of the region with 

the writer during the last week of September and gave much constructive criticism.

LOCATION AND EXTENT OF THE AREA

The region described in this report lies between meridians 86° and 

88° west longitude and parallels 35° 40' and 36° 45' north latitude. 

It embraces about 5,800 square miles in the north-central part of 

Tennessee and includes the counties of Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, 

Houston, Humphreys, Montgomery, Robertson, Rutherford, Sfcewart, 

Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson. The location of the region with 

respect to the boundaries of the State and to the second unit of the 

State-wide project (which was studied in 1928 by F. G. Wells) is 

shown by Plate 1.

1
J GBOTJND WATEB IN NOBTH-CENTBAL TENNESSEE 

PREVIOUS GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS

Systematic investigation of the geology of central Tennessee dates 

back a hundred years. In 1831 Troosfc 1 appealed to the State legislature for the organization of a State geological survey and was commissioned State geologist. His single-handed investigations of the 

mineral resources of the State continued for nearly two decades and 

ended in 1850. An outstanding achievement was the publication, in 

1840, of a preliminary geologic map of the State.2

3. M. Safford was appointed State geologist and mineralogist in 

1854 and filled that position for half a century, studying the coal, 

iron, phosphate, and other mineral resources. His comprehensive 

summary of the geology of Tennessee, first published in 1869,3 has 

formed a sound basis for subsequent and more detailed investigations.

In 1903 was published the first detailed analysis of the stratigraphy 

of the phosphate deposits of the central part of the State, by Hayes 

and Ulrich.4

In 1909 a State geological survey was created to study the metallic 

and nonmetallic resources, the surface and ground water resources, 

and the physical geography of the State, working largely in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey, G. H. Ashley served 

as State geologist from 1909 to 1912, A. H. Purdue from 1912 to 1917, 

W. A. Nelson from 1918 to 1925, H. D. Miser during 1925 and 1926, 

and W. F. Pond from 1927 to the present time. In 1923 the organization became the division of geology of the Tennessee Department 

of Education. Under the auspices of the State Geological Survey, 

fundamental contributions to the geologic knowledge of the region 

have been made by Butts,5 Dunbar,6 Galloway,7 Mather,8 and Nelson.* 

Recently Bassler 10 has completed a detailed study of the stratigraphic 

section exposed on the eastern and western edges of the central basin 

in relation to the mineral resources of the region.

»Troost, Gerard, Address delivered before the legislature of Tennessee at Nashville, October 19, 1831: 

Transylvania Jour. Medicine, vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 467-507, Lexington, 1831.

* Troost, Gerard, Fifth geological report of the State of Tennessee, 75 pp., map, Nashville, 1840. 

8 Safford, J. M., Geology of Tennessee, 550 pp., map, Nashville, Tennessee Bur. Agr. and Commerce, 

1869.

* Hayes, C. W., and Ulrich, E. O., U. S. GeoL Survey Geol. Atlas, Columbia folio No. 95,1903.

« Butts, Charles, Geology and oil possibilities of the northern part of Overton County, Tenn., and of 

adjoining parts of Clay, Pickett, and Fentress Counties: Tennessee Geol. Survey Bull. 24 (Ann. Kept. 

for 1919, pt. 2-A), 45 pp., 1919.

4 Dunbar, C. O., Stratigraphy and correlation of the Devonian of western Tennessee: Tennessee GeoL 

Survey Bull. 21,127 pp., 1919; Am. Jour. Sci., 4th ser., vol. 46, pp. 732-756,1918.

' Galloway, J. J., Geology and natural resources of Rutherford County, Tenn.: Tennessee Geol. Survey 

Bull. 22,81 pp., 1919.

8 Mather, K. F., Oil and gas resources of the northeastern part of Sumner County, Tenn.: Tennessee 

Qeol. Survey Bull. 24 (Ann. Kept, for 1919, pt. 2-B), 39 pp., 1920.

* Nelson, W. A., Notes on a volcanic ash bed in the Ordovician of middle Tennessee: Tennessee Qeol. 

Survey Bull. 25, pp. 46-48,1921; Volcanic ash bed in the Ordovician of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama: 

Qeol. Soc. America Bull., vol. 33, pp. 605-615,1922.

10 Bassler, E. S., The stratigraphy of the central basin of Tennessee: Tennessee Dept. Education Div. 

Geology Bull. 38,1932.
INTBODUCTION Q

In addition to the works cited above the geologic literature includes 

many shorter papers that bear upon the problem at hand. Limitations of space preclude a complete tabulation at this place, although 

each paper that has contributed to the report is cited by footnote 

reference in the text.

Systematic study of the regional ground-water conditions of central 

Tennessee has not been attempted heretofore, although some general 

and local features have been discussed by Fullerton,11 Glenn,12 Nelson,13 

Safford,14 and Switzer.16

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Adequate investigation of a regional problem such as is discussed 

herein would not have been possible unless the well drillers and residents throughout the region had contributed whole-heartedly from 

their experience with ground-water conditions. Individual mention 

of all who have contributed in this manner is, however, impracticable. 

The division of sanitary engineering of the State department of 

public health, through H. R. Fullerton, director, granted access to 

its files of data pertaining to ground-water supplies for municipalities. The division offices of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis 

Railway and of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, through their 

engineers in charge of water supplies, contributed descriptive data 

for the wells and springs that they have developed along their respective rights of way.

Margaret D. Foster of the division of quality of water, United 

States Geological Survey, and D. F. Farrar, of the division of geology, 

Tennessee Department of Education, made the chemical analyses 

that form the basis of the discussion of the chemical character of the 

ground waters. R. S. Bassler, of the United States National Museum, 

described orally the major features of the general geology as a background for the field studies. The Tennessee Division of Geology 

contributed half of the funds available for the investigation and in 

addition furnished the automobile that was used for transportation 

in the field.

» Fullerton, H. R., The water-supply problems of Tennessee: Am. Waterworks Assoc. Jour., vol. 17, 

No. 6, pp. 748-750, Jane, 1927.

*» Glenn, L. O., [Notes on the ground-water resources of] Tennessee: U. S. Qeol. Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 102, pp. 358-367,1904; [Underground waters of] Tennessee and Kentucky: U. S. Geol. Survey WaterSupply Paper 114, pp. 198-208,1905.

" Nelson, W. A., Mineral products along the Tennessee Central Railroad: Resources of Tennessee, vol. 

3, No. 3, pp. 137-160, Tennessee Qeol. Survey, July, 1913.

« Safford, J. M., Mineral springs [of Tennessee]: Tennessee State Board of Health Bull. 1, suppl., pp. 

16-16, October, 1885.

,. W Switzer, J. A., The relation of water supply to health: Resources of Tennessee, vol. 3, M>. 3, pp. 170-; 

175, Tennessee Qeol. Survey, July, 1913; vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 3-14, January, 1914s,
4 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL, TENNESSEE

GEOGRAPHY

TRANSPORTATION

North-central Tennessee is well served by primary transportation 

routes. The main line of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad passes 

northward through Nashville and gives direct communication with 

New Orleans and other Gulf ports and with Cincinnati. From 

Bowling Green, Ky., a branch extends southwestward through Clarksville, Tenn., to Memphis, on the Mississippi River. From its junction with the Southern Railway at Chattanooga the Nashville, 

Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway runs northwestward to Nashville, 

where it divides, one branch extending westward and northwestward 

to join the Mississippi Valley trunk lines at Paducah, Ky., and the 

other branch extending southwestward to Memphis. Numerous 

branch lines serve the tributary territory. The Tennessee Central 

Railway passes westward through the bituminous coal fields of the 

Cumberland Mountains to Nashville and thence follows the Cumberland River northwestward through Clarksville to the terminus of 

the railway at Hopkinsville, Ky. A small amount of local waterborne traffic follows the Cumberland River.

A well-graded, hard-surfaced highway connects Knoxville and 

Memphis, by way of Nashville, and crosses the area from southeast 

to west. In addition, a net of excellent State highways links the 

major towns and cities and is being woven ever closer.

NATURAL RESOURCES AND INDUSTRIES

North-central Tennessee is primarily an agricultural region, the 

fertile residual soils of the Highland Rim plateau being especially 

productive of tobacco, corn, and other crops. Over much of the 

central basin, however, the soil is thin and stony and is used for stock 

pastures or remains untilled. The untillable land is wooded in considerable part and yields large cuttings of cedar from the central 

basin, also of oak and other hard woods from the steep slopes of the 

Highland Run escarpment and of the major stream valleys.

Mineral resources are not lacking in this region. Deposits of rock 

phosphate are worked at several localities in the central basin. Portland cement is manufactured in moderate amount at Nashville. 

Limestone for road metal, lime, and other products is quarried at 

many localities in the central basin and in the valleys that trench the 

Highland Rim plateau. Local facies of the Chattanooga shale are 

a possible raw material for bituminous paint. Deposits of brown 

iron ore in the western portion of the Highland Rim plateau have 

been worked during periods of favorable prices; those which fall 

within the region covered by this report are situated in Stewart, 

Montgomery, and Dickson Counties. Possible petroliferous areas
GEOGRAPHY O

exist at several localities in the western part of the Highland Rim 

plateau, although none produce commercially at present. A full 

discussion of these mineral resources is not pertinent in this paper.

Hydroelectric power is developed at several points along the Highland Rim ;and Cumberland Plateau escarpments immediately east of 

the area under consideration and is transmitted to the central basin. 

Potential power sites both within and near the region constitute an 

ample reserve for future development and for any likely industrial 

expansion,

CLIMATE ;

GENERAL FEATURES »

Climatic data are first recorded in Tennessee in 1834, although a 

well-coordinated system of observations did not exist for nearly half 

a century thereafter. In 1883 a State weather service was established 

under the direction of the United States Signal Service. In July, 

1891, this work was transferred to the United States Weather Bureau 

and has since been continued in a more comprehensive manner under 

the uniform procedure of that organization.

North-central Tennessee, having a mean latitude of 36°, has a 

relatively mild climate, although its inland position and diverse 

physiography lend some rigor to its winters. However, it is not 

traversed by any of the principal transcontinental storm tracks, so 

that the climatic changes are neither highly frequent nor sudden. 

In general, the climate ranges from mild to temperate. The rainfall 

is abundant for the needs of agriculture but not excessive. Tfye 

humidity is moderate, and the distribution of sunshine and cloudiness is desirable. The ground is rarely covered with snow for more 

than a few days at a time, and the period that is free from killing 

frosts is relatively long.

TEMPERATURE

The average mean annual temperature is fairly uniform throughout 

the regioni covered by this investigation and ranges from 58° F. at 

Clarksville to 59.7° F. at Johnsonville. In the valley of the Tennessee River, : to the south and west, however, the mean annual temperature is higher, being 60.6° F. at Savannah, in Hardin County. To 

the east of the region, on the Cumberland Plateau, it is markedly 

lower, as at Crossville, Cumberland County, which has an average 

mean annual temperature of 55.4° F. The approximate geographic 

variation in average mean annual temperature is also shown by the 

isothermal map forming Figure 1.

" Adapted from Nnnn, Bcscoe, The climate of Tennessee: Resources of Tennessee, vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 

7-45, Tennessee Geol. Survey, 1918.
6 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE
GEOGRAPHY /

The annual range between average monthly mean maximum and 

average monthly mean minim am temperature is about 40° F., from 

37°-41° in January to 76°-79° in July at the several climatologic 

stations. The absolute range in temperature is much greater, however, the highest recorded temperature being 112° for the month of 

September at Clarksville and the lowest being 23° below zero during 

February at Johnsonville. For north-central Tennessee as a whole, 

therefore, the absolute recorded range of temperature is 135°, although 

it does not exceed 131° for any one climatologic station and is rarely 

more than 100° during any one year. At Nashville, for example, 

temperatures of 100° or higher have been registerd only for 13 out of 

57 years, and temperatures of 0° or lower are similarly infrequent. 

It is noteworthy that although the average monthly mean minimum 

temperature occurs in January and the mean maximum during July, 

the absolute minimum and maximum have been recorded during 

February and September, respectively, at all stations. The published 

temperature data are summarized in the following tables, and the 

essential features of local and seasonal variations of temperature are 

also shown by Figure 2.

Average mean monthly and annual temperature at 25 stations in central

[From publications of U. S. Weather Bureau]

& 

*,« 

§£

r

32 

12 

3 

2 

41 

13 

26 

16 

1 

20 

19 

31 

15 

11 

34 

33 

29 

8 

35 

30 

17 

37 

44 

36 

38

o <§

 d &

f*3 o

M

55 

44 

30 

64 

32 

13 

IB 

35 

35 

45 

48 

41 

32 

19 

34 

39 

47 

57 

38 

32 

20 

41 

34 

39 

43

Station

Carthage. _______

Cedar Hill ______

Clarksville _______

Coldwater ______

Dickson.. _______

Lewisburg ______

McMInnville _____

Perryville __. __

1

39.7 

38.8 

38.4 

37.0 

40.7 

39.2 

37.5 

38.6 

39.1 

39.? 

38.3 

39.4 

39.8 

40.3 

40.5 

39.2 

39.9 

38.6 

40.1 

40.1 

40.3 

41.0 

38.8 

39.0 

39.7

February

41.7 

40.9 

39.2 

39.5 

41.4 

41.6 

38.7 

39.5 

39.9 

41.2 

40.0 

40.5 

40.8 

42.1 

41.4 

41.0 

41.9 

41.6 

41.2 

41.0 

41.2 

43.0 

38.fi 

40.3 

41.3

March

50.5 

50.1 

50.1 

48.5 

51.5 

49.2 

45.8 

49.9 

50.4 

49.9 

49.9 

50.3 

51.5 

50.3 

51.0 

40.9 

50.7 

49.2 

51.0 

51.9 

49.2 

52.2 

48.7 

49.9 

50.2

1 <i

58.7 

59.1 

58.8 

58.3 

59.1 

58.6 

56.4 

58.4 

59.1 

59.0 

58.3 

59.1 

59.7 

60.0 

58.5 

58.5 

58.5 

59.0 

59.1 

59.4 

59.0 

60.8 

56.5 

68.1 

58.4

& 

3

67.3 

67.3 

67.5 

66.3 

68.0 

65.6 

63.0 

66.4 

67.1 

67.2 

66.4 

66.5 

68.0 

68.2 

67.2 

66.5 

66.8 

68.2 

67.5 

68.1 

66.3 

68.7 

65.0 

66.0 

66.2

1

75.2 

75.3 

76.4 

74.4 

75.5 

73.8 

70.8 

74.3 

75.2 

75.3 

74.7 

74.2 

75.9 

75.2 

75.7 

75.1 

74.5 

75.6 

75.4 

76.0 

74.5 

76.3 

72.2 

73.5 

74.2

>» 

S

77.9 

77.7 

79.1 

77.9 

77.9 

76.0 

71.0 

77.5 

78.3 

77.5 

77.3 

76.9 

78.8 

78.3 

78.2 

77.3 

76.9 

79.1 

78.1 

79.1 

77.5 

79.1 

74.8 

76.5 

76.8

 3

77.2 

77.1 

78.3 

76.4 

77.0 

75.1 

72.0 

76.8 

77.6 

76.7 

76.5 

76.2 

78.2 

77.5 

77.6 

77.1 

76.2 

77.8 

77.5 

78.5 

76.3 

78.7 

74.3 

75.7 

76.0

September

71.1 

72.1 

73.0 

70.7 

72.6 

70.5 

67.6 

71.5 

72.4 

71.6 

71.6 

71.0 

72.7 

72.6 

72.1 

71.3 

70.9 

71.8 

72.6 

72.1 

71.6 

73.0 

69.7 

70.6 

70.8

October

60.0 

60.1 

60.8 

58.5 

61.2 

59.6 

5R.7 

60.2 

60.1 

59.8 

59.4 

59.1 

60.6 

62.2 

60.8 

59.7 

59.5 

61.0 

61.5 

60.5 

59.4 

61.2 

59.3 

58.8 

59.0

November

49.1 

48.9 

49.4 

47.5 

50.2 

48.7 

45.6 

48.7 

48.8 

48.9 

48.1 

48.9 

49.4 

50.0 

49.3 

48.8 

48.7 

49.0 

49.9 

50.2 

48.4 

50.5 

47.9 

47.7 

48.6

December

41.3 

40.5 

40.0 

39.7 

41.5 

41.4 

38.4 

39.2 

39.9 

41.0 

40.3 

40.7 

40.5 

40.8 

41.2 

42.5 

41.2 

41.0 

41.2 

40.7 

39.8 

42.6 

39.4 

40.fi 

40.9

Annual

59.1 

59.0 

59.3 

58.0 

59.7 

58.3 

55.4 

58.4 

59.0 

59.0 

58.4 

58.6 

59.7 

59.4 

59.4 

58.7 

58.8 

59.3 

59.6 

59.9 

58.6 

fiO.6 

57.0 

68.1 

58.5
8 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

120

100

80

60

UJ40

a:

U)

0.

5 20 

f-

-20

-40

Clarksville,Montgomery County 

Johnsonville, Humphreys County 

Nashville, Davidson County

S S. 

5 < » Sw IQ

FIGURE 2. Average mean monthly temperature and extremes of monthly temperature in north-central

Tennessee
GEOGRAPHY 9

Extreme monthly and annual temperature at four stations in north-central

Tennessee

[From publications of 17. S. Weather Bureau] 

Absolute maximum

J?§1

?

20

15

8

o s

s-b

38

44

34

57

Station January

75

74

78

78

February

82

76

81

7ft

1

88

86

90

Sfl

&

94

91

94

90

a

98

94

100

96

1

107

100

105

100

3Hs

108

10?,

107

102

|

108

104

106

104

1

a 

£

11?

107

108

104

October

93

93

94

92

November

8S

A1

88

81

December

78

77

73

75

!

11?

107

108

104

Absolute minimum

2

20

15

**ft

44

34

fi7

f^larlmtrillfl -13

-10

-13

 in

-14

-16

-73

 ,n

4

4

74

20

fff,

OR

on

33

31

36

43

4?

41

>IO

51

47

48

53

47

4Q

48

51

35

35

30

38

?A

74

21

26

7

9

R

10

-12

- 5

-19

_ 0

-14

 21

 1*

In the 12 counties covered by this report the average frost-free 

period or growing season ranges from 189 days at Dover to 210 days at 

Nashville. The shortest recorded frost-free period within the region 

is 158 days and the longest 261 days. These relations are portrayed by the following table:

Frost data for nine stations in north-central Tennessee 

[From publications of IT. S. Weather Bureau]

No. 

on Figurel

3 

2 

16 

1 

20 

19 

15 

11 

8

Length of record

(years)

24 

36 

27 

29 

36 

36 

32 

19 

57

Station

Cedar Hill ___ . .....

Clarksville. ____ .

Florence ..............

Date of last killing 

frost in spring

Latest 

recorded

Apr. 26 

May 1 

May 2 

May 2 

Apr. 26 

Apr. 27 

May 2 

Apr. 26 

Apr. 24

Average

Apr. 12 

Apr. 4 

Apr. 12 

Apr. 13 

Apr. 7 

Apr. 6 

Apr. 8 

Apr. 8 

Mar. 31

Date of first killing 

frost in autumn

Average

Oct. 24 

Oct. 24 

Oct. 21 

Oct. 20 

Oct. 23 

Oct. 25 

Oct. 22 

Oct. 23 

Oct. 30

Earliest 

recorded

Oct. 9 

Oct. 1 

Oct. 2 

Sept. 27 

Oct. 1 

Oct. 1 

Sept. 22 

Oct. 9 

Oct. 8

Length of frost-free 

period (days)

Maximum recorded

215 

246 

217 

212 

230 

249 

227 

245 

261

Average

19fi 

202 

191 

189 

200 

202 

196 

198 

210

Minimum recorded

171 

171 

163 

164 

174 

180 

158 

177 

175

Farther east, on the elevated Cumberland Plateau, the frost-free 

period is somewhat shorter, the average being 170 days at Erasmus, 

Cumberland County. At several stations on the Cumberland Plateau, 

however, the average frost-free period is just as long as in the lower 

country farther west.

RAINFALL

The average annual rainfall in central Tennessee ranges between 48 

and 56 inches. It is least in the Nashville Basin and on the lowest part 

of the Highland Rim plateau, in Stewart and Montgomery Counties 

and increases irregularly toward the south and east. This normal 

variation of rainfall is brought out by the accompanying sketch map 

(fig. 3) and by the table of average rainfall at 45 climatologic stations. 

100144r-32 2
Average monthly and annual rainfall at 45 stations in cent

[Data from publications of U. S. Weather Bureau]

No. 

on 

Figures

7

32

6

12

3

5 

2

41

13

26 

16

1

25

43

20

10

23

21

31

39

15 

4

11

34

32

40

33

Station

Ashland City

(near).

Byrdstown ......

Celina. ......... 

Clarksville- __ .

Crossville (near)

Grace _ - ....... 

Halls Bill,... ...

Johnsonville. _

Lebanon (near)

Liberty... __ 

Lynnville .......

County

Cheatham.-..

Maury __ ...

Plckett-. 

Smith .........

Clay.. ...... .. 

MontgomeryLincoln __ ...

Putnam _ ...

Cumberland..

Cumberland..

Lincoln. _ 

Rutherford. ...

Williamson...

White 

Rutherford ....

Lewis ___ ...

Humphreys... 

Macon ........

Wilson...... 

Marshall _ ...

DeKalb _ ...

Lawrence.. 

Giles 

Altitude 

(feet)

725

1,026

500

625

560 

500

624

1,117

1,820 

825

500

1,695

560

730

920 

610

983

600

364 

1,000

522

727

672

774

744

Duration 

of record

1925-1927

1873-1927

1892-1920

1885-1927

1897-1927

1903-1927 

/1854-1883

.1888-1927 

1921-1927

1914-1927

1912-1927 

1896-1927

1898-1927

1897-1919

1926-1927

1882-1927

1890-1927

1897-1905 

1903-1927

1883-1927

1895-1916

1883-1927 

1898-1909

1902-1927

1888-1927

1872-1927

1916-1923

1883-1927

Jan.

4.56

5.06

4.96

4.81

5.35

5.37 

J4.51

5.17

6.76

6.06 

5.25

5.21

5.85

3.08

4.77

4.76

4.97 

4.81

5.23

5.04

4.90 

5.05

4.98

5.09

5.42

5.25

5.01

Feb.

2.87

4.47

4.15

4.30

4.04

3.82 

4.12

4.72

3.95

4.16 

4.06

3.76

4.60

3.39

4.30

4.17

4.73 

4.03

4.75

4.95

4.14 

3.17

3.44

4.67

4.52

4.42

5.10

Mar.

5.14

5.36

5.42

5.35

5.37

5.27 

5.10

6.18

5.67

6.05 

5.30

4.96

6.72

4.70

5.36

5.44

6.61

5.22

6.20

6.40

4.88 

6.46

5.10

5. 9i

5.90

7.82

5.78

Apr.

2.70

4.74

4.57

4.40

4.92

4.47 

4.70

4.78

4.91

5.07 

4.85

4.41

5.55

3.95

4.45

4.91

4.60 

4.59

5.10

4.96

4.78 

4.16

4.99

4.56

4.60

6.31

4.74

May

1.66

4.13

4.25

4.00

4.67

4.50 

4.20

4.34

4.53

4.41 

4.43

4.11

4.37

3.78

3.99

3.93

4.21 

4.26

4.47

4.30

4.27 

3.67

4.80

4.13

3.92

5.08

4.42

June

1.41

3.96

4.65

4.46

4.14

4.12 

4.01

4.03

4.31

4.72 

3.85

3.68

5.55

5.24

3.84

4.06

6.75 

4.75

4.57

4.38

4.03 

4.25

5.11

4.08

4.50

4.14

4.46

July

2.08

4.27

5.49

4.53

4.17

4.77 

3.82

4.58

4.77

5.40 

3.99

3.21

6.07

1.88

4.40

3.83

5.67 

5.02

4.62

4.41

4.31

4.07

4.56

4.47

5.02

3.62

5.28

Aug.

9.28

4.09

4.39

4.29

3.76

4.47 

3.38

4.29

4.61

5.26 

3.62

3.83

5.00

8.95

3.80

3.60

6.23 

4.10

4.35

4.36

3.95

a 75

4.73

4.73

4.49

4.39

4.19

Sep

1.0

3.3

3.26

3.1

3.3

3.7

2.9

3.0

3.2

3.3

2.7

3.1

3.7

0.3

3.2

3.0

2.7

3.1

3.0

3.6

3.5

4.3

3.1

3.2

2.9

2.8

3.4
9

29

8

18

14

36

30

17

28

37

44

24

45

36

27

38

10

42

MnMinnville _.,_

Nashville .......

Oak Hill.... _

Palmetto.- .... .

Perryvflle. ......

Savannah

Tullahomia ...

Walling .........

Yukon..........

Hickman __ .

Bedford .......

Deeatur. ......

Hickman . .

Hardin ........

Franklin ..

White-... .

Coffee.........

White.........

500

1,038

654

620

1,000

770

377

520

700

442

1,950

920

1,900

1,075

909

753

550

850

1923-1927

1872-1927

1839-1927

1887-1905

1897-1903

1883-1927

1896-1927

1906-1926

1927

1883-1927

/1860-1861

\1895-1927 

1906-1922

1897-1909

1883-1927

1904-1926

1884-1927

1902-1927

1896-1920

4.54

5.05

4.85

4.35

5.26

6.08

5.09

6.10

5.11

4.94

}5.22

4.98

4.53

5.37

6.11

4.85

4.93

5.27

3.85

4.07

4.32

4.07

6.45

4.41

4.01

3.65

4.03

4.60

4.64

3.15

5.09

4.62

4.03

4.45

3.86

4.72

5.45

5.62

5.44

6.26

7.72

5.54

6.06

4.80

6.61

5.66

5.87

4.84

5.82

6.04

5.61

5.71

6.21

6.27

4.21

5.03

4.36

4.37

5.97

4.57

4.64

5.33

4.74

4.79

4.85

4.16

5.05

4.96

4.74

6.02

4.50

4.64

5.02

3.85

3.60

3.86

3.57

4.37

4.08

4.70

4.59

4.30

4.23

4.10

3.72

4.01

4.59

4.30

4.45

4.29

3.83

4.46

4.37

4.22

5.82

4.31

3.93

3.56

6.07

4.38

4.95

5.03

4.56

4.29

5.07

4.24

3.74

4.06

3.14

5.20

4.35

3.60

6.83

5.04

3.91

3.98

5.59

4.43

6.31

6.07

4.98

6.06

6.59

4.62

4.09

4.82

4.45

4.03

3.47

4.04

4.48

3.91

3.53

4.02

4.33

3.55

4.96

4.21

6.06

4.15

4.33

4.42

3.86

4.25

2.80

3.35

3.68

3.37

3.14

3.30

2.89

2.82

4.03

3.13

3.05

3.95

3.32

3.20

4.03

3.14

3.15

3.30
<3 Climatologic station; number refers 10 p 

to narne of station in tabulated data '' ''

86* 

30 Miles 

Curved lines show rainfall in inches; 

interval I inch

, Map of central Tennessee showing approximate variations 
GEOGRAPHY 13

In general there is some accordance between rainfall and surface

 contour, the major stream valleys receiving the least rainfall and the 

higher portions of the area the most. Minor topographic features 

may exert a pronounced local influence upon the rainfall, however, so 

that this relation does not persist in detail. Moreover, the rainfall 

during any year may differ greatly from the average and may not

 conform to the topography in any but the most general way. At 

Clarksville, for example, the greatest annual rainfall during the 61 

years of record is 154 per cent of the average, and the least annual 

rainfall is 70 per cent of the average. The annual rainfall has been 

greater than the average 33 times, or 54 per cent of the period of record, 

and less than the average 28 times, or 46 per cent of the period. 

Variations of a similar order of magnitude occur at the other climatologic stations, though none of the records is as long as that for Clarksville. (See fig. 4.)

As is characteristic of a humid region, the seasonal variation in 

rainfall, though distinct, is small. This is brought out by the preceding table of average monthly and annual rainfall at 45 stations. The 

greatest average monthly rainfall comes in March and the least in 

October, although in a given year the maximum may occur in any of 

the winter months. Ample rain usually falls during the crop-forming 

period of the spring and early summer. At Nashville, for example, 

the normal monthly maximum is 5.44 inches, in March, and the minimum is 2.48 inches, in October. The extreme range is much wider, 

however, the greatest recorded monthly rainfall being 14.51 inches in 

January, 1882, and the least 0.10 inch in October, 1839.

For the year as a whole a measurable amount of rain falls on one 

day of every three or four, as is shown by the following table:

Average number of days with 0.01 inch or more rainfall at 4 stations in north-central

Tennessee

[Data from publications of TJ. S, Weather Bureau for the period prior to and including 1920]

Jp

CO

Ss

to

2

90

15

8

8~

o §

29

37

2fi

50

Station *

3

10

1011

12

fc

£5

,0fr

10ft

10

11

^

03

§

11

1011

12

«i-t

&

<

11

9

10

11

&03

3

10ft

10

10

9

5

9

9

10

11

b1*

fjj?

«

8

10

10

11

^

Si f-t

 <

8

8

ft

ft

t-t o>

^3

-4L>

Pi

DQ

fi

6

7

8

n

O ^

0

6

6

fi

7

IH

^3

O

7

7

8

9

& §

s

®

Q

10

6

10

11

£4

 <

106

99

11?,

122

However, many rainy periods of two or three days' duration occur 

and are followed by as much as 10 to 15 days of clear weather. Moreover, many of the days that are classified as rainy are clear for most 

of the time. On the other hand, heavy downpours lasting a few hours 

may occur at any season of the year, and the rainfall during a single
INCHES IN RAINFALL 

1870

1875

1880

1885

1890

1895 S" 

1900

1905

1910

1915

1920

1925

1930

HHXV,M.
SURFACE FEATURES OF CENTRAL TENNESSEE 15

24-hour period may constitute most of the rainfall for the entire 

month. Some of these special features of the rate of rainfall are 

shown by the following table.

Maximum rate of rainfall at Nashville 

No. 8, fig. 3. Data from publications of the TJ. S. Weather Bureau for the period prior to and including 1920]

n^

25

25

IS

18

as

18

50

Period

5 minutes .......

10 minutes......

15 minutes... 

30 minutes ......

24 hours .........

1

1

0.44

.62

.67

.95

L23

L65

3.61

|

1

0.44

.67

.72

.97

1.06

1.18

5.25

 3

S

0.43

.53

.59

LOS

1.23

L39

453

1

0.43

.72

1.02

L64

2.09

2.32

5.04

1

0.56

.71

.94

L43

L56

L85

2.82

I

t-s

a so

.79

1.08

L71

1.94

2.56

439

3

0.52

.83

1.07

L47

1.83

2.81

5.09

 8

1

0.54

.90

.98

1.18

1.78

2.34

5.65

k

"1

I

a 75

LOS

L18

1.51

1.84

2.66

493

S3

O

0.41

.56

.58

.63

0.91

LSI

2.50

?

I

0.56

L02

L26

1.35

1.81

3.97

6.05

h

1

<D

0.33 .53'

.78

1.02

1.12

1.68

4,10

 sj

a

a

0. 7fi

1.08

1.26

1.71

2.OT

fi,05

The average annual number of days with appreciable snowfall, say 

0.5 inch or more, is four. Falls of 2.0 inches or more occur only once 

or .twice aj year, on the .average.

SURFACE FEATURES OF CENTRAL TENNESSEE

PHYSIOGRAPHIC DISTRICTS

GENERAL FEATURES

The State of Tennessee presents a great diversity of surface forms, 

which for convenience of study and description are usually subdivided 17 into five physiographic provinces and eight sections. (See 

pi. 1.) From east to west these are the southern section of the Blue 

Ridge province, known locally as the Unaka Mountains; the Tennessee 

section of the Valley and Ridge province, known locally as the Valley 

of East Tennessee and properly including the Sequatchie Valley; the 

Cumberland Plateau and Cumberland Mountain sections of the 

Appalachian Plateaus province; the Highland Rim and Nashville 

Basin sections of the Interior Low Plateaus province; and the East 

Gulf Coastal Plain and Mississippi Alluvial Plain sections of the 

Coastal Plain province. The region covered by this investigation 

embraces the north half of the Nashville Basin and the northwest 

quadrant of the Highland Rim plateau.

With the exception of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, the physiographic districts of Tennessee are the end products of successive 

erosion cycles acting upon rocks of different resistance and of diverse 

geologic structure, which have been uplifted several times. Each 

district is characterized by a distinct relative altitude and land form, 

which reflects its response to these geologic conditions and processes;

17 Fenneman, N. M., Physiographic divisions of the United States: Assoc. Am. Geographers Annals 

vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 261-353, map, 1928.
16 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Thus, the Unaka Mountains, being composed largely of dense crystalline rocks, have persisted through relatively long periods with high 

relief and rugged contour. On the other hand, the alternation of hard 

and soft and of soluble and insoluble beds in the faulted and closely 

folded rocks of the Valley of East Tennessee has facilitated erosion. 

Consequently this district has a low average altitude, although it is 

characterized by alternating valleys and ridges of moderate relief and 

mature contour, which reflect faithfully the geologic structure of the 

underlying rocks. Furthermore, the massive and very slightly deformed Pennsylvanian sandstones on which the Cumberland or 

"Cretaceous" peneplain was cut, although raised to relatively high 

altitude by subsequent uplift, have resisted erosion so that extensive 

remnants of the peneplain have been preserved virtually undissected. 

These remnants constitute the Cumberland Plateau. The underlying 

Mississippian limestones, however, offered much less resistance to 

mechanical and chemical denudation and, wherever the protective 

cover of Pennsylvanian rocks was breached, were reduced quickly to 

the profile of erosive equilibrium. The surface thus formed, an 

erosion terrace of very slight relief from 700 to 850 feet below the 

Cumberland peneplain, is the present Highland Kim plateau. After 

renewed upwarping, mechanical and chemical denudation trenched 

the Highland Rim plateau and cut another terrace the Nashville 

Basin on the Ordovician limestones in the central part of the State. 

This erosion terrace is between 200 and 600 feet below the Highland 

Rim plateau. These featureless terraces cut on the flat-lying limestones of the Interior Low Plateaus province contrast sharply with the 

diverse land forms on the poorly consolidated sand, clay, and silt that 

compose the Gulf Coastal Plain. Although the Coastal Plain is in 

general a westward-sloping plain, it ranges from hilly or rolling to 

gently undulating and reflects the differences in resistance of the rocks 

that immediately underlie its surface. As a result of their characteristic land forms, rock formations, and geologic structure, these physiographic districts have more or less distinct modes of ground-water 

occurrence. The modes that prevail in the Nashville Basin and the 

northern part of the Highland Rim plateau are brought out in the body 

of this report.

The Mississippi Alluvial Plain, unlike the other major physiographic 

divisions of the State, is a constructional stream plain that has not 

suffered general attack by destructive agencies.

HIGHLAND RIM PLATEAU

The interstream tracts of the Highland Rim plateau define a very 

slightly undulating plain (see pi. 2, A), which entirely surrounds the 

Nashville Basin and constitutes about 65 per cent of the region covered 

by this survey. (See pi. 1.) Formerly, however, it extended over
StJBFACE FEATURES OF CENTRAL TENNESSEE 17

the entire central portion of the State, from the Cumberland escarpment on the east almost to the Tennessee River on the west. It 

extends northward beyond the limits of this survey entirely across 

Kentucky and coincides with the Lexington Plain of that State. 

Southward it extends into Alabama, where it comes to an indefinite 

terminus. In Tennessee the plateau attains its maximum altitude, 

about 1,365 feet above sea level, in an outlying remnant near the 

southeast corner of Rutherford County, about 1 mile west of the junction of that county with Cannon and Coffee Counties. Thence it 

descends radially northward and westward, with a nearly uniform 

gradient. Its altitude in northeastern Sumner County is about 950 

feet above sea level, in northwestern Stewart County about 575 feet, 

and in west-central Humphreys County about 725 feet. Hayes and 

Campbell w have likened the contour of the restored plain to that of 

an inverted spoon whose major axis trends N. 40°-60° E. and passes 

through the city of McMinnville, about 25 miles east of Rutherford 

County.

The interstream tracts of the plateau are veined by ephemeral 

drainageways which have very flat longitudinal and transverse profiles and usually show a local relief of less than 50 feet. At some 

localities bowl-shaped or spoon-shaped depressions without surface 

drainage dot the otherwise featureless plain. (See pi. 2, B.} The 

largest of these depressions or "sinks" are as much as a mile in diameter and 40 feet deep. They are most numerous in the tracts that lie 

between two converging major streamways, in the vicinity of the 

point of confluence.

The northern part of the plateau is trenched to a depth of 250 to 

600 feet in two well-defined stages by the Cumberland River, whose 

ingrown meanders 19 swing laterally between 2 and 7 miles. Its larger 

tributaries also meander, and all occupy deep and narrow valleys 

which steepen abruptly at their heads. Along its common boundary 

with the Nashville Basin the plateau is deeply trenched by many 

subparallel drains several miles long and disintegrates into a maze of 

flat-topped linear ridges and outliers, as well as remnants that have 

been somewhat reduced by erosion. Hence the so-called Highland 

Rim escarpment, which separates plateau and basin, is by no means 

a linear feature. Its position as plotted on Plate 1 is generalized to 

delineate that area which is more the dissected plateau from the typical basin and is drawn tangent to the prominent headlands of the 

plateau. Outstanding among the outlying remnants of the plateau 

is the chain of hills that extends across southern Rutherford County

» Hayes, O. W., and Campbell, M. B., Qeomorphology of the southern Appalachians: Nat. Oeog. Mag., 

vol. 6, pi. 6, 1894.

19 Meanders that are formed or accentuated by lateral shift coincident with downcutting. For original 

definition see Rich, J. L., Certain types of stream valleys and their meaning: Jour. Geology, vol. 22, p. 

470,1914.
18 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

and merges with Duck River Ridge in southwestern Williamson 

County.

NASHVILLB BASIN

The Nashville Basin is an elliptical depression in the Highland Rim 

plateau whose major diameter trends N. 30° E. through the approximate geographic center of the State. (See pi. 1.) The interstream 

tracts of its floor constitute a very slightly undulating plain about 80 

miles long and 45 miles wide, the northern segment of which slopes 

northward and westward from an altitude of 700 feet above sea level 

in southern Rutherford County to 650 feet in the vicinity of Franklin 

and Columbia and 550 feet near Nashville. Hence the Nashville 

Basin is 200 to 600 feet below the surrounding Highland Rim plateau. 

The lower reaches of its drainageways the Cumberland and Duck 

Rivers and their tributaries are intrenched about 100 to 150 feet, so 

that the northwestern lobe of the plain is rolling and comprises many 

rounded steep-sided hills. Moreover, numerous isolated hills or 

monadnocks erosion remnants of the higher plateau are scattered 

over-the floor of the basin along the Highland Rim escarpment. 

Hence this physiographic unit displays some diversity in detail of land 

forms.

The Nashville Basin is entirely surrounded by the Highland Rim 

escarpment, which is breached only by four narrow water gaps. These 

are the inlet and outlet of the Cumberland River, the one stream that 

traverses the basin, and the outlets of the Duck and Elk Rivers, which 

head upon the basin's floor. On the west, north, and east this bounding escarpment is well defined, although intricately serrate in plan. 

On the south, however, it is rather indefinite, and the open basin 

pas^eg'into a rolling terrane which is a dissected plateau.

The outline of the Nashville Basin traced on Plate 1 incloses that 

area in which stream erosion has proceeded well beyond the stage of 

maturity and which, if isolated monadnocks are disregarded, is approaching complete planation. About 35 per cent of the area covered 

by the investigation falls within the basin as thus defined.

PHYSIOOBAPHIC HISTOBY 

CTJMBBBLAND CYCI/E

Hayes and Campbell 20 have concluded that the final stage in the 

formation of the regional peneplain of which the present Cumberland 

Plateau is a remnant was contemporaneous with the deposition of the 

calcareous Selma formation (middle and lafce Upper Cretaceous). 

They have also concluded that the peneplain was formed at or near sea 

level and that it was warped and uplifted afc the beginning of the 

Ripley^epoch .(late Upper Cretaceous). Its present remnantain cenM Hayes, O. W., and Campbell, M. R., Qeomorphology of the southern Appalachians: Nat. Geog. Mag., 

vol. 8, pp. 124-128,1894.
SURFACE FEATURES OF CENTRAL TENNESSEE 19

tral and western Tennessee as they have reconstructed the surface are 

from 2,200 fco 1,000 feet above sea level.21 The highest remnants 

occur along two intersecting axes of uplift which trend N. 20° E. near 

Chattanooga and N. 40°-60° E. near McMinnville. The lowest remnants are near the western limb of the Tennessee River. (See pi. 1.) 

Shaw,22 on the other hand, has expressed a belief that all peneplains 

of which remnants exist to-day in the Appalachian Plateaus province 

are younger than the floor on which the Cretaceous rests and younger 

than the unconformity at the top of the Cretaceous. He implies that 

the Cumberland peneplain is probably not older than mid-Tertiary.

mOBOLAND RIM CYCUB

The gently undulating plain that is defined by the interstream 

tracts of the Highland Rim plateau and formerly extended entirely 

across the Nashville Basin is clearly a product of subaerial erosion, 

inasmuch as it bevels warped Mississippian limestones. It is in fact 

an extensive terrace or peneplain, formed by the erosion from the 

former Cumberland Plateau «of a wedge-shaped mass of rock whose 

base, from 700 to 850 feet high, is the Cumberland escarpment and 

whose apex coincides approximately with the western limb of the 

Tennessee River. The rock waste produced by this erosion was transported westward by streams and deposited as a series of coastal plain 

sediments in the northern lobe of the Gulf of Mexico, which at that 

time extended northward into southern Illinois and eastward within 

approximately 10 miles of the present site of the Tennessee River.

Hayes and Campbell 23 conclude from the character of the coastalplain sediments that the beginning of the Highland Rim erosion cycle 

is represented;by the Ripley formation (late UpperiCretaceous) and 

that planation was essentially complete at the time of deposition 

of the upper beds of the Vicksburg group (middle and early upper 

Oligocene 24). Shaw,25 however, tentatively correlates the Highland 

Rim peneplain with the sub-Pliocene or possibly the sub-Miocene 

unconformity in southern Mississippi. At the culmination of the 

cycle the peneplain was a featureless surface, probably drained by 

meandering streams with low gradient and with little capacity for the 

transportation of land waste. Lusk 26 concludes that the meander 

belt of the Cumberland River at the culmination of the Highland Rim

M Hayes, O. W., and Campbell, M. E., op. cit., pi. 6.

M Shaw, E. W., Ages of peneplains of the Appalachian province: Geol. Soc. America Bull., vol. 29, p. 

686,1018.

« Hayes, C. W., and Campbell, M. E., op. cit., pp. 124-126.

w Cooke, C. W., The correlation of the Victoburg group: IT. 8. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 133, pp. 1-10, 

1923. Vaughan, T. W., Criteria and status of correlation and classification of Tertiary deposits: Geol. 

Soc. America Bull., vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 727-730,1924.

M Shaw, E. W., Pliocene history*of»OTthern,aad£entralMissigsiopi^U. 8. Geol.-Survey Prof. Paper 108, 

p. 163,1918.

» Lusk, B. G., Gravel on the Highland Rim plateau and terraces in the valley of Cumberland River; 

Jour. Geology, vol. 36, No. 4, p. 166,1928.
20 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

cycle, for example, was aboufc a mile less than the present swing of the 

meanders. Evidently this condition of erosional stagnation persisted 

for a considerable interval, during which the surface was lowered 

principally by solution of the limestone, and a mantle of residual clay 

and fragmentary chert, now preserved upon the upland tracts, was 

accumulated to a thickness of 90 feet or more. Even during the 

final stages of the planation, however, stream erosion probably continued actively along the Cumberland escarpment, for Lusk 27 notes 

the occurrence on the Highland Eim plateau near Celina, Clay County, 

of waterworn gravel whose particles are similar to pebbles of the 

Pennsylvanian conglomerates exposed in the escarpment. The gravel 

is presumably stream-borne. Hayes and Ulrich 28 describe deposits 

of coarse stream gravel on the plateau in the Columbia quadrangle, 

west of the Nashville Basin, although it is possible that these deposits 

represent the Tuscaloosa formation (see pp. 31-33), of late Upper 

Cretaceous age. The Highland Eim erosion cycle was brought to 

an end by renewed crustal warping and uplift accompanied by rejuvenation of the streams.

NASHVILLE BASIN CYCLE

GENERAL FEATURES

According to Hayes and Campbell 29 the rejuvenation that terminated the Highland Eim cycle was caused by renewed regional uplift 

and arching of the strata about an axis striking N. 40°-60° E. through 

McMinnville. At its culmination this crustal activity had elevated 

the Highland Eim peneplain to its present altitude, although the 

movement very probably occurred in several stages. Marked recession of the Mexican Gulf resulted. The major streams became 

intrenched upon the new-born upland but were forced to cut entirely 

new lower courses in pace with the marine recession. These lower 

courses were probably controlled chiefly by the form of the warped 

surface, though it is likely that stream capture and unequal rates of 

erosion were secondary factors in sculpture of the land surface. Thus 

the resultant courses of the Tennessee and Cumberland Eivers were 

established westward and northward away from the direct route to 

the Gulf.30

» Lusk, E. O., op. cit., pp. 164-170.

» Hayes, C. W., and Ulrich, E. O., U. S. Oeol. Survey Geol. Atlas, Columbia folio (No. 95), p. 1,1903.

» Hayes, C. W., and Campbell, M. K., op. cit., p. 119, pi. 6.

w Hayes, C. W., and Campbell, M. E., Qeomorphology of the southern Appalachians: Nat. Qeog. Mag., 

vol. 6, pp. 105-120,1895. Hayes, C. W., Physiography of the Chattanooga district, in Tennessee, Georgia, 

and Alabama: U. S. Oeol. Survey Nineteenth Ann. Kept., pt. 2, pp. 1-58, 1899. Simpson, C. T., The 

evidence of the Unionidae regarding the former courses of the Tennessee and other southern rivers: Science, 

new ser., vol. 12, pp. 133-136,1900. White, C. H., The Appalachian Eiver versus a Tertiary trans-Appalachian river in eastern Tennessee: Jour. Geology, vol. 12, pp. 34-39,1904. Johnson, D. W., The Tertiary 

history of the Tennessee River: Jour. Geology, vol. 13, pp. 194-231,1905. Adams, G. I., The course of the 

Tennessee Biver and the physiography of the southern Appalachian region: Jour. Geology, vol. 36, pp. 

481-493, 1928.
STJBFACE FEATURES OF CENTRAL TENNESSEE 21

A drainage system being established, dissection of the upland progressed. The resistant chert of the lower Mississippian was first 

breached on the apex of the Nashville dome (see pp. 62-63), and tie 

underlying soluble Silurian and Ordovician limestones were attacked 

by streams planing laterally at the local profile of erosive equilibrium. 

In this manner the Nashville Basin was formed, its bounding escarpments being maintained by the resistance of the Mississippian rocks.

HIGH-TERBACE STAGE

Galloway 31 notes that waterworn chert and quartaate gravel caps 

several hills at altitudes of 580 to 700 feet above sea level in the vicinity of Lavergne, Walter Hill, and Lascassas, in northern Rutherford 

County. He implies that these deposits, which are about 500 feet 

below near-by portions of the Highland Rim plateau and 100 feet 

above the floor of the Nashville Basin, indicate a stage of equilibrium 

in the dissection of the Nashville dome. Lusk 32 describes alluviumveneered stream terraces at an altitude of about 700 feet in the valley 

of the Cumberland River near Celina and Gainesboro, to the east of 

the area covered by this report. Furthermore, flat-topped ridges 

and terrace remnants at an altitude of 550 to 600 feet in the vicinity 

of ClarksviUe seem to define a belt of stream planation several miles 

wide which follows the lower course of the Cumberland Valley. 

From this seeming terrace the surface rises by an old-age profile to 

the Highland Rim plateau, at an altitude of about 700 feet, and descends by precipitous youthful slopes to the present stream. Other 

related features exist within the region, but in the absence of topographic maps it was impossible to discriminate them during the 

course of the reconnaissance. These terrace remnants may well be 

the product of general stream planation. The lithology of the postVicksburg strata of the Gulf Coastal Plain does not seem to offer a 

clue to a precise dating of this high-terrace stage. Galloway 33 has 

expressed a belief that the cutting of the high terrace began in late 

Pliocene time, although he gives no basis for his assignment.

PENEPIA1N STAGE

After the conclusion of the high-terrace stage the erosive power 

of the streams was again quickened, and the soluble Ordovician limestones in the apex of the Nashville dome were reduced locally by 

lateral planation and solution to the profile of equilibrium of the 

Cumberland River and its chief tributaries, the Harpeth and Stone 

Rivers. Farther south the Duck River and the Elk River, tributaries 

of the Tennessee River, also cut their beds to grade in the Ordovician

« Galloway, J. J., Geology and natural resources of Rutherford County, Tenn.: Tennessee Qeol. Survey 

Bull. 22, p. 21,1910. 

M Lusk, R. G., op. dt., pp. 167-168. 

» Galloway, J. J., op. cit., p. 21.
22 GEOUND WATBK IN NOKTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

limestones. The gradients of the Duck and Elk seem to have been 

flatter at the beginning of the peneplain stage, however, so that their 

erosive power was less, and the planation they accomplished lagged 

behind that of the more northerly streams. The culmination of this 

stream work approached peneplanation and carved the Nashville 

Basin virtually to its present dimensions and topography. Erosive 

equilibrium seems to have been comparatively short-lived, however, 

for the Nashville Basin peneplain does not carry a thick mantle of 

residual soil, like the older Highland Rim plateau.

The Nashville Basin erosion cycle was by no means complete 

when it was terminated by uplif t. The numerous monadnocks along 

its borders were yet in the youthful or mature stage, and the bounding 

escarpments were yet receding. Local deposits of gravelly detritus 

at the bases of these upland remnants, where the stream gradients 

flatten abruptly, attest the activity of the erosive agencies.

Hayes 34 correlates the Nashville Basin peneplain with the Coosa 

peneplain of the region about Chattanooga, which he implies is 

post-middle Tertiary, but does not date precisely. Shaw 8B suggests 

that the Coosa peneplain may be correlative with the two or three 

upland plains of northern Mississippi which lie above the Brookhaven terrace. To the Brookhaven terrace Matson 86 and Berry ^ 

ascribe post-middle Pliocene age. If the physiographic correlations 

by Hayes and Shaw and the stratigraphic correlations by Matson 

and Berry are correct, the beginning of the Nashville Basin cycle does 

not antedate the sub-Miocene unconformity of Mississippi, and the 

peneplain stage of the cycle is older than middle Pliocene. On the 

other hand, Galloway 88 states that the peneplain stage of the Nashville Basin cycle began at the end of the Pliocene and was terminated 

by further warping in middle Pleistocene time, but he does not give 

the basis of his assignment. Proof of the age of this and other 

physiographic features of the region can not be obtained in the 

absence of accurate topographic maps.

RECENT CYCLE

During relatively late geologic time the upwarping of the Nashville dome was resumed and the streams were again rejuvenated. 

The Tennessee River, which bounds the region on the west, has since 

deepened its channel at least 75 feet. The Cumberland River has 

intrenched itself about 100 feet at Nashville and somewhat less

M Hayes, G. W., op. cit. (Nlnteenth Ann. Kept.), PP. 31,56,1890.

is Shaw, E. W., Pliocene history of northern and central Mississippi: IT. 8. QeoL Surrey Prof. Paper 

108, pp. 139,163,1918.

» Matson, Q. 0., The Pliocene Citronelle formation of the Gulf Coastal Plain: TJ. S. Qeol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 98, pp. 188-189,1917.

» Berry, E. W., The flora of the Citronelle formation: Idem, p. 195.

" Galloway, J. J.t op. cit., pp. 22-23.
SURFACE FEATUKES OF CENTKAL TENNESSEE 23

upstream. The lower reaches of its major tributaries, the Harpeth 

and Stone Rivers, have kept pace with the downcutting, although 

the trenching dies out upstream and the heads of the streams flow 

on the Nashville Basin peneplain. The meandering portions of the 

stream courses are now somewhat ingrown, with gravel-veneered 

slip-off slopes on the inner sides of the meanders, but the linear 

reaches of the streams have merely deepened their channels;without 

lateral planation. Hence the present erosion cycle is clearly in a 

very youthful stage.

DRAINAGE SYSTEM

SURFACE STREAMS

The surface waters of north-central Tennessee are all drained into 

the Gulf of Mexico by way of the Mississippi River. The immediate master streams, however, are the Tennessee, Cumberland, and 

Green Rivers, tributaries of the Ohio River. (See pi. 3.)

The Tennessee River rises in the Valley and Ridge province in 

extreme southwestern Virginia and follows that physiographic province southwestward to Chattanooga. Thence it swerves westward 

across northern Alabama and northward, nearly in the opposite 

direction from its upstream course, entirely across Tennessee and 

enters the Ohio River in western Kentucky about 50 miles above the 

junction of that stream with the Mississippi. The western limb of 

the Tennessee River bounds the region covered by this report on the 

west. The Duck River, the only noteworthy tributary of the Tennessee within the region, heads on the Nashville Basin peneplain and 

flows westward and northwestward across southern Humphreys 

County.

The Cumberland River rises on the Cumberland Plateau in southern Kentucky and follows a tortuous course westward across northcentral Tennessee, swerves northward at Dover and flows parallel to 

the Tennessee River into Kentucky. It joins the Ohio River about 

70 miles above its mouth, or 20 miles above the Tennessee River. 

The two largest tributaries of the Cumberland from the south, the 

Stone and Harpeth Rivers, head on the Nashville Basin peneplain 

in Rutherford and Williamson Counties and flow northwestward to 

the major stream. The Red River, which enters the Cumberland 

from the northeast at Clarksville, drains a considerable portion of the 

northern Highland Rim plateau.

The Green River rises on the Highland Rim plateau in northcentral Tennessee and central Kentucky and flows northwestward 

to its junction with the Ohio River. Its headwater tributaries drain 

the extreme northeast corner of the region covered by this report and 

portions of the adjoining counties of Macon and Clay.
tT. 8. GEOLOGICAL WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 640 PLATE 1

Area covered by Water 

Supply Paper 656

M I S S I S S

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles 

INDEX MAP OF TENNESSEE, SHOWING PHYSIOGRAPHIC DISTRICTS AND PROGRESS IN SURVEY OF GROUND-WATER RESOURCES
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SUBVEY WATEH-STJPPLY PAPER 640 PLATE 2

A. TYPICAL TOPOGRAPHY OF THE INTERSTREAM TRACTS OF THE HIGHLAND

RIM PLATEAU 

View looking north from a point 6 miles east of Cedar Hill, Rohertson County.

B. SINK-HOLE TOPOGRAPHY ON UPLAND PLAIN 

View from a point 3 miles northeast of Clarksville, Montgomery County.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 640 PLATE 3

MAP SHOWING AREA COVERED BY THIS REPORT (SHADED PORTION) IN RELATION TO DRAINAGE BASINS

OF THE TENNESSEE, CUMBERLAND, AND GREEN RIVERS

OD o 10 so loo Miles 

1932

WILLIAU5 & HEINTZ CO..WASH..D C.
U. 8. GEOLOGICAL STJEVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 640 PLATE 5

A. SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE CHANNEL OF THE NASHVILLE 

BASIN PENEPLAIN, NEAR GLADEVILLE, WILSON COUNTY

Floor of channel is 10 feet below plain; exposed by collapse of thin-bedded 

limestone roof.

B. LOVE DAVIS CAVE, 3 MILKS SOUTHWEST OF SMYRNA, 

RUTHERFORD COUNTY

A subsurface drainage channel deroofed by solution and slump along a 

joint.
24 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Although the rocks of central Tennessee are but slightly deformed 

and are for the most part limestones, they vary widely in resistance 

to abrasion and solution. Hence the streams tend to follow the less 

resistant and more soluble beds, and the drainage pattern tends to 

express the geologic structure of the subsurface rocks. This is 

especially true of the smaller tributary streams, which at many places 

follow the strike of the beds faithfully.

TOTOEROROTJND DRAINAGE

Many extensive tracts in north-central Tennessee, both on the 

Highland Kirn plateau and on the floor of the Nashville Basin, have 

no permanent surface streams but are drained into underground 

channels in the limestone. Elsewhere minor streams flow for a distance on the surface, then disappear into sink holes and are added to 

the subsurface drainage. These underground passages are by no 

means fortuitous but tend to develop a definite drainage system which 

is tributary to the surface streams and is an integral part of the 

regional drainage mechanism. Under favorable circumstances the 

underground streams may degrade their channels very rapidly and 

so may even become pirate streams and capture other underground 

channels or divert surface streams. The factors that govern the 

development of such an underground system are discussed on pages 

69-74. Here and there the roofs above the larger of these underground 

channels are breached by collapse (see pi. 5, A, B), by solution, or 

by stream erosion, so that sizable "caves" and galleries are exposed. 

Locally these features are most striking.

STRATIGRAPHY 

SEQUENCE AND GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE ROCKS

The rocks of north-central Tennessee include both unconsolidated 

and consolidated sedimentary types, but no igneous rocks indigenous 

to the region are known. The unconsolidated rocks are stream-bed, 

stream-terrace, and coastal-plain deposit® of Upper Cretaceous and 

Quaternary age, none of unquestioned Tertiary age being recognized. 

Extensive Pleistocene deposits are lacking, so that the Quaternary 

beds are for the most part of Kecent age. The consolidated sedimentary rocks are chiefly limestone and cherty limestone, with some beds 

of shale and a very few beds of sandstone. Those which are exposed 

at the surface range in age from Lower Ordovician (Beekm&ntown) to 

Mississippian, and all the geologic epochs of that interval are represented. The sequence is parted, however, by many minor disconformities and by one major unconformity, which causes the omission of the entire Devonian and Silurian systems over an extensive 

part of the region.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 640 PLATE 8

3000

 2750

Springs issuing from alluvium Springs issuing from Springs issuing from limestone 

0 Chattanooga sha.le

CHEMICAL CHARACTER OF WATER FROM REPRESENTATIVE SEEPAGE SPRINGS IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

STRATIGRAPHY 25

In general the occurrence of ground water in any region depends 

in some measure upon the texture of the rocks, so that the stratigraphy is a guide to the development of ground-water supplies. Hence 

the stratigraphy of north-central Tennessee is here discussed in some 

detail. However, few of the stratigraphic units have a distinctive 

lithology over any large portion of the area, so that identification of 

the beds must rest upon the contained fossils, and it is difficult to 

apply in practice the relations between stratigraphy and occurrence 

of ground water.

The stratigraphic sequence and general lithologic character of the 

rocks are summarized in the following table, and each of the stratigraphic units is described in the succeeding pages. The sequence of 

description, however, is the inverse of that which is usually followed 

in geologic reports, in that the formations are described from the top 

of the geologic column downward that is, in the order in which they 

are encountered by the driller. 

100144 32 3
Stratigraphic section for north-central Tenness

System

Quaternary.

Tertiary (?).

Carboniferous.

Series

Recent.

Miocene (?) 

or

Pliocene (?).

Upper Cretaceous.

Mississippian.

Correlation Formation

Alluvium.

High-terrace gravel.

Eutaw formation.

Tuscaloosa formation.

St. Louis limestone.

Warsaw formation.

Fort Payne formation.

New Providence shale.

Thickness 

(feet)

Variable.

Variable.

10.

30(?).

110-140.

100.

90-275.

0-55.

Character of strata

Gravel, sand, and silt composing f

master rivers and of the larg

streams. Pebbles are mostly r

ments of chert from Mississippi

and chert and quartzlte from P

conglomerates.

Rounded to subangular gravel, san

river terraces, locally several 

above present stream beds; poor

many localities.

Red micaceous sand with fossiliz

interstratifled layers of white c

only in small remnant areas alo 

between the Tennessee and 

Rivers in northwestern part of th

Gravel derived largely from chert 

pian limestones with a minor po

and clay. Known only in isolate

Highland Rim Plateau in the v

Tennessee River.

Massive and medium-bedded fine

to blue limestone; cherty and m

sttiferous; weathers to a bright-r

many rounded fragments of cher

Coarsely crystalline gray to blue h

cherty limestone, shale, and cal

stone; highly fossiliferous; weath

red clayey soil with many chert f

Siliceous shale, chert, fllat, cherty c

stone, and calcareous sandstone 

variable character, progressively 

ceous from northwest to southea

Coarsely crystalline white to gray c

stone in layers 12 to 18 inches th

by thin bands of green and blue 

massive; cross-bedding is characte

places.
Carboniferous 

or Devonian.

Devonian.

Mississippiail or Upper 

Devonian.

Middle Devonian.

Lower Devonian.

Oriskany<?) 

group. '

Helderberg 

group.

C a y u g a 

group.

Niagara

group.

Albion sandstone.

Bidgetop shale.

Chattanooga shale.

Pegram limestone.

Camden chert.

Harriman (?) chert.

Birdsong limestone.

Decatur limestone.

Lobelville formation.

Bob formation.

Beech River formation.

Dixon limestone.

Lego limestone.

Waldron shale.

Laurel limestone.

Osgood limestone.

Brassfield limestone. 

-Disconformitv 

5-107.

0-46.

0-35.

46+.

20-40.

10-20.

0-70.

0-75.

0-75.

0-106.

0-44.

(M6.

0-10.

0-33.

0-22.

3-30.

Light-blue to green clay which In

thin beds of earthy sandstone

stone, and chert; green pho

(Maury glauconitic member) at 

Black fissile carbonaceous shale w

of bituminous matter and disse

crystals of pyrite; Hardin sand

locally at base.

Heavy-bedded light-gray limeston

locally, with a basal member of w

coarse fossiliferous sandstone. N

Alternating layers of dense bluish-

and yellowish chert, each 2 to 9 

known only at two localities in s

phreys County.

White, gray, and buff nonfossil

limestone; known only in the 

Basin, Stewart County.

Thin-bedded and somewhat cher

limestone; known only in the 

Basin, Stewart County.

Heavy-bedded light-gray, relativ

stone.

Thin-bedded earthy limestone a

shale.

Massive pure limestone and varie

Calcareous shale and shaly limesto

Earthy red limestone and red and 

Compact light-gray subcrystalline 

Light-gray shaly limestone.

Massive purple and reddish limes

Thin-bedded compact light gray, b

earthy limestone.

White or blue cherty fossiliferous 
Stratigraphic section for north-central Tennessee C

System

Ordovician.

Series

Upper OrMiddle Ordovician.

Correlation

Richmond

Maysville 

group.

Trenton 

group.

Lower part 

of Black 

River 

group.

Formation

Fernvale formation.

Arnheim limestone.

Leipers limestone.

Catheys limestone.

Cannon limestone.

Bigby limestone.

Hermitage formation.

Lowville limestone.

Thickness 

(feet)

0-40

0-3

0-100

50-100

0-250

30-100

40-80

40-110

Character of strata

Soft green or chocolate-colored sha

of coarsely crystalline gray and m

phatic limestone.

Blue granular crystalline limeston

bedded shale.

Knotty earthy limestone and inter

or granular crystalline limestone w

Knotty earthy limestone and shal

bands of impure blue limestone.

Massive pure dove-colored and gr

also earthy cherty blue limestone

Mainly granular crystalline gray o

nated and cross-bedded phospha

At western edge of Nashville Basi

dium-bedded sandy and phospha

lar limestone with local beds of sh

the northeast and east grades int

gray sandy and earthy limeston

sandstone, and shale.

Upper member consists of thin-b

colored limestone and yellowis

Lower member (Carters limeston

massive compact white or light

limestone.
Lower Ordovidan.

Chazy group

Beekmantown group

I

h

1

tf

J

02

Lebanon limestone.

Eidley limestone.

Pierce limestone.

Murfreesboro 

limestone. 

-Unconformity 

80-125

95-120

23-28

70+

Thin-bedded compact bluish-gray, 

or brown limestone with paran

clay; beds 1 to 6 inches thick; foss

at many localities.

Massive fine-grained blue-gray to b

limestone; not highly fossiliferous

Thin-bedded blue or drab brittle lim

local heavy beds of bluish-brown 

talline limestone; highly fossilifer

Massive brittle drab cherty limesto

Light-gray fine-grained, slightly ch

sian limestone of the Wells Creek 

art County.
30 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

QUATERNARY SYSTEM 

AIIUVIUM

The master streams of north-central Tennessee and the lower 

courses of their larger tributaries are bordered by flood plains, which, 

along the Cumberland Kiver, attain a maximum width of nearly a 

mile on the concave side of meanders. These plains, which have a 

flat transverse profile and terminate abruptly landward against the 

rock erosion slopes of the valley, are constructed of alluvium, which 

comprises beds of silt, sand, and gravel. The coarser particles of the 

alluvium are for the most part rounded fragments of chert from the 

Mississippian limestones and sandstone and quartzite pebbles from the 

Pennsylvanian conglomerates. The alluvium lies upon normal slipoff meander slopes or upon the sloping rock sides of a youthful stream 

trench, so that the deposits thin rapidly toward the margins of the 

plain. They are probably not more than 50 feet thick at most localities.

Without known exception, the alluvial flood plains are subject to 

overflow at high stages of the streams, so that they are wholly unsuited 

for town sites or industrial developments. Hence the alluvium has 

not been developed as a source of ground water, and its water-bearing 

properties are not known. If beds of thoroughly assorted gravel exist 

below the water table, however, properly constructed wells should 

yield large supplies of water. Consequently, these deposits are a 

potential but unproved source of ground water wherever the flood 

plains can be protected from overflow, so that industrial or suburban 

development is feasible.

TEBTIABY(I) SYSTEM (MIOCENE? OB PLIOCENE?)

HIGH-TERRACE GRAVEI

The high-terrace gravel, which Galloway has assigned to the late 

Pliocene but which according to Shaw may be as old as Miocene 

(see pp. 19-21), occurs here and there in the valleys of the Tennessee 

and Cumberland Kivers and their major tributaries as a veneer upon 

rock terraces that are as much as several hundred feet above th»3 present streams. This old gravel, like the recent alluvium, is composed 

largely of waterworn chert from the Mississippian limestones and of 

quartzite pebbles from the Pennsylvanian conglomerates. Generally, 

however, it is poorly assorted, so that its water-yielding capacity is 

not likely to be large. Moreover, the deposits are for the most part 

of slight extent and are rather thoroughly drained, and hence they are 

not a potential source of large quantities of ground water. Locally, 

however, they are likely to yield supplies adequate for domestic use.
STRATIGRAPHY 31

CRETACEOUS SYSTEM

UPPER CRETACEOUS SERIES

EUTAW FORMATION

The Eutaw formation, a coasfcal-plain deposit of Upper Cretaceous age, has been identified by Wade 39 about 9 miles north of the 

Tennessee-Kentucky boundary in Trigg County, Ky., and thence 

has been traced southward about 10 miles beyond the boundary into 

Stewart County, Tenn. Throughout this distance the formation 

occurs only on the crest of the divide between the Tennessee and 

Cumberland Rivers. It does not occur elsewhere in the region investigated, although undoubtedly it was deposited rather generally, 

for it crops out over extensive areas farther south in Wayne and 

Hardin Counties, as was pointed out first by Miser.40

At the locality in Trigg County, Ky., described by Wade the 

Eutaw formation consists of red micaceous sand that contains streaks 

and pellets of white clay, the whole 10K feet thick. The correlation 

is based upon the presence of Halymenites major Lesquereux.

As the Eutaw formation occurs only on the crest of the divide in 

north-central Tennessee, it is subject to drainage by the many tributary streams that flow from this upland divide and hence is not 

likely to retain large quantities of ground water.

TUSCALOOSA FORMATION

The Eutaw formation at the locality in Trigg County is underlain 

by at least 31 feet of gravel that Wade 41 correlates with the Tuscaloosa formation, because of its lithologic character and its position 

beneath the fossiliferous Eutaw. From this locality the Tuscaloosa 

formation has been traced southward into Tennessee, its outcrop 

forming a band that surrounds the Eutaw formation. Wade has also 

identified the formation along the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. 

Louis Railway about 2 miles east of McEwen, where there is "resting 

on chert of the St. Louis formation about 30 feet of very compact 

hard white chert gravel which is typical of the Tuscaloosa." Several 

drilled wells in the vicinity of McEwen Nos. 163, 164, 165, and 166 

(pp. 159-160) are reported to pass through 200 to 230 feefc of unconsolidated material before reaching solid rock. Part of this material 

may belong to the Tuscaloosa formation, but the records of the wells 

do not discriminate between gravel and residual chert, so that it is 

impossible to estimate the thickness of the Tuscaloosa formation at 

this locality. The Tuscaloosa formation caps the higher hills of an 

extensive area in eastern Humphreys County and southwestern

89 Wade, Bruce, The occurrence of the Tuscaloosa formation as far north as Kentucky: Johns HopMns 

Univ. Circ., new ser., No. 3, pp. 104-105,1917.

40 Miser, H. D., Economic geology of the Waynesboro quadrangle: Resources of Tennessee, vol. 4, No. 

3, p. 107, Tennessee Geol. Survey, 1913.

« Wade, Bruce, op. cit., p. 104.
32 GEOTJND WATEE IN NOETH-CENTEAL TENNESSEE

Dickson County. (See pi. 4.) In this district no paleonfcologic evidence of the age of the formation has been found, so that the correlation is based upon the lithology of the material, the geographic relation fco localities at which paleontologic evidence exists, and the 

relation of the deposits to the Highland Bim peneplain. The geologic map of Tennessee ** (see pi. 4) also shows a small outcrop of the 

formation capping the divide between Long Creek and Cross Creek 

near Bear Spring, Stewart County. Furthermore, the deposits of 

waterworn chert and vein quartz gravel on the Highland Bim plateau 

in southwestern Dickson County and adjacent portions of Hickman 

County, which are described by Hayes and Ulrich,43 may also belong 

to the Tuscaloosa formation.

The Tuscaloosa formation as exposed in a cut on the Nashville, 

Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway about 2 miles east of McEwen, 

Humphreys County, is described by Wade ** as consisting of about 

30 feet of very compact white chert gravel which rests upon weathered 

St. Louis limestone. The individual pebbles are well rounded, and 

most of them are less than an inch in diameter, although some are 

as large as 6 inches. Some sand is mixed with the gravel, although 

very little clay is present. The gravel of the Tuscaloosa formation 

can generally be differentiated by three criteria from the streamterrace gravel with which it may be associated. In the first place, 

the individual pebbles and cobbles of the Tuscaloosa formation are 

well rounded, and many of them are almost spherical, whereas those 

of the terrace gravel are generally flat, elongate, or even subangular. 

Small discoidal pebbles of quartzite are abundant in the terrace 

gravel at many localities. Second, the Tuscaloosa gravel is composed 

for the most part of chert from the Mississippian rocks, whereas the 

terrace gravel is derived in large measure from quartzite and sandstone. Third, pellets of iron oxide are not known to occur in the 

Tuscaloosa gravel, whereas they have been observed in the stream 

deposits.

The Tuscaloosa is the oldest formation of the Upper Cretaceous 

series in the East Gulf Coastal Plain province, although the deposits 

that exist in north-central Tennessee probably represent only some 

of the uppermost beds of the type section in the vicinity of Tuscaloosa, in central-western Alabama. In north-central Tennessee the 

formation was laid down as a coastal-plain deposit along the western 

edge of the Cumberland peneplain, underwent planation during the 

Highland Rim cycle, and subsequently has been almost wholly 

eroded by the Tennessee River during the Nashville Basin and recent 

erosion cycles.

« Nelson, W. A., Geologic map of Tennessee, 3d ed., Tennessee Qeol. Survey, 1923.

« Hayes, C. W., and Ulrich, E. O., U. S. Qeol. Survey Qeol. Atlas, Columbia folio (No. 95), p. 1,1903.

« Wade, Brace, op. cit., pp. 103-104.
STEATIGEAPHY 33

The Tuscaloosa formation crops out only on upland tracts which 

are thinly populated and in which there has been little or no groundwater development. Hence, its water-bearing properties are not 

known, although it may be inferred from the lithology that the permeability is high. However, the formation is probably drained over 

extensive areas and therefore may not contain much water.

CARBONIFEROUS SYSTEM 

MISSISSEPPIAJSr SERIES

ST. LOUIS LIMESTONE

The St. Louis limestone, the youngest of the marine sediments of 

north-central Tennessee, is generally a massive or medium-bedded 

fine-grained bluish-gray limestone, which locally contains a great deal 

of nodular and cellular chert (see pi. 6, A) and some beds of shale and 

sandstone, particularly in the lower part. So far as is known, the 

top of the formation has not been observed in the region covered by 

this survey, so that its total thickness before the region was peneplaned 

during the Highland Rim cycle is not known. However, in northern 

Overton County,45 northeast of this region, it is 110 to 140 feet thick. 

Safford 4a has estimated its maximum thickness in central Tennessee 

as 250 feet, although he probably included in this estimate the underlying Warsaw formation. The St. Louis limestone is identified by 

the massive colonial corals Lithostrotion basaltiforme, which occurs at 

all horizons through the area, and Lithostrotion proliferum, which 

occurs locally in the lower part of the formation and which is distinguished from the much more abundant L. basaltiforme by having 

cylindrical rather than polygonal corallites. According to Butts,47 

Archeocidaris and Melonites are abundant and Lithostrotion proliferum 

occurs sparsely immediately above a bed of earthy limestone that is 

about 10 feet above the base of the formation, and this sequence is 

diagnostic throughout northern Overton County. Hayes and Ulrich ** 

also note the presence of Melonites just above the base of the formation in the Columbia quadrangle, so that this fossil may prove to be 

a trustworthy stratigraphic guide throughout the region.

The St. Louis limestone is the topmost formation over the greater 

part of the Highland Rim plateau from the central part of Sumner 

County westward to the Tennessee River (see pi. 4), although outcrops of the unweathered rock are seen only in the stream beds. All 

the upland tracts which it underlies are covered by a thick mantle of 

bright-red soil and clay that contains many rounded fragments of 

chert and silicified colonies and fragments of the characteristic fossil

« Butts, Charles, Geology and oil possibilities of the northern part of Overton County, Tenn., and of 

adjoining parts of Clay, Pickett, and Fentress Counties: Tennessee Geol. Survey Bull. 24, p. 19,1919. 

« Safford, J. M., Geology of Tennessee, p. 339,1869. 

« Butts, Charles, op. cit., p. 18. 

« Hayes, C. W., and Ulrich, E. 0., op. cit., p. 3.
34 GEOTJND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Lithostrotion basaltiforme. This mantle, which is locally at least 

100 feet thick, is the insoluble residuum from the weathering of the 

rock, the calcareous matter having been dissolved by soil water 

percolating downward through joints and entering the underground 

drainage system. Naturally, the depth of weathering is not the same 

at all places, so that the surface of separation between the mantle 

of residuum and the unweathered rock is extremely uneven. (See 

pi. 6, #.) The St. Louis limestone seems to be more soluble than the 

other Mississippian formations, so that in it such features as solution 

channels, sink holes, and caves have developed more extensively than 

in the other rocks under similar conditions of topography and geomorphologic history. (See pp. 78-86.) Indeed, the presence of numerous 

sink holes and other features of solution has been invoked as a means 

of identifying the St. Louis limestone wherever the unweathered rock 

does not crop out. However, this criterion should be employed with 

caution.

The St. Louis limestone yields a large quantity of ground water to 

tubular springs (see pp. 92-95), the discharge of which is the underground run-off from large upland tracts of the Highland Rim plateau. 

The coarser phases of the cherty residuum from the weathered rock 

yield moderate supplies to drilled wells, especially at and just above 

the base of the weathered zone. The unweathered rock, however, 

yields water only in wells that encounter a water-bearing crevice or 

solution channel.

WARSAW FORMATION

Beneath the St. Louis limestone and probably separated from it by 

a slight stratigraphic break 49 is the Warsaw formation, which is not 

differentiated from the St. Louis limestone on Plate 4. Butts M also 

states that the formation is relatively heterogeneous and in Overton 

County comprises equal parts of calcareous sandstone, shale, and 

limestone. The upper third of the formation in that area is mostly 

sandstone, some of the layers of which are highly calcareous and 

resemble limestone in the unweathered condition but weather by 

solution of the calcareous matter into a loose aggregate of quartz 

grains. In many localities the very top of the formation is composed 

of layers between 2 and 4 inches thick of clastic, ripple-marked sandstone. The middle third is compact, thick-bedded limestone that 

contains many fragmental fossils, and the bottom third usually comprises alternating beds of shale and limestone together with several 

sandy layers that weather to resemble coarse yellow sandstone. 

Toward the south and west the limestone beds contain an abundance 

of dark chert, and the sandy facies of the formation seem to be less 

well developed or to be truncated by an unconformity between the

« Butts, Charles, op. cit., p. 18. 

M Idem, pp. 16-17.
STRATIGRAPHY 35

Warsaw and the overlying St. Louis limestone, although the detailed 

stratigraphic relations are not known.

The Warsaw formation is highly fossiliferous, especially in its 

central and upper parts, although the remains are usually fragmental 

and are difficult to classify because they generally decompose as 

rapidly as the inclosing rock. Butts, in Overton County, recognized 

Tricoelocrinus woodmani or a closely related form, Productus magnus, 

Spirifer subequalis (common), Spirifer tenuicostatus, Spiriferetta 

neglecta, Brachythyris subcardiformis, and Worthenopora spinosa. 

Mather, 51 in eastern Sumner County, differentiated not far below the 

top of the formation a key bed that is thickly crowded with fragments 

of Spirifer washingtonensis. The lower part of the formation, however, resembles the underlying Fort Payne formation so much that 

at many localities the two are not readily separable.

The Warsaw formation, which is about 100 feet thick, crops out 

on the Highland Rim plateau in eastern Sumner County and forms 

a broad belt along the higher slopes of the stream valleys farther 

west. Like the overlying St. Louis limestone, it weathers on all the 

upland tracts to a brick-red clayey soil containing many fragments of 

chert, and unweathered rock crops out only in the stream valleys.

The sandstone beds that constitute the upper third of the Warsaw 

formation in Overton County may be water-bearing farther west 

where they pass beneath the St. Louis limestone, although they have 

not been noted in the records of the few wells that have been drilled 

to or below their horizon within the region of this investigation. 

Furthermore, these sandstone beds are not well developed or are 

entirely absent in the western part of the region, so that their value 

as a source of water remains problematic. Even if the beds persisted 

toward the west they probably would yield only saline water of high 

concentration where they were deeply buried.

FORT PAYNE FORMATION

The Warsaw formation is underlain, with seeming conformity, by 

the Fort Payne formation, an exceedingly heterogeneous and variable 

assemblage of siliceous and calcareous shale and sandy, cherty, and 

earthy limestone. In Stewart County, in the northwestern part of 

the region, the upper part of the Fort Payne formation is very thick 

bedded and consists of alternating bands of dense dark bluish-gray 

limestone and persistent bands of dense dark-colored chert from 1 inch 

to 1 foot or more in thickness. (See pi. 6, (7.) Throughout the region 

the topmost beds of the formation are generally cherty, although 

toward the .east and south this cherty facies thins noticeably and the 

limestone becomes more earthy. In Cheatham County the greater

« Mather, K. F., Oil and gas resources of the northeastern part of Sumner County, Tenn.: Tennessee 

Oeol. Survey Bull. 24, (Ann. Kept, for 1919, pt. 2-B), p. 25,1920.
36 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

part of the formation consists of beds of somewhat earthy blue limestone between 2 and 18 inches thick, which are accompanied by quartz 

geodes from 1 to 12 inches in diameter and by nodular and irregular 

tabular masses of chert. The amount of chert decreases noticeably 

and the proportion of earthy limestone and calcareous shale increases 

from the top of the formation toward the bottom. In the southcentral and southwestern parts of the region, especially in Williamson, 

Dickson, and Humphreys Counties, the upper part of the formation 

includes many beds of coarse sandy limestone or calcareous sandstone, 

whose weathered and leached outcrops resemble buff sandstone. 

Locally, in the same district, the lower part of the formation, according 

to Safford,52 is a massive blue-gray limestone whose maximum thickness is 150 feet. According to Mather & the upper 50 to 60 feet of the 

formation in the northeastern part of the region, in Simmer County, 

consists of thin-bedded buff or brownish-gray limestone that contains 

numerous geodes and much tabular chert. This upper division is 

underlain by about 30 feet of relatively pure coarsely crystalline limestone hi massive beds, which inclose tabular masses of light-brown or 

milky-white chert from 3 to 12 inches thick that become less abundant in the lower beds of the division. Estimates by several geologists 

of the thickness of the Fort Payne formation range from 90 to 275 feet, 

although the stratigraphic limits of the sections covered by these 

estimates, especially the lower limit, may not be strictly equivalent.

The Fort Payne formation is essentially nonfossiliferous in northcentral Tennessee, although locally, as in western Overton County,64 

the upper 20 feet contains many fragments of crinoids, the presence of 

which differentiates these beds from the overlying Warsaw formation. 

However, fossils are comparatively abundant in the Fort Payne of 

other areas and also in beds that underlie the Fort Payne. The formation is now classified by Butts,55 who has studied the formation over 

a broad region in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama, as containing 

beds of Keokuk, Burlington, Fern Glen, and late Kinderhook age.

The Fort Payne formation forms the Highland Rim plateau in 

eastern Sumner County and crops out extensively over the middle and 

lower slopes of the dissected part of the plateau along the Highland 

Rim escarpment and in the valleys of the Tennessee and Cumberland 

Rivers. The formation is deeply weathered throughout the upland 

areas, and the weathering has generally produced a reddish or 

yellowish-buff soil that contains much dense chert in subangular 

fragments. In many places the tabular chert has not disintegrated, 

although the calcareous matter of the intervening limestone layers

« Safford, J. M., Geology of Tennessee, p. 340,1869.

» Mather, K. F., op. cit., p. 24.

s* Butts, Charles, op. cit., p. 15.

« Butts, Charles, Geology of Alabama: Alabama Geol. Survey Special Kept. 14, pp. 166-167,1926.
STRATIGRAPHY 37

has been completely leached, so that the layers of chert are separated 

only by seams of yellowish clay a few inches thick. The beds of 

earthy limestone weather to masses of soft shaly clay.

In general the beds of the Fort Payne formation are not highly 

soluble, so that large solution channels are less extensively developed 

and tubular springs are less abundant in this formation than in the> 

overlying St. Louis limestone. Locally, however, these springs are a, 

reliable source of water. In many places the dense tabular chertshave been minutely fractured by weathering, so that they yield water 

rather freely to springs and to drilled wells, although drilling in such* 

material is extremely difficult. The calcareous sandstone members 

in the upper part of the formation supply many perennial springs from 

their weathered and leached outcrops along the Highland Rim escarpment in Williamson County and adjacent areas. (See pp. 210-211.) 

However, their water-yielding capacity where they lie beneath cover 

and are unweathered is not known, except that the earthy limestone 

facies of the formation has no promise as a source of water.

NEW PROVIDENCE SHALE

The Fort Payne formation is underlain locally by the New Providence shale, the type section of which in Tennessee occurs at Whites 

Creek Spring, 12 miles north of Nashville, as described by Bassler.56 

At this locality the New Providence shale is 35 feet thick and consists 

of coarsely crystalline white to gray crinoidal limestone in layers 12 to 

18 inches thick, which are separated by thin bands of green and blue 

shale. At many places the rock is but an assemblage of crinoid fragments and other fossils loosely cemented by greenish shale, which is 

entirely decomposed by weathering so that the fossils are freed in 

great abundance. Toward the southwest, west, and east the formation thins notably and pinches out within a distance of 5 to 10 miles. 

The New Providence shale also occurs in eastern Sumner County,, 

where, according to Mather,67 it comprises variable beds of shale and 

shaly limestone that have a predominant bluish-green tint and inclose 

many geodes. However, chert is not a common constituent. At 

most localities the more calcareous strata are less than 10 inches thick,, 

but in places they are very massive. Cross-bedding occurs at many 

localities and is locally developed to a remarkable degree, the divergence between the false and the true bedding being as much as 10°. 

In this area the New Providence shale attains a maximum, thickness 

of 55 feet along the Highland Rim escarpment north of Bransford and 

Bethpage but thins toward the northeast.

In the Whites Creek Springs section the most abundant and characteristic fossils are the bryozoan Bhombopora incrassata Ulrich and the

M Bassler, B. S., The Waverlyan period of Tennessee: U, S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 41, pp. 218-220,1911. 

w Mather, K. F., op. cit., pp. 21-23.
38 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

brachiopods Rhipidomdla michelinia L'Eveille and Chonetes illinoisensis Norwood and Pratten. The species listed by Bassler are as 

follows:

Favosites valmeyerensis Weller. 

Beaumontia amerioana Weller. 

Zaphrentis oliffordana Edwards

Haime.

Amplexus rugosus Weller. 

Amplexus brevis Weller. 

Cladoconus americana Weller. 

Monilopora crassa (McCoy). 

Rhipidomella michelinia L'Eveille. 

Chonetes illinoisensis Worthen. 

Spirifer vernonensis Swallow. 

Lasiocladia hindei Ulrioh.

and

Rhombopora incrassata Ulrioh. 

Cystodictya pustulosa Ulrioh. 

Fenestella regalis UMoh. 

Ptilopora cylindraoea Ulrich. 

Metichthyocrinus tiaraformis (Troost). 

Barycrinus cornutus (Owen and Shumard).

Catillocrinus tennesseensis (Troost). 

Halysiocrinus perplexus (Shumard). 

Synbathocrinus robustus Shumard. 

Schizoblastus decussatus (Shumard).

The New Providence shale is separated from the overlying Fort 

Payne formation by a slight disconformity and was probably truncated 

by erosion before the deposition of the younger beds. Furthermore, 

Bassler 58 believes that the formation was not deposited widely over 

the area but was limited to definite embayments that converge radially toward the Nashville dome. (See pp. 62-63.)

RIDGETOP SHALE

The Fort Payne formation, or the New Providence shale where 

present, is underlain locally along the northern and western sides of 

the Nashville dome by the Ridgetop shale, a formation of Kinderhookian age. The type section 69 of the formation, along the Louisville & Nashville Railroad between Baker and Ridgetop, in Davidson 

County, consists of light-blue to green clay that incloses several thin 

beds of earthy sandstone, earthy limestone, and chert. The lowermost 

bed of the section as defined by Bassler is characteristically a layer of 

sandy chert about 1 foot thick. Miser 60 and Swartz,61 however, have 

shown that the Maury green shale of Safford and Killebrew62 should be 

included with the Ridgetop shale, although in some reports it has been 

regarded as the upper member of the underlying Chattanooga shale. 

The Ridgetop shale, including the Maury member, is 102 to 107 feet 

thick at the type section, although at Whites Creek Spring, about 5 

miles to the southwest, it is but 41 feet thick. Like the overlying

88 Bassler, K. S., The Waverlyan period of Tennessee: U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 41, pp. 220-222, 1911; 

Early Mississippian rocks of northern Tennessee [abstract]: Geol. Soc. America Bull., vol. 36, No. 1, 

p. 221, 1925.

89 Bassler, R. S., The Waverlyan period of Tennessee: U. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 41, pp. 216-218,1911.

6° Miser, H. D., in Drake, N. F., Economic geology of the Waynesboro quadrangle: Resources of Tennessee, vol. 4, p. 100, Tennessee Geol. Survey, 1914. Miser, H. D., Structure of the Waynesboro quadrangle 

with special reference to oil and gas: Idem, vol. 7, p. 201,1917.

M Swartz, J. H., The age of the Chattanooga shale of Tennessee: Am. Jour. Sci., 5th ser., vol. 7, pp. 28-29, 

1924.

92 Safford, J. M., and Killebrew, J. B., The elements of the geology of Tennessee, p. 141, Nashville, Foster 

£ Webb, 1900.
STRATIGRAPHY 39

New Providence shale, the Ridgetop shale was deposited only in embayments on the northern and western flanks of the Nashville dome, 

according to Bassler.63 The basal Maury glauconitic member is an 

extremely variable but persistent bed, which may be a green, blueblack, or black shale, a brown sandy shale, or even a buff sandstone. 

Its lower part is glauconitic at many places and generally contains 

kidney-shaped phosphatic nodules. Swartz 64 has concluded that this 

basal member is a lithologic but not a chronologic unit, that it was 

deposited universally throughout the region and that it is separated 

from the underlying Chattanooga shale by an unconformity that decreases from west to east and probably disappears between central 

and eastern Tennessee.

The uppermost 20 feet of the Ridgetop shale at the type locality 

and the earthy limestone member that occurs 62 feet below the top of 

the formation are abundantly fossiliferous and contain numerous bryozoans, ostracodes, and other genera of known Kinderhook age, as 

noted by Bassler.68 The sandy shale and chert member whose top is 

15 to 20 feet below the top of the formation contains such pseudo-Devonian fossils as Striatopora and Michelinia, but the presence of welldeveloped species of Palaeads, Productus, and Agaricocrinus is 

conclusive evidence of post-Devonian age. The Ridgetop shale is 

the "fetid shale" of Safford, which Safford and Killebrew 66 and Hayes 

and Ulrich 67 included with the overlying Fort Payne formation as 

the so-called "Tullahoma limestone" or "Tullahoma formation." 

At this horizon have been found many unnamed bryozoans and numerous species of ostracodes, of which only one, Ctenobolbina loevlata 

Ulrich, has been named. The other genera collected at this horizon 

in Hickman and Maury Counties have been studied by Winchell,68 

whose list of species follows:

Spirifera hirta? White and Whitfield. 

Rhynchonella sageriana Winchell. 

Chonetes multicosta Winchell. 

Chonetes pulchella? Winchell. 

Producta concentricata Hall. 

Chonetes fischeri Norwood and 

Pratten.

Zaphrentis ida? Winchell. 

Conularia byblis White. 

Leda bellistriata? Stevens. 

Solen scalpriformis Winchell 

Discina saffordi Winchell. 

Pleurotomaria hickmanensis Winchell. 

Phillipsia tennesseensis Winchell.

CARBONIFEROUS OB DEVONIAN SYSTEM

CHATTANOOGA SHAIE

The ubiquitous basal member of the Ridgetop shale is underlain 

by the Chattanooga shale, which is known locally as the "black shale "

» Bassler, R. S., op. cit. (1911), pp. 220-222.

64 Swartz, J. H., op. cit., p. 29.

w Bassler, R. S., op.cit. (1911), pp. 217-218.

66 Safford, J. M., and Killebrew, J. B., op. cit., pp. 143-144.

" Hayes, O. W., and Ulrich, E. O., U. S. Qeol. Survey Oeol. Atlas, Columbia folio (No. 95), p. 3,1908.

« Winchell, Alexander, in Safford, J. M., Geology of Tennessee, pp. 442-446, Nashville, 1869.
TJ. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 640 PLATE 6

A. NODULAR CHERT IN LOWER PART OF ST. LOUIS LIMESTONE ON STATE 

HIGHWAY 11, ABOUT 3 MILES NORTHWEST OF ADAMS, ROBERTSON 

COUNTY

B. RESIDUAL CLAY OVERLYING ST. LOUIS LIMESTONE, 1 MILE WEST OF

ERIN, HOUSTON COUNTY 

In quarry of Southland Lime Co.

C. TABULAR CHERT IN LIMESTONE OF FORT PAYNE FORMATION AT 

CEDAR SPRING, 4H MILES NORTHWEST OF MODEL, STEWART COUNTY
40 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

or "black slate." This formation is a black or dark-brown fissile 

carbonaceous shale that contains thin seams of bituminous matter 

and disseminated small crystals of pyrite.

Generally the carbonaceous shale is between 20 and 35 feet thick, 

but it attains a maximum thickness of 45 feet, as on Bledsoe Creek 

3 miles north of Bransford, Sumner County,69 and is entirely absent 

at a few localities, as in the vicinity of Dog Creek, 3 miles northwest 

of Kingston Springs, Cheatham County.70 Northeast of the region 

under investigation, on Flynn Creek, 5 miles south of Gainesboro, 

Jackson County,71 the Chattanooga shale thickens greatly in an area 

about 2 miles in diameter and attains a maximum thickness of 149 

feet, apparently having been deposited in one or more pre-Chatta- 

'nooga sink holes. Similar features may exist elsewhere, although none 

have been found in north-central Tennessee. In the south half of the 

Nashville Basin the carbonaceous shale is underlain by a phosphatic 

sandstone, the Hardin sandstone member, which attains a maximum 

thickness of 15 feet in Wayne County.72 In the north half of the 

basin, however, this sandstone is generally only a few inches thick. 

The Hardin sandstone has usually been considered to be the basal 

member of the Chattanooga shale, although it is not unlikely that at 

many localities in the region here described the Hardin has been confused with the sandstone member at the base of the underlying Pegram 

limestone. (See p. 41.)

The Chattanooga shale in Tennessee has long been considered to be 

of late Devonian or early Mississippian age or possibly to represent a 

transition between these two periods; but recently Swartz ra has concluded that in central and western Tennessee it is wholly of earliest 

Mississippian age. In view of the doubt that still exists regarding its 

age, it is classified by the United States Geological Survey as Devonian 

or Carboniferous. Because of its characteristic lithology, the shale is 

a convenient datum plane for tracing the geologic structure and for 

delimiting the major stratigraphic groups. However, it has some 

limitations for these purposes, inasmuch as it lies unconformably upon 

strata that range from Upper Ordovician to late Middle Devonian in 

age, the whole of the Devonian and Silurian systems being locally 

unrepresented.

Many seepage springs issue from the uppermost part of the Chattanooga shale wherever it crops out on the steeper slopes. These 

springs are the source of most of the so-called chalybeate and sulphur 

water. The water from them carries a moderate quantity of iron

" Mather, K. F., op. cit., pp. 19-20.

» Jillson, W. R., Unique Devonic sandbar: Pan Am. Geologist, vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 333-337, 1923. 

" Lusk, R. O., A pre-Chattanooga sink hole: Science, new ser., vol. 66, pp. 579-580,1927. 

» Miser, H. D., Mineral resources of the Waynesboro quadrangle, Term.: Tennessee Qeol. Survey 

Bull. 26, p. 23,1921. 

** Swartz, J. H., op. cit., p. 28.
XT. S. GEOLOGICAL SUKVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 640 PLATE 7

A. BIGBY LIMESTONE EXPOSED IN ABANDONED QUARRY SOUTH OF TENNESSEE CENTRAL RAILROAD AT LOVEMAN'S CROSSING, EAST NASHVILLE

The upper, middle, and lower members are, respectively, the Ward, '* Dove," and " Capitol" 

limestones of Safford. The top of the Hermitage formation is a few feet above the floor of the 

quarry at the right.

B. SANDY CKOSS-BRDIJKD LIMESTONE ("CAPITOL" LIMESTONE OF SAFFORD) 

NEAR BASE OF BIGBY LIMESTONE, EXPOSED IN WEATHERED OUTCROP IN 

SMALL QUARRY AT HAMILTON AND MORRISON STREETS, NASHVILLE
STRATIGRAPHY 41

and sulphate (SO4), probably derived from oxidation of the pyrite; 

generally it also carries a noticeable amount of hydrogen sulphide, 

although the quantity of this gas is usually less than 5 parts per million. Many drilled wells obtain water supplies large enough for 

household use from the upper part of the shale close to its outcrop. 

In general the Chattanooga shale is not likely to be notably water 

bearing where it lies beneath deep cover and is unweathered, it being 

not unlikely that the ground water which is supposedly encountered 

in the shale in eastern Dickson County and elsewhere actually issues 

from sandstone of Devonian age.

DEVONIAN SYSTEM

Although a rather full sequence of Middle and Lower Devonian 

formations is exposed in the western valley of the Tennessee River,74 

rocks of the Devonian system are known at very few localities in 

north-central Tennessee. Those whose stratigraphy is well known 

are of Middle Devonian age, but Foerste 76 has identified Lower 

Devonian beds in the Wells Creek Basin of Stewart County. If the 

Chattanooga shale is wholly of Mississippian age, the Upper Devonian 

series is absent in north-central Tennessee.

MIDDLE DEVONIAN SERIES

PEGEAM LIMESTONE

The type locality of the Pegram limestone is at Pegram, Cheatham 

County. The formation has been defined and its occurrence in 

central Tennessee described by Foerste.76 In the type section it is a 

relatively pure heavy-bedded light-gray limestone that attains a 

maximum thickness of 12 feet at its westernmost exposure in the 

quarry north of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway at the 

bridge across the Harpeth River. Eastward from that locality the 

member thins, and 3 miles to the southeast, at Newsom, in southwestern Davidson County, it is only 3 feet thick. At Newsom the 

formation contains the diagnostic blastid Nucleocrinus verneuili, as 

well as Stropheodonta demissa, S. perplana, Rhipidometta penelope, 

and Nucleospira concinna. The only other known occurrence of the 

Pegram limestone in north-central Tennessee is at the whirl on the 

Buffalo River, which is 2K miles north of Bakerville, Humphreys 

County, and 46 miles west and somewhat south of the type locality. 

At that place the formation is a massive bed 3 feet thick, which is

74 Dunbar, C. O., Stratigraphy and correlation of the Devonian of western Tennessee: Tennessee Geol. 

Survey Bull. 21,127 pp., 1019.

75 Foerste, A. F., Silurian and Devonian limestones of western Tennessee: Jour. Geology, vol. 11, p. 682, 

1903.

79 Foerste, A. F., Silurian and Devonian limestones of Tennessee and Kentucky: Geol. Soc. America 

Bull., vol. 12, pp. 425-426, 1901.

100144 32 i
42 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

similar in lithology to the rock of the type section and is characterized 

by species of Heliophyttum, Blothrophyttum, Oystiphyttum, Cyathophyllum, Cladopora, and Bryozoa. Foerste 77 correlated the upper part of 

the formation with the Sellersburg limestone of Indiana, which is of 

late Middle Devonian (Hamilton) age, and implied that the lower 

part was of early Middle Devonian ("Comiferous" Onondaga) age. 

Dunbar 78 has correlated the entire formation with the Jeffersonville 

limestone of Indiana, which is early Middle Devonian (Onondaga). 

The Pegram limestone is undoubtedly separated from the underlying strata by a disconformity at the two localities that have been 

described.

Recently Pohl 79 has shown that limestone of upper Pegram age is 

accompanied locally by an underlying sandstone member, of probable 

lower Pegram age, whose maximum known thickness is 35 feet. He 

describes the type section and occurrence of this member as follows:

Section in district 4, Trousdale County, Term., in road cut on hill 1% to 1% miles 

southwest of Valentine's store

Mississippian:

Chattanooga shale Feet 

Dead-black, thinly fissile shale with thin bed of conodont-bearing sandstone at base__.___ To top of hill. 

Gray blocky shale carrying abundant Lingulas and 

a few Mississippian conodonts________________ 7

Possible break.

Devonian (?): Black shale like first with lenses of fine, black 

sandstone near base, grading without apparent break 

into limestone below--______-__________------- ___ 8

Devonian:

Pegram limestone (Sellersburg formation) Darkbrown semicrystalline limestone carrying numerous 

large heliophylloid corals, becoming purer gray below 

and very conglomeratic (semiedgewise) near base. _ About 4 

Pegram limestone (Jeffersonville formation) White, 

brown, or pink coarse sugary sandstone, very f ossilif erous at top; barren and exhibiting extremely unsettled 

conditions of deposition in lower 4 feet. Fauna: Leptaena rhomboidalis, Stropheodonta aff. S. hemispherica, 

Stropheodonta demissa, Leptostrophia aff. L. perplana, 

Schuchertella sp., Spirifer cf. S. varicosus, Cystodictya 

gilberti, Fenestella sp., Rhipidomella aff. R. vanuxemi, 

Hadrophyllum orbignyi, Chonetes aff. C. mucronatus, 

Centronella? glansflagae cf. Pholidostrophia iowensis, 

Polypora sp., Loculipora sp., Cystodictya sp., Anibocoelia sp., crinoid stems__________________________ 9

Silurian: Niagaran. Formation undetermined.

« Foerste, A. F., op. cit. (1901), pp. 425-426.

w Dunbar, C. 0., op. cit., p. 91.

» Pohl, E. R., personal communication, February 6,1929.
STRATIGRAPHY 43

Specimens from the type locality [of the Jeffersonville limestone] at the Falls of 

the Ohio show in an insoluble residue from fresh material the presence of about 

1 per cent silica in the form of small biterminal quartz crystals. There is apparently a complete absence of transported sand grains.

Fresh specimens of the massive limestone from the lower portion of the Pegram 

limestone (Jeffersonville) in the vicinity of Pegram, Cheatham County, Tenn., 

retain in their insoluble residues from 15 to 20 per cent sand grains of minute size, 

most of which are more or less completely frosted. The distance they have been 

transported is apparently considerable.

In outliers near and on the Highland Rim plateau north of Hartsville, Trousdale County, Tenn., are present outcrops of a varying thickness of the Jeffersonville formation. The almost exclusive constituent is here a coarse biterminally 

 crystalline quartz sand which has undergone no abrading. The occurrence of 

much of the sand would suggest a diagenetic origin in which the calcium carbonate originally present has been replaced by a secondary accretion of crystalline quartz about the original sand grains.

I suspect that the sandstone has a considerable subsurface distribution, for 

the extent of its areal distribution is indicated in the presence of the identical 

sandstone in the western portion of Davidson County, 50 miles to the southwest of its occurrence in Trousdale County.

Many test wells that have been drilled in search of oil in eastern 

Dickson County (see pp. 142, 144-146) encounter ground water, 

which is reported to issue from the Chattanooga shale. It is extremely doubtful, however, whether the typical shale is sufficiently 

permeable to be water bearing, and hence the true source of the water 

is likely to be in some permeable bed that lies just above or just 

below the shale. It is possible that the source is the basal sandstone 

member of the Pegram limestone, which may persist westward beneath cover. This possibility is somewhat enhanced by the fact 

that in general the Devonian formations are more persistent toward 

the west.

CAMDEN CHERT

At the "whirl" on the Buffalo River, in southern Humphreys 

County, the Pegram limestone is underlain by 45 feet of alternating 

layers, from 2 to 9 inches thick, of dense bluish-gray limestone and 

yellowish chert. These strata are believed by Dunbar w to be transition beds between the Camden chert of Safford and Schuchert 81 

and the overlying Pegram limestone, inasmuch as the fauna contains 

both the very diagnostic Amphigenia curta, of Camden age, and later 

species, such as Spirifer macrothyris. Strata which are very similar 

to those at the "whirl" crop out 5 miles farther west at Hurricane 

Rock Spring (No. 181, p. 161), on the Duck River, and are probably 

also to be correlated with the Camden chert. The formation is not 

known to occur elsewhere in north-central Tennessee.

M Dtinbar, 0. O., op. dt., pp. 80-81.

81 SafEord, J. M., and Schuchert, Charles, Tne Camden chert of Tennessee and its lower Oriskany fauna: 

.Am. Jour. Sci., 4th ser., vol. 7, pp. 429-432,1899.
44 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE 

LOWER DEVONIAN SERIES

Rocks of Lower Devonian age are known at two localities in the 

Wells Creek Basin, Stewart Comity, but have not been identified 

elsewhere in north-central Tennessee.

HARRIMAN (?) CHERT

At one of these localities, in the south bank of the Cumberland 

River about 1 mile southwest of Cumberland City, white, gray, and 

buff cherty limestone as much as 40 feet thick crops out above the 

Birdsong limestone. It is generally very poorly exposed. Foerste 82 

has suggested that this cherty limestone may be correlative with the 

Camden chert, of Middle Devonian age, but Dunbar M has correlated 

it provisionally with the Harriman chert, of Lower Devonian (Oriskany) age, on the basis of a single valve of Spirifer murchisoni?. 

The detailed stratigraphic relations and area! extent of the Harriman formation in north-central Tennessee are not known.

BIRDSONG LIMESTONE

At the other locality of Lower Devonian rocks, which is at the top 

of a section in a railroad cut about 3 miles southwest of Cumberland 

City, Foerste 84 has identified limestone of the Linden group, of 

Helderberg age. Dunbar 85 has correlated this limestone with the 

Birdsong shale, and Bucher 86 has recognized in it such Helderberg 

fossils as Atrypa reticularis, Leptostrophia beckii, a small Delthyris, 

and Meristella. According to Dunbar, the formation overlaps eastward upon the Silurian rocks and is generally absent by erosion east 

of the Tennessee River. In the Wells Creek Basin it is represented 

by 10 to 20 feet of thin-bedded and somewhat cherty limestone, 

which is not commonly well exposed. The areal extent of this stratigraphic unit in north-central Tennessee has not been traced.

SILURIAN SYSTEM

The rocks of Silurian age that crop out on the Western and northwestern flanks of the Nashville dome (see pp. 62-63) in Tennessee 

constitute a classic section which has long been a field of paleontologic and stratigraphic study and which has been studied in detail

«8 Foerste, A. F., Silurian and Devonian limestones of western Tennessee: Jour. Geology, vol. 11, p. 693, 

1903.

M Dunbar, C. O., op. cit., p. 74.

M Foerste, A. F., op. cit. (1903), pp. 690-692.

M Dunbar, C. O., op. cit., p. 58.

* Bucher, W. H., The stratigraphy, structure, and origin of Wells Creek Basin, Tenn.: Tennessee Dept. 

Education Div. Geology [in preparation].
STRATIGRAPHY 45

by Foerste,87 Pate and Bassler,88 and Miser.89 This section comprises 

rocks of Cayuga, Niagara, and Albion age. The rocks of Cayuga 

&ge constitute the Decatur limestone; those of Niagara age are divided 

into the Lobelville, Bob, Beech River, Dixon, Lego, Waldron, Laurel, 

and Osgood formations; and those of Albion age are the Brassfield 

limestone. These formations, whose general characteristics are given 

in the stratigraphic section (p. 27), constitute a somewhat variegated 

stratigraphic unit, which is 233^ feet thick at Clifton, Wayne County.90 

The Silurian rocks thin northward and eastward along the flank of 

the Nashville dome and finally wedge out in Macon County, slightly 

«ast of the area represented by Plate 4. According to Miser,91 this 

thinning is due to post-Silurian erosion that truncated the section 

at the top and is not primarily due to overlap, the only overlapping 

unit in the Silurian being possibly the Lobelville formation. The 

detailed stratigraphy of the Silurian rocks has been untangled at 

only a few places in north-central Tennessee, so that full discussion 

is not possible at this time.

As shown by Plate 4, the Silurian rocks crop out in north-central 

Tennessee along the base of the Highland Rim escarpment and its 

outliers in Williamson, Cheatham, Davidson, and Sunnier Counties. 

According to Foerste 92 a rather full sequence of these rocks is also 

exposed in the Wells Creek Basin of southeastern Stewart County.

ORDOVICIAN SYSTEM

GENERAL FEATURES

The Ordovician system of north-central Tennessee includes rocks 

of Upper, Middle, and Lower Ordovician age, the top of the system 

being placed at the top of the Richmond group. In this region the 

Brassfield limestone, of Albion age, rests disconformably on the Fernvale formation (of early Richmond age, according to Ulrich), and the 

underlying Arnheim limestone, which is the basal formation of the 

typical Richmond group of Indiana, rests unconformably on the 

Leipers limestone (of early Maysville age, according to Ulrich). 

The stratigraphic break at the base of the Richmond group is considered by Ulrich and Bassler to be of considerable magnitude and 

greater than the break at its top, the formations with which the

8' Foerste, A. F., Silurian and Devonian limestones of Tennessee and Kentucky: Qeol. Soc. America 

Bull., vol. 12, pp. 395-444,1901; Silurian and Devonian limestones of western Tennessee: Jour. Geology, 

vol. 11, pp. 554-583, 679-715,1903.

88 Pate, W. F., and Bassler, E. S., The late Niagaran strata of west Tennessee: U. S. Nat. Mas. Proc., 

vol. 34, pp. 407-432, 1908.

» Miser, H. D., Mineral resources of the Waynesboro quadrangle, Tenn.: Tennessee Geol. Survey Bull. 

26, pp. 18-22, 1921.

'« Pate, W. F., and Bassler, R. S., op. cit., pp. 411-412.

" Miser, H. D., op. cit., pp. 18-22; also personal communication.

*> Foerste, A. F., Silurian and Devonian limestones of western Tennessee: Jour. Geology, vol. 11, pp. 

690-694,1903.
46 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Leipers is in contact ranging in age from early Richmond (Arnheim 

limestone) to late Devonian or Mississippian (Chattanooga shale). 

Hence they include the rocks of Richmond age in the Silurian system. 

The angular discordance is usually much too small to be discernible 

in a small outcrop and is apparent only when diagnostic faunal horizons are traced long distances.

The Ordovician system comprises many limestone and calcareousshale formations which were deposited in successive broad overlapping belts from east or west across the Nashville dome. According 

to Ulrich 93 and Bassler,94 the succession of overlaps was due to crustal oscillation. Hence the Ordovician formations do not follow one 

another in simple succession but interfinger in a rather complex 

manner, which can be traced in the field only by precise classification of the fauna.

UPPER ORDOVICIAN SERIES

FERNVALE FORMATION

The Silurian rocks are underlain disconformably at several places 

in the western part of the region by the Fernvale formation, whose 

type locality is at Fernvale,95 in the valley of South Harpeth Creek, 

southwestern Williamson County. This formation is made up largely 

of soft chocolate-colored and green shale with one or more beds 

of coarsely crystalline flesh-colored or mottled limestone and, locally, 

a basal member of highly ferruginous reddish or even vermilion 

limestone from 5 to 6 feet thick. At some places the lower beds are 

conglomeratic and highly phosphatic. Where the formation is thin it 

may be composed wholly of shale. The Fernvale formation, which 

ranges in thickness from 40 feet to the vanishing point, occurs only 

in scattered small areas on the western flank of the Nashville dome. 

Hayes and Ulrich have explained this discontinuity by the hypothesis 

that the formation was deposited only in elongate embayments, but 

this hypothesis is not generally accepted.

ARNHEIM LIMESTONE

The Fernvale formation is underlain at a few places in Williamson 

County and possibly elsewhere by the Arnheim limestone, which is 

made up of blue granular crystalline limestone and interbedded shale. 

Usually the Arnheim limestone is less than 3 feet thick.

LEIPERS LIMESTONE

The Leipers limestone takes its name from Leipers Creek, a tributary of the Duck River in extreme southwestern Williamson County

" Ulrich, E. O., Revision of the Paleozoic systems: Qeol. Soc. America Bull., vol. 22, pp. 416-419, 

428-430, 1911.

M Bassler, R. S., Embayments and overlaps in central Tennessee [abstract]; Qeol. Soc. America Bull., 

vol. 34, p. 132, 1923.

w Hayes, O. W., and Ulrich, E. O., U. S. Geol. Survey Geol. Atlas, Columbia folio (No. 95), p. 2,1903.
STRATIGRAPHY 47

and the adjacent part of Maury County. In the type region the 

complete section comprises eight members, as follows:

Section of the Leipers limestone in the type region

[Hayes, C. W., and Ulrich, E. 0., op. eit., p. 2]

Unconformity. Feet

Earthy blue limestone, dense in fresh exposures but weathering knotty; current-bedded, inasmuch as its only common fossil, Platystrophia lynx, is generally waterworn; 

may be absent.

Soft calcareous light-blue shale, which occurs at very few 

localities. This is the horizon of the branching bryozoan 

Bythopora gracilis (Nicholson), which is very abundant in 

the vicinity of Cincinnati-_-_______________ Thin or absent.

Earthy limestone and calcareous shale, widely distributed; 

contains Orthorhynchula linneyi and Tetradium fibratum 

and is very similar lithologically to several beds in the 

underlying Catheys formation which hold the same species; thickness not more than_______________________ 7

Knotty impure limestone and shale, blue and gray; extremely fossiliferous, monticuliporoid Bryozoa being 

especially abundant. Of more than 50 species of fossils, 

the most characteristic are Amplexopora columbiana, 

Homotrypella nodosa, and Strophomena planoconvexa._.__. 5-12

Granular crystalline gray limestone, sandy at some places, 

slightly phosphatic, and sparingly fossiliferous. Maximum thickness more than____________________________ 40

Thin-bedded, shaly limestone which is extremely fossiliferous. Of the fossils, the most diagnostic are a long, hinged 

form of Platystrophia laticosta, a species of Hindia, and 

several undescribed bryozoans._______________________ 6-14

Mottled crystalline limestone which contains shells of Ctenodonta, a large branching Escharopora, and a small ramose 

bryozoan (Bythopora) ; not present in all sections. Maximum thickness.___________________________________ 20

Shale and thin-bedded limestone, of which an undetermined 

species of Bucania or Salpingostoma is characteristic. 

Maximum thickness_________________________________ 10

Catheys formation or Cannon limestone.

Elsewhere in north-central Tennessee, however, these eight members can not always be differentiated; at one locality the entire formation may be knotty earthy limestone, and at another it may be 

granular crystalline limestone. The upper half of the Leipers limestone contains deposits of rock phosphate at three horizons, each of 

which has been the scene of mining activity at one or more points in 

the central basin. These deposits have been described by Hayes and 

Ulrich.96

Ulrich 97 has concluded that the fauna of the Leipers formation, 

which is of undoubted Upper Ordovician (Maysville) age, is very

« Hayes, C. W., and Ulrich, E. 0., op. cit., p. 5.

n Ulrich, E. 0., Revision of the Paleozoic systems: Qeol. Soc. America Bull., vol. 22, pp. 299-300,1911,
48 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

similar in its general aspects to and is actually a recurrence of the 

fauna from the underlying Catheys formation of Middle Ordovician 

(upper Trenton) age. Moreover, the Leipers and Catheys formations 

are very similar in lithology, so that extreme care must be used if 

they are to be discriminated accurately in the field.

On the west side of the Nashville dome the Leipers formation 

reaches a maximum thickness of 100 feet but locally has been completely removed by erosion that began in Upper Ordovician (Lorraine) 

time. Toward the east, however, the formation thins and becomes 

less persistent, and over extensive areas on the east side of the basin 

it is entirely absent. These stratigraphic relations are due in small 

part to post-Leipers erosion but more especially to the fact that the 

Leipers formation overlaps or transgresses the flank of the Nashville 

dome from the west and was not deposited uniformly over the entire 

region. Northwest of the type area, however, in the Wells Creek 

Basin of Stewart County, the formation has not been found, although 

the stratigraphic relations have not been traced in detail, and it is 

not clear whether the omission is due to erosion or to overlap. At 

most localities the formation lies immediately beneath the Chattanooga shale, although at some it is separated from the Chattanooga 

shale by Silurian and Devonian rocks.

MIDDLE OKDOVTCIAN SERIES

CATHEYS LIMESTONE

On the north and west sides of the Nashville Basin the Leipers 

formation is underlain by the Catheys limestone, whose type area is 

the basin of Catheys Creek,98 a tributary of the Duck River in Lewis 

and Maury Counties. The two formations are separated by a slight 

erosional unconformity. The Catheys formation, as deposited, was 

not less than 50 feet and in some places was at least 100 feet thick, 

but the subsequent erosion removed much of the accumulated material. The upper half of the formation is as a rule made up of compact impure blue limestone in layers from a few inches to 4 feet thick, 

separated by thin layers of calcareous shale. Northward from the 

type locality more and more beds of fine-grained impure limestone 

appear in this part of the formation. The fossil fauna, which is restricted to the fine-grained beds and with them increases in abundance 

toward the north, includes Brachiopoda, Mollusca, Crustacea, and, 

locally, Bryozoa. Several large ostracodes, of the genera Leperditia 

and Isochilina, are especially characteristic of these beds. The lower 

half of the formation is made up of highly variable beds of fossiliferous 

knotty and fine-grained earthy limestone and shale, many of which 

are identical in lithology with the overlying Leipers formation. In 

these beds Cyclonema varicosum is probably the most diagnostic fossil.

" Hayes, O. W., and Ulricb, E. O., op. cit., p. 2.
STRATIGRAPHY 49

Locally the basal member is a rather massive coarsely crystalline 

limestone which incloses masses of Stromatocerium pustulosum from 3 

inches to 3 feet in diameter. At some places this Stromatoceriumbearing bed is replaced, at least in part, by siliceous shale which is 

filled with portions of the sponge Pattersonia aurita and corals of the 

genus Columnaria. Elsewhere the basal member resembles the granular beds of the underlying Bigby limestone and, in common with that 

formation, contains Rqfinesquina, alternata in abundance, although 

always in association with characteristic Catheys Bryozoa, such as 

Heterotrypa parvulipora. The lower half of the Catheys formation 

also contains corals of the genera Streptelasma and Tetradium, which, 

with the Stromatocerium and Columnaria to which reference has been 

made, are recurrent in the overlying Leipers formation, as is pointed 

out by Ulrich.99 The Catheys fauna is of late Middle Ordovician 

(upper Trenton) age.

The Catheys limestone crops out over extensive areas of medium 

altitude in eastern Williamson County and in southern Davidson and 

Sumner Counties. It also crops out on the upper slopes and tops of 

the higher ridges in eastern Wilson County and along the east, south, 

and west sides of Rutherford County. (See pi. 4.) The Catheys 

fauna has not been recognized in the Wells Creek Basin of Stewart 

County.

CANNON LIMESTONE

The Cannon limestone was originally defined by Ulrich * as including 

all the strata that lie below the Chattanooga shale and above the 

Hermitage formation on the east side of the Nashville dome, the type 

region being Cannon County. As thus defined, the formation comprises an upper portion whose maximum thickness is about 100 feet 

and a lower portion 150 to 200 feet thick. The upper portion contains 

a Catheys fauna and is the eastward extension of the typical Catheys 

limestone. The lower portion consists for the most part of massive 

gray limestone, some beds of which are granular and others knotty 

and earthy; many of the strata are highly fossiliferous.2 This lower 

portion is equivalent to the Perryville, Flannagan, and Bigby formations o£ Kentucky, though the typical Bigby limestone is wholly or 

in part missing in and about Cannon County.

Later Ulrich 3 redefined the Camion limestone by excluding the 

Catheys limestone at the top and the Bigby limestone at the bottom, 

so that the term might be applied to the strata on both the east and 

west flanks of the Nashville dome. The redefined formation includes

M Ulrich, E. O., op. cit., pp. 299-300.

»Idem, pp. 417-418,429.

1 Galloway, J. J., Geology and natural resources of Rutherford County, Tenn.: Tennessee Geol. Survey 

Bull. 22, p. 53,1919.

* Ulrich, E. O., in Secrist, M. H., The zinc deposits of east Tennessee: Tennessee Dept. Education Div. 

Geology Bull. 31, p. 16,1924.
50 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

50 to 250 feet of limestone. The Cannon fauna is of late Middle 

Ordovician (Trenton) age, though it is not within the scope of this 

project to reelassify the fossil species according to Ulrieh's restricted 

definition.

The Cannon limestone crops out beneath the Catheys in areas of 

medium altitude on the east flank of the Nashville dome. It is 

generally absent on the west flank of the dome, though at some places 

its truncated and overlapping edge comes between the Catheys and 

Bigby limestones. It is not known to exist in the Wells Creek Basin 

of Stewart County.

BIGBY LIMESTONE

The Catheys limestone, or the Cannon limestone where that formation is present, is underlain at most places on the north and west sides 

of the Nashville dome by the Bigby limestone, the type locality of 

which is the basin of Bigby Creek, a tributary of the Duck Kiver in 

western Maury County. At and near its type locality the Bigby 

limestone comprises relatively homogeneous beds of semi-oolitic or 

granular crystalline phosphatic gray or bluish limestone. Beds of 

sandy calcareous shale several feet thick occur locally at the top of 

the formation, and shaly beds occur locally at its base. The formation 

ranges in thickness from 30 to 100 feet, but the minimum thickness 

as deposited was about 50 feet. In the upper part of the formation in this region bryozoans are very abundant, especially Constellaria teres, C. florida emaciata, C. grandis, and Eridotrypa briareus. 

Other fossils are found only in local thin shaly layers or in small 

lenticular beds of pure limestone. The lower fourth of the formation 

is almost devoid of fossils except Rafinesguina alternata and the 

minute forms of Mollusca which are common to all the phosphatic 

limestones of central Tennessee.

As the formation is traced northeastward to and beyond Nashville 

it is found to thicken materially and become less granular and more 

fossiliferous. At Nashville it is separated from the overlying Catheys 

formation by a minor disconformity and is divisible into three distinct members, which are well exposed in an abandoned quarry south 

of the Tennessee Central Kailroad at Loveman's crossing, in eastern Nashville. (See pi. 7, A) The topmost member, which is generally about 28 feet thick, is a dark-blue medium-grained limestone, 

which contains a few large colonies of Stromatocerium pustvtosum; 

this is the Ward limestone of Safford.4 The member is underlain by 

8 to 12 feet of very compact, brittle, heavy-bedded limestone which 

is dove-colored on fresh surfaces but chalky white on weathered 

surfaces; this is the " Dove " limestone of Safford. The basal member 

at Nashville is the "Capitol" limestone of Safford, about 25 feet

* Safford, J. M., The geology of Tennessee, pp. 277-278, 1869. Jones, P. M.f Geology of Nashville and 

vicinity [thesis, Vanderbilt University], 56 pp., map, Nashville, 1892.
STRATIGRAPHY 51

thick, which is a medium-bedded phosphatic sandy limestone made 

up in large measure of fragments of shells and corals. Its individual 

laminae are characteristically cross-bedded (pi. 7, B), as is well shown 

in the masonry of the State capitol at Nashville, the rock for which 

was quarried from this member.

Still farther east,5 in Trousdale and Smith Counties, beyond the area 

represented by Plate 4, the Bigby limestone is 120 to 150 feet thick, of 

which fully half consists of very compact light bluish-gray or tan 

limestone. The formation as a whole contains much more subcrystalline matter than the Bigby limestone of the type locality. Moreover, the fauna! differences are even more striking than these lithologic differences, nearly all the beds in Trousdale and Smith Counties 

being profusely fossiliferous and containing a large and varied fauna. 

In this fauna the Mollusca predominate and the Bryozoa and Brachiopoda that characterize the Bigby limestone of the type locality are 

rare or absent altogether.

In Rutherford County, according to Galloway,6 the Bigby limestone is variable in lithology and is at most 30 feet thick. In the 

central-western part of the county, near Almaville, it is a gray massive 

granular laminated limestone, of which some beds are sandy and 

others are shaly and highly fossiliferous. The most abundant species 

of the locality are Hebertella frankfortensis, Rhynchotrema increbescens, Hallopora multitabulata var., Platystrophia colbiensis, Tetradium 

minus, and several undetermined species. The characteristic fossils 

of the type locality are not present. North of Almaville the formation is a granular gray or brown laminated and cross-bedded limestone that contains no fossils.

The Bigby limestone is relatively persistent at its proper horizon 

along the west and north sides of the central basin but is thin or absent 

at most places on the east side.7 Its fauna is of Middle Ordovician 

(middle Trenton) age.

HERMITAGE FORMATION

The Bigby limestone is underlain disconformably, in all parts of the 

Nashville Basin, by the Hermitage formation (" Orthis bed " of Safford), 

whose type section is at Hermitage station on the Tennessee Central 

Railroad, in eastern Davidson County. In the Columbia quadrangle 

Hayes and Ulrich 8 subdivided the Hermitage formation into two 

portions, the upper of which, about 40 to 50 feet thick, is composed 

of medium-bedded sandy and phosphatic subgranular limestone that 

is accompanied locally by a small amount of shale. Many of these 

beds are crowded with the silicified shells of Dalmanella testudinaria

* Hayes, C. W., and Ulrich, E. O., op. cit, p. 2.

* Galloway, J. J., Geology and natural resources of Rutherford County, Tenn.: Tennessee Geol. Survey 

Bull. 22, pp. 51-52,1919.

7 Ulrich, E. 0., Revision of the Paleozoic systems: Geol. Soc. America Bull., vol. 22, p. 416,1911.

8 Hayes, C. W., and Ulrich, E. O., op. cit., pp. 1-2.
52 GEOTJND WATBE IN NOETH-CBNTEAL TENNESSEE

(Orthis testudinarm of Safford), which is the most characteristic fossil 

species of the formation. The lower portion of the formation, from 

12 to 20 feet thick, is composed of thin-bedded earthy and sandy blue 

limestone whose beds are separated by seams of gray or bluish shale. 

At Nashville the formation retains these same general characteristics, 

the subgranular upper beds with the characteristic Dalmanetta testudinaria being well exposed in the quarry south of the Tennessee Central Railroad at Loveman's crossing, in the eastern edge of the city, 

although they are much thinner than in the Columbia quadrangle. 

Toward the center of the Nashville Basin, in Williamson County and 

western Rutherford County, the formation consists almost wholly of 

flaggy beds of blue-gray sandy and earthy limestone separated by 

seams of shale. These beds are usually devoid of fossils, are locally 

phosphatic, and at many places simulate thin-bedded earthy yellowish 

sandstone on weathered surfaces. Toward the northeast these flaggy 

beds grade laterally into a highly variable series of impure limestone, 

shale, and calcareous sandstone with local beds of cherty material.

The Hermitage formation ranges in thickness between 40 and 80 feet 

in the Nashville Basin and crops out at its proper horizon throughout 

the area. It is well exposed in the valley of the Harpeth River in the 

vicinity of Franklin, where it is quarried at several points, and in the 

valley of the Cumberland River about Nashville. In Rutherford 

County and southern Wilson County it crops out only on the upper 

slopes of the higher hills and ridges that surround the Nashville Basin. 

In the Wells Creek Basin of Stewart County strata that are equivalent 

to the Hermitage formation ("Saltillo limestone" of Foerste 9) crop 

out beneath the Brassfield limestone, of basal Silurian (Albion) age, 

although their .thickness and the nature of the contact are not disclosed. The Hermitage formation is of Middle Ordovician (basal 

Trenton) age.

IOWVILLE LIMESTONE

In north-central Tennessee the Hermitage formation is underlain 

disconformably by limestones that have heretofore been called Carters 

limestone but are herein designated Lowville limestone, in accordance 

with Bassler's assignment. 10 Beds of post-Lowville Black River age 

are not known to occur in north-central Tennessee. Bassler has 

divided this formation into an upper member, composed largely of 

thin beds of very dense dove-colored limestone and yellowish-gray 

shale, and a lower member, which comprises beds of compact white 

or light-blue cherty limestone from 1 to 4 feet thick. The upper 

member, which contains the guide fossil Tetradium cellulosum and 

such other forms as Columnaria halli, Streptelasma profundum, and

 Foerste, A. F., Silurian and Devonian limestones of western Tennessee: Jour. Geology, vol. 11, p. 690, 

1903.

w Bassler, B. S., The stratigraphy of the central basin of Tennessee: Tennessee Dept. Education 

Div. Geology Bull. 38, p. 60,1932.
STRATIGRAPHY 53

Dystactospongia minor, has long been correlated by Ulrich and Bassler 

with the Lowville limestone of New York. Recently Bassler 10 has 

correlated this member with the "Tyrone formation" of Miller u in 

central Kentucky. It is generally present on the north and east 

flanks of the Nashville dome but according to Bassler is absent on the 

west flank. The lower member of the Lowville limestone is generally 

present on all sides of the Nashville dome. It is correlated by Bassler 

with the "Oregon formation" of Miller in central Kentucky 12 and 

with the beds originally called Carters limestone, from the basin of 

Carters Creek,13 a tributary of the Duck River in central-northern 

Maury County. This member is here designated the Carters limestone member of the Lowville limestone, which is a restriction of the 

name Carters as heretofore used. The member is somewhat more 

earthy on the west side of the Nashville dome than on the east.

Nelson M has identified a bed of greenish sticky clay or bentonite 21 

inches thick and 8 feet below the top of the Lowville limestone at 

Singleton, Bedford County, about 50 miles southeast of Nashville. 

He has also identified the same stratum tentatively in the vicinity of 

Nashville and as far north as Highbridge, Ky., and as far south as 

Birmingham, Ala. Its maximum known thickness is 10 feet, near 

Highbridge. This bentonite is classified by Larsen as a decomposed 

volcanic ash.

The Lowville limestone ranges from 40 to 110 feet in thickness in 

north-central Tennessee, though it is commonly about 65 feet thick; 

its lower member, the Carters limestone member, is 40 to 60 feet thick 

in its type locality. The Lowville limestone crops out in an irregular 

band along the middle slopes of the hills that surround the Stone 

River Basin in Rutherford County and southeastern Wilson County 

and is widely distributed in the valley of the Cumberland River as far 

downstream as Nashville. It also crops out over a large area in the 

valley of the Harpeth River, where it extends downstream within 1% 

miles of Franklin. Northwest of the Nashville Basin, in the Wells 

Creek Basin of Stewart County, the Lowville limestone also crops out, 

overlain by limestone of probable Hermitage age and underlain by 

limestone of Beekmantown(?) age. 15 (See p. 191.) Both the upper 

and lower contact zones are concealed in that area.

" Bassler, R. S., op. cit., p. 64.

11 Miller, A. M., The lead and zinc-bearing rocks of central Kentucky: Kentucky Oeol. Survey Bull. 2, 

pp. 14-16.1906.

«Idem, pp. 13-14.

« Safford, J. M., The geology of Tennessee, p. 263,1869. Hayes, O. W., and Ulrich, E. 0., U. 8. Qeol. 

Survey Oeol. Atlas, Columbia folio (No. 95), p. 1,1903.

M Nelson, W, A., Volcanic ash bed in the Ordovidan of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama: Oeol. Soc. 

America Bull., vol. 33, pp. 605-615,1922.

15 Ulrich, E. O., Revision of the Paleozoic systems: Oeol. Soe. America Bull., vol. 22, p. 671,1911.
54 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

LOWER ORPOVICIAN SERIES

LEBANON LIMESTONE "

The Lowville limestone is underlain disconformably by the Lebanon 

limestone, the type locality of which is the city of Lebanon,17 Wilson 

County. The Lebanon limestone generally comprises many beds of 

compact brittle light-gray, dove-colored, or bluish-gray limestone in 

alternation with thin seams of bluish-gray or yellow clay. The layers 

of limestone are from 1 to 6 inches thick, and those of clay only a 

fraction of an inch. Some of the limestone beds are sandy, others 

are laminated, and still others are mottled; some layers are dense and 

unfossiliferous, others are coarsely crystalline; furthermore, the beds 

show ripple and rill marks at many different horizons. At many 

places a massive bed of drab coarsely crystalline unfossiliferous limestone from 2 to 11 feet thick, very similar lithologically to the underlying Kidley limestone, occurs in the lower half of the formation.

The Lebanon limestone is fossiliferous at many horizons, although 

some beds are barren and others are composed almost entirely of the 

shells of one or several species. The most abundant and characteristic fossils of the formation are

Plectambonites sp. 

Scenidium anthonense. 

Batostoma libana. 

Escharopora briareus. 

Leperditia fabulites. 

Orthis tricenaria. 

Phragmolites grandis.

Pianodema subaequata. 

Pachydictya cf. P. foliata. 

Pterygometopas troosti. 

Rhynchotrema minnesotensis. 

Chasmatopora sublaxa. 

Streptelasma cf. S. parasiticum. 

Zygospira saffordi.

The Lebanon limestone ranges in thickness from 80 to 125 feet and 

in general thins westward. It crops out in a band from half a mile to

5 miles wide along the base of the hills that bound the Nashville 

Basin peneplain in Rutherford County. It also covers extensive 

areas in Davidson, Williamson, and Wilson Counties. (See pi. 4.) 

The generalized form of its outcrop is an elliptical band surrounding 

the Nashville dome. (See pp. 62-63.) The formation is not known to 

crop out in the Wells Creek Basin of Stewart County. (See p. 191.)

RIDLEY LIMESTONE

The thin-bedded Lebanon limestone is underlain, in seeming conformity, by the Ridley limestone, the type section 18 of which extends 

half a mile southward from the Davis mill (formerly Ridley's mill),

i* This discussion of the Lebanon limestone and the underlying formations of the Stones River group is 

adapted in large part from Galloway, J. J., Geology and natural resources of Rutherford County: Tennessee 

Geol. Survey Bull. 22, pp. 32-45,1919.

w Saflord, J. M., and Klllebrew, J. B., The elements of the geology of Tennessee, p. 125, Nashville, Poster

6 Webb, 1900. 

w Saflord, J, M., The geology of Tennessee, p. 261,1869.
STRATIGRAPHY 55

near Jefferson, northwestern Rutherford County. The Ridley limestone is for the most part a massive, dense light-blue, dove-colored, or 

light-brown limestone, which at some places contains abundant 

bluish-black or white chert. Locally, as at Sulphur Spring, 1% miles 

north of Jefferson, it contains thin-bedded or platy members. The 

color of the formation is due largely to the presence of bituminous 

matter, the odor of which is usually noticeable when the rock is 

freshly broken; at many places it is streaked with granular fucoid 

markings of lighter color. The weathered rock is light gray and has a 

finely granular appearance, but the weathering does not extend more 

than 1 or 2 inches into the rock.

The Ridley limestone can not be discriminated from the older 

Murfreesboro limestone on the basis of lithology alone. These two 

formations are alike in color, in hardness, and in brittleness; they 

contain about the same amount of chert and bituminous matter; 

each is platy at a few places; their changes on weathering and their 

influence upon topography and soil are identical. Hence the Ridley 

limestone can be identified only where it is fossiliferous or where its 

contact with the overlying Lebanon limestone or the underlying Pierce 

limestone is exposed.

The Ridley limestone is not highly fossiliferous, although Stromatocerium is locally abundant. The most common and diagnostic 

species are Stromatocerium rugosum, Camaretta volborthi, Hebertetta 

bettarugosa, Gonioceras anceps, Orbignyetta sublamettosa, IAOSJWTQ, 

convexa, Rafinesquina minnesotensis, and Protorhyncha ridleyana.

The Ridley limestone is from 95 to 120 feet thick, although most of 

the measured sections are between 100 and 105 feet. It crops out 

over the greater part of the Nashville Basin peneplain in Rutherford 

County and is also exposed in Davidson, Williamson, and Wilson 

Counties. (See pi. 4.) In spite of its rather general distribution, 

however, complete sections of the formation are exposed at few places 

on account of the low relief of the area of outcrop.

PIERCE LIMESTONE

The Ridley limestone is underlain by the Pierce limestone. The 

two formations seem to be conformable except at Jefferson, Rutherford County, where the contact surface between them is undulating 

with respect to the bedding planes. The Pierce limestone takes its 

name from Pierce's mill,19 half a mile south of Walter Hill, Rutherford County. It is rather variable in lithology and comprises many 

layers of dense blue or gray unfossiliferous limestone between half an 

inch and 2 inches thick and one or more massive beds of coarsely 

crystalline bluish-gray or brown fossiliferous limestone. The coarsely

w Safford, J. M., op. cit., p. 281.
56 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

crystalline beds may occur at any horizon in the section; furthermore, their composite thickness is generally between one-third and 

two-thirds the thickness of the formation. The platy layers are 

separated by very thin seams of calcareous shale, which weathers 

rapidly and allows the rock to disintegrate into a mass of loose slabs. 

In general the Pierce limestone is lithologically very similar to the 

Lebanon limestone, although it is much thinner; it also resembles 

platy facies of the Murfreesboro and Kidley limestones.

The fossil fauna of the Pierce limestone is rich in the number of 

species and of specimens alike. The bryozoans are especially abundant and valuable as stratigraphic guides. The most common and 

characteristic species are Nicholsonella pulchra, N. frondvfera, Anolotichia explanata, Stictoporella cribttina, Pianodema stonensis, and 

Batostoma, sp.

The Pierce limestone, which is from 23 to 28 feet thick, crops out in 

narrow peripheral bands surrounding the minor structural domes that 

expose the Murfreesboro limestone in central Rutherford County. 

(See pi. 4.) Even though the outcrops are narrow usually less than 

a quarter of a mile wide complete sections are exposed for study at 

only a few localities.

MURFREESBOBO LIMESTONE

The Pierce limestone is underlain by the Murfreesboro limestone, 

the oldest formation to crop out at the apex of the Nashville dome, 

whose type locality 20 is the vicinity of the city of Murfreesboro 

Rutherford County. The contact between the two seems to be 

strictly conformable except at a point half a mile west of Lofton, 

Rutherford County, where the upper 10 feet of the Murfreesboro is 

missing. The Murfreesboro limestone is generally a thick-bedded 

dense, brittle, dark bluish-gray or drab limestone, which emits a bituminous odor when freshly broken and contains much disseminated chert. 

The individual beds are from 6 inches to 4 feet thick and in some sections are separated by thin partings of shale or sand. This facies of 

the formation is lithologically almost identical with the Ridley limestone, which lies above it. On Bradleys Creek at Lascassas, however, 

a shore phase of the formation is exposed, the lower 15 feet of the 27 

feet of beds that crop out being sandy, laminated, sun-cracked, and 

ripple-marked limestone that contains laminated chert nodules.

The Murfreesboro limestone contains few fossils other than fucoids 

(?), but silicified forms are abundant at some places in the chert 

debris that remains after advanced weathering. The most common 

and diagnostic species are Salterella billingsi, Lophospira perangulata, 

Liospira abrupta, Helicotoma tennesseensis, H. declivis, and Leperditia 

fabulites.

» Safford, J. M., and Killebrew, J. B., op. cit., p. 125.
STEATIGEAPHY 57

The Murfreesboro limestone crops out in north-central Tennessee 

only at the apexes of small structural domes along the two forks of the 

Stone River and within the city limits of Murfreesboro, in central 

Rutherford County. (See pi. 4.) Its total outcrop area is about 15 

square miles. The exposed beds are about 70 feet thick, although t&e 

base of the formation is not exposed and the total thickness is indeterminate at the surface.

The test well drilled by the Franklin Oil & Fuel Co. IK miles north 

of Murfreesboro (No. 427, pi. 4, and p. 60) has its casing head about 

15 feet below the top of the Murfreesboro limestone and passes 

through dense bluish-gray and dove-colored limestone to a depth of 

285 feet. What portion of these unexposed beds should be correlated 

with the Murfreesboro limestone is problematic.

PRE-LOWVLLLE BOCKS OF THE WELLS GREEK BASIN

The group of low rounded hills that coincides with the apex of the 

Wells Creek uplift, in southeastern Stewart County (see pi. 4 and pp. 

65-67), exposes a light-gray fine-grained slightly cherty limestone of 

indeterminate -thickness which Ulrich 21 has called the "Wells chert." 

Ulrich states that the "Wells chert" lies beneath the Lowville limestone, though the contact is concealed by detritus, and that its base is 

not exposed. Over most of its outcrop this limestone is concealed by 

a thick mantle of residual clay and chert, in which most of the chert 

fragments are porous or even spongy, soft, and red or brown. In 

some places this chert debris is highly fossiliferous, the fauna listed by 

Ulrich comprising slender gastropods of the genera Hormotoma, and 

Coelocavlus, which are especially abundant, as well as OphUeta, 

Helicotoma-, Holopea,.& small Orthoceras that resembles O.primogenium, 

a species of Protocycloceras, a slender Scdterella?, Cameroceras sp., 

Cyrtocems cf. confertissimum, Moe&wtw emmonsif, an orthoid similar 

to Orthis electra, a striated Syntrophia, and an Isochilina which 

resembles I. armata. This fauna is classified by Ulrich as of "Canadian" age, which corresponds to the Beekmantown group of New 

York. On the basis of this classification the "Wells chert" seems to 

be separated from the overlying Lowville limestone by a stratigraphic 

hiatus which is equivalent to the entire Stones River group.

Foerste * refers casually to the " Wells limestone " of the central part 

of the Wells Creek Basin but also lists a "Wells" fauna 23 to which he 

ascribes an "upper Stones River" age, in seeming conflict with 

Ulrich's clasgjfigation.

" Ulrich, E. O., Revision cf the Paleozoic systems: Geol. Soc. America Bull., vol. 22, p. 671, 1911. 

88 Foerste, A. F., Silurian and Devonian limestones cf western Tennessee: Jour. Geology, vol. 11, p. 

691,1903. 

n Idem, pp. 705-706.

100144^-32 5
j GEOUND WATEE IN NOETH-CENTEAL TENNESSEE

Bucher 24 discriminates two stratigraphic units in the pre-Trenton 

rocks of the Wells Creek Basin. The upper unit is possibly as much 

as 500 feet thick and comprises strata of dense light-gray and blue 

crystalline limestone; it includes at its top the strata of Lowville age 

above described. It is much thicker than the Lowville limestone of 

the Nashville Basin and may well prove to contain rocks of Stones 

Kiver age, as is suggested by Foerste's faunal list. Bucher states that 

his collections of fossils have not yet been classified and that it is not 

known if they confirm Ulrich's conclusion that the stratigraphic break 

between rocks of Lowville age and the "Wells chert" in this district is 

equivalent to all the Stones Kiver group. The lower unit, which is 

perhaps 200 feet thick, comprises alternating layers of dense light-gray 

limestone and crystalline dolomite as much as 30 feet thick. At one 

place the dolomite grades laterally into calcareous shale and sandstone 

28 feet thick. Bucher classifies this lower unit as of upper Beekmantown age, in accord with Ulrich's classification.

Exact classification of these pre-Lowville rocks of the Wells Creek 

Basin remains a work of the future. Furthermore both the names 

"Wells chert" and "Wells limestone" conflict with the firmly established Wells formation in the Pennsylvanian of eastern Idaho. In view 

of these conditions, these rocks are not named as a stratigraphic unit 

in this report and are regarded as of uncertain age, possibly as old as 

Beekmantown.

BOCKS NOT EXPOSED AT THE SURFACE

GENERAL FEATURES

The Murfreesboro limestone is the oldest formation that crops out 

in the Nashville Basin, and the limestone of Beekmantown (?) age is 

the oldest that crops out at any place in north-central Tennessee. 

The general character of the underlying strata is disclosed by the following records of two deep wells that have been drilled in the Nashville Basin in search of petroleum. However, there is no sound basis 

upon which these records can be correlated with the strata that crop 

out in adjacent regions, inasmuch as the unexposed rocks are parted 

by at least one major unconformity and can not be differentiated with 

certainty by petrographic character.

« Bucher, W. H., The stratigraphy, structure, and origin of Wells Creek Basin: Tennessee Dept. Education Div. Geology [in preparation].
STRATIGRAPHY .59

Driver's log of test well on Arthur Stevens property at Bordeaux, 8 miles northwest

of Na&hville

[No. 295, pi. 4]

Feet

Limestone, blue; fresh water at 85 feet_.___._____ 0-141

Limestone, black; hydrogen sulphide water at 195 

feet______.......________....____... 141-240

Limestone, brown _____ _____._._ 240-380

Limestone, gray______________.______ 380-475

Limestone, brown__._._.________._____ 475-525

Limestone, gray_._____.___._______.__ 525-550

Limestone, brown, bituminous __ ____ __ __ __ _ 550-625

Limestone, gray__:_____.______.____ 625-645

Limestone, brown.._ _..__________._ 645-695

Limestone, gray.. _ ___________._ ___ 695-700

Limestone, brown__ ___ ____ ___ ____ _ 700-926

Limestone, white_____________________ 926-932 

Limestone, brown_____________________________ 932 938

Limestone, gray... ______._____.___. 938-968 

Limestone, blue___ . ____________ _____ . 968-1,000 

Limestone, brown; small yield of hydrogen sulphide

water at 1,030 feet. __________________ 1, 000-1, 043 

Sand and limestone, white; large yield of water from

1,050 feet downward_________________ 1, 043-1,140

, Sandy limestone, brown___._._________. 1,140-1,160

Sandy limestone, gray____ _________.___._ 1,160-1, 165

Sandstone, white, principal water-bearing bed____,_ 1, 165-1,175

Calcareous sandstone, white.-..--.__...._..-- 1, 175-1,205

Calcareous sandstone, brown____._____...__ 1, 205-1, 210

Limestone, gray ____ _._ 1, 210-1, 240

Limestone, brown._________._._.__._____ 1, 240-1, 260

Limestone, gray _____________________ 1, 260-1, 320 

Limestone, dark brown_____..._..___________ 1, 320-1, 325

Limestone, gray _______ ____________.. 1, 325-1, 365 

Limestone, brown_._.___ __ 1, 365-1, 373 

Limestone, gray....________.__...._ 1, 373-1, 420

Rock, white, dense___________________ - 1, 420-1, 424 

Limestone (?), dark blue, very hard___________ 1, 424-1, 430

Limestone, light gray; upper 3 feet very hard; 20 per

cent of sample from 1,060 feet is crystalline and

insoluble matter. _. _________________. 1,430-1,466 

Sandy limestone, brownish gray, bituminous; 24 per

cent of rock made up of sand_._____________ 1,466-1,473

Limestone, white, dense. __________ 1, 473-1, 476

Sandy limestone, dark gray, soft._________________ 1, 476-1, 485

Limestone, yellowish, dark gray, soft._____________ 1, 485-1, 491

Diameter of well, at top, 10 inches; at bottom, 6 inches; total depth, 1,491 feet; 

completed in September, 1924. On July 25, 1927, well flowed about 35 gallons a 

minute of water with temperature 66° F. Casing head in middle of Bigby 

limestone.
60 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Partial log of Franklin Oil & Fuel Co.'s test well on J. M. Alsup property, 1% miles 

north of Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tenn.

[No. 427, pL 4] Feet

Record missing________________________ 0-40

Limestone, fine grained, light gray and dove-colored; 

water bearing at depth of 70 feet________ 40-90

Limestone, dense, dark bluish gray; phosphatic sandy 

limestone at base__________________ 90-210

Limestone, dense, light gray and dove-colored______ 210-285

Magnesian limestone, dense, white, yellowish, or gray; 

little or no chert_____________________ 285-330

Magnesian limestone, fine grained, light gray, containing dense white chert_______________ 330-440

Magnesian limestone, white or light gray; little or no 

. chert.___.________________.___ 440-610

Sandstone, dark buff; grains of chert and of magnesian

limestone in calcareous and ferruginous cement.__ 610-620

Magnesian limestone, massive or crystalline, white 

or light gray; little or no chert____________ 620-680

Magnesian limestone, fine grained, light gray or 

yellowish, containing much white or light-gray 

chert and scattered crystals of pyrite-__________ 680-995

Magnesian limestone, very fine grained, yellowish; little or no chert; calcareous sand at depth of 1,080 feet. 995-1, 150

Limestone, bluish gray, fine grained-___________ 1,150-1,170

Magnesian limestone, yellowish gray; no chert; calcareous sand at depth of 1,200 and 1,235 feet____ 1,170-1, 240

Magnesian limestone, gray, granular, cherty________ 1, 240-1, 255

Magnesian limestone, fine grained, yellowish gray; 

moderate amount of white or smoky chert._____ 1, 255-1, 355

Magnesian limestone, fine grained, white or yellowish 

gray, iron stained; contains rounded grains of chert 

and magnesian limestone, also moderate amount 

of white chert______________________ 1, 355-1, 425

Dolomite, dense or crystalline, white, with white and 

smoky ch©rt.____ _ ____ _ _____ ___ __ 1, 42&-1, 4fi5~

Magnesian limestone, dense or fine grained, light buff 

or gray; no chert._________ __ __ 1, 465-1, 540

Magnesian limestone, white or light gray, dense, with 

much banded bluish-gray chert and some crystalline quartz________________________ __ 1, 540-1, 600

Magnesian limestone, dense or fine grained, white or 

light gray, moderately cherty_______ _______ 1, 600-1, 680

Magnesian limestone and dolomite, massive, very 

light gray; no chert...___.__ _._._-_.-- 1, 680-1, 715

Dolomite, light gray, very cherty, with much iron 

oxide. __._._._..._.__________. __ 1,716-1, 7-25

Dolomite, dense, white to dark gray, extremely 

cherty, with some crystalline quartz ______ 1, 725-1, 795

Dolomite, dense or fine grained, dark gray; no chert. 1, 795-1, 810

Dolomite, light gray, extremely cherty, with much 

iron oxide- .--_._.._.._..._.. - 1, 810-1, 825

Dolomite, white to dark gray, massive and crystalline; white and smoky chert very abundant from 

1,845 to 1,860 feet...._.__._____-_ - 1, 825-1, 930
STRATIGRAPHY 6f

Diameter of well, at top, 10 inches; at bottom, 8 inches; depth in October, 1927, 

1,930 feet, with drilling in progress. Log based upon examination of cuttings 

sampled by Franklin Oil & Fuel Co. at each multiple of 10 feet from a depth of 

40 to 1,930 feet. Casing head about 15 feet below top of Murfreesboro limestone.

ST. PETER (?) SANDSTONE

Several deep wells in southern Kentucky reach, a somewhat variable 

sandstone or sandy limestone stratum which has been correlated by 

Munn 25 and by Shaw and Mather 26 with the St. Peter sandstone of 

the upper Mississippi Valley. This stratum is in the lower part of 

the Ordovician system of that area and is from 1,470 to 1,600 feet 

below the Chattanooga shale. Butts,27 on the other hand, presents 

data which suggest that the supposed St. Peter sandstone penetrated 

by wells in western Kentucky and southern Indiana is not a single 

stratum but rather comprises several sandy layers at different horizons in a mass of sandy limestone and dolomite. No one of these 

layers can be correlated certainly with the typical St. Peter sandstone.

In north-central Tennessee sandy strata are penetrated by several 

deep wells in the vicinity of Nashville and by the Franklin Oil & Fuel 

Go's, test well near Murfreesboro. The character and stratigraphic 

relations of the strata at Nashville are shown by the preceding log of 

the test well on the Arthur Stevens property at Bordeaux, in which 

beds of sandstone, sandy limestone, and calcareous sandstone were 

penetrated from 1,043 to 1,210 feet below the surface. The top of 

this group of beds is about 1,500 feet stratigraphically below the 

Chattanooga shale. In the well near Murfreesboro the sandy stratum 

is only about 10 feet thick, and its top is about 610 feet below the 

surface, or 1,400 feet below the Chattanooga shale. The sandy beds 

penetrated by the wells near Nashville seem to constitute a single 

stratum at approximately the same geologic horizon as the supposed 

St. Peter sandstone of Wayne County, Ky. The sandy bed in the 

well near Murfreesboro is also at about the same horizon, though 

it can not be inferred that this bed is a southward extension of the 

stratum penetrated at Nashville. If these sandy beds penetrated in 

Kentucky, at Nashville, and near Murfreesboro constitute a single 

stratum, it thins notably toward the southeast.

The St. Peter sandstone of the upper Mississippi Valley is a persistent water-bearing stratum, so that, if present in central Tennessee 

and if its water-bearing properties remain unchanged, it constitutes 

a potential deep source of water in this region. Its promise as a 

source of ground water is discussed in the descriptions of Davidson 

and Rutherford Counties (pp. 134, 179).

15 Munn, M. J., Reconnaissance of oil and gas fields in Wayne and McCreary counties, Ky.: 17. S. Geol., 

Survey Bull. 679, p. 17,1914.

» Shaw, E. W., and Mather, K. F., The oil fields of Alien County, Ky.: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 688, 

p. 39,1919.

" Butts, Charles, Geology and mineral resources of Jefferson County, Ky.: Kentucky Geol. Survey, ser. 

4, vol. 3, pt. 2, pp. 33-36, 1916.
62 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE

NASHVILLE DOME

The major feature of geologic structure in central Tennessee is the 

Nashville dome. This is a very broad elliptical flexure whose axis 

trends N. 20°-30° E. and passes near Fosterville and Lascassas, in 

eastern Rutherford County, and close to Norene, in southeastern 

Wilson County. At the apex of the dome, which is approximately 

at the center of the southern boundary of Rutherford County, about 

2 miles south of Fosterville (pi. 4), the top of the Chattanooga shale 

the most reliable horizon marker of the area is 1,300 feet above 

sea level. From its apex the axis of the dome plunges northward and 

southward between 5 and 10 feet to the mile. The transverse dips 

are generally slightly steeper, however, and are about 15 feet to the 

mile within 50 miles of the apex. This average dip is so slight that it 

is likely to be undeterminable in any one outcrop.

The top of the Chattanooga shale or the projected original position of that stratum prior to the erosion of the Nashville Basin is 

between 1,100 and 1,300 feet above sea level in most of Rutherford 

County, which occupies the highest part of the dome. On the east 

flank of the dome this horizon marker is about 700 feet above sea 

level at McMinnville and at Celina, which are approximately at the 

respective centers of Warren and Clay Counties. On the west flank 

of the dome on which lies the greater part of the region covered by 

this report the Chattanooga shale slopes northwestward and is 

about 900 feet above sea level at Franklin and Columbia, the principal 

cities of Williamson and Maury Counties, respectively. It is between 

350 and 400 feet above sea level at most places in the central part of 

Dickson County and in the vicinity of Ashland, in Cheatham County. 

Farther west, however, the average dip of the strata is either very 

flat or else reverses in a shallow syncline, for the Chattanooga shale 

crops out at several places along the Tennessee River (pi. 4) between 

325 and 400 feet above sea level. These outcrops are the only known 

exposures of the Chattanooga shale west of Williamson and Cheatham 

Counties within the region covered by this report. Furthermore, 

very few deep wells have been drilled to this shale in the intervening 

area, and the thickness and stratigraphy of the overlying beds have not 

been worked out in any detail. Consequently the data at hand are 

inadequate to show accurately even the general features of the structure in that part of the region that lies west of the Highland Rim 

escarpment.

The Nashville dome is the southerly one of two major structural 

domes on the crest of the Cincinnati arch, a geanticline whose axis 

appears from beneath Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks in northeastern 

Mississsippi and northwestern Alabama and trends about N. 30° E.
GEOLOGIC STRUCTUKE 63

through central Tennessee and Kentucky to Cincinnati, Ohio. At. 

Cincinnati the axis of the geanticline splits, one branch trending northwestward and passing near Logansport, Ind., and the other branch 

trending slightly east of north and passing close to Lima, Ohio. Crustal warping along this axis began as early as Middle Ordovician time 

and has continued at intervals until comparatively recent geologic 

time, for the Highland Rim peneplain was deformed about this axis 

as late as the upper Oligocene (pp. 19-20). During much of the Paleozoic era part or all of the axial portion of the arch was above sea 

level intermittently. In several epochs formations characterized by 

distinct faunas were deposited simultaneously on opposite sides of the 

arch or sediments were not deposited along the axis. This condition 

was especially prevalent during the Silurian :and Devonian periods. 

In north-central Tennessee warping along the axis of this arch appar-. 

ently began near the end of the Murfreesboro epoch, in Lower 

Ordovician time, for Galloway 28 points out that near Lascassas, in 

northeastern Kutherford County/the Murfreesboro limestone is folded 

with reference to overlying strata. ;

SECONDARY FOLDS

Although the average dip of the strata in the Nashville dome is 

generally less than 15 feet to the mile, so that the rocks appear horizontal in small outcrops, secondary folds in which the rocks dip more 

steeply occur at.many places on the flanks of the dome. These 

secondary folds are generally less than 5 miles long and not more than 

100 feet high.

Several secondary folds of this sort that occur on the highest part, 

of the Nashville dome in Kutherford County have been described by 

Galloway.29 They are shown on Plate 4 by the outcrops of the Pierce 

and Murfreesboro limestones, which are exposed only where the 

apexes of the folds have been cut through by erosion. The largest 

of the secondary anticlines of this group is an ovoid fold about 6 miles 

long, 3 miles wide, and 80 feet high whose axis trends about N. 20° W. 

through the eastern part of Murfreesboro. The complement of this 

fold is a syncline from 1 to 3 miles wide and 40 to 80 feet deep which 

adjoins it on the west and whose axis extends southeastward from 

a point on the Stone River about 2 miles west of Murfreesboro to 

Gum, a distance of about 9 miles. Just west of this syncline, in the 

vicinity of the Barfield and Marshall Knobs, is the. largest secondary 

dome within the county, a fold which is nearly 6 miles in diameter 

and 100 feet high. The remaining secondary folds of Rutherford 

County are considerably smaller. The Nashville pike crosses the

18 Galloway, J. J., Geology and natural resources of Rutherford County, Tenn.: Tennessee Geol. Survey 

Bull. 22, pp. 62, 65, 1919. 

* Idem, pp. 61-62.
64 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Stone-River about 2 miles northwest of Murfreesboro, near the 

apex of a dome about 1% miles in diameter and about 75 feet high. 

iFrom this point downstream about 3 miles the river cuts across a 

number of small anticlines and synclines which are well exposed in the 

river bluffs. Along the east fork of the Stone Elver between Jefferson and Lascassas there are five well-defined domes and several smaller 

ones, six of which bring the Pierce and Murfreesboro limestones to 

the surface. The largest one is a dome about 3 miles in diameter and 

more than 100 feet high just west of Walter Hill. The northeast 

flank of this dome is transected by the river, which exposes 27 feet 

of the Pierce limestone and 70 feet of the Murfreesboro limestone. 

About 2 miles south of Walter Hill is another dome about 2 miles in 

diameter and more than 80 feet high. The easternmost of this group 

of folds is a double canoe-shaped plunging anticline about 3 miles long, 

2 miles wide, and 50 feet high. The town of Lascassas is close to its 

apex. The axis of this fold is well defined and strikes about N. 80° 

E.; it crosses the principal axis of the Nashville dome. Other 

secondary folds within the county are shown on Plate 4.

Secondary folds comparable in size with those of Rutherford 

County also occur in other parts of the Nashville Basiny especially 

in southern Williamson County. None of them, however, were 

mapped in the course of the reconnaissance upon which this report 

is based.

On the Highland Rim plateau the rocks are not well exposed and 

the structure is generally concealed. In several places where the 

plateau has been trenched by streams, however, secondary folds are 

also exposed. In the northeastern part of Sumner County five 

anticlines and domes from 1 to 2 miles long in the Mississippian rocks 

have been mapped by Mather,30 who points out the probability of 

other folds in the same district. These folds are more than 20 miles 

west of the axis of the Nashville dome.

The Harpeth River gap in southern Cheatham County discloses an 

elliptical dome about 4 miles lon^by- 2 miles wide, with about 60 feet 

vertical closure as described by Jillson.31 Its southwest flank is 

transected by the Harpeth River, and the stratigraphy and structure 

are well exposed in the river bluffs and in cuts along the MemphisBristol highway. The major axis of this fold strikes N. 40°-50° W. 

and is slightly concave toward the north. At the apex of this fold, 

which is about 2 miles N. 30° E. from Kingston Springs, near the 

mouth of Dog Creek, the top of the Chattanooga shale is about 650 

feet above sea level. Jillson32 expresses the belief that the Chatta-

* Mather, K. F., Oil and gas resources of the northeastern part of Sumner County, Tenn.: Tennessee 

©eol. Survey Bull. 24, pp. 27-30,1920.

* Jillson, W. E., Geology of the Harpeth River area, Tennessee: Oil and Gas Jour., vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 

88, 70,1924. 

» Jillson, W. E., Unique Devonic sandbar: Pan Am. Geologist, vol. 40, pp. 333-337, 1923.
GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE 65

nooga shale was not deposited across the apex of the dome, that the 

lowest beds of the Fort Payne formation rest upon the Hardin sandstone member with a minor stratigraphic break intervening, and that 

therefore folding about this axis began before Mississippian time. 

He states further that folding was renewed at a later time, however, 

for the Fort Payne formation and overlying bed® of Mississippian age 

are deformed nearly as much as the Chattanooga shale.

In the vicinity of White Bluff, in the central-eastern part of Dickson County, the strata are arched into one or more anticlines. These 

secondary folds have been disclosed by deep wells that penetrate the 

Chattanooga shale (pp. 144-145), but they have not been mapped in 

detail. They seem to be associated with a marked structural depression in northeastern Dickson County and northwestern Cheatham 

County, in which the Chattanooga shale is 50 feet or more below sea 

level as indicated by the records of several deep wells. Doubtless 

other secondary folds will be found in the area north and west of the 

Highland Rim escarpment and within the region covered by this 

report when the stratigraphy is traced in detail.

Bassler 33 has pointed out that in many places in central Tennessee 

sharp inclinations of the strata are due not to folding or warping of 

the crust but to collapse and slumping of strata above caverns formed 

by solution. On the Highland Rim plateau features of this sort 

exist where solution caverns have formed in the Ordovician limestone and the overlying Mississippian strata have collapsed, these 

strata being in some places nearly vertical. Bassler points out further that at some places in the Nashville Basin the topographic 

slopes seem to conform to the rock strata, which may rise with the 

slope of a hill and descend to its^base on the opposite slope, but that 

such features may be due to slump above solution openings rather 

than to original structure. Similar features are associated with the 

unconformity at the base of the Chattanooga shale, for at several 

places in the northern part of the Nashville Basin the Hardin sandstone member of the Chattanooga fills pre-Mississippian sink holes 

30 to 40 feet deep, whereas in adjacent areas the member is less than 

a foot thick. A similar feature was noted by Lusk 34 in the Flynn 

Creek Basin, in the central part of Jackson County, where the Chattanooga shale fills a preexisting sink hole 2 miles in diameter and as 

much as 100 feet deep.

WELLS CREEK UPLIFT

In the vicinity of Cumberland City, in the southeastern part of 

Stewart County, and the adjacent part of Houston County the strata

M Bassler, R. 8., Sink-hole structure in central Tennessee [abstract]: Washington Aead. Sci. Jour., Vol. 

14, p. 374,1924. 

 * Lusk, R. Q., A pre-Chattanooga sink hole: Science, new ser., vol. 66, pp. 579-580,1927.
66 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

are complexly folded and faulted in a manner that is unique for 

central Tennessee. The area of deformation covers a roughly circular area about 8 miles in diameter, and the strata involved range 

from the limestone of Beekmantown (?) (earliest Ordovician) age to 

the St. Louis limestone. This structural feature is known as the 

Wells Creek uplift, from the name of the stream that drains most of 

the area of deformation. Its relation to the forces that caused the 

upwarping of the Nashville dome and the formation of its superposed 

secondary folds is unknown. However, it is possible that crustal 

warping began in the Wells Creek area quite as early as in the Nashville Basin, for the Wells Creek section may lack the entire Stones 

River group, of Lower Ordovician age (pp. 57-58), and lacks much 

of the Middle Ordovician and Upper Ordovician (Richmond) group.

The unique structure of the Wells Creek uplift was first recognized 

by Safford,35 who pointed out that the strata in the center of the deformed area are older than any other rocks exposed in central Tennessee and that they dip vertically or at high angles. Safford interpreted the structural feature as a high dome, with the strata cropping 

out in successive bands concentric about the apex of the dome and 

dipping away from the center of the basin. He also pointed out 

that the Mississippian rocks are both folded and faulted for several 

miles away from the area of intense deformation, as is exposed in 

the bluffs of the Cumberland River several miles upstream and 

downstream from Cumberland City.

Jillson 36 has pointed out certain similarities of the structure of the 

Wells Creek uplift to that of Jeptha Knob, in Shelby County, Ky,, 

and Serpent Mound, in Adams County, Ohio. He assumes that all 

these features are contemporaneous and concludes that they were 

produced by forces transmitted by a body of igneous magma a few 

thousand feet beneath the surface.

Very recently Bucher has started to map the structure of the 

Wells Creek uplift in detail. His prelimininary report 37 is abstracted 

in the following paragraphs:

Topographically the Wells Creek Basin is an elliptical depression 

in the Highland Rim plateau (pp. 16-18) bounded on all sides by an 

erosion scarp 225 to 275 feet high. This depression is about 2% miles 

long and 2 miles wide, and the longer axis trends nearly due north. 

The floor of the basin comprises three topographic units, which are 

also stratigraphic and structural units. These are a central hill, 

which is rudely circular, 2,700 feet in diameter, and about 80 feet 

high; a ringlike lowland plain 1,500 to 3,500 feet wide surrounding 

the central hill; and a belt of foothills 1,500 to 2,000 feet wide sur-

» Safford, J. M., Geology of Tennessee, pp. 147-148, Nashville, 1869. 

» Jillson, W. B., An isothrustic hypothesis: Fan Am. Geologist, vol. 40, pp. 251-268,1923. 

w Bucher, W. H., The stratigraphy, structure, and origin of Wells Creek Basin, Tennessee: Tennessee 

Dept. Education Div. Geology (in preparation).
GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE 67

rounding the lowland and abutting against the bounding scarp. The 

central hill is composed of limestone and dolomite of Beekmantowra 

(?) age, which are faulted into blocks of all sizes and every conceivable orientation and locally are reduced to a breccia of blocks not more 

than 2 feet in diameter. These rocks are at least 1,000 feet higher 

than their normal altitude outside the uplift. The ring-shaped lowland is underlain by poorly exposed pre-Trenton post-Beekmantown limestones, which are likewise complexly faulted, though much 

less brecciated than the rocks of Beekmantown (?) age. The fault 

blocks of this unit also are in every conceivable orientation, and 

vertical beds occur almost a mile north of the center of the uplift. 

Radially outward from the center of uplift the faulting becomes more 

orderly and the strike of the rocks tends to become parallel to the 

outer margin of the lowland. Faulting is least complex in the belt 

of foothills.

The area of structural deformation, however, is about 8 miles in 

diameter and extends well beyond the topographic basin. From the 

erosion scarp that bounds the topographic basin the Mississippian 

rocks dip radially outward into a ring-shaped syncline, which is rudely 

concentric about the center of the uplift and whose axis is about 2J£ 

miles from it. In this syncline the rocks are commonly faulted and 

brecciated more complexly than at the outer margin of the topographic basin. In its deepest part they are depressed about 300 feet 

below their normal altitude in the adjacent areas and about 1,300 feet 

below their projected position at the center of the uplift. Surrounding 

this ring-shaped syncline is a zone about 2 miles wide in which the 

rocks rise to their normal altitude, though broken by many normal 

faults. These faults are in part tangential to the trend of the zone 

and in part radiate about the center of the disturbance, but the tangential faults are the more common. Several can be traced for more 

than a mile along the strike, and one is more than 4 miles long; the 

vertical components of their displacements are several hundred feet. 

In addition to these major faults there are many secondary fractures, 

which divide the rocks into blocks of all sizes. Abrupt changes in 

strike and dip of the blocks are common, and in many places the beds 

are vertical.

The zone of maximum uplift and brecciation at the center of the 

disturbance is believed by Bucher to be the result of a violent shock 

or explosion and the marginal zone of depression to be due to collapse 

of crustal material as if into a void. A hypothesis to account for the 

forces and for the transfer of subcrustal material is yet in the foramlative stage.

FAULTS AND JOINTS

Faults, which are fractures along which the rock strata have suffered 

relative displacement, are comparatively rare in north-central Tennes-
68 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

see except in the Wells Creek Basin. Galloway 38 has noted two faults 

of small displacement in the Ridley limestone in Rutherford County. 

One of these crosses the Stone Kiver at Jefferson, in the north-central 

part of the county, and can be traced about a quarter of a mile from 

the river in each direction. Its strike is about N. 25° E., its dip about 

£0° E., and its vertical displacement about 20 feet. The other fault 

-occurs 2 miles south of Christiana, in the south-central part of the 

county. Its trace, which can be followed on the surface for a little 

less than half a mile, strikes about N. 40° E. The vertical component 

of the displacement is about 50 feet at the center of the fault but 

diminishes rapidly in both directions; the southern block is downthrown.

A third minor fault cuts the Fort Payne formation in the north 

bluff of the Duck River about a tenth of a mile upstream from Paint 

Rock Bluff, in southwestern Humphreys County. This fracture 

strikes N. 65° W. and is approximately vertical; the northern block 

is downthrown an unknown distance. It is well exposed in the river 

bluff and in the cut bank of the Memphis-Bristol highway.

These faults are clearly younger than the Nashville dome and its 

associated secondary folds, but their exact age is unknown. All are 

of such a magnitude that they may be due to slumping of the roofs of 

large solution caverns formed at a comparatively recent time.

At many places in north-central Tennessee the limestones and other 

compact rocks are much jointed, especially along and near axes of 

relatively intense secondary folding. Where these joints are well 

developed they are generally between 2 and 10 feet apart. As a rule 

they are closer together in the thin-bedded and platy limestones and 

farther apart in the thick-bedded, dense, and brittle limestones, 

although these relations are by no means invariably true. Commonly 

the joints of this region are approximately vertical and those at any 

one place fall into two sets, which divide the rock into rhomboidal 

blocks. Most common directions of jointing in north-central Tennessee are N. 55°-65° W. and N. 25°-45° E., and the joints of the 

northwesterly set are generally the more persistent and cut across 

those of the northeasterly set. These directions are approximately 

but in most places not precisely normal and parallel, respectively, 

to the axis of the Nashville dome. The other joints, generally less 

persistent along their strike than those of the dominant two sets, 

commonly fall in the acute angle between N. 65° E. and S. 70° E.

As joints and bedding planes are the most common seats of solution 

channels, it follows that the water-bearing properties of limestone 

are closely related to the number and direction of its joints. These 

relations are discussed on pages 150-155.

18 Galloway, J. J., Geology and natural resources of Butherford County, Tenn.: Tennessee Geol. Survey 

Bull. 22, pp. 62-63,1919,
OCCURRENCE OP GROUND WATER IN LIMESTONE 60,

GROUND WATER

OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN LIMESTONE 

TYPES AND ORIOIN OF WATER-BEARINQ OPENINGS

As Meinzer 39 has pointed out, no rock differs more radically with 

Tespect to yield of water than limestone. In some regions limestone 

ranks among the most productive water-bearing rocks; in other 

regions it is as unproductive as shale. These differences are related 

in part to differences in the mode of origin of limestone and in part to 

differences in the history of the rocks after they were laid down as 

calcareous sediment.

The pore space of any rock may be termed continuous if the voids 

are connected with one another or discontinuous if the voids are not 

connected.40 Continuous pore space is that which renders the rock 

permeable to water or to other fluids; discontinuous pore space,. 

although it may aggregate a considerable part of the total volume 

of the rock, does not impart permeability. Both types of porosity 

are common in limestone.

The pore space of a rock may also be termed primary if it existed 

in the sediment from which the rock was formed by consolidation, 

or secondary if it has been formed after the consolidation of the rock. 

Newly deposited calcareous sediment may contain many interstices 

and have considerable aggregate porosity. However, during compaction and lithification of the sediment, calcite generally crystallizes 

between many of the grains, so that the original interstices tend to 

become filled. Hence such primary pore space as remains in the 

consolidated rock may be largely discontinuous and may not render 

the rock permeable. The pure thick-bedded limestones of the older 

rock systems, such as those of Paleozoic age in central Tennessee, are 

generally very dense and contain no primary pore space visible to the 

eye other than minute openings in bedding planes. According to 

Howard 41 the pure calcareous rocks that have appreciable primary 

porosity are chalk, oolitic limestone, primary crystalline limestone 

and dolomite, and coral limestone. Such rocks are not common in 

north-central Tennessee. The earthy limestones and those that are 

interbedded with shale are also commonly without continuous 

primary pore space that might store and transmit water. The 

sandy limestones and calcareous sandstones, on the other hand, may 

have considerable primary porosity if the original interstices between 

the sand grains are not entirely filled with calcareous cement.

!» Meinzer, O. E., The occurrence of ground water in the United States: IT. S. Qeol. 

Paper 489, pp. 131-137, 1923.

* Murray, A. N., Limestone oil reservoirs of the northeastern United States and of Ontario,. Canada^ 

Econ. Geology, vol. 25, No. 5, p. 453, 1930.

« Howard, W. V., A classification of limestone reservoirs: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull,,, vol. 

12, p. 1155, 1928.
70 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Secondary porosity in limestone is due to (1) fractures, including 

(a) joints caused by contraction of the sediment during consolidation, 

(6) joints and faults resulting from crustal movement, (c) joints 

due to mineralogic changes; (2) solution openings related to present 

or former erosion surfaces; and (3) intercrystalline voids produced by 

mineralogic change. This classification is essentially that given by 

Howard. Secondary pore space in limestone is in large part continuous and therefore renders the rock permeable. That caused by 

joints and solution openings is by far the most common and most 

efficacious in imparting large water-yielding capacity to the rock.

Joints are fractures along which there has not been appreciable 

displacement of the rocks. They are produced by internal stresses 

such as those induced by shrinkage or by external stresses that 

^accompany deformation of the earth's crust. Commonly they are 

nearly plane and approximately vertical (dip 75°-90°); some extend 

for long distances and to considerable depth, whereas others are 

very short in both horizontal and vertical extent. In sedimentary 

rocks such as limestone flat or nearly horizontal joints generally do 

not form unless the rock is very thick bedded, the stresses that tend 

to form such joints in crystalline rocks being dissipated by sliding 

of one bed upon another. Furthermore, the vertical joints may extend 

across one stratum or several strata. At any particular locality the 

joints generally occur in one or more sets, each set comprising several 

or many fractures that are approximately parallel; these sets of 

joints intersect at various angles and divide the rock in rhomboidal 

Mocks. Many joints are tight and not water bearing, but the walls 

of others stand apart so that they constitute ground-water conduits 

with large transmission capacity. In some places joints are close 

together and in others far apart, their position depending upon differences in the competence of the strata to resist fracture and upon 

differences in the intensity of external stresses causing crustal deformation. In some regions where there has been intense deformation the 

rocks have been displaced along the fractures, producing faults and 

breccia zones that extend far below the surface and may yield unusual 

amounts of water. However, faults are not common in north-central 

Tennessee except in the Wells Creek Basin (pp. 65-67). Not only 

do joints generally become tighter with depth but they also become 

farther apart, so that the chances of striking a water-bearing opening 

of this sort in drilling a well become less as the depth increases. 

The intersections of joints with one another are especially likely to 

be open and to permit circulation of ground water. Although any 

joint may intersect others, the circulation is easiest where the joints 

of the principal sets intersect and where, in addition to the vertical 

joints, horizontal fractures or open bedding planes occur.
OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN UMESTONE 71

Solution openings in limestone are of two kinds (a) intergranular 

spaces produced by etching the faces of crystals or grains of rocks 

that have some primary porosity, by selective leaching of the more 

soluble constituents from such nonhomogeneous rocks as magnesian 

limestone and gypsiferous limestone, or by leaching the cement 

between the insoluble grains of a calcareous sandstone; (b) tubeHke 

channels formed in pure massive limestone by enlargement of joints 

or of primary openings along bedding planes. The tubular solution 

openings are the type commonly found in the limestones of northcentral Tennessee.

Calcium carbonate, which makes up practically all of a pure limestone, is almost insoluble in pure water. However, it is appreciably 

soluble in rain water, which contains small quantities of carbon 

dioxide absorbed from the air. Also, it is especially soluble in soil 

water, which commonly contains an abundance of carbon dioxide 

produced by decomposition of the unstable organic acids leached 

from partly decomposed vegetation.42 Under favorable conditions 

these natural solvents may percolate considerable distances before 

they are neutralized. Rain water or soil water may enter joints or 

bedding planes and convert tight fractures into relatively open 

crevices * by etching the limestone walls, or it may enter primary pore 

spaces and enlarge them by etching the faces of crystals or grains. 

The rate at which the limestone is etched depends upon many factors, 

of which the principal are the chemical composition and crystallinity 

of the limestone, the permeability of the limestone, the rate of circulation of the ground water, the amount and seasonal distribution of 

rainfall, the concentration of carbon dioxide and natural acids in the 

ground water, the thickness, composition, and texture of the soil, 

and the type and density of vegetal cover. For the etching to be 

continuous it is essential that the circulation be free, so that the 

saturated water will be continuously displaced by unsaturated water 

at the surface of the limestone.

As is pointed out by Fuller,44 the sheet form of solution passage is 

the first stage in the enlargement of fractures or bedding planes in 

dense limestone. The small solution openings first formed eventually 

unite into an exceedingly narrow sheetlike opening which by differential solution may develop into a large irregular cavity. (See pi. 

5, A) Under favorable conditions solution may progress until the 

limestone is ramified by a network of caverns, some of which may 

grow to great size. The smaller channels commonly follow joints or 

bedding planes, but some of the larger channels and caverns do not

« Murray, A. N., and Love, W. W., Action of organic acids on limestone: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., vol. 13, pp. 1467-1475, 1929.

« Spencer, A. C., U. 8. Qeol. Survey Press Bull. July 17,1922.

« Fuller, M. L., Summary of the controlling factors of artesian flows: U. S. Qeol. Survey Bull. 319, 

p. 12, 1908.
72, GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

seem to be related to any preexisting openings of that sort. A single 

passage in the Mammoth Cave of Kentucky is more than 8 miles long. 

Many such passages are 20 feet high, a few as much as 75 feet high, 

and some as much as 50 to 150 feet wide. The great vertical wells of 

the Mammoth and other caves have diameters of 10 feet or more and 

depths of more than 200 feet. At many places in north-central Tennessee there are similar solution caverns, such as Dunbar Cave, near 

Clarksville (No. 53, pi. 4), whose passages are 10 to 20 feet wide and 

are reported to sum up to 7 miles in length, and Ruskin Cave, in Dickson County (No. 211, pi. 4), which is about 20 feet high and 75 feet 

wide at its largest section.

Although the large channels in limestone are formed principally by 

solution along preexisting bedding planes or joints, mechanical erosion 

doubtless plays a part in the formation of those that transmit turbid 

water. For example, the channel of Ruskin Cave maintains a slight 

and uniform northward gradient across thick beds of dense cherty 

limestone that dip about 5° S. The blanket of alluvial sand and clay 

that covers the floor of this and many other large channels is adequate 

evidence of the erosive power of the large underground streams that 

formerly existed in north-central Tennessee.

Sinks or sink holes are natural openings that extend from the land 

surface down to a cavernous zone in the limestone. They are of two 

general types solution sinks and collapse sinks and their modes of 

origin are described in the following paragraphs.

The solution sink commonly originates at a vertical joint or at the 

intersection of two joints, the upper part of the crevice being enlarged 

by the solvent action of water that is descending from the land surface 

to the zone of saturation. At first the descending water is largely depleted in solvent power before it percolates far below the surface, sa 

the deeper part of the joint is not likely to be enlarged appreciably. 

The result is a conical depression in the limestone, the base of the cone 

being at the land surface and its apex pointing downward. As this 

depression increases in diameter and depth, the insoluble soil subsides 

appreciably. This subsidence is commonly the first surface indication 

of the solution sink; it is very generally mistaken for incipient foundering of the roof of an underground channel. In course of time the walls 

of the sink are cut back by solution and possibly by corrasion, so 

that a very large surface depression, with or without a functional 

swallow hole at its center, may be produced. The diameters and 

depths of such sinks in any area afford clues to their relative ages and 

to the depths of the channels into which they discharge. The natural 

wells, which are rudely cylindrical,, are commonly formed in a similar 

manner where etching goels on at about ^tibe same rate from top to 

bottom of the original crevice. Both funnel-shaped sinks and natural
OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN LIMESTONE 73

wells also form underground between solution channels at two different 

levels.

. The collapse sink, as the name implies, is formed by foundering of 

the roof of a subsurface channel. Its formation depends upon many 

factors, of which the principal are the strength and thickness of the 

roof strata, the orientation and spacing of joints in the roof beds, the 

inclination of the strata, the depth of the channel below the surface, 

the width, height, and shape of the channel, and the weakening of the 

roof strata by solution. Obviously, there are many possible combinations of circumstances that will cause collapse. Generally a collapse 

sink flares upward, and its diameter at the surface is related to the 

depth and to the span of the channel. Collapse sinks range from 

shafts a few feet in diameter caused by subsidence of a single joint 

block to depressions many hundred yards across caused by foundering 

of the rocks above an extensive cavernous zone. Valleys several miles 

long may be formed by gradual collapse of the roof above a major 

underground stream.

The calcareous rocks differ appreciably with respect to their strength, 

to resist fracture and their solubility. Dolomite and magnesian limestone are less soluble than pure calcareous limestone, but when they 

are subjected to weathering they may also become porous or even 

cavernous by solution. Earthy limestone and calcareous shale are 

intermediate in composition between limestone and shale; they are 

also intermediate in water-yielding capacity. They are generally less 

cavernous than limestone but somewhat more friable and brittle and 

hence more jointed than shale. Several of the formations in northcentral Tennessee comprise alternating beds of limestone and thin 

layers of shale. In such rocks a bed of shale may check the downward 

percolation of ground water and localize the formation of solution 

channels in the lower part of a limestone bed. Other beds of shale 

may act as ground-water dams. Some limestone, especially certain 

shaly beds, contains crystals and small masses of gypsum, the hydrous sulphate of calcium, which is dissolved readily by water without 

the presence of natural acids. Such rocks may become very highly 

cavernous when leached by circulating water.

Where a body of ground water in limestone has a free upper surface 

or water table, the limestone is presumably dissolved most rapidly in 

the zone between the highest and lowest positions occupied by the 

water table in its seasonal fluctuations, for in that zone the ground 

water percolates relatively rapidly and is most likely to contain natural 

acids. The limestone is also presumably dissolved above the water 

table and to a relatively shallow depth below the water table, for there 

likewise the ground water circulates rather freely. However, the 

ground water at considerable depth below the water table probably

100144 32 6
74 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

circulates slowly and before it moves a great distance becomes saturated in calcium bicarbonate and thereby depleted in solvent power, as 

its natural acid is neutralized by reaction with the limestone. Consequently, it is commonly held, as by Swinnerton, 46 that below the water 

table the limestone does not dissolve readily and continuous systems 

of large solution passages do not form. This hypothesis seems to be 

compatible with the relation between the principal systems of solution 

channels and the surface streams (pp. 23-24) in north-central 

Tennessee. On the other hand, Davis 46 contends that limestone 

caverns are formed in part by solution and in part by corrasion and 

that they may be formed at any depth below the water table.

Where a stratum of limestone has primary permeability or is 

thoroughly jointed and is overlain and underlain by impermeable 

rocks, ground water may circulate along that stratum under hydrostatic pressure, as through a conduit. Under such conditions, if the 

geologic structure is favorable, circulation may take place to considerable depths below the water table. If the circulation is relatively 

rapid, so that ground water passes entirely through the limestone 

conduit before it becomes saturated, then the original openings in the 

limestone may be enlarged by solution from one end of the conduit to 

the other, regardless of its depth below the water table. Such conditions are not known to have existed in north-central Tennessee.

Systems of solution passages may be formed in limestone during 

successive erosion epochs and then buried beneath younger sediments 

after submergence.

In some regions the limestone formations can be discriminated more 

or less sharply by the abundance and size of the solution passages and 

other water-bearing openings. This is true to some extent in parts of 

north-central Tennessee, but generally the effect of differential solubility is a secondary factor in determining the water-bearing properties of the limestone of this region.

SOURCES AND CmCTJLATION OF GROUND WATER

In general the ground water that occurs in the limestone of northcentral Tennessee is derived from two sources meteoric water, or 

that which falls as rain and percolates to the water table, and connate 

or fossil water, or that which was trapped in the sediments by the 

deposition of overlying beds and has not since been flushed from the 

rocks. The waters of meteoric origin are those which circulate freely 

through joints and solution openings and are discharged from most 

springs and wells. They generally contain only small or moderate 

amounts of dissolved mineral matter and are suitable for most ordi48 Swinnerton, A. C., Changes in base-level indicated by caves in Kentucky and Bermuda [abstract]: 

Geol. Soc. America Bull., vol. 40, p. 194,1929.

« Davis, W. M., Origin of limestone caverns: Geol. Soc. America Bull., vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 475-628, 

1930; The origin of limestone caverns: Science, new ser., vol. 73, No. 1891, pp. 329-330,1931.
OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN LIMESTONE 75

nary domestic or industrial uses. However, some ground water of 

meteoric origin may be trapped by beds of impermeable shale so that 

its circulation is impeded or prevented, and it may then become so 

highly concentrated as to be unfit for most purposes. The connate 

waters of north-central Tennessee generally occur in rocks at great 

depth, do not circulate, and do not receive water from the surface. 

In marine sediments such as the calcareous formations of this region 

the connate waters invariably contain a very large amount of dissolved 

mineral matter and are unfit for practically all uses. The chemical 

character of these two types of water is discussed on pages 120-123.

In any region that is underlain by thick bodies of massive limes tone, 

such as north-central Tennessee, many areas between the perennial 

rivers and creeks are wholly devoid of surface streams although they 

receive their proportionate amount of rainfall and obviously contribute 

water to maintain the flow of the perennial streams. The run-off 

from such areas is diverted into joints and solution channels of the 

limestone by sinks, or swallow holes, each of which is a rude funnel 

gathering water from the surface. However, not all the depressions 

that have no surface outlet divert water info the channels of the limestone, for the floors of many are doubtless tightly puddled by clay or 

other impermeable debris. The sinks range in size from open joints 

and other small crevices to large pits formed by solution or by the 

collapse of the roof above an underground channel or by a natural 

well that reaches the surface. The walls of a large sink may gradually 

be cut back by solution, by corrasion, or by collapse, so that its drainage area increases correspondingly. Some depressions of this sort in 

north-central Tennessee drain several square miles by means of intermittent or perennial creeks that discharge into natural wells or other 

solution openings at the bottoms of the pits.

The water that enters the joints and solution openings of the limestone from the sinks percolates downward to the zone of saturation, 

the upper boundary of which in some districts is about as sharply 

defined in limestone as in other rocks. Under such conditions the 

network of joints and solution openings, both great and small, is filled 

with water up to a certain level, which is the water table. Only those 

openings that exist below the water table generally yield perennial 

supplies to wells. In some places, however, a well that passes through 

limestone will not strike a water-bearing opening until it has been 

drilled a considerable distance below the water table. When the well 

strikes the water-bearing opening the water will generally rise in it 

about to the level of the water table. In other limestone districts 

extensive networks of solution passages exist above th& regional water 

table and yet are wholly or partly filled with water. This water may 

be in transit downward to the zone of saturation or it may be trapped 

above underground dams that obstruct major solution channels (see
76 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

pp. 82-83) and thus may constitute one or more bodies of perched 

ground water. Under such conditions the static level of the ground 

water in wells may not define a simple surface, so that it is difficult or 

impossible to recognize the regional water table. These conditions 

led Martel 47 to deny the existence of a water table in limestone 

regions.

Practically all the surface water that is diverted by the sink holes 

is discharged into some surface stream at points of lower altitude 

through tubular or fracture springs (pp. 92-95). By accretion of 

water gathered by many sinks, perennial underground streams may 

be formed and may flow for miles through solution passages before 

reappearing at the surface. Also, a perennial surface stream may 

disappear wholly or in part into a sink or solution channel, flow 

underground for a distance, and reappear at the surface one or 

more times. These phenomena have been summarized by Meinzer ** 

as follows:

Some of the large caverns contain streams that do not differ greatly from surface streams. Like the surface streams, they generally flow about at the level 

of the water table. As the result of a heavy rain or the rapid thawing of snow 

they may receive great quantities of surface water directly through sink holes 

and may, like the surface streams, become greatly enlarged. In times of flood 

they may lose some of their water by percolation into the smaller crevices, but 

at low stages they are fed by the body of ground water that occupies all crevices 

below the water table. Barely there is a passage through the limestone that 

leads from a sink hole, where the water is taken in, to a point of discharge at a 

lower level, without extending down to the water table. Such a subterranean 

passage is essentially a dry wash that is arched over by a natural bridge. Its 

discharge is extremely irregular and ceases as soon as the flood water has disappeared.

Underground drainage systems of this sort are characteristic of 

pure thick-bedded limestones. Davis 4fl states that the underground 

channels which constitute these systems differ from surface drains in 

that they are looped and do not have well-defined gradients. Martel 60 contends that the underground streams are similar to surface 

rivers in that they comprise rapids, cascades, and static reaches, are 

dendritic, and have floods. He contends further that the underground streams differ from surface rivers in that they include very 

abrupt and extreme constrictions, siphons both upright and inverted,, 

abrupt falls, and pools of large volume; also in that they are looped 

and in many places are partly or completely dammed by rock that 

has fallen from roof or walls. Some of these differences seem not tobe permanent characteristics, however, if the underground streama

« Martel, E. A., Nouveau traits des eaux souterraines, pp. 305-306, Paris, 1921.

« Meinzer, O. E., The occurrence of ground water in the United States: TJ. S. Geol. Survey Water-SupplyPaper 489, p. 134, 1923.

« Davis, W. M., written communication to O. E. Meinzer, Mar. 25,1930. 

M Martel, E. A., op. cit., pp. 228, 242-246.
OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN LIMESTONE 77

are compared with surface streams that are in the corresponding stage 

of development (pp. 78-82).

The major ground-water conduits are not all single channels passing directly from point of intake to point of discharge, for some large 

springs that issue from them are relatively invariable in yield and 

discharge clear water even during floods. Hurricane Rock Spring (No. 

181, pp. 161-162), in Humphreys County, is of this sort. Where such 

conditions exist the system of channels must store temporarily enough 

water to clarify the turbid inflow, even though the gradient directly 

from area of inflow to point of discharge may be relatively steep. 

Obviously, this storage capacity can not exist unless the channels 

ramify so widely that they are very flat or unless they comprise many 

voluminous pools of nearly static water.

The volume of water thus stored temporarily in cavernous rocks 

may be truly enormous, as is shown by the behavior of the Major 

Johnson group of springs on the Carlsbad irrigation project, New 

Mexico. These springs are about 3% miles southwest of the McMillan Dam, 60 feet below the crest of its spillway, and 40 feet below the 

lowest point of the floor of the reservoir. The discharge of these 

springs was 272 second-feet in 1921, when the reservoir was full, and 

it has been shown that under those conditions the springs were supplied 

chiefly by water that leaked from the reservoir into cavernous rocks. 61 

As soon as the reservoir becomes empty, however, the discharge of 

the spring group begins to decrease, and in the course of about a 

month it declines to a minimum of approximately 40 second-feet, 

this minimum discharge being the normal ground-water discharge of 

the spring basin as long as the reservoir is empty. The decline is 

due to cessation of leakage from the reservoir and to gradual draining of the water stored temporarily above the normal water table. 

On the assumption that the rate of decline is uniform throughout the 

month, about 300 million cubic feet (2,250 million gallons) of water 

must be stored temporarily in the cavernous rock that drains into 

this spring group. This volume of water would fill a reservoir 1 mile 

square to a depth of nearly 11 feet.

On the other hand, some trunk channels must pass directly from 

intake to outlet, for the discharge of many tubular springs increases 

considerably and becomes extremely turbid for a brief period after 

a heavy rain. Such springs are common in north-central Tennessee, 

and a typical example is the municipal spring at Murfreesboro, 

Rutherford County (No. 439, pp. 187-188).

" Meinzer, O. E., Benick, B. O., and Bryan, Kirk, Geology of No. 3 reservoir site of the Carlsbad irrigation project, New Mexico, with respect to water-tightness: U. S. Qeol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 

580, pp. 23-24, 1927.
78 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

CYCLES IN THE FORMATION OF UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

In any district underlain by limestone the joints and solution 

passages are integral and tributary parts of the regional drainage 

system. Furthermore, the work of the ground water modifies profoundly the normal sequence of land forms that are cut elsewhere on 

insoluble rocks by subaerial erosion. Several workers, including 

Beede & and Cvija6,53 have sought to define the stages of the erosion 

cycle in a limestone district in terms of the land forms produced 

directly or indirectly by the solvent action of the ground water. As 

thus defined the youthful stage of the cycle is characterized by progressive capture of surface drainage by the underground streams and 

by the appearance of scattered solution sinks. In the mature stage 

the drainage is virtually all underground and the surface valleys of 

youth are entirely disorganized by solution sinks and scattered collapse sinks, which together cover most of the region. At this stage 

there exists the strongest topographic expression of the solvent action 

of the ground water. In late maturity collapse sinks become numerous and valleys are formed by foundering of the roofs above the major 

solution channels, much of the drainage being brought to the surface 

again. In the stage of old age the last solution channels are unroofed 

and a plain drained by a normal system of surface streams is formed; 

this plain is the final product of the cycle.

These definitions of the stages of the erosion cycle in terms of the 

minor land forms produced by solution are somewhat unsatisfactory, 

however, for they imply that certain minor forms invariably accompany each of the major topographic forms by which the stages are 

best known. Such a fixed association of major and minor forms is 

not necessarily true. It seems more rational to analyze the cyclic 

history of the surface and underground drainage systems independently, though by analogous stages.

In the first or youthful stage of its history a surface stream advances 

by headward erosion, branches repeatedly, and encroaches upon an 

undrained upland by expanding fanlike until a rough equilibrium is 

reached between the erosive powers of adjacent streams. Its valleys 

have steep longitudinal gradients and are V-shaped in transverse profile; the valley slopes intersect the upland plain in sharp angles. 

There are many undrained remnants of the upland between the tributary streams, but they are gradually reduced in size. In the stage of 

late youth or adolescence the angular shoulders at the crests of the 

valley walls disappear from the profiles and are replaced by curves 

that are convex upward. The stage ends when the upland remnants

H Beede, J. W., The cycle of subterranean drainage as illustrated in the Bloomington, Ind., quadrangle: 

Indiana Acad. Sei. Proc. for 1910, pp. 81-111,1911.

" Cvijafi, Jovan, Hydrographie souterraine et evolution morphologique du Karst: Inst. gfiog. alpine, 

Recueil des travaux,vol. 6, pp. 375-426, Grenoble, 1918 (abstracted at length by Sanders, E. M., The cycle 

of erosion In a karst region, after Cvija6: Geog. Review, vol. 11, pp. 593-604,1921).
OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN LIMESTONE 79

have been narrowed to linear divides but have not been reduced in 

altitude.

In the analogous stage of the underground cycle solution channels 

are first developed beneath the slopes of the deeper surface valleys 

and extend themselves headward beneath the uplands. The stage 

may be considered to end when the entire region is underlain by a 

network of channels and when linear divides first appear between the 

underground systems. As in a dense massive limestone the channels 

are generally formed by etching the faces of blocks bounded by joints 

and bedding planes, both lateral and vertical connections will be made 

from crevice to crevice as the process of solution goes on. Ultimately 

the small solution openings become braided or looped in both horizontal and vertical projections. Such a looped pattern without large 

trunk channels may be considered characteristic of this first stage. 

The divides between the underground drainage basins may or may 

not coincide with the surface divides, and they may even shift laterally 

with seasonal or annual variations in the distribution of rainfall.

The joints in massive dense limestone may be so tight that the 

ground water percolates slowly below a new upland, even though the 

surface streams occupy deep trenches and the hydraulic gradient is 

steep in consequence. Under such conditions the solution channels 

may extend themselves headward very slowly, especially if the limestone is impure or is interbedded with less soluble layers, and the 

surface streams may progress beyond the first stage of their erosion 

cycle before the underground system diverts any considerable part of 

the surface run-off. On the other hand, if the joints are open or the 

limestone has considerable primary continuous porosity and is especially soluble the underground drainage system may develop very 

rapidly and may pass through the first stage of its cycle before the 

upland is completely drained by surface streams. Under these conditions extensive upland tracts might be thoroughly drained into 

underground channels before surface drainage became established.

In north-central Tennessee, where the limestones are nearly horizontal and not excessively jointed and where the rainfall is moderately 

high, the surface streams seem to pass through their youthful stage 

before the system of underground solution channels is well established. Indeed, in areas of youthful topography in this region the 

solution channels are small and discontinuous and do not extend to 

great depths. Generally the limestone becomes tight and not water 

bearing at 75 feet or less below the surface. Locally small quantities 

of ground water drain from the upland and pass through the imperfect 

system of underground channels as perennial or intermittent cascades, 

but most of the drainage is carried by surface streams.

In the second or mature stage of the surface erosion cycle the interstream divides are lowered gradually, the valleys are widened, and in
80 GROUND WATEE IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

transverse profile the lower parts of the valley slopes become concave 

upward. A process of integration goes on by which the branches 

that have the greatest erosive power drain more and more of the total 

drainage area and become major tributaries of the trunk stream. 

They also erode their beds downward to a local profile of equilibrium, 

below which they can not cut effectively, and subsequently they 

aggrade their lower reaches. Provided the rocks are equally resistant 

to erosion and the erosion cycle is not interrupted by crustal movement or other cause, the pattern of the surface drains remains dendritic or branching. The mature stage ends when the principal 

divides begin to disintegrate into groups of isolated hills.

In the analogous stage of the underground cycle integration of the 

solution channels goes on, those which gather the largest amounts of 

surface water and those which discharge at the lowest points increasing in size most rapidly and becoming major ground-water conduits. 

These conduits may converge toward a common point of discharge or 

they may diverge toward several points of discharge after the manner 

of distributaries on the delta of a surface stream. Also, they are 

likely to be connected by small looped channels or to be looped themselves. At the same time the divides between the underground 

drainage systems are lowered as new channels are etched at lower 

altitudes and the hydraulic gradient that induces circulation of the 

ground water is reduced. Collapse sinks may reach the surface in 

this stage of the underground cycle, but if the limestone is thick bedded, strong, and not closely jointed and if the large solution channels 

are not close to the surface such sinks may not be numerous. If the 

limestone is highly permeable and particularly soluble, the cycle of 

underground channeling may well reach maturity while the surface 

streams are still extremely young. As the surface streams into which 

the ground water discharges lower their beds, the ground-water conduits seek lower points of discharge until a condition of equilibrium is 

established and then extend themselves laterally. The profile of the 

ground-water conduits after such equilibrium has been established 

defines a surface that may be designated the equilibrium surface of 

solution channeling. Below this surface the ground water does not 

circulate effectively and hence probably does not etch the limestone 

appreciably except where deep artesian circulation takes place (pp. 

"96-98). As circulation is controlled by points of discharge into the 

surface streams, the equilibrium profile of solution channeling is 

generally adjusted to the local equilibrium profile of erosion, and the 

ground-water conduits tend to adjust themselves to the surface 

streams where the rocks are equally jointed and equally soluble 

throughout. However, where the rocks are unequally soluble a local 

equilibrium profile of solution may be established above the surface 

streams by a bed that is impermeable or more or less insoluble. Such
OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN LIMESTONE 81

a local equilibrium surface of solution may be either temporary or 

permanent, depending upon the character of the restraining bed.

In their final or old-age stage the surface streams widen their valleys 

by lateral planation at the equilibrium profile of erosion, and the divides are gradually worn down by the tributaries. As planation 

progresses the grades of the streams decline, and their capacity to 

transport the mechanical products of erosion diminishes and finally 

becomes essentially zero. Ultimately the divides are essentially 

destroyed and the entire region is reduced nearly to a plane surface, 

the peneplain, which is the final product of the erosion cycle.

In a corresponding manner, once the ground-water conduits have 

been established at the equilibrium profile of solution channeling they 

tend to extend themselves along this profile within the limits imposed 

by the stratigraphy and structure. Ultimately there tends to be 

produced at this level a network of large solution channels in which 

most of the ground-water circulation takes place. Such a network 

may be considered as defining a peneplain of solution.64 Collapse 

sinks should be most numerous in this stage of the underground cycle, 

and under favorable circumstances much of the drainage may be 

returned to the surface by the formation of collapse valleys.

The ultimate product of the underground cycle would be the same 

as that of the surface cycle a peneplain drained in large part by subsurface channels of very low gradient. This condition probably 

existed on the Highland Rim peneplain of north-central Tennessee 

(pp.1 19-20), which in its final form seems to have been drained largely 

by a network of solution channels about 100 feet below the surface. 

These channels are those which are entered by numerous wells and 

from which issue many large tubular springs (pp. 92-95). Indeed, 

the final steps in degradation of the peneplain may have been effected 

wholly by solution and by ground-water circulation, for in some placea 

the mantle of insoluble rock waste that overlies the bedrock extends 

downward practically to a zone of extensive solution channeling. 

(See pi. 6, 5.)

Although the cycles of surface erosion and of underground solution 

start simultaneously whenever an area is raised above regional baselevel, and although the two processes tend to a common ultimate 

product, the peneplain, the analogous intermediate stages of the two 

cycles may not be even roughly contemporaneous. If the limestone 

is readily soluble and is permeable even before being attacked by the 

natural solvents, and if the area is raised only a moderate amount 

above base-level, underground planation by solution may be far 

advanced while the surface streams are yet very immature. These 

conditions would presumably be the optimum for the formation of 

large solution and collapse sinks and for sculpturing the surface by

« Meinzer, O. E., Geology of large springs: Qeol. Soc. America Bull., vol. 38, p. 215,1927.
82 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

the secondary effects of underground solution rather than by surface 

erosion. On the other hand, if the limestones were relatively insoluble or not equally soluble and not highly permeable, and if the area 

were raised far above base-level, the land might be sculptured almost 

entirely through corrasion by surface streams. Indeed, it seems that 

diversion of the drainage into solution or collapse sinks might begin 

at any stage of the surface erosion cycle, or, on the other hand, that 

surface streams might breach the underground channels and disrupt 

the subsurface drainage until a relatively late stage of the underground cycle. Furthermore, both the surface and subsurface cycles 

are likely to be interrupted by crustal movement or other cause before 

the peneplain stage is attained, and both the stratigraphy and the 

structure may cause profound modifications of the ideal cycles that 

have been outlined. Hence, many complex patterns of subsurface 

drainage channels may exist.

In a given area, the cycle of channeling by solution proceeds most 

rapidly where the rocks receive the largest or most constant inflow 

of water from the surface. Generally this condition exists near the 

perennial surface streams, provided their channels are somewhat 

above the profile of equilibrium and have not been rendered impermeable by natural puddling. In north-central Tennessee the most 

cavernous limestone and the largest solution channels generally 

occur within the meander belts of the major streams, or in the acute 

segments between converging tributaries in the vicinity of their 

confluence. Many of the largest subsurface openings are evidently 

by-pass channels that convey a part of the perennial stream flow 

across meanders or from one tributary to another by a course that 

is shorter than that of the surface stream. From channels of this 

sort issue some of the largest perennial springs of the region, including 

Hurricane Kock Spring (No. 181, pp. 161-162), whose discharge on 

September 10, 1927, was about 60 cubic feet a second (27,000 gallons 

a minute). Generally the limestone underlying the floors of all those 

valleys in north-central Tennessee that are occupied by perennial 

streams is somewhat channeled, the equilibrium profile of active 

ground-water circulation seeming to be 50 to 75 feet below the mean 

low-water surface of the Cumberland Kiver.

RELATIONS OF WATER-BEARING OPENINGS TO GEOLOGIC AND 

PHYSIOGRAPHIC HISTORY

Relation to stratigraphy. Even relatively pure limestone differs 

somewhat in solubility; furthermore, limestone formations may be 

separated by impermeable rocks such as shale or by permeable rocks 

such as sandstone. Hence many conditions of ground-water circulation may result. A bed of impermeable shale or a stratum of 

limestone that is not readily soluble or is not jointed may prevent
OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN LIMESTONE 83

circulation downward. Consequently, a perched body of ground 

water and a local equilibrium surface of solution may be created, 

and the stratum just above the barrier may become extensively 

channeled by solution. This condition exists in north-central Tennessee, where the impermeable Chattanooga shale (pp. 39-41) underlies 

the Mississippian limestones. Much of the ground water that is 

reported to occur in the uppermost part of the shale may circulate 

in small solution openings that follow its upper contact. Also beds 

of impermeable shale in some of the thin-bedded and shaly limeston® 

formations may uphold bodies of ground water and induce channeling 

considerably above the regional equilibrium profile of solution. A 

local equilibrium profile of solution, if created by a bed that is slowly 

soluble, may be only temporary. Once the restraining bed is breached, 

further extensive channeling may take place at a lower equilibrium 

profile, either local or regional, and the lower system of channels 

may drain the upper system through natural wells.

Sandstone strata may accelerate the cycle of solution channeling 

in limestones with which they are interbedded by facilitating deep 

percolation of meteoric water.

During an erosion interval that follows an epoch of limestone 

formation a system of solution openings may be formed, which may 

not be filled during the subsequent epoch of sedimentation. Hence 

an unconformity may be accompanied by openings of this sort, which 

may be filled with fossil water of the date of submergence or may 

serve as conduits for ground water of meteoric origin if the unconformity crops out at the present time. In several places in northcentral Tennessee the Chattanooga shale, which rests unconformably upon limestones ranging in age from Middle Devonian to Ordovician, fills unmistakable sink holes in the underlying surface, as has 

been noted by Bassler 55 and Lusk.66 However, no water-bearing 

openings associated with this erosion surface were noted. Some of 

the highly concentrated connate waters (pp. 120-123) that occur in 

the Ordovician limestones of this region may be trapped in solution 

openings associated with unconformities.

Relation to structure. All features of geologic structure, both folds 

and faults, may affect the ground-water conditions in limestone 

profoundly. Thick-bedded pure limestones are rather brittle, so 

that, where folded, they are generally broken by closely spaced 

joints, which constitute water-bearing openings. Some of the 

thinner-bedded formations in the folded areas and all the rocks in 

the unfolded areas may be much less jointed, so that in them the 

ground water circulates much less freely in the early stages of the 

subsurface cycle. An impermeable or slightly soluble bed folded in

« Bassler, R. S., Sink-hole structure in central Tennessee [abstract]: Washington Acad. Sci. Jour., vol. 14, 

p. 374, 1924. 

M Lusk, R. G., A pre-Chattanooga sink hole: Science, new ser., vol. 65, pp. 579-580,1927.
84 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

a synclinal trough may uphold a large body of perched ground water 

far above the regional water table. As a limb of a fold, a bed of 

the same sort may constitute a ground-water dam that inhibits 

horizontal extension of the subsurface drainage system. Where the 

dip is greater than the inclination of the topographic surface, a soluble limestone that is inclosed by less soluble or by impermeable beds 

may be channeled to considerable depth, so that it retains water 

under artesian head. Where the dip is less than the inclination of 

the topographic slope and in the same direction inclosed water-bearing beds are likely to discharge as hillside springs above the level of 

the perennial streams. On the other hand, where the limestones are 

thick and are more or less equally soluble, folding might impede 

but probably would not prevent development of the normal subsurface drainage system. However, the channels would presumably 

be looped in a more complex pattern than in horizontal beds, for 

solution would take place largely along the inclined bedding planes 

and along joints transverse to the beds.

Faults and the breccia zones that commonly accompany them in 

rocks as brittle as limestone may constitute ground-water conduits 

extending to great depth. Furthermore, the walls of a fault are 

likely to be jointed for considerable distances from the principal fracture. Hence a fault and the accompanying secondary fractures may 

promote ground-water circulation and subsurface channeling.

Relation to physiographic history and land forms. If limestone that 

has been rendered cavernous by solution were depressed somewhat by 

subsidence of the crust, the water table would rise with relation to 

the equilibrium profile of solution, so that channels that were formerly 

above the water table would be filled with water and might become 

ground-water conduits of very large transmission capacity. Under 

favorable conditions water might also be retained under artesian pressure. Obviously this sequence of events is ideal for producing the 

maximum water-yielding capacity hi a water-bearing limestone.

Conditions that are analogous with those just outlined exist in some 

parts of the north-central United States, where the deposition of extensive sheets of glacial debris caused the water table to rise and to 

submerge cavernous portions of the Galena and Niagara limestones. 

The occurrence of ground water under these conditions is described 

by Meinzer B7 as follows:

Before the glacial epoch these limestones [Galena and Niagara] lay at the surface 

over wide areas and were subjected to extensive weathering. Then they were 

overridden by successive ice sheets and became covered with glacial drift. To-day 

the water table in most places passes through the drift mantle, leaving the underlying cavernous limestone within the zone of saturation. In these areas limestone

 * Meinzer, O. E., The occurrence of ground water in the United States: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 489, p. 132,1923.
OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN LIMESTONE 85

is considered an excellent water bearer, and many limestone wells will yield from 

100 to several hundred gallons a minute. Where these same formations are so 

deeply buried that they have never been leached they are often not regarded as 

aquifers by deep-well drillers, who search for the water-bearing sandstones 

between the limestones.

The relation between solution caverns in the limestone and the 

physiographic history of the Mammoth Cave district of Kentucky is 

described by Lobeck.58

Generally the sequence of events in the geologic and physiographic 

history of north-central Tennessee has not been such as to cause the 

immersion of any extensive bodies of cavernous limestone in the zone 

of saturation. Instead, that region has been uplifted recurrently, so 

that the cavernous limestones have been in part drained by rejuvenated streams and by deeper ground-water conduits. Hence the 

capacity of wells and springs that issue from these rocks is limited. 

Furthermore, in areas where the water table has been depressed below 

the cavernous portions of the limestone, water is not usually confined 

under artesian head. In a few small areas of north-central Tennessee, 

however, the water table has been raised so much as to saturate 

cavernous rock and to produce artesian conditions (pp. 96-98), probably because a major ground-water conduit became dammed through 

deposition of silt, collapse of its roof, or some other cause.

Where the water table has been depressed slightly below a body of 

cavernous limestone, either by uplift of the earth's crust or because 

the stream to which the water table is adjusted has eroded its bed 

downward, a lower equilibrium profile of solution is established. 

Consequently a new set of solution channels tends to form at that 

level. In many places the lower channels tend to follow the same 

joints as the upper channels and to join themselves to the upper channels by vertical solution channels or natural wells. Ultimately the 

chaHEtete of the upper set would be drained except when water flowed 

through them in passing to the water table. If the water table were 

depressed several times and the interval between successive depressions were long enough for solution planation to become extensive, 

the body of limestone would be ramified by dry caverns at several 

levels, whereas the water table would be far below the surface. On 

the other hand, each cycle of solution channeling might be interrupted 

at any stage, so that many complex conditions with respect to size and 

pattern of water-bearing openings might result. Conditions of this 

sort occur very commonly in the valleys of large streams that have cut 

downward by several stages, in each of which a local equilibrium profile 

of erosion and a correlative equilibrium profile of solution have existed 

temporarily.

*' Lobeek, A. K., The geology and physiography of the Mammoth Cave National Park: Kentucky Qeol. 

Survey Pamphlet 21, pp. 41-47,1928.
86 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

On the other hand, when a region underlain by cavernous limestone 

is raised a considerable distance by rapid crustal movement, itsstreams are rejuvenated and much lower equilibrium profiles of erosion 

and of underground channeling are established. The effect of the 

uplift upon the ground-water conditions then depends upon the relative rates of surface erosion and subsurface channeling. Where the 

rocks are extremely soluble and much fractured, a poorly drained 

elevated plateau with a deep water table would result. If, however, 

the cycle of stream erosion should proceed more rapidly than the cycle 

of underground channeling, there would tend to be formed in such a 

region two separate systems of subsurface conduits one formed in 

association with and adjusted to the streams that formerly drained 

the upland and another adjusted to the base level of the rejuvenated 

streams. The conduits adjusted to the rejuvenated streams might 

not extend themselves beneath the uplands, and the two systems 

might remain virtually without underground connections, the channels, 

associated with the uplands ultimately being completely destroyed by 

erosion. Conditions of this sort prevail in north-central Tennessee, 

where the Highland Rim plateau is drained in large part by underground solution conduits that generally are not connected with the solution conduits associated with the Nashville Basin peneplain (pp. 16-21).

The conduits that drain the Highland Rim plateau have been 

breached by tributaries of the rejuvenated Cumberland River; from, 

them issue tubular springs, of which many discharge 100 gallons a 

minute or more perennially (pp. 92-95). Along the Highland Rim 

escarpment the limestones are generally not channeled to any great 

extent, and there seems to be little or no ground-water percolation 

much below the surficial mantle of weathered rocks. Such percolation 

as does take place below the steep erosion slopes of the escarpment 

occurs largely as a ground-water cascade in the weathered rocks. 

For the most part this cascade is intermittent, but locally there is 

continuous percolation that supplies perennial springs.

TXELATION TO UTILIZATION OF GROUND WATER

Not only do limestones in different regions differ greatly in waterbearing properties, but there is also a great diversity in the yield of 

wells and springs that issue from the same bed in a given locality. 

Obviously, the yield of a well or spring depends upon the size and 

transmission capacity of the joint or solution channel from which its. 

water is derived. Hence, a considerable element of chance enters into 

the search for a supply of ground water, for one well may enter a large 

water-bearing channel and be virtually inexhaustible, whereas other 

wells only a few feet away may be practically dry because they do not 

find any water-bearing openings, or because they enter dry channela 

or channels that are filled with clay.
OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN LIMESTONE 87

The courses followed by some of the larger underground channels 

may sometimes be traced approximately on the surface where sink 

holes or natural wells occur in line, the altitude and relative size of the 

sinks and the altitude of the associated ground water being used to 

discriminate channels that are related to different levels of planation 

by solution. Furthermore, some solution channels follow persistent 

joints and may be approximately straight for considerable distances. 

Hence, where the limestones are broken by one or more well-defined 

sets of joints the most probable courses of a water-bearing channel 

can be projected approximately by drawing lines through the proved 

wells or springs and parallel to the dominant sets of joints. Obviously 

the uncertainty of these projected courses increases with the distance 

from the proved sites. Solution channels may also be formed at 

several altitudes along a single joint, so that the course of a shallow 

channel which can be traced by springs, dry caverns, or small sinks 

may coincide with that of another water-bearing channel at greater 

depth. However, solution channels and joints usually depart somewhat from a true plane, so that wells located at sites chosen by one 

of the methods of projection outlined above may not be successful 

in finding a large yield of water. Moreover, the traces of many large 

solution channels that are proved by existing wells and of most small 

channels and joints are not indicated at the surface. Hence the 

development of ground-water supplies in limestone by drilling wells 

is likely to involve failures even under the most favorable circumstances.

In north-central Tennessee the limestones fortunately are somewhat 

jointed at most places, and small openings along the joints and along 

bedding planes are generally water bearing 50 feet or more above and 

below the level of the perennial surface drains. Hence, sufficient 

water for household use and for watering stock can be obtained by 

wells of moderate depth in most parts of the region. However, the 

water found in the deeper crevices in many places holds considerable 

dissolved mineral matter and may be unsatisfactory in chemical 

character for some uses. Comparatively few wells yield as much as 

100 gallons a minute. The water-bearing properties of the limestones 

in different parts of the area are discussed in the county descriptions 

(pp. 124-233).

In studying the sanitary condition of a water supply from the limestone or the possibility of interference between two or more sources, 

it is frequently desirable to trace the direction of flow of the ground 

water. For this purpose the use of a water-soluble dye, such as the 

sodium salt of fluorescein, is usually effective.69 The principle of its 

use is to dose the circulating ground water with a solution of the dye

 ' Dole, R. B., Use of fluorescein in the study of underground waters: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 160, pp. 73-85,1906. Stabler, Herman, Fluorescein, an aid to tracing waters underground: Reclamation Record, vol. 12, pp. 122-123,1921.
TJ. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 640 PLATE 9

A. ORIFICE OF TUBULAR SPRING IIN RIDLEY LIMESTONE ON SOUTH BANK OF 

WEST FORK OF STONE RIVER, 2V, MILES NORTHEAST OF FLORENCE, 

RUTHERFORD COUNTY

No. 416, Plate 4. Approximate yield August 7, 1927, 1,000 gallons a minute.

B. BIG SPRING, 6J.2 MILES EAST OF LEBANON, ON THE NASHVILLE BASIN

PENEPLAIN 

No. 329, Plate 4. Approximate yield October 14, 1927, 1,800 gallons a minute.
88 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

at a sink hole, well, or temporary test pit, and then to take samples 

of water from all possible points of discharge in springs or wells and 

examine them for traces of the dye.

The sodium salt of fluorescein is sold under the commercial name 

"uranin." Its solution has a characteristic fluorescent green color 

by reflected light, and it can be detected by the eye in a solution whose 

concentration is as low as 1 part of the dye in 40,000,000 parts of clear 

water, if proper technique is followed.60 When the concentration of 

the solution is very low the characteristic color is seen best if the sample is placed in a test tube or a long glass tube and viewed in full 

daylight before a white background by looking along the axis of the 

tube. If the examination is made by a suitable fluoroscope the limit 

of visibility has been placed at 1 part of pure uranin in 10,000,000,000 

parts of clear water.

Uranin is altogether harmless in water used for domestic and other 

common purposes. It is not decolorized by contact with leached sand 

Or gravel and has been shown to persist as long as three years in such 

material.61 However, dilute solutions of uranin may be partly decolorized by calcareous soils or by waters such as those that generally 

issue from limestone, which contain a large amount of calcium carbonate or other calcium salts, and may be completely decolorized by 

peaty formations and by mineral acids other than carbon dioxide.

A solution of uranin is somewhat heavier than pure water, so that 

it sometimes settles to the bottom of stagnant pools until the stream 

is agitated, as by the sudden influx of a larger amount of water. 

Consequently, the rate of movement of the dye may be slightly less 

than that of the water, and one dose of the dye may produce distinct 

color two or more times at a related point of discharge.

On the other hand, it was found in the experimental work of the 

United States Public Health Service at Fort Caswell, N. C., that 

uranin floated on the water table in unconsolidated sand and was even 

drawn up into the capillary fringe and there trapped.62

The dye is most readily handled as a solution containing 2 or 3 

ounces of uranin for each gallon of water, which is poured into the 

selected well, sink hole, or other opening at the rate of about 1 ounce 

of uranin an hour for each 500 gallons a minute of estimated underground flow. Dosage at this rate should be continued for at least an 

hour where the distance to the most remote point of observation is 

less than 1 mile, or for a longer period where the distance is greater. 

If the solution is poured into a dry sink or natural well, enough additional water should be poured in to assure the uranin being carried 

down to the water table. Before the introduction of the uranin, a

80 Stiles, C. W., and others, Experimental bacterial and chemical pollution of wells via ground water and 

the factors involved: U. S. Public Health Service Hyg. Lab. Bull. 147, pp. 84-85* 1927. 

«Idem, pp. 86-86. 

*» Idem, p. 79.




SPEINGS 89

blank sample of water should be taken from each of the observation 

wells and springs and preserved as a standard of comparison. Samples are then taken at regular intervals at each of the observation 

points and compared with the corresponding blank sample, and the 

collection of samples is continued until the arrival and passing of the 

uranin have been noted. From the interval of time between the 

dosing of the ground water and the appearance of the dye at a point 

a known distance away the rate of movement can be computed. This 

is usually determined from the interval between dosage with the dye 

and its first appearance at the point of observation, the resultant 

figure being probably a minimum value. Though a positive result 

from a field test with uranin gives useful information, a negative 

result is not conclusive, for the uranin commonly advances as a very 

narrow band,63 which may pass between two observation wells and 

thereby escape detection.

An instructive example of the use of uranin in tracing the flow of 

ground water in limestone has been described recently by Crouch.64 

A disappearing stream was traced to springs as much as 5 miles distant, 

and the rate of movement was found to be about 160 to 185 feet an

hour.

SPRINGS

GRAVITY SPRINGS

GENERAL FEATURES« ' ' ' '' '

Many localities in north-central Tennessee have no perenjajal 

streams of consequence, and hence the springs are an impor^ajpti 

present and future source of water supply for municipal and industrial? 

uses. The value of any spring for these purposes is determined by 

the amount and variability of its discharge, by the temperature of 

its water, and by the amount and character of the dissolved and suspended matter in its water.

Most of the springs in this region are gravity springs that is, they 

percolate from permeable beds or flow from large openings in the rocks 

under the force of gravity, much as a stream flows down its channel. 

In such springs water does not issue under artesian pressure. These 

gravity springs may be further classified as seepage springs, in which 

the water percolates slowly from the many small interstices of a 

permeable material; as fracture springs, in which the water flows from 

one or more joints or other fractures in the rocks; or as tubular springs, 

in which the water issues freely from large tubelike channels that are

 > Stiles, O. W., and others, op. cit., p. 73.

« Crouch, A. W., The use of uranin dye in tracing underground waters: Am. Waterworks Assoc. Jour., 

vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 725-728,1928.

68 For a full discussion, see Meinzer, 0. E., An outline of ground-water hydrology, with definitions: U. S. 

QeoL Survey Water-Supply Paper 494, pp. 60-53,1923. Bryan, Kirk, Classification of springs: Jour. Geology, vol. 27, pp. 522-561, 1919.

100144 32 7
90 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

not primarily the result of fracturing. The distinctions between these 

three classes are wholly arbitrary, and all classes grade into one 

another.

SEEPAGE SPRINGS

Most of the springs in the region are seepage springs, the common 

type being the contact spring, which issues from permeable material 

just above the outcrop of some relatively impermeable material. In 

springs of this type the impermeable material retards or prevents the 

downward percolation of ground water and consequently deflects it to 

the surface. These conditions are satisfied in four general cases, each 

of which is associated with a characteristic type of spring performance. 

First, the water-bearing material may be a rock, such as sandstone, 

which is permeable in its unweathered state, and the underlying retaining bed a stratum of shale or other impermeable rock. The storage 

capacity of such a permeable bed is relatively large, so that the discharge of the spring is not likely to be highly variable, even though 

it may not be large. Second, the water-bearing material may be a 

stratum that has been rendered permeable by weathering, and the 

underlying retaining bed a material that is not affected by weathering 

to an appreciable degree. Third, the permeable material may be the 

weathered portion of a massive stratum, and the retaining bed the 

underlying fresh rock. In these two cases the volume of permeable 

material that supplies each spring niLy be small, so that both the 

storage capacity for ground water and the discharge of the spring 

during the dry season may also be small. Finally, the water-bearing 

material may be transported detritus, and the retaining bed the underlying solid rock. The storage capacity and permeability of the detritus vary between wide limits, although under favorable conditions 

both may be large; hence the discharge of such a spring may be large 

and relatively invariable. The optimum condition favoring contact 

springs exists in a terrane of steep slopes, and hence such springs are 

especially abundant along the Highland Rim escarpment, which 

bounds the Nashville Basin. They are somewhat less numerous on 

the valley slopes throughout the region and are not common on the 

Highland Rim plateau or the Nashville Basin peneplain.

Many contact springs issue from minute joints and bedding-plane 

crevices in the uppermost part of the Chattanooga shale along the 

Highland Rim escarpment, although their water is probably derived in 

part from the weathered zone of the overlying limestone. Typical 

examples, which are entered in the table of spring data, are Nos. 273 

and 278 of Davidson County (pp. 138-139) and Nos. 358 and 395 of 

Williamson County (pp. 218-219). Each of these springs has a small 

area of influence and issues from material of low permeability, and 

hence the discharge is generally very small. Other contact springs 

issue from beds of permeable sandstone near the top of the Fort Payne
SPRINGS ' 91

formation, which are known to exist only locally along the Highland 

Rim escarpment in Williamson County, on the west side of the Nashville Basin. Several of the springs that constitute the municipal 

supply of Franklin (Nos. 366, 380, 383, and 384, pp. 218-219) are 

typical of the springs that issue from this horizon. Except at these 

two horizons, contact springs are not especially numerous at the outcrop of any one stratigraphic member, although many springs issue 

just above clay beds that separate layers of limestone and near the 

base of the zone of weathering in rocks of all types. Except within 

very small areas, however, the stratigraphic horizon of these springs 

is largely a matter of local variations in the texture of the rocks.

The seepage springs of north-central Tennessee are generally small, 

and many are intermittent. Few of those that issue from the Chattanooga shale yield more than 1 gallon a minute in dry seasons, and 

most of those that issue from other rocks do not yield more than 25 gallons a minute. Moreover, their yield is likely to vary from season to 

season, perhaps greatly, although the change in discharge is gradual. 

Under favorable conditions the discharge of several such springs may 

be combined into a reliable supply of considerable magnitude, such as 

the municipal supply of Franklin, Williamson County. This supply 

comprises 34 springs on the Highland Rim escarpment about 12 miles 

west of the city, the smallest of which discharges about 3 gallons a 

minute in dry seasons and the largest about 28 gallons a minute.

The springs that issue from alluvium or coarse hill wash above bedrock constitute a reliable source of water throughout the dissected 

portions of the Highland Rim plateau, especially along the eastern 

slope of the Tennessee River Valley. The largest of these generally 

issue from extensive beds of coarse detritus that have been deposited 

by the intermittent streams where their gradients flatten at the base of 

the dissected upland. Typical springs of this class are Nos. 161 and 

174 of Humphreys County (pp. 161-162), No. 224 of Dickson County 

(p. 147), and No. 252 of Cheatham County (pp. 129-130). If the 

alluvium is well assorted its permeability is high, so that, given an 

adequate volume of stored water, a spring may have a relatively 

large and only moderately variable yield. Many discharge more 

than 25 gallons a minute in dry seasons and some more than 100 

gallons a minute.

The water that supplies the seepage springs does not, as a rule, 

penetrate far below the surface, so that it is nonthermal, and usually 

its temperature is approximately equal to the mean annual air temperature of the district. In north-central Tennessee the mean annual 

temperature is between 58° and 60° F. In a spring of very small 

yield, however, the temperature of the water is likely to be variable 

and to follow the diurnal variations in air temperature.

The seepage springs differ greatly in the chemical character of their 

water. Those that issue from thoroughly weathered and leached
92 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

material and those that have a large discharge generally yield water 

that contains little dissolved matter, but those that issue by slow 

percolation from partly leached rock yield water that is relatively 

highly concentrated. These relations are brought out by Plate 8 and 

by the corresponding chemical analyses, which are tabulated on 

pages 110-119. The concentration and chemical character of the 

water may vary somewhat from season to season, although the change 

is not likely to be either large or rapid. Moreover, the water usually 

contains very little suspended matter as it issues from the waterbearing bed. Hence, in case it is desirable to soften the water for use, 

it will probably not be necessary to modify the treatment process from 

season to season in order to produce satisfactory results.

FRACTURE SPRINGS

A great many springs issue from fractured rocks in north-central 

Tennessee and probably owe their origin to the circulaton of ground 

water along crevices, although most of the rocks are appreciably 

soluble, so that the crevices have been more or less enlarged by solution. Hence the springs that issue from these rocks are tubular 

springs rather than fracture springs. However, the Lower Ordovician rocks that crop out in the Wells Creek Basin of southeastern 

Stewart County (see pp. 190-193) are very closely jointed and are 

much less soluble than the younger rocks, at least in part. In this 

locality, therefore, numerous fracture springs occur, which for the 

most part yield less than 5 gallons a minute and are subject to wide 

seasonal fluctuations.

TUBULAR SPRINGS

The largest and most reliable of the perennial springs of northcentral Tennessee are those that issue from tubelike solution channels 

in the limestone. A tubular spring usually falls into one of three 

classes. First, it may be the outlet of a subsurface drainage channel 

into the surface stream to which it is adjusted, such as No. 416, in 

Rutherford County. (See pi. 9, A.) Second, it may be the outlet 

of a portion of a subsurface drainage system that has been captured 

by a surface stream during a period of downcutting. The subsurface 

drainage in the limestones of north-central Tennessee has cut down 

to an equilibrium surface of solution over extensive areas during 

the later stages of each cycle of peneplanation. (See pp. 18-23 

and 78-82.) Hence, when such an underground. drainage system is breached during a later cycle of surface erosion, the tubular 

springs produced tend, within a given district, to occur at approximately the same distance below the related peneplain. Such a relation seems to exist in the dissected portion of the Highland Rim 

plateau in the western part of the region. Finally, a tubular spring 

may be a portion of an underground stream that is exposed when the
SPBINGS 93

roof above its channel is breached by collapse or by solution. (See 

pi. 5, B.} Tubular springs representative of each of these classes are 

very numerous in most parts of the region, and many typical examples 

are described in the tabulated data and the county reports 

(pp. 124-233).

The discharge of tubular springs in north-central Tennessee ranges 

from one gallon or less to many thousand gallons a minute. No springs 

of the first magnitude discharging 100 cubic feet a second (45,000 

gallons a minute) are known to exist within the region, but on September 10, 1927, Hurricane Rock Spring, in Humphreys County 

(No. 181, pp. 161-162), discharged at the approximate rate of 60 cubic 

feet a second (27,000 gallons a minute). This spring may attain first 

magnitude during periods of maximum discharge. Of the springs 

that were visited by the writer during July, August, and September, 

.1927, 57 discharged more than 100 gallons a minute each, and 12 discharged more than 1,000 gallons a minute. However, most tubular 

springs fluctuate greatly in yield, the maximum observed discharge 

of one of these springs during the four months of the field investigation being about twenty times the minimum observed discharge. 

The discharge of certain springs presumably those that are fed by 

solution channels of steep gradient or small storage capacity and those 

whose source is largely in local intermittent run-off increases to 

several times the normal flow in the course of a few hours after a 

heavy rain and may decline with almost equal rapidity. The discharge of other springs presumably those that issue from solution 

channels of flat gradient and large storage capacity as well as those 

whose source is not primarily from local run-off is relatively uniform from day to day, although it may vary considerably from season 

to season. All the springs of an area may not attain their maximum 

rate of discharge at the same time, so that the relative magnitude of 

two or more springs can not be determined accurately if the discharge 

of each is measured only once, even if the measurements are taken at 

approximately the same time. The true average discharge of the 

variable springs can be determined only from a continuous and accurate record of discharge extending over a period of several years. 

At many localities tubular springs constitute the only source of large 

water supplies for municipal or industrial purposes. In view of their 

variability, however, these springs should not be developed as a 

source of supply without trustworthy information as to the quantity 

of water that may be available from them in dry seasons.

The tubular springs in north-central Tennessee differ noticeably in 

the temperature of their water. In springs whose discharge is moderate and not highly variable the temperature is relatively constant 

and is approximately equal to the mean annual temperature of the 

region, 58° to 60° F. Springs derived from bodies of surface water
94 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

at no great distance, however, tend to vary in temperature with the 

surface streams, and springs whose discharge increases and diminishes 

with the rainfall may vary several degrees in the course of a few 

hours. Hence, if the water from such springs is used for cooling, 

the efficiency of the process may vary noticeably.

Sodium

and 

potassium

Magnesium

Calcium

Chloride

and 

nitrate

Sulphate

Bicarbonate

200

282 359 370 439 466

FIQUEE 5. Chemical character of water from representative tubular springs in north-central Tenness ee

The quality of the water that issues from the tubular springs is 

also a critical factor in its utilization, particularly in the content of 

suspended matter and of organic waste, which may be a carrier of 

disease.1 The spring water is derived in the first place from the surface, and in many places surface drainage probably reaches the water-
SPKINGS

bearing channel very close to the spring outlet. Hence every tubular 

spring is liable to permanent or intermittent pollution, so that the 

water of each one that is used for municipal supply should be sterilized 

thoroughly at all times, as a precaution against the transmission of 

disease. The liability to pollution is quite independent of the turbidity of the water discharged by the spring. Many of the tubular 

springs yield clear water at all times, even though the discharge is 

large and the source is known to be in a body of turbid surface water. 

The system of solution channels that feeds such a spring has so large 

a storage capacity and so low a gradient that the water flows slowly 

and all its suspended matter is deposited. Tubular springs whose 

flow responds quickly to local rainfall become extremely turbid at 

high stages and may remain turbid for several days after the peak of 

the storm discharge has passed. The system of solution channels 

that feeds such a spring has little storage capacity, so that the sus- 

'pended matter does not settle from the water. Naturally every 

possible gradation exists between these two extremes. In order to 

condition it for municipal and for many industrial uses, the turbid 

spring water must be passed through a sedimentation basin, the capacity of which should be based upon trustworthy information as to the 

maximum possible turbidity of the spring water.

The water of the tubular springs is not highly concentrated in dissolved mineral matter and is generally of the calcium-magnesium 

bicarbonate type. This is brought out by the accompanying diagram 

(fig. 5) and by the corresponding analyses, which are summarized in 

the following table and are tabulated on pages 110-119.

Average, minimum, and maximum quantities of mineral constituents in water from 

tubular springs in north-central Tennessee ° 

[Parts per million]

Silica (SiOa)-.. 

Iron (Fe). . ___ . .. ...

Calcium (Ca)... ______ .

Sodium (Na) _________

Carbonate (COs) ______

Average

11

.6

49

as

2.0

.7

Minimum

2.2

.02

8.6

4.0

1.0

.4

Maximum

21

4.6

93

14

6.0

1.2

Chloride (Cl) . 

Nitrate (NO3) _ . _

Average

155

10.9

2.0

1.9

161

139

Minimum

31

3.7

.9

.2

50

31

Maximum

308

31

5.5

8.0

300

272

" Based upon analyses of water from 20 tubular springs which issue from Ordovician, Silurian, and Mississippian limestones. Samples taken at low or medium stage of spring flow.

The spring water is only slightly or moderately hard and contains 

very little dissolved iron, so that it is suitable for most ordinary 

purposes without softening. For some uses, however, softening may 

be desirable. The water from the springs that vary in discharge 

probably varies somewhat in hardness and in its content of dissolved 

solids, so that the amount of reagents necessary to soften the water 

will probably vary also.
96 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

ARTESIAN SPRINGS

A very few of the springs in north-central Tennessee seem to be 

artesian springs that is, they seem to issue under artesian pressure 

above the usual ground-water level. Such springs probably exist 

only where an underground solution channel becomes dammed or 

obstructed by slumping of the roof beds or by accumulation of silt 

so that water is trapped above the obstruction under hydrostatic 

pressure. Hence, artesian springs are most erratic in location, and 

the artesian area is wholly problematic. Big Spring (pi. 9, B; No. 

329, p. 233), 6K miles west of Lebanon, Wilson County, may be an 

artesian spring.

ARTESIAN CONDITIONS

Although the lithologic character and geologic structure of the 

rocks in north-central Tennessee are not favorable for artesian conditions over any extensive area, ground water under artesian head 

occurs in several districts. All these districts are below the level of 

the Highland Rim plateau, and most of them are on or below the 

Nashville Basin peneplain. Most of the known wells which overflow 

at the surface or in which water stands at the level of the surface 

are listed in the following table:

Wells in north-central Tennessee that show artesian head

County

Robertson ____ . ________

Wilson.............................

No. on 

Plate 4

"275

298

299

303

198-A

206

216

220

74

108

120

131

a 355

QOO

Water-bearing formation

.....do 

.....do...,. ... ... ... -

.....do. ... . __ - _-.. 

.....do . .._... -

Approximate static 

altitude of 

water 

(feet above 

sea level)

490

490

495±

465(7)

510

550

495

715

725

470

510

730

480

645

465

0 Flows during winter or spring only.

In the vicinity of Nashville water under hydrostatic artesian head 

occurs in the St. Peter (?) sandstone (see pp. 61, 134) between 1,100 

and 1,490 feet below the surface in wells 295, 299, and 303. (See pi. 4, 

also pp. 135-137). The seme stratum is probably the water-bearing bed 

in well 298, although its exact depth below the surface is not known. 

The static level of the water in these wells ranges from about 465 

to 510 feet above sea level; hence the area within which flowing wells
ARTESIAN CONDITIONS 97

may be expected is limited to bottom lands and low terraces along 

the Cumberland Kiver and its tributaries in the vicinity of Nashville. 

However, the exact altitude and inclination of the pressure-indicating 

surface (the imaginary surface to which the ground water would rise 

in a well) are not known, so that this area can not be bounded specifically. It probably extends several miles both upstream and downstream from Nashville. As is shown by analyses of samples from 

weUs 295 and 298 (pp. 114-115), the water from the St. Peter (?) sandstone in this district is rather highly concentrated in dissolved mineral 

matter and contains considerable hydrogen sulphide gas in solution. 

The chemical character of much of the water renders it undesirable 

for domestic consumption and many other purposes. Futhermore, 

the specific capacity of the wells that enter this stratum or strata 

seems to be relatively small, being less than 10 gallons a minute for 

each foot of drawdown, although the casings are in poor condition, 

so that data adequate to determine the specific capacity exactly are 

not obtainable. Hence, large yields may not be obtainable from the 

St. Peter (?) sandstone even by pumping. The St. Peter (?) sandstone seems to thin rapidly toward the southeast, for its horizon in 

the Franklin Oil & Fuel Co.'s test well at Murfreesboro, Kutherford 

County, seems to be represented by calcareous and magnesian sandstone about 10 feet thick (p. 60). Furthermore, it becomes impermeable in the same direction. The horizon of the St. Peter (?) 

sandstone is not known to be reached by wells in other directions 

from Nashville, so that its water-yielding capacity and the static 

level of its water are unknown. Although this stratum may hold 

water under sufficient head to overflow at the surface in other parts 

of north-central Tennessee, its depth below the surface increases 

radially outward from the apex of the Nashville dome (pp. 62-63); 

hence the cost of drilling wells to the stratum will increase accordingly. 

This fact, coupled with the chemical character of the water and the 

small specific capacity of the wells at Nashville, will probably make 

it uneconomical to develop this water-bearing formation for many 

purposes.

Water under artesian head also occurs on the flanks of the White 

Bluff dome of Dickson County (pp. 140-142), as in wells 206, 216, 220 

(pp. 144-146), and several other deep wells of that locality. It is 

reported by drillers and others that the water occurs in the uppermost 

layers of the Chattanooga shale, although that formation is generally 

quite impermeable where it is not weathered. It is more probable that 

the water-bearing stratum is a permeable sandstone or a channeled 

Umestone that overlies or underlies the Chattanooga shale. The water 

contains only a moderate amount of dissolved mineral matter and a 

slight amount of hydrogen sulphide, although its noncarbonate or
98 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

permanent hardness is rather high and renders the water objectionable as a soap consumer and scale former. (See pp. 103-106.) 

Analysis 220 (pp. 114-115) is typical. Again, the static level of the 

ground water and the shape of its pressure-indicating surface are not 

known exactly. Also, the artesian head may be due in part to the 

presence of gas. Consequently the areas of flowing wells can not be 

bounded definitely, although it is known that they are limited to the 

bottoms of branches of Turnbull and Jones Creeks in the vicinity of 

White Bluff. Obviously the artesian condition is local, for the 

horizon of the water-bearing bed seems to be represented by impermeable material in the outcrops to the north, east, and south. 

(See pi. 4.) To the west, the Highland Rim plateau rises far above 

the static level of the ground water, and therefore flowing wells are 

not to be expected. Artesian conditions also exist locally in a 

stratum at the same stratigraphic horizon in the vicinity of a minor 

structural dome in northeastern Sumner County. Well 120 (pp. 204- 

205) is the only one in this district known to overflow at the surface by artesian pressure. The water contains so much dissolved 

mineral matter and hydrogen sulphide (see analysis 120, pp. 112- 

113) that it is wholly unfit for all ordinary uses. The artesian head 

is small and is doubtless due in part to the hydrogen sulphide gas in 

the water.

Well 328 (pi. 4 and pp. 230-231), in northeastern Wilson County, 

finds water confined in the Lebanon (?) limestone under so much head 

that it rises to the surface in the well but does not overflow. 

The water-bearing bed tapped by this well may be part of a zone of 

channeling that seems to cut across several limestone formations and 

yields water copiously to nonartesian wells at Lebanon, about 9 

miles southwest. The possible extent and water-yielding capacity of 

this zone are discussed on pages 222-227.

Artesian conditions exist locally at several points in north-central 

Tennessee where small solution openings occur at shallow depth in 

inclined thin-bedded limestone between shaly retaining beds. The 

artesian head and yield at these places are usually very small. Wells 

131 and 198-A (pp. 204, 144) typify this condition, which does not 

depend upon regional structure but may occur in shaly limestone at 

any place where its inclination is slightly more than that of the 

topographic surface. Artesian conditions also exist in channeled limestone above points at which the solution channels are obstructed by 

clay or other debris, as represented by wells 275 and 365 (pp. 135, 215). 

Under these conditions the static level of the ground water may fluctuate according to the season, and the wells may overflow at the 

surface only when the water table is in its highest position.
GROUND "WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE;: 99 

QUALITY OF GROUND WATER ,,. , The chemical character of the ground waters of north-central 

Tennessee is shown by the analytical data tabulated on pages 110-119. 

These data cover the analyses of 101 samples collected in 1927 by the 

writer from representative wells and springs, at sampling points distributed as uniformly as possible within the region and from top to 

bottom of the geologic column. Approximately half these analyses 

were made by Margaret D. Foster in the water-resources laboratory 

of the United States Geological Survey, and half by D. F. Farrar in 

the laboratory of the Tennessee Geological Survey. All the analyses 

were made after the methods outlined by Collins. 66

CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN RELATION TO USE"

Total dissolved solids. The residue from complete evaporation of 

a natural water consists mainly of the rock substances discussed below,, 

with which may be included a small quantity of organic matter and 

some water of crystallization. Most waters containing less than 500 

parts per million of dissolved solids are satisfactory for domestic and 

common industrial uses, except for the difficulties resulting from hardness and occasional excessive iron or more rarely corrosive properties. 

Waters with much more than 1,000 parts per million of dissolved 

solids are likely to contain enough of certain constituents to impart a, 

noticeable taste to the water. However, some waters that, contain 

more than 1,000 parts per million are satisfactory for domestic use and 

for some industrial purposes. .

The ground waters from most springs and wells of shallow or moderate depth in north-central Tennessee range in concentration from 

about 50 to 500 parts per million and are satisfactory for all ordinary 

uses if not polluted by organic waste (pp. 108-109). The waters from 

most of the deep wells and from some shallow sources, however, are 

highly concentrated, and some contain as much as 25,000 parts per 

million of dissolved solids. ;

Ground water that percolates slowly through permeable rocks is 

likely to be relatively invariable in concentration throughout the year. 

However, much of the ground water of north-central Tennessee circulates in solution conduits in limestone and is likely to be subject to 

seasonal variations in concentration that are comparable to seasonal 

variations in the discharge of the system of conduits. ; Mos,t of the 

representative samples were collected during the season of minimum 

ground-water discharge. Hence, their concentration probably, approximates the seasonal maximum. The magnitude of the average 

seasonal variations in concentration of the ground water is unknown

M Oollins, W. D., Notes on practical water analysis: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 596, pp. 236- 

261, 1928. ., ,. , .

u Adapted from Collins, W. D., Chemical character of waters of Florida: TJ. S. Geol. Survey Water 

Supply Paper 596, pp. 181-186,1928.
100 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

and can be determined for a given source only by sampling and analyzing the water periodically for several years.

Silica. A small amount of silica (SiO2 ) is carried in solution by 

most ground waters, even by those that issue from relatively pure 

limestone. The dissolved silica in a water may be deposited wholly 

or in part as a constituent of the hard scale formed in boilers, but 

otherwise it has no effect on the use of the water for domestic or most 

industrial uses. In the representative ground waters from northcentral Tennessee the dissolved silica ranges between 2.2 and 45 parts 

per million; it is more than 15 parts per million in about two-thirds of 

the samples analyzed.

Iron. The iron (Fe) contained by ground waters is derived from 

pyrite and other iron-bearing minerals. As these minerals are usually 

distributed very unevenly through the water-bearing rocks, the iron 

content of ground waters, even those from the same geologic formation, 

may differ materially from place to place. Although a relatively 

large amount of iron may be taken into solution by ground water, if 

much more than 0.1 part per million is present the excess is likely to 

separate out as a reddish-brown gelatinous sediment after the water 

has been pumped and allowed to stand in contact with the air. If this 

sediment be formed in large volume it may obstruct pipes. If the iron 

content be several parts per million, the water is likely to produce 

stains on linen during laundering and on enamel-ware and porcelainware utensils and plumbing fixtures. Even a very small quantity of 

dissolved iron renders a water unfit for some industrial chemical uses. 

In waters that contain hydrogen sulphide (H2S), such as many of the 

ground waters of north-central Tennessee, an excess of dissolved iron 

may separate out as a suspension of the black ferrous sulphide (FeS). 

Such are the so-called black sulphur waters of this region. The excess 

iron may be removed from most waters by aeration as by pumping 

through spray nozzles and filtration, although some waters require 

the addition of lime or other precipitating agent.

The iron content of the representative ground waters from northcentral Tennessee ranges from 0.02 to 29 parts per million but is less 

than 0.5 part per million in half the waters and less than 1.0 part per 

million in three-fourths of them. In most of the waters iron is present 

in sufficient quantity to be troublesome for some purposes.

Calcium. Calcium (Ca) may be taken into solution as the bicarbonate by the reaction of natural waters containing carbon dioxide 

or natural acids with calcium carbonate, which is the essential constituent of limestone and a minor constituent of many other rocks. 

Calcium is the most abundant of the bases in nearly all the slightly 

and moderately concentrated ground waters of north-central Tennessee. In those waters which contain less than 500 parts per million
QUALITY OF GROUND WATER 101

of dissolved solids it ranges from 8.6 to 163 parts per million but is 

generally between 50 and 100 parts per million. Calcium is also relatively abundant in the highly concentrated brines and other modified 

connate waters that occur at depth in the marine sedimentary rocks 

of this region. The greatest concentration of calcium in any of the 

representative waters is 625 parts per million. (See analysis 260, 

pp. 114-115.)

Calcium is the principal soap-consuming and scale-forming constituent of the ground waters of north-central Tennessee. Except for 

the difficulties arising from these properties, whoever, calcium has 

little or no effect upon the suitability of the water for ordinary uses.

Magnesium. Magnesium (Mg) is usually taken into solution as the 

bicarbonate by the reaction of waters containing carbon dioxide or 

some natural acid with magnesium carbonate, which is present in 

most of the rocks of north-central Tennessee, especially in the more 

magnesian limestones. In most natural waters magnesium is much 

less abundant than calcium, although in five of the samples analyzed 

 Nos 316, 326, 352, 427, and 433 magnesium exceeds calcium in 

reacting value. In the moderately concentrated ground waters from 

north-central Tennessee magnesium is commonly from one-third to 

one-fifteenth as abundant as calcium. It ranges from about 2.5 to 

about 50 parts per million but in more than half the samples does not 

exceed 10 parts per million. Like calcium, magnesium occurs in large 

quantity in the modified connate waters of this region. The greatest 

concentration of magnesium in any of the representative waters is 

533 parts per million (No. 352, pp. 116-117).

Magnesium is the only element other than calcium that causes 

any appreciable amount of hardness in natural waters. If a water 

contains several hundred parts per million of magnesium as the sulphate or chloride, like some of the more concentrated waters of northcentral Tennessee, it may be undesirable for drinking.

Sodium and potassium. Sodium (Na) and potassium (K) are dissolved in small quantities from practically all rocks but where present 

in considerable amounts are derived chiefly from salts or concentrated 

brines associated with rocks of marine origin. Potassium is generally 

much less abundant than sodium. These elements constitute only 

a small portion of the dissolved mineral matter in most of the ground 

waters of north-central Tennessee and generally range from 1 to 

about 50 parts per million. They amount to less than 5 parts per 

million in two-thirds of the samples. In the highly concentrated 

ground waters, however, sodium and potassium may be the most 

abundant metallic elements and may sum up to several thousand parts 

per million, as in analyses 260 and 352 (pp. 114-117).
102 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Moderate quantities of sodium and potassium have little effect on 

the suitability of a water for ordinary household use, inasmuch as 

the salts of these elements do not impart hardness to the water. If 

these constituents sum up to much more than 100 parts per million, 

a water is likely to foam if used in a steam boiler unless it is conditioned 

to prevent this reaction. Most of the ground water of north-central 

Tennessee will cause little or no trouble in this way. More than 

400 parts per million of sodium and potassium in a water make it 

practically useless as boiler feed without preliminary conditioning. 

Some natural waters contain so large quantities of sodium salts that 

they are injurious to vegetation to which they may be applied, the 

quantity that will be injurious depending upon the species of vegetation, the type of soil, and the drainage. The connate ground waters 

of north-central Tennessee are generally so concentrated in sodium 

and potassium as to be toxic to vegetation and hence can not be used 

for watering crops and sprinkling lawns.

Carbonate and bicarbonate. The carbonate (CO3) and bicarbonate 

(HCO3) in natural waters are derived by the solution of rock-forming 

carbonate minerals largely through the action of carbon dioxide or 

natural acids in the waters. Carbonate is not present in appreciable 

quantities in most natural waters. All the rocks of north-central 

Tennessee contain carbonate minerals in abundance, and the associated ground waters are generally rather concentrated in bicarbonate. 

Those of the representative samples that are moderately concentrated 

contain from 30 to 400 or more parts per million of bicarbonate; 

approximately half of them contain between 150 and 250 parts per 

million. The bicarbonate as such has little effect on the use of a 

water.

Sulphate.' Sulphate (SO4) in ground waters may be derived from 

gypsum (calcium sulphate) associated with limestone and other 

rocks, from the oxidation products of pyrite (iron disulphide) and 

other sulphides, or from concentrated or desiccated brines inclosed 

by marine sediments. The ground waters of north-central Tennessee 

appear to have acquired sulphate from each of these sources. In 

the moderately concentrated waters of this region sulphate is generally less abundant than bicarbonate, its approximate range being 

from 2.5 to 350 parts per million; in two-thirds of them it is less than 

25 parts per million. In most of the highly concentrated waters, 

however, sulphate is more abundant than bicarbonate and may be 

several thousand parts per million, as in analyses 260, 294, 311, 326, 

and 390 (pp. 114-117).

The sulphates of sodium or magnesium if present in sufficient 

quantity impart a bitter taste to water and may render it otherwise 

unfit for domestic use. Several of the more concentrated waters of
QUALIFY OF GROUND WATER 103

north-central Tennessee are of this class. Sulphate in a hard water 

may increase the cost of softening, and it makes the scale formed in 

a steam boiler "hard" and therefore much more troublesome. This 

is particularly true if the calcium plus magnesium in a water is much 

more than equivalent to the bicarbonate.

Chloride. Chloride (Cl), which is generally not abundant in 

moderately concentrated ground waters from shallow sources, may 

be derived by solution of rock-forming minerals or by contamination 

of the water with sewage. However, the possible sources of chloride 

are so many that an abnormally large amount of this constituent in 

a natural water is not at all a definite indication of pollution. In 

most of the moderately concentrated ground waters of north-central 

Tennessee chloride is less than 5 parts per million, although its range 

is roughly from 1 to 50 parts per million. The waters associated 

with the Bigby limestone contain notably more chloride than most 

of the waters associated with the other stratigraphic units of the 

region. Some ground waters from deep sources are relatively concentrated in chloride, which is derived for the most part from connate 

brines associated with marine sediments. Such highly concentrated 

waters are common in north-central Tennessee, and the maximum 

chloride content shown by the representative analyses is 15,700 parts 

per million (No. 352, pp. 116-117).

Chloride has little effect on the suitability of water for domestic 

purposes unless it is so concentrated as to impart a saline taste. 

Waters that contain several hundred parts per million of chloride 

may be corrosive when used in steam boilers, unless this action is 

restrained by suitable treatment.

Nitrate. Nitrate (NO3) in natural waters is generally considered 

a final oxidation product of nitrogenous organic matter. Hence its 

presence in more than nominal quantity in a ground water implies 

that the well or spring from which it issues may contain harmful 

bacteria derived from cultivated fields or other places where oxidized 

nitrogenous matter is common. Most of the ground waters from the 

region covered by this report contain less than 1 part per million of 

nitrate.

Hardness. Hardness in a natural water is caused almost exclusively 

by the salts of calcium and magnesium. It is commonly recognized 

by the excessive amount of soap necessary to lather a hard water and 

by the curdy precipitate that forms before a permanent lather results. 

The constituents that cause hardness are also the active agents in the 

formation of the greater part of the scale formed in steam boilers and 

in other vessels in which water is heated or evaporated.

In order that hardness may be expressed in a standard unit it is 

customarily reported as parts per million of calcium carbonate
104 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

(CaCO3) equivalent to all the calcium and magnesium. This quantity is the so-called "total hardness" of the water. It is calculated 

by the formula

Total hardness = 2.5 Ca +4.1 Mg

in which all quantities are expressed in parts per million. Hardness 

is caused both by the bicarbonates and by the sulphates of calcium 

and magnesium. The hardness due to sulphates the so-called "noncarbonate hardness" or "permanent hardness" may be calculated 

from the formula

Noncarbonate hardness = 2.5 Ca+4.1 Mg 0.82 HCO3 .

Water with a total hardness less than 50 parts per million is generally considered soft, and under most circumstances its treatment to 

remove hardness is not justified on the score of economy. Hardness 

between 50 and 150 parts per million does not render the water unsatisfactory for most purposes, but it does increase the consumption 

of soap slightly. Hence, it is profitable for laundries and other industries that use large quantities of soap to soften such a water to remove 

calcium and magnesium. Hardness exceeding 150 parts per million 

is objectionable in common household uses of water, and if the hardness is 200 or 300 parts per million it is common practice to soften the 

water or to install cisterns and rain catches. When an entire municipal supply is softened, the hardness is generally reduced to about 100 

parts per million, as the additional improvement from further softening is not deemed an economy. If the hardness is much more than 

100 parts per million, the water must generally be treated for. the 

prevention of scale formation before it can be used successfully in 

steam boilers. The cost and difficulty of adequate softening for this 

purpose are likely to be increased materially if the noncarbonate hardness is large.

Very few of the ground waters of north-central Tennessee contain 

less than 50 parts per million total hardness, and many are so hard 

that they should be softened to make them suitable for general use. 

In some of the waters the noncarbonate hardness also is relatively 

large.

There are two processes for softening water in general use the 

lime and soda process and the exchange silicate or so-called "zeolite" 

or "permutite" process, which has been developed in recent years.

lii the lime and soda process the noncarbonate hardness, if present 

in the raw water, is converted to carbonate hardness by the addition 

of enough soda (sodium carbonate) to react with the sulphates of 

calcium and magnesium to form the bicarbonates of calcium and mag-
QUALITY OF GROUND WATER 105

nesium and sodium sulphate. All the products of this reaction aresoluble. The total carbonate hardness is removed by adding enough 

slaked lime (calcium hydroxide) to combine with the free carbon 

dioxide and the bicarbonate to transform the calcium and magnesium 

naturally present in the water as well as the calcium added in theform of lime into calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide. 

These products, being essentially insoluble, form a solid precipitate,, 

the flocculation and settling of which may be accelerated by adding a, 

small quantity of alum or other coagulant with the lime and soda. 

Small amounts of calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide remain in solution, however, so that the treated water has a small 

residual hardness. Water softened by the lime and soda process contains less dissolved mineral matter by the amount of calcium bicarbonate and magnesium bicarbonate precipitated from the untreated 

water less the excess of soda used. All the sodium of the soda used in 

the process remains in the treated water, as all its products are soluble.. 

Hence, some natural waters that contain much noncarbonate hardness can not be conditioned by this process for successful use in steam 

boilers, because the treated water contains so much sodium that it. 

would foam prohibitively. Besides lime and soda, many other substances have been proposed and used successfully as softening agents,, 

but many of them are too costly if a large volume of water must betreated. Sodium aluminate has been used successfully with lime and. 

soda to minimize the total dissolved solids in softened water used, 

in locomotive boilers.68

The lime and soda process is generally less costly than the exchangesilicate method of softening waters that contain only carbonate hardness. On the other hand, it is more costly if much noncarbonatehardness must be removed. With the lime and soda process great 

care must be exercised to avoid an excess of the chemicals added to the 

water and to insure complete precipitation of sludge before the water 

is put to use. Hence, close technical control is necessary. Moreover, 

if a large volume of water must be treated, difficult problems of sludgedisposal may arise.

In the exchange silicate process the active softening agent is theso-called "zeolite" or "permutite," an insoluble hydrous sodiumaluminum silicate which has the property of exchanging its sodium 

with the calcium, magnesium, iron, and manganese of the hard water. 

The exchange silicate, which may be natural or artificial, is marketed 

under several trade names. In practice, the hard water is filtered 

through a bed of granular exchange silicate and in passing gives up to 

the silicate its soap-consuming and scale-forming constituents and

** Qrime, E. M., Water treatment and railroad efficiency: Am. Water Works Assoc. Jour., vol. 18, No*. 

4, pp. 440-441,1927.

100144r 32 8
106 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

takes from the silicate an equivalent amount of sodium. In this way 

the filtered water is completely softened, although the total quantity 

of dissolved mineral matter is not decreased, and the quantity of 

sodium may be so increased as to induce foaming to a troublesome 

degree. When all its exchangeable sodium has been replaced the 

silicate becomes inert. If, however, a concentrated solution of common salt is passed through the inert silicate, the exchange reaction is 

reversed, sodium from the salt displaces the calcium and magnesium, 

and the silicate is reactivated. After it has been flushed with soft 

water the exchange silicate can again be used as a softening agent.

The exchange silicate process softens water more completely than 

the lime and soda process, although it does not reduce the total 

quantity of dissolved solids. It is likely to be somewhat more costly 

than the lime and soda process if the water to be treated has only 

carbonate hardness. On the other hand, it is generally less costly if 

the water contains much noncarbonate hardness and if salt for reactivating the silicate is not unduly expensive. The principal advantages 

of the exchange silicate process are that the water can be completely 

softened if desired and that close technical control is not essential. 

During recent years this process has been successfully adapted to 

treating as much as 5,000,000 gallons of water daily, as at McKees 

Rocks, Pa.; it has also been adapted to the needs of the single household in units of small capacity that can be operated with nominal 

attention.

Hydrogen sulphide. Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is a gas that gives the 

characteristic odor to sulphur waters, the same odor that is associated 

with the decomposition of eggs and other organic substances that 

contain considerable sulphur. It is easily detected by its characteristic odor in concentrations as slight as 1 part per million or less, 

although it is difficult to determine quantitatively if the concentratio 

is much less than 5 parts per million. Hydrogen sulphide is quickly 

dissipated or is oxidized to sulphate when a sulphur water is allowed 

to stand in contact with air, so that it must be precipitated as an 

insoluble sulphide, usually cadmium sulphide, when a sample for 

quantitative analysis is taken. It is generally held that hydrogen 

sulphide in ground waters of meteoric origin is formed by the reduction 

of sulphates, as is brought out by a review of the literature cited by 

Renick.69

Hydrogen sulphide, if present in large quantities, imparts to a 

water a decidedly disagreeable odor and taste that makes the water 

unfit for domestic uses. In the presence of air it combines with the 

dissolved iron to form the black ferrous sulphide, which generally

 Renick, B.C., Some geochemical relations of ground water and associated natural gas in the Lance 

formation, Montana: Jour. Geology, vol. 32, pp. 668-684,1924.
QUALITY OF GROUND WATER 107

Temains in suspension in the water, gives the water an intense color, 

and stains utensils. In the partly oxidized condition a concentrated 

hydrogen sulphide water may corrode tanks, pipes, and other metallic 

objects. Hydrogen sulphide may be removed from a water by aeration, as in the treatment for the removal of iron, the products of oxidation being finely divided sulphur and sulphate.

Many of the ground waters of north-central Tennessee, particularly 

those that issue from the Chattanooga shale and from shaly facies of 

 certain limestones, contain small quantities of hydrogen sulphide. 

Relatively little of the water, however, contains more than 5 parts per 

million the smallest amount that can be determined quantitatively. 

Those of the representative samples that contain determinable 

quantities of hydrogen sulphide are for the most part highly concentrated waters in which the amount of sulphate is several times the 

amount of bicarbonate and in which the magnesium: calcium ratio is 

relatively large. On the other hand, some of the moderately concentrated bicarbonate waters contain appreciable amounts of hydrogen sulphide. The greatest concentration of hydrogen sulphide in 

any of the representative samples is 379 parts per million. (See 

analysis 120, pp. 112-113.)

Color. Ground waters are generally colorless, whereas surface 

waters are likely to be noticeably colored even when quite free from 

suspended matter. The organic matter that imparts this color is of 

itself harmless, but decolorizing is one of the primary functions of all 

plants for the purification of water for a public supply. Consumers 

are generally more concerned over the slight color that may be perceptible in water than over the unseen disease-bearing bacteria that 

may be present in dangerous abundance.

The water that issues from some of the tubular springs and wells in 

north-central Tennessee has a perceptible bluish opalescence, the color 

probably being derived from decaying vegetation and other organic 

matter with which the water was in contact before passing underground into the limestone solution channels. Generally, however, 

the color is not so intense that it is considered objectionable.

Suspended matter. Ground water that issues from porous rocks is 

generally free from suspended matter, although an iron-bearing water 

in contact with air may become turbid by formation of a reddish-brown 

suspended precipitate of iron hydroxide. Sulphur waters may become 

turbid by separation of sulphur through oxidation of the hydrogen 

sulphide by the air or, if iron bearing, by separation of black iron 

sulphide. Water of each of these classes is common in north-central 

Tennessee, and the characteristic precipitates give rise to the local 

designations "red sulphur water," "white sulphur water," and "black 

sulphur water." ' '>
108 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Many springs and wells that issue from tubular solution channels 

in the limestone of north-central Tennessee at times discharge turbid 

water containing much suspended clay and silt. This suspended 

matter is derived from soil and rock waste that is carried through 

sink holes into the underground drainage system, so that the underground streams, like surface streams, carry more suspended matter 

after periods of heavy precipitation and vigorous run-off. The 

amount of suspended matter in the water, the duration of the periods 

of high turbidity, and the lag between precipitation and increase of 

turbidity may vary greatly and are generally very different at different 

springs. The regimen of any spring can not be known even approximately unless its load of suspended matter is determined systematically at different rates of discharge and over a long period.

Suspended matter in a water may not be deleterious for some uses, 

but it must be thoroughly removed to make the water satisfactory for 

a municipal supply or for most industrial purposes. Many of the 

tubular springs of north-central Tennessee offer difficult problems in 

the removal of suspended matter to adapt them to use. In order tobe successful, a clarifying plant must have a large overload capacity 

to care for periods when the turbidity of the water is high .

SANITARY CONSIDERATIONS

The analyses of the representative ground waters and the statements 

that have been made in regard to the suitability of the waters for 

domestic use consider only the effects of the dissolved mineral constituents. They do not consider the presence or absence of diseasebearing bacteria, which is generally the critical factor in determining 

the suitability of a public supply. The number of bacteria in the 

water from a given source is not likely to be constant, so that a single 

determination of the sanitary character of a water may be grossly 

misleading.

Scrupulous care should be exercised to protect each well and spring 

used for domestic supply from pollution by organic waste carried by 

surface drainage, by seepage through the soil, by stock, or on the shoes 

and clothing of people. Every well should be so located as not to 

receive drainage from the vicinity of any building, sewer, cesspool, or 

privy and should be tightly closed at the top in a sanitary manner. 

Springs should be surrounded by sturdy stock barricades and protected from surface drainage by suitable dikes, cut-off walls, or other 

structures. In a region underlain by limestone, such as northcentral Tennessee, ground water that is circulating in solution channels may be polluted over extensive areas. Hence the sanitary character of the water from all tubular springs and wells that enter solution channels is subject to distrust unless it is shown to be free from.
QUALITY OF GROUND WATEB 109

undesirable bacteria by periodic sanitary analyses. All ground water 

that issues from channeled limestone, .if used as municipal supply, 

should preferably be sterilized by a suitable chlorinating apparatus 

as a routine precaution against pollution. Under most conditions 

such sterilization does not impart taste or odor to the water if the 

operation is properly controlled.
110 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

ANALYTICAL

Analyses of representative ground ; 

[Margaret D. Foster, IT. S. Geological Survey,

No. on 

Plate 4

1

6

19

24

27

32

35

42

AA. TTt

54

57

64

67

68

71

73

81

87

91

96

104

112

Location and description

STEWABT COUNTY

Model, 5}4 miles west of. Cedar Spring, water from Fort Payne formation;

owned by W. C. Outland. Sampled Oct. 5, 1927.

Bumpus Mills, % mile south of. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 48

feet deep; water from chert residuum above St. Louis or Warsaw limestone;

owned by W. P. Luten. Sampled Oct. 5, 1927.

Dover, 5% miles northwest of. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 75 feet

deep; water from gravel (weathered chert nodules) ; owned by B . F. Riggins.

Sampled Oct. 5, 1927.

Indian Mound, 4}^ miles north of. Drilled well 5$l inches in diameter and

164 feet deep; water from St. Louis or Warsaw limestone; owned by estate of

Mrs. Bert Smith. Sampled Oct. 4, 1927.

Indian Mound. Drilled well 55 feet deep; water from St. Louis or Warsaw

limestone; owned by C. K. Keatts. Sampled Oct. 4, 1927.

Mobley, 3M miles northwest of. Wofford Spring; water from Fort Payne

formation; owned by J. W. Wofford. Sampled Oct. 5, 1927.

Mobley, 4^4 miles east of. Unnamed spring from Fort Payne formation; 

owned by estate of W. H. Cox. Sampled Oct. 5, 1927.

MONTGOMEEY COUNTY

Woodlawn, 5 miles northwest of. Drilled well 551 inches in diameter and 136

feet deep; water from St. Louis or Warsaw limestone; owned by E. B.

Ingraham. Sampled Oct. 4, 1927.

Woodlawn, 5}4 miles northeast of. Britton Spring; water from St. Louis or

Warsaw limestone; owned by H. E. Killebrew. Sampled Oct. 4, 1927.

St. Bethlehem, 2J£ miles southwest of. Idaho Spring; water from alluvium 

overlying St. Louis or Warsaw limestone; owned by J. H. Unseld. Sampled Oct. 4, 1927.

Clarksville, 4}^ miles east of. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 162 feet

deep; water from St. Louis or Warsaw limestone, leased by W. R. Corlew.

Sampled Oct. 4. 1927.

Hackberry. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 50 feet deep; water from

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone; owned by Henry Yarber and James Broom.

Sampled Oct. 4, 1927.

Louise, 4 miles southwest of. Unnamed spring from St. Louis or Warsaw

limestone; owned by George W. Bryant. Sampled Oct. 4, 1927.

Louise, 5 miles southeast of. Drilled well 5 inches in diameter and 65 feet

deep; water from Fort Payne formation; owned by C. D. Batson. Sampled

Oct. 4, 1927.

Hickory Point, 6M miles northeast of. Dug well 4 fdet in diameter and about

60 feet deep; water from chert residuum above St. Louis or Warsaw limestone; owned by George Watson. Sampled Oct. 4, 1927.

EOBEETSON COUNTY

Adams, S^4 miles northwest of. Mint Spring; in basal St. Louis limestone;

owned by Joel Fort. Sampled Oct. 9, 1927.

Springfield, 10 miles north of. Drilled well 5<Hi inches in diameter and 71 feet

deep; water from St. Louis or Warsaw limestone; owned by Elmore Marshall. Sampled Oct. 9, 1927.

Orlinda, 4J£ miles southwest of. Drilled well 5% inches in diameter and

54 feet deep; water from St. Louis or Warsaw limestone; owned by S. R.

Russell. Sampled Oct. 9, 1927.

Orlinda, 6H miles east of. Unnamed spring from St. Louis or Warsaw limestone; owned by James Payne. Sampled Oct. 9, 1927.

Springfield, 3 miles west of. Unnamed spring from St. Louis or Warsaw limestone; owned by Will Powell. Sampled Oct. 9, 1927.

Cedar Hill, 9J£ miles south of. Drilled well &A inches in diameter and

119 feet deep; water from St. Louis or Warsaw limestone; owned by J. F.

Browning. Sampled Oct. 9, 1927.

Greenbrier, 1% miles southeast of. Drilled well about 100 feet deep at Hygeia

Springs resort; water from Fort Payne formation; owned by B. B. Seal.

Sampled Oct. 9, 1927.

Temperature

54

64

60

58

58

56

54

59

60

60

58

60

59

59

57

58

57

57

58

57

56

Analyst

Foster,. ....

 do. 

 do 

 -do... 

 .do 

 - do 

.. do _ 

 - do 

 .do 

 do -

 do 

--- do 

 do 

 do...-

 do 

Farrar.

Farrar and

Foster.'

Farrar- 

_ ..do. 

 do-- 

 do. 

 do- 

'Includes iron precipitated at time of analysis. 

'Carbonate radicle (COs) not present.
QUALITY OF GROUND WATER 111

DATA

waters in north-central Tennessee

and D. F. Farrar, Tennessee Geological Survey, analysts]

Analyses (quantities in parts per million)

Total dissolved 

solids 

at 

180° C.

50 

132

198 

196

220 

143 

71

262

148 

2,970

1,948 

336 

174 

1,238 

318

<«2,202 

* 2, 101

<»362

<»132 

146 

1,158

230

Silica 

(SiO»)

12

7.9

12 

12

11 

9.4 

13

8.4

9.1 

8.0

14 

15 

11 

13 

13

10 

19

15

13 

9.6 

19

10

Iron 

(Fe)«

0.36 

.10

.30

.21

.76 

.02 

.44

.06

.15 

.38

6.89 

1.5 

.07 

2.8 

.15

1.5 

1.3

1.1

2.5 

4.6 

1.8

.6

Calcium

(Ca)

8.6 

24

61 

62

74 

44 

15

54

44 

366

382 

110 

54 

163 

114

64 

353

96

36

46 

282

70

Magnesium 

(Mg)

2.4 

9.1

7.4 

48

2.4 

5.3 

2.5

23

5.2 

173

132 

8.4 

5.7 

95 

8.6

5.0 

135

20

6.0

5.0 

39

14

Sodium

(Na)

1.2 

14

2.1 

3.1

1.6 

2.2 

1.3

3.8

1.9 

294

3.6 

. 3.0 

2.0 

75 

2.6

3.0 

92

5

1.0 

2.0 

9.0

2.0

Potassium 

(K)

0.9 

1.6

.4 

.4

.4 

.4 

.8

.6

.7 

10

1.3 

.4 

.4 

5.1 

.3

Bicarbonate 

(HCOs)'

31 

147

219 

 208

222 

158 

50

230

150 

400

228 

344 

192 

190 

374

202 

225

308

127 

147 

293

273

Sulphate 

(S04)

4.7 

5.8

2.8 

6.0

2.5 

4.0 

5.0

43

6.8 

1,474

1,224 

8.6 

4.7 

771 

4.2

16 

1,307

67

8 

15 

611

7.5

Chloride 

(Cl)

1.5

2.8

1.1 

2.9

3.7 

1.0 

1.0

2.9

1.6 

295

2.2 

4.1 

1.6 

2.3 

2.7

2.0

82

4

1.0 

1.5

3.5

3.0

Nitrate 

(NOs)

2.0 

.23

3.8 

.88

10 

.20 

2.8

1.8

3.6 

.10

.21 

15 

1.2 

.07 

8.3

.2 

1.2

2.2

.4 

1.0 

3.2

.3

Hydrogen sulphide 

(H2S)

116

11

20

Total hardness 

as 

CaCOs'

31 

97

183 

175

195 

132

48

229

131 

1,624

1,496 

309 

158 

797 

320

180 

1,436

321

115 

135 

864

232

No. on 

Plate 4

1 

6

19

24

27 

32 

35

42

44

54

57 

64 

67

6S

71

73; 

81

sr

91 

98 

104

112

«Calculated.

<* Total by summation of constituents.

* Determinations of HjS and 804 by Margaret D. Foster.
112 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Analyses of representative ground waters

Jfo. on 

Tlate4

115

120

IB

121

F" 

126

127

.131 

132

135 

137

138

143 

149

151

159

161

164 

167

171

173

177 

180

190 

191 

198-A

Location and description

SUMNER COUNTY

limestone; owned by John Baskerville; municipal supply of Portland. 

Sampled Oct. 19, 1927. 

Westmorland, 5 miles west of. Oil test well 5^i inches in diameter and 100 

feet deep; water from bed just above or below Chattanooga shale; owned by 

R. O. Troutt. Sampled Oct. 19, 1927.

deep; water from chert residuum above Fort Payne formation; owned by 

Sumner County High School. Sampled Oct. 18, 1927. 

White House, 2M miles south of. Tyree Spring; water from weathered zone 

of Fort Payne formation; owned by Mrs. Cartwrigbt. Sampled Oct. 20, 

1927.

mation; owned by O. W. Mitchell. Sampled Oct. 20, 1927. 

Saundersville, 2}i miles northwest of. Drilled well 20 feet deep; water from 

shaly facies of Leipers (?) formation; owned by John Mirs. Sampled Oct. 

20, 1927.

owned by J. R. Durham. Sampled Oct. 20, 1927. 

Qallatin. Drilled well 8 inches in diameter and 300 feet deep; water from 

Bigby (?) limestone at approximate depth of 200 feet; owned by Louisville 

& Nashville R. R. Sampled Oct. 18, 1927. 

Castalian Springs post office. Castalian Spring; water from Bigby limestone or upper part of Hermitage formation; owned by Q. W. Wynne. 

Sampled Oct. 18, 1927.

HOUSTON COUNTY

stone; owned by Largent Bros. Sampled Oct. 6, 1927. 

Erin, 0.6 mile west of. Unnamed spring from St. Louis limestone; owned by 

A. J. Mitchum; municipal supply of Erin. Sampled Oct. 6, 1927.

deep; water from Fort Payne formation; owned by Steve Batson. Sampled Oct. 6, 1927.

deep; water from Fort Payne (?) formation; owned by Yellow Creek High 

School. Sampled Oct. 7, 1927.

HUMPHREYS COUNTY

owned by Milton Petty. Sampled Oct. 6, 1927.

gravel; owned by Luther Haygood. Sampled Oct. 7, 1927. 

McEwen, 14 mile northeast of. Drilled well 8 inches in diameter and 217 feet 

deep; water from chert residuum above St. Louis or Warsaw limestone at 

depth of 80 feet; owned by McEwen School. Sampled Oct. 7, 1927.

deep; water from weathered St. Louis of Warsaw limestone; owned by 

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry., municipal supply for Waverly. 

Sampled Oct. 6, 1927.

deep; water from chert residuum above Fort Payne formation; owned by 

J. M. C. Young. Sampled Oct. 7, 1927.

owned by L. L. Shipp. Sampled Oct. 7, 1927. 

Bold Springs post office. Bold Spring; water from St. Louis (?) limestone; 

owned by J. R. James. Sampled Oct. 6, 1927. 

Denver, 4J4 miles south of. Sulphur Spring; water from Silurian (?) limestone; owned by D. M. McCrary. Sampled Oct. 7, 1927.

DICKSON COUNTY

Stayton, 2% miles north of. Drilled well 5 inches in diameter and 65 feet deep; 

water from Fort Payne formation; owned by John Freeman. Sampled 

Oct. 8, 1927. 

Stayton, 3 miles north of. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and about 40 feet 

deep; water from Fort Payne formation; J. L. Tilley, renter. Sampled 

Oct. 8, 1927. 

Vanleer, 5 miles west of. Drilled well 5^i inches in diameter and 65 feet deep ; 

water from Fort 'Payne formation (?) ; W. R. Berry, owner. Sampled Oct.

Temperature

C°F.)

58

56.5 

57

58 

58

62

EC

53 

60

Kfi

57 

57

58

56 '

58

5$ 

61

57

5$

57 

60

56 

58

59 

k

Analyst

Foster.. _

Farrar and 

Foster.*

Farrar and 

Foster.'

 do~ 

Farrar and 

Foster.'

 do.. 

 .do -

.... .do. .

......do.....

 do- 

 do 

 do-. 

Farrar 

Farrar and 

Foster.*

 .do.' 

«Includes iron precipitated at time of analysis. * Carbonate radicle (COj) not present. «Calculated
QUALITY OF GROUND WATER 

in north-central Tennessee Continued

113

Analyses (quantities In parts per million)

Total dissolved 

solids 

at 

180° C.

162 

4,502 

214 

2,236

292

385

628 

262

<<3,497

07 

186 

172

226

140 

168 

166

151

155

160 

156 

160

222 

2,505 

3,105

Silica 

(SiOj)

8.0 

25 

12 

24

12 

0.2

10

15

.18

0.5 

18 

10

11

15 

11 

13

14

13

25 

0.0 

12

14

26 

2.4

Iron 

(Fe)«

.4 

.0 

1.0

1.5

.8 

.8

1.4 

1.6

1.5

.21 

.09 

.40

.32

.12 

.6 

.6

.07

1.0

.09 

.07 

.05

.3 

2.0

29

Calcium 

(Ca)

45 

505 

47 

470

75 

71

163 

80

484

26 

57 

50

76

40 

46 

64

30

44

46 

48 

48

65 

603 

406

Magnesium 

(Mg)

8.0 

148 

20 

00

16 

31

18 

8.0

65

4.0 

4.3 

11

5.5

5.3 

0.0

3.8

6.7

6.0

4.3 

7.9 

5.5

10 

60

208

Sodium 

(Na)

2. 

609 

3.

16

5. 

16

26 

6.

631

1.0

2.7 

1.7

1.0

L6 

2. 

1.

3.3

5.

2.0 

2.2

2.0

2. 

45 

82

Potassium 

(K)

) 

24 

)

)

0

16

.4 

.4 

.4

.5

.5 

0 

2

1.7

0

.4 

.6 

.8

5 

6.2

Bicarbonate 

(HCOs) 6

161 

700 

205 

180

245 

254

312

276

298

86 

188 

202

251

144

176 

174

141

157

156 

173 

168

213 

152 

184

Sulphate 

(S04)

11 

2,282 

31 

1,353

40 

08

108 

5.0

1,128

7.2 

5.0 

2.2

3.0

3.7 

8.0 

26

8.3

6.0

3.7 

3.0 

6.0

23 

1,644 

1,988

Chloride 

(Cl)

3.0 

336 

3.0

28

8.5 

10

48 

7.8

1,005

1.2 

2.0 

1.0

2.4

0.0 

2.5 

4.0

3.8

7.0

1.2 

2.0 

1.8

3.5 

14 

31

Nitrate

(NOs)

.2 

.10 

.3 

2.1

.3

.6

.5 

.2

3.8

2.2 

1.7 

1.1

.78

.83 

.3 

.01

3.2

.5

.15 

1.3 

.53

1.2 

1.1 

4.0

Hydrogen sulphide 

(H8S)

370

20

5.5

31

22 

31

Total hardness 

as 

CaCCV

145 

1,8£0 

200

1,565

253 

304

481

232

1,475

81 

160 

170

213

122 

152 

175

125

135

133 

152 

143

204

1,754 

2,093

No. on 

Plata 4

115- 

120> 

121 

126-

12T 

131

132- 

135.

137-

13* 

143. 

149>

15S

159» 

161 

164

ier

171

ITS 

177" 

ISO190 

191 

198-A

d Total by summation of constituents.

 Determinations of HjS and SO4 by Margaret D. Foster.
114 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Analyses of representative ground waters

No. on 

Plate 4

198-B

218

219

220 

225

229

243

258 

259

260

265

268 

269

277

278 

279

282 

286

292

 294 

295

297 

298

Location and description

DICKSON COUNTY continued

deep; water from St Louis or Warsaw limestone; W. R. Berry, owner. 

Sampled Oct. 7, 1927. 

White Bluff, ^ mile west of.' Drilled well 5% inches in diameter and 75 feet 

deep; water from St. Louis or Warsaw limestone; owned by Jesse Gill. 

Sampled Oct. 8, 1927.

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone; owned by Nashville, Chattanooga & St. 

Louis Ry. Sampled Oct. 8, 1927. 

White Bluff, ^ mile south of. Drilled well 8M inches in diameter and 1,383 

feet deep; water from top of Chattanooga shale at depth of 246 feet; owned 

by White Bluff Canning Co. Sampled Oct. 8, 1927.

or Warsaw limestone; owned by city of Dickson; municipal supply. Sampled Oct. 8, 1927. 

Dickson. Drilled well 5M inches in diameter and 427 feet deep; water from 

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone at depth of 75 feet; owned by Dickson Ice 

Co. Sampled Oct. 8, 1927.

CHEATHAM COUNTY

Neptune, 1% miles northeast of. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 165 

feet deep; water from St. Louis limestone; owned by E. P. Frazier. Sampled Oct. 10, 1927. 

Ashland City. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 69 feet deep; water from 

Chattanooga shale; owned by T. F. Chambliss. Sampled Oct. 10, 1927. 

Ashland City, 2M miles south of. Dug and drilled well 25 feet deep at former 

site of Sulphur Spring; water from Fort Payne formation; owned by Cheatham County. Sampled Oct. 10, 1927.

feet deep; water from Fort Payne (?) formation; owned by E. F. Alien and 

others; locally known as Sunrise Spring. Sampled Oct. 10, 1927.

45 feet deep; water from St. Louis limestone; owned by Idlewild School, 

Petway community. Sampled Oct. 10, 1927. 

Kingston Spring post office, J^ mile south of. Kingston Spring; water from 

Fort Payne formation; owned by W. C. West. Sampled Oct. 10, 1927.

water from Silurian limestone; owned by W. L. Palmore. Sampled Oct. 

12, 1927.

DAVIDSON COUNTY

Whites Creek, 3 miles northwest of. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 

158 feet deep; water from Fort Payne formation; owned by E. B. Hart. 

Sampled Sept. 14, 1927. 

Whites Creek, 2X miles west of. Carney's Spring; water from Chattanooga 

shale; owned by Mrs. George Carney. Sampled Sept. 14, 1927.

23 feet deep; water from Chattanooga shale; owned by 3. D. Carrington. 

Sampled Sept. 14, 1927. 

Ashland City, 8 miles southwest of. Young '.s Spring; water from Silurian 

limestone; owned by C. R. Rohrer. Sampled Sept. 13, 1927.

deep; water from Leipers or Catheys formation; owned by J. C. Smith. 

Sampled Sept. 14, 1927.

97 feet deep; water from Catheys (?) formation; owned by Henry Farmer. 

Sampled Sept. 13, 1927. 

Nashville, 4M miles northwest of. Drilled well 6M inches in diameter and 

94 feet deep; water from Hermitage formation; owned by Q. W. Bolin. 

Sampled Sept. 14, 1927.

1,491 feet deep; water from St. Peter (?) sandstone at depth of 1,165 feet 

probably mixed with water from Hermitage formation and Lebanon limestone; owned by Arthur Stevens. Sampled Sept. 14, 1927. 

Nashville, Buena Vista Ave. "Black sulphur" spring; water from Bigby 

limestone; owned by Buena Vista Springs Co. Sampled Sept. 14, 1927. 

Nashville, 1400 Eighth Ave. N. Drilled well 2,965 (?) feet deep; water probably from St. Peter (?) sandstone; owned by Morgan & Hamilton Co. 

Sampled Oct. 10, 1927.

Temperature 

C°F.)

58

61

58

58 

58

58

58

58 

59.5

60

57

61

58

58 

59

60 

64

62

62 

66

60 

68

Analyst

 do 

.... -do 

 do 

.... .do. -

 do .

.... .do 

Farrar and 

Foster.' 

..... do.' 

. _ .do... 

Farrar and 

Foster.' 

Foster ......

..... do 

 do 

 do 

. - do ... 

.... -do ...

 do- ....

 do 

 do 

... ..do ...

Farrar and 

Foster.*

 ° Includes iron precipitated at time of analysis.

* Carbonate radicle (COs) not present. 
QUALITY OF GROUND WATER

in north-central Tennessee Continued

115

Analyses (quantities in parts per million)

Total dissolved 

solids 

at 

180° C.

441 

213

258 

503 

145 

256

274

285 

514

10,688 

280

401 

70

168

844 

295

178 

412

2,160 

4,372 

979

714 

4,306

Silica 

(SiOs)

17 

3.2 

3.4 

10.2 

2.2 

24

10

8.4

28

19 

9.8

26 

12

15

23

17

21 

10

9.7 

18 

11

12

45

Iron

(Fe)«

.35 

2.2 

.4 

.4 

.2 

.4

1.0

.7 

.9

3.2 

.6

.8 

.08

.22

.04

.42

.06

.12

1.4 

.32 

.13

.28 

1.5

Calcium 

(Ca)

80 

72 

67 

101 

42 

61

75

62 

121

625 

74

51 

17

39

156 

57

43 

93

139 

423 

58

110 

382

Magnesium 

(Mg)

33 

11 

24 

33

5.4 

12

24

26 

32

221

19

18 

2.9

,15

51 

19

9.9 

23

62 

169 

30

20 

117

Sodium 

(Na)

a

2 

2

3

14

5

S 

U

2,996

3

7« 

2.1

2.6

32 

31

2.4

5.7

459 

695 

252

103 

1,066

Potassium 

(K)

.6 

.0

.7 

.7 

.0

.0

.2

7.0 

.0

1.0

0.6

32 

1.7

1.2 

1.8

16 

2i 

14

9.8 

52

Bicarbonate 

(HCO3>>

223 

252 

294 

232 

162 

224

308

202 

433

153 

284

253 

60

181

351 

322

144 

237

270 

332

255

285 

298

Sulphate 

(800

148 

20 

26 

215 

14 

29

24

21

87

3,652 

27

74 

3.8

5.7

359 

21

27 

HI

1,174 

2,268 

147

135 

585

Chloride 

(Cl)

4.5 

3.5 

10 

3.5 

3.0 

14

1.0

9.0 

7.0

3,425 

4.0

54 

1.8

5.1

10 

4.4

i.2 

22

131 

424 

316

146

2,085

Nitrate 

(NOs)

.2 

2.5 

3.2 

.6 

.2 

1.2

.5

.3

.6

.5 

.4

2.2 

2.6

1.6

.0

.05

3.0

.33

.0 

,iO 

.12

10 

8.0

Hydrogen sulphide 

(H2S)

10

18

5.2

34 

10

Tr. 

22

Total hardness 

as 

CaCOs"

335

225 

265 

387 

127 

201

286

261 

433

2,468 

263

201 

54

159

599 

220

148 

327

602 

1,750 

268

357 

1,435

No. on 

Plate 4

198-B

218 

219 

220

225 

229

243

258

259

260 

265

268 

269

277

278 

279

282 

286

292 

294 

295

297 

298

« Calculated.

 Determinations of HaS and SO* by Margaret D. Foster.
116 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Analyses of representative ground waters

K"o on 

Place 4

802

305

311 

312 

316 

317

326 

v>&

330

QOQ

**AA

347

348

QKO

353

359 

365 

366

370 

376

387 

390 

394 

305

Location and description

DATIDSON COUNTY continued

feet deep; water from Lebanon (?) limestone at depth of 128 feet; owned by 

Atlantic Ice & Coal Co. Sampled Sept. 14, 1927.

formation; owned by Pioneer Water Co. Sampled Sept. 14, 1927. 

Belleview, 1M miles west of. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 144 feet 

deep; water from Catheys formation; owned by N. M. Morton. Sampled Sept. 13, 1927. 

Belleview. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 143 feet deep; water from 

Bigby (?) limestone; owned by Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. 

Sampled Sept. 13, 1927. 

Nashville, 4J^ miles south of. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 125 feet 

deep; water from Lowville (?) limestone; owned by Q. W. Luetzeler. 

Sampled Sept. 13, 1927. 

Woodbine, 3 miles west of. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 65 feet deep; 

water from Catheys formation (?); owned by Robertson Academy. Sampled Sept. 13, 1927.

WILSON COUNTY

Hornsprings post office. Horn Spi ing (No. 2) ; water from Hermitage formation; owned by J. A. Horn. Sampled Oct. 16, 1927.

feet deep; water from Lebanon (?) limestone; owned by Mrs. Alice Murrey. 

Sampled Oct. 14, 1927. 

Mount Juliet. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 47 feet deep; water 

from Lowville (?) limestone; owned by Mount Juliet School. Sampled 

Oct. 15, 1930.

feet deep; water from Ridley (?) limestone; owned by Lebanon Light & 

Water Co. Sample Oct. 13, 1927.

deep; water from Lebanon (?) limestone; owned by T. H. Phillips. Sampled Oct. 15, 1927. 

Watertown, J^ mile west of. Two drilled wells 6 inches in diameter and 251 

feet deep; water from Ridley (?) limestone; owned by city of Watertown; 

municipal supply. Sampled Oct. 13, 1927. 

Watertown. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 76 feet deep; water from 

Lebanon (?) limestone; owned by Watertown Grain & Feed Co. Sampled 

Oct. 13, 1927.

deep; water from Lebanon (?) limestone; owned by Mrs. Bessie Hayes. 

Sampled Oct. 14, 1S27.

water from top of Lebanon (?) limestone; owned by Clark Hill. Sampled 

Oct. 14, 1927.

WILUAMSON COUNTY

Jingo, 5Ji miles southeast of. Cold Spring; water from Fernvale formation; 

owned by estate of W. P. Brace. Sampled Oct. 11, 1927. 

Nolensville. Well 8 inches in diameter and 160 feet deep; water from Ridley (?) limestone; owned by W. M. Owen. Sampled Oct. 11, 1921. 

Boston, 6M miles north of. Stillhouse Spring; water from sandstone near top 

of Fort Payne formation; owned by city of Franklin; municipal supply (in 

part). Sampled Oct. 11, 1927. 

Franklin, 1 mile south of. Winder Spring; water from Hermitage formation; 

owned by C. H. Kinnard. Sampled Oct. 11, 1927. 

Arrington, 6M miles northwest of. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 132 

feet deep; water from Ridley limestone; owned by John N. Boxley. Sampled Oct. 11, 1927. 

Boston, 2M miles west of. Dug well 4 feet in diameter and 54 feet deep; water 

from residual chert debris above St. Louis or Warsaw limestone; owned by 

Sid Wall. Sampled Oct. 11, 1927. 

Boston, 5 miles east of. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 45 feet deep; 

water from Cannon or Bigby limestone; owned by Mrs. Lulu Gordon. 

Sampled Oct. 11, 1927. 

Boston, 4Ji miles southeast of. Drilled well 6 inches in diameter and 105 feet 

deep; water from Catheys (?) formation; owned by Mrs. J..C. Sparkman. 

Sampled Oct. 11, 1927. 

Thompson's Station, 3Ji miles northwest of. Cayces Spring; water from 

Chattanooga shale; owned by Douglas Martin. Sampled Oct. 11, 1927.

Temperature 

(°F.)

63

62

60 

59 

58 

60

63 

60

60

58

59 

<;ft

tro

59

57

62

58

58 

61 

62

Analyst

 do 

 do 

 .do . 

 do 

 -do 

..... do 

.... . do .

 -do 

. .doFarrar.- 

-...do-- 

 do-- 

.. do-- 

 do.. 

 do.- 

Farrar and 

Foster.*

Farrar. .... 

-.-do.. 

«Includes iron precipitated at time of analysis. 

* Carbonate radicle (COs) not present. 

« Calculated.
QUALITY OF GROUND WATER 

 in north-central Tennessee Continued

117

Analyses (quantities in parts per million)

Total dissolved 

solids

at 

180° C.

796

282 

6,474

312 

469 

469

3,880 

382

312 

379 

1,152 

319 

280 

/26.410 

1,048

241 

342 

168

192

481 

77 

10,920 

2,296 

238

Silica 

(SiOs)

11

15 

26

13 

8.4 

20

16

8-8

12 

18 

18 

U 

10 

13 

16

8.4 

11.4 

3.2

9.8 

14

3.4 

9.6 

10.2 

3.4

Iron

(Fe)«

.25

.04 

1.05

.13 

.64

.25

.53 

.9

1.0

.27 

1.9 

.5 

.7 

2.34 

16

.5 

.8 

.2

.9 

.9

.4 

1.3 

.8 

2.4

Calcium 

(Ca)

160

70 

497

90 

44 

92

487 

89

88 

92 

62 

86 

92 

580 

252

39

118 

45

48 

99

21

354 

518 

62

Magnesium 

(Mg)

17

7.2 

219

8.2 

28 

43

306 

20

15 

14 

19 

21 

16 

533 

48

14 

8.2 

12

8.2 

20

2.0 

208 

95 

16

Sodium 

(Na)

79

5.4 

,231

8.2 

74 

7.1

207 

3£

7 

19 

290 

1] 

14 

8,785

r

4

3,008

2

Potassium 

(K)

7.4

1.4 

22

1.8 

6.4 

2.2

16

.0 

2.9 

2.0

133

!

L.6 

5.4 

2.0

5.0

2

1.0

42 

5 

7.0

Bicarbonate 

HCOs) 1

278

146 

371

246 

204 

364

541 

357

302 

294 

211 

335 

334 

383 

535

154 

357 

169

156 

220

46 

286 

220 

228

Sulphate 

(BOO

. 191

40 

3,426

48 

197 

113

2,348 

13

35 

46 

70 

28 

22 

118 

377

25 

34 

21

31 

133

11

4,459 

1,275 

37

Chloride 

(CD

131

12 

694

18 

18 

2.9

37 

48

6.5 

27 

431 

12 

17 

15,700 

1.0

1.5 

5.0 

3.0

5.5 

70

8.0 

2,375 

174

7.0

Nitrate 

(NOi)

37

43

.15

5.6 

1.4 

.05

.20 

1.0

.6 

2.4 

2.0 

1.0 

.8 

0 

1.3

.4 

1.2 

.3

.4 

1.0

4.1 

3.0 

.3

Hydrogen sulphide

(HjS)

60

86

.....--

40

Total hardness 

as 

CaCOa"

470

204 

2,140

259 

225 

406

2,472 

305

281 

287 

232 

301 

295 

3,600 

826

155 

328 

162

154

329 

60 

1,738 

1,683 

220

No. on 

Plate 4

302

305 

311

312 

316 

317

326 

328

330 

333 

344 

347 

348 

352 

353

359 

365 

366

370

376 

387 

390 

394 

395

«Determinations of HjS and SO* by Margaret D. Foster.

/ Also contains 35 parts per million free carbon dioxide (COs) and 216 parts per million of hydrosulpbide 

radicle (HS); the carbonate radicle (C0>) is not present.
118 GEOUND WATEB IN NOBTH-CENTBAL TENNESSEE

Analyses of representative ground waters

No. on 

Plate 4

427

431

432

433

439 

462

466

Location and description

RUTHERFORD COUNTY

feet deep (October, 1927); water from Murfreesboro limestone at depth of 

70 feet and possibly from other strata at unknown depth; owned by G. M. 

Alsup. Sampled Sept. 15, 1927.

feet deep; water from Pierce or Murfreesboro limestone; owned by J. M. 

Free. Sampled Sept. 15, 1927.

feet deep; water from Murfreesboro limestone; owned by T. F. Lane. 

Sampled Sept. 15, 1927. 

Murfreesboro, % mile northwest of. Drilled well 10 inches in diameter and 

650 feet deep; water from Murfreesboro limestone at depth of 80 feet, also 

from unnamed limestone at depth of 350 feet; well No. 4 of Carnation Milk 

Products Co. Sampled Sept. 15, 1927.

217 feet deep; water from Murfreesboro limestone at depth of 50 to 65 feet; 

well No. 2 of Carnation Milk Products Co. Sampled Sept. 13, 1927. 

Murfreesboro. Murfreesboro City Spring; water from Murfreesboro limestone; municipal supply; owned by city of Murfreesboro. Sampled Sept. 

15, 1927.

alluvial silt overlying Lebanon limestone; owned by R. S. Brown, jr. 

Sampled Oct. 11, 1927. 

Christiana, 9 miles west of. Big Spring; water from Lebanon limestone; 

owned by W. H. Robinson. Sampled Sept. 15, 1927.

Temperature

62

60

60

60 

60

59

62

Analyst

Foster.. _

..... do.. 

..... do.. 

... -do.. 

..... do .

Foster.. ..

«Includes iron precipitated at time of analysis. 

* Carbonate radicle (COj) not present.
QUALITY OF GROUND WATER 

in north-central Tennessee Continued

119

Analyses (quantities in parts per million)

Total dissolved 

solids 

at 

180° C.

322

282 

1,240 

514

356 

204 

256 

300

Silica 

(SiOa)

23

13 

11 

16

18 

11 

10.1 

17

Iron

(Fe)«

.06

.39

.21 

2.0

.32 

.44 

.7 

.12

Calcium 

(Ca)

33

57 

106 

40

78 

61 

59 

93

Magnesium 

(Mg)

29

28 

28 

26

22 

6.9 

24 

9.7

Sodium 

(Na)

43

3.9 

322 

105

19 

1.2 

8. 

3.0

Potassium 

(K)

5.6

1.9 

8.4 

9.9

2.5 

.9 

0 

.9

Bicarbonate 

(HCOs) »

258

232 

588 

264

292 

198 

290 

308

Sulphate 

(BOO

29

57 

26 

138

44 

6.0 

15 

13

Chloride 

(01)

40

9.0 

406

55

29 

4.4 

1.5 

L6

Nitrate 

(NOs)

.07

.25 

.0 

.35

1.6 

8.0 

1.2 

7.0

Hydrogen sulphide 

(H2S)

75

Total hardness 

as 

CaCOs'

201

257 

380 

207

285 

181 

246 

272

No. on 

Plate*

427

431 

432 

433

435 

439 

462 

466

 Calculated.
120 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE 

REI^ATTON TO STRATIGRAPHY

As is brought out in the following paragraph, the analyses of representative ground waters tabulated above do not disclose any outstanding relation between the chemical character of the ground waters 

and the stratigraphic horizon of the water-bearing beds. In general 

most of the waters fall into one of three classes first, slightly arid 

moderately concentrated calcium bicarbonate waters having moderate carbonate hardness; second, highly concentrated calcium or 

calcium-magnesium sulphate waters with considerable noncarbonate 

hardness; third, highly concentrated brines or sodium chloride-sulphate waters. All members of the geologic column contain waters 

that fall into these three classes and have about the same range in 

concentration. The waters of the first class are those that circulate 

freely through permeable beds and channeled limestone at shallow 

or moderate depth and issue from most of the springs and from wells 

less than 200 feet deep. Most of them contain from 150 to 400 parts 

per million of dissolved mineral matter and from 125 to 325 parts 

per million of carbonate hardness. Usually they are/essentially free 

from iron and hydrogen sulphide. Hence they are suitable for all 

ordinary purposes if softened. The waters of the second and third 

classes, which can not be sharply discriminated, occur at greater 

depth in permeable beds or at moderate depth in beds of low permeability. The brines are probably connate or modified connate 

waters originating in an epoch of marine sedimentation. The calcium sulphate waters owe their high concentration to slow percolation or stagnation in strata containing soluble sulphates or possibly 

to reaction on limestone of sulphuric acid formed by oxidation- and 

hydrolysis of pyrite. These highly concentrated waters issue from 

a few springs and from some wells less than 50 feet deep, though 

generally they occur in strata more than 100 feet below the surface. 

So far as is known, the water in all strata more than 350 feet below 

the surface is highly concentrated and is not entirely satisfactory for 

most ordinary uses, especially for domestic consumption.

The general character of the ground water associated with different 

stratigraphic units in north-central Tennessee is shown by the accompanying table of average, minimum, and maximum quantities of 

mineral constituents, which is based only on the 101 representative 

analyses. The accuracy of the relations suggested by this table is 

limited by several factors. It is impossible to tell the precise stratigraphic horizon of the water-bearing bed of some wells, because 

complete records of the strata penetrated are not available. This 

table shows the absolute minimum and maximum of each constituent 

"without reference to any other constituent. All the minima are not 

necessarily derived from the same analysis; neither are all the maxima necessarily derived from a single analysis. Some wells penetrate
QUALITY OF GROUND WATER 121

more than one water-bearing bed, so that the sample may not be 

quite representative of the principal bed. Other wells may not be 

adequately cased, or the casing may have deteriorated, so that water 

from the surface or from a shallow water-bearing stratum may be 

entering the well. Any particular stratigraphic unit may have considerable lateral and vertical variations in the mineral character of its 

component beds, so that the ground waters associated with it at 

different depths and places may differ considerably in chemical 

character. Wells that draw upon intensely channeled limestone may 

yield water of different chemical character at different seasons.

100144 32 9
Average, minimum, and maximum quantities of mineral constituents in waters from str

[Parts per million]]

Stratigraphic unit

St. Louis limestone and Warsaw formation:

Waters containing less than 1,000 parts per million dissolved solids (a nalyses 6, 24, 27, 42, 44, 64, 67, 71, 73, 87, 91, 96, 115, 138, 143, W9, 164, 167, 177, 

198-B, 218, 219, 225, 229, 243, 265, 387) 

Waters containing more than 1,000 parts per million dissolved solids

(analyses 54, 57, 81, 104) 

Fort Payne formation:

Waters containing less than 1,000 parts per million dissolved solids (analyses 1, 32, 35, 112, 121, 149, 151, 171, 173, 190, 259, 268, 277, 366) 

Waters containing more than 1,000 parts per million dissolved solids

(analyses 68, 126, 191, 198-A, 260) 

Chattanooga shale (analyses 220, 258, 278, 279, 395) 

Silurian limestones (analyses 180, 269, 282, 359) 

Maximum _______ .-. 

So,

£»!?

w H

§ **

""3

TJ

P

fc

27

4

14

5

5

4

0

S

1

a

03

11.0

2.2

24

15

8.0

19

14.4

3.2

28

17

2.4

26

12

3.4

23

13

8.4

21

fe

0.73

.06

4.6

2.6

.38

6.9

.47

.02

1.0

7.5

1.5

29

.78

.04

2.4

.17

.05

.5

'es 

O

a

 3

O

59

21

114

346

282

382

52

8.6

121

591

163

625

88

57

156

37

17

48

bo

1

03

S

10

2.0

33

120

39

173

11

2.4

32

135

60

221

29

16

51

8.1

2.9

14

*

3
Leipers and Cat beys formations: 

Waters containing less than 1,000 parts per million dissolved solids 

(analyses 127, 131, 132, 286, 317) 

Average ...

Minimum ___ . . __ . .

Waters containing more than 1,000 parts per million dissolved solids 

(analyses 292, 311, 394<<)~

Bigby limestone (analyses 135, 297-A, 297-B, 297-C, 312) 

Hermitage formation and Lowville limestone (analyses 305, 316, 330, 370) 

Stones River group: 

Waters containing less than 1,000 parts per million dissolved solids 

(analyses 802, 328, 333, 347, 348, 365, 376, 427, 431, 433, 435, 439, 466) 

Maximum.... __ ____ . _ _ . __ . __ . . ... . ...

Waters containing more than 1,000 parts per million dissolved solids 

(analyses 344, 352, 353, 432) 

Minimum... __ .. _ _ - . ...... _ __ . . __ . _ ... . ...

5

«6

«4

13

'4

14

9

0

20

9.7

26

"13

12

15

11

8.4

15

14

8.8

23

15

11

18

.67

.12

1.4

.8

1.4

".67

.13

1.6

.64

.04

1.0

.59

.06

2.0

5.1

.21

16

OQ

71

163

139

518

78

u

110

63

44

88

84

33

160

250

62

580

26

16

43

62

219

10.8

4.8

20

15

7.2

28

18

6.9

29

157

19

533

1,

2,

8,

« Average is 2.8 if analyses 219 and 229 are excluded from the mean.

* Based on 26 determinations.

c Quantity indeterminate.

d Average not computed unless more than three determinations available.

* Determinate in two samples only.

f Average is 2.6 if analyses 259 and 268 are excluded from the mean.

' Average is 3.0 if analysis 268 is excluded from the mean.

* Average is 57 if analysis 260 is excluded from the mean. 

{ Average is 19 if analysis 260 is excluded from the mean. 

' Based on 4 determinations.

* Determinate in sample 131 only. 

! Determinate in sample 311 only.

» Analyses 137 and 38

solids, excluded from the 

sulphate waters.

» Based on 3 determina

0 Analyses 294 and 326

ids, excluded from the m

water; No. 326 is a magn

» Average is 27 if analy

« Average is 347 if anal

r Averages weak becau

 Determinate in samp
124 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

In general, the ground water associated with the Chattanooga 

shale near its outcrop is "black sulphur" water, iron being taken into 

solution as the sulphate from oxidized portions of the pyritiferous 

shale and the sulphate being reduced by the carbonaceous matter of 

the shale. Generally the water contains less than 500 parts per 

million of dissolved mineral matter and the hydrogen sulphide is less 

than 10 parts per million. The water associated with the crystalline 

Silurian limestones has the least average content of dissolved solids, 

is relatively soft, and has little noncarbonate hardness; hence it is 

suitable for many uses without any preliminary treatment. The 

water that issues from the Bigby limestone generally contains more 

matter in solution and appreciably more sodium and potassium than 

the water carried at similar depth by other stratigraphic units of the 

same water-yielding capacity. At several localities, especially in the 

vicinity of Nashville, the dense limestone beds of the Cannon and 

Bigby limestones contain blebs of petroliferous material, and some of 

the associated ground water contains sufficient oil in the emulsified 

state to impart a disagreeable taste and a pronounced opalescence. 

Other than these general relations, however, little correlation can be 

made between chemical character of the ground water and the stratigraphic horizon of the water-bearing bed.

SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS BY COUNTIES

CHEATBAM COUNTY

[Area, 314 square miles. Population, 9,025 ] 

GENERAL FEATURES

Cheatham County lies in the geographic center of the area covered 

by this report and is bounded on the north by Montgomery and Robertson Counties, on the east by Davidson County, on the south by 

Williamson County, and on the west by Dickson County. The area 

is wholly rural. The county seat and largest community, Ashland 

City (population, 712) is situated in the valley of the Cumberland 

River on the Tennessee Central Railroad.

Cheatham County includes the stream gaps by which the Nashville 

Basin drains northwestward across the Highland Rim Plateau (see pp. 

16-18) and hence has a rather rugged topography. From the Cumberland River northward the surface is a dissected plateau comprising 

flat and gently rolling interstream tracts whose altitude ranges from 

700 to 780 feet above sea level and closely spaced subparallel youthful 

drains adjusted to the Cumberland River at 350 feet above sea level. 

Sink-hole topography exists locally on these interstream plateau 

tracts but is not characteristic of them within Cheatham County. 

The topography of the central and southern parts of the county,

'» Figures for population from 1930 census.
CHEATHAM COUNTY 125

which are traversed by the Cumberland and Harpeth Rivers, is somewhat more diverse, the summit flats being less extensive and some of 

the slopes along the major streams having submature profiles. The 

youthful tributary drains in the southern part of the county are adjusted to the Harpeth River, which at Kingston Springs is about 440 

feet above sea level.

The interstream flats of Cheatham County are underlain by 20 to 

60 feet or more of cherty residual soil and clay resting upon the 

massive subcrystalline beds of the St. Louis limestone and Warsaw 

formation. The underlying Fort Payne formation, which in this 

area consists of interbedded strata of dense bluish cherty limestone 

and calcareous shale 1 to 3 feet thick, crops out on the slopes of the 

tributary drains throughout the county. (See pi. 4.) The Chattanooga shale crops out as a narrow band slightly above stream level 

along the Cumberland River and some of its larger tributaries from 

Ashland City eastward and intermittently along the Harpeth River 

entirely across the county. Beneath this well-known horizon marker 

limestones of Devonian and Silurian age crop out over the valley 

floors. The Leipers formation, of Upper Ordovician age, and some 

of the uppermost beds of the Middle Ordovician are exposed at stream 

level along the Cumberland River eastward from a point near Ashland City. The general character and succession of these strata are 

described on pages 33-53, and their areal extent is shown by Plate 4.

QROUND-WATER CONDITIONS

On the interstream plateau remnants most rural water supplies are 

obtained from dug wells 25 to 50 feet deep, which tap the loose cherty . 

debris or partly disintegrated limestone at or just above the contact 

of the residual clay that rests on the St. Louis limestone. Many such 

wells are inadequate for a single household during the summer in years 

of subnormal rainfall. Hence each farmstead usually has a cistern 

for storing rain water. Water for stock is generally impounded in 

small pools by damming one or more ephemeral drains and conserving 

storm run-off. The few drilled wells on these upland tracts obtain 

water in channeled zones of the St. Louis limestone between 90 and 

160 feet below the surface. To judge from the records of several deep 

wells that have been drilled in Cheatham and adjoining counties in 

search of oil, it does not seem likely that potable water will be found 

by drilling to depths exceeding 200 feet in the upland tracts.

On the slopes of the youthful drains that dissect the Highland Rim 

plateau many small tubular springs issue at several altitudes from 

jointed and channeled limestone, and seepage springs from the cherty 

residuum of the weathered rocks. Many rural dwellings are located 

adjacent to perennial springs of this sort. Drilling for water on these 

slopes is exceedingly uncertain, although successful wells from 35 to
126 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

60 feet deep hare been drilled in several places. These wells encounter 

water at the upper surface of the Chattanooga shale and at random 

horizons in shaly facies of the overlying Fort Payne formation.

Shaly and channeled beds of the Devonian, Silurian, and Ordovician 

limestones supply drilled wells from 70 to 125 feet deep on and near 

the bottom lands of the Cumberland River Valley, where the waterbearing zone is approximately 300 to 350 feet above sea level. In the 

Harpeth River Valley of the southern part of the county wells from 

50 to 75 feet deep in the Silurian and Devonian limestones find relatively soft water about 450 feet above sea level. The extent and 

lateral persistence of the channeled zones that supply these wells 

can not be inferred from the well data at hand.

The conditions under which ground water occurs in limestone are 

discussed on pages 69-89. Analyses of representative ground waters 

from Cheatham County are tabulated on pages 114-115.
Typical wells in Cheatham County, Tenn

[All drilled wells]

No. on 

Plate 4

238

240

243

244

246

248

251

263

2S4

255

257

258

260

261

262

263

264

265

267

269

270

Location with reference to nearest post office

Fox Bluff, 2H miles NE.. . 

Ashland City, 5 miles NE 

Ashland City, U mile NW_. _ . 

. -dO... 

Ashland City, 8 miles SW._._ ... ... . 

Ashland City, 7H miles SW... ~

Owner or lessee

William Harris. _ ... ____ ... ___

E, P. Frazier, M. D _ __ . __ . .....

C. W. Clifton ...... ................

Millard Williams ... . _

Y. M. C. A. camp ___________

R. F. Biggs. .....................

J. F. Krantz.. _______ . ..........

Standard Oil Co. _____ .. .........

T. F. Chambliss _ ..........

E. F. Alien, M. D., and others. .......

Q. H. Kessler ....................

O. E. Williams. .................

Idlewild School.. ___________

W. L. Palmore _____ . .............

Cheatham County __________

Topogr

Ridge cre

Hills

VaUey 

Upland

... ..do.

Vall

..... do...

 do~

Valle

Hillt

Vall

[Table continued on pp. 128-129]
Typical wells in Cheatham County, Tenn. Con

[All drilled wells]

No. on 

Plate 4

238 

240 

-243 

244

246 

248

251 

253 

254 

255

257 

«258 

"260

261 

262

263 

264

Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface (feet)

95± 

72.........

160........

200± ...

200±......

120. ....

45±.......

85±. ......

95± ...

40± 

30.........

65±.......

35.........

70 __ ....

120± 

Near bottom.

Character of 

material

Small crevice .......

Limestone.--.- __

Shale and cherty 

limestone.

Cherty limestone _

Shale 

Shale (?). .

 do. .... ....

..... do... ... .... ... .

Geologic horizon

St. Louis limestone. 

 .do....... 

 do.-. 

St. Louis (?) limestone.

St. Louis limestone.

 do.....- ....

Fort Payne formation. 

St. Louis limestone. 

Fort Payne formation. 

.... . do......... ....

.....do.. 

Chattanooga shale. 

Fort Payne formation. 

Chattanooga shale.

Leipers (?) formation.

Fort Payne (?) 

formation.

Water 

level 

above 

or 

below 

surface 

(feet)

-48... 

-75 

-40 

-40 

-66...

-20...

-35... 

-20...

-25...

-50 

-65 

Method of lift

Electric force pump

Hand pump __ 

..... do... ..... ... ...

.....do...... ........

Bucket and rope. ... .. 

 ..do, .............

- do..... . _

... ..do.....-.,. .......

Yield 

(gallons 

a minute)

3-5 . 

3 -

Large. 

10± 

5.......

1± 

3... ....

Temperature 

(°F.)

61

58

59 

59

58 

60

U

Dom

 d

..... d

Dom

 do

..... d

Dom

 d
»265

267

»269

Vffi

torn. 

70 

144. _ ....

 .do .... .... .

ice.

filled by silt.

stone.

tion.

stone.

formation.

-25 ...

-40 

-125-

3... ....

1± 

1±~ 

fi7

58 d

1 See analysis, pp. 114-115.

Typical springs in Cheatham County, Tenn.

No. on 

Plate 4

239

241

242

246

247

249

260

262

256

259

266

268

Location with reference to nearest post 

office

Thomasville, 2 miles NE ________

Chapmansboro, Smiles NE .............

Ashland City, 4 miles N

Ashland City, % miles NE. ___ . _ .

Kingston Springs, Ji mile S _______

Owner

H. O. Knox- __ . .........

3. W. Cage & Co.- __ .....

Tom Nichols.. ..............

W. C. West. _________

Name

Mill Spring. 

Top

si

Hil

Va

Pla

Va

__ d

 d

Hil

Va

Hil

Va

 d

[Table continued on p. 130]
Typical springs in Cheatham County, Tenn, Con

No. on 

Plate 4

239 

241

242 

245 

247

249 

250 

252

256

 259 

266

 268

Openings

Number

1 

1

1 

1 

1

1 

1 

1 

Many.

1 

1

2

Character

Natural well leading to underground channel.

.....do 

.... .do... 

.... .do ................. .....

 . .do... 

Joint and bedding-plane channels.

Slumped roof of underground 

channel.

Approximate yield

Gallons a 

minute

25

20 

1-2 

100

50 

1± 

10

5±

No flow. 

5-8

1A±

Date of 

measurement 

(1927)

Aug. 21

Aug. 20 

Aug. 21 

Aug. 20

 do 

...do....

 do . 

Aug. 22

Aug. 22 

 do .

Variability

... ..do.... ....

.....do ......... .....

Probably seasonal 

.....do ....... ....... 

... ..do ..............

Use

Drinking, stock ..

Domestic, stock ..

Domestic, stock _ 

.... .do ....... ..

1 See analysis, pp. 114-115.
GROUND WATEB IN NOKTH-CENTBAL TENNESSEE 131

DAVEDSON COUNTY

[Area, 511 square mites. Population, 222,8641 

GENERAL FEATURES

Davidson County, which adjoins Cheatham County on the east, 

occupies the east-central part of the region covered by this report. 

(See pi. 1.) Its county seat, Nashville (population, 153,866), is also 

the capital and second largest city of the State; it is situated on the 

Cumberland River about at the geometric center of the county. Old 

Hickory (estimated population, 3,050), about 10 miles northeast of 

Nashville, is an industrial city devoted to the manufacture of rayon 

products. With the exception of these urban districts, the county 

is for the most part a fertile rural area.

The greater part of Davidson County is drained by the Cumberland River, which follows a meandering westward course through 

Nashville and gathers the tributary drainage of Mansker, Whites, and 

Little Marrowbone Creeks from the north and of the Stone River 

and Mill Creek from the south. The Harpeth River crosses the 

extreme southwestern part of the county at Belleview and drains a 

small area in the county.

Davidson County embraces approximately equal areas in two 

physiographic districts, the northwestern quadrant of the Nashville 

Basin (p. 18) and the contiguous encircling escarpment of the 

Highland Rim plateau (pp. 16-17). Its extreme topographic relief 

is about 525 feet, the highest point being about 900 feet above sea 

level on the divide between Sycamore and Mansker Creeks, in the 

vicinity of Ridgetop, and the lowest about 375 feet above sea level, 

where the Cumberland River crosses the western boundary of the 

county. From the meander belt of the Cumberland River as it was 

in the Nashville Basin erosion cycle the Highland Rim escarpment 

rises northward about 300 feet to the plateau that extends northward 

beyond the county. The face of this erosion escarpment is trenched 

by closely spaced subparallel youthful drains several miles in length. 

The extreme northwestern part of the county, hi the vicinity of Joelton, lies upon the gently undulating peneplain that constitutes the 

Highland Rim plateau. A salient of the plateau, now reduced to a 

group of mature hills, extends eastward into the county to and beyond 

Nashville and forms the divide between the Cumberland and Harpeth 

Rivers. The portion of the county that lies south and east of the 

escarpment is gently rolling, the product of submature dissection of 

the Nashville Basin peneplain by streams adjusted to the Cumberland River in its present cycle. The accordant summits peneplain 

remnants are about 600 feet above sea level. Sink holes are locally 

abundant in the limestones that underlie this physiographic district, 

particularly between the limbs of river meanders and in the acute 

angle between converging streams in the vicinity of their confluence.
132 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Davidson County lies on the northwest flank of the Nashville dome 

(see pp. 62-63), so that at any particular altitude successively older 

strata appear toward the southeast. The exposed rocks constitute 

nearly a full section from the St. Louis limestone, of Mississippian 

age, down to the Kidley limestone, of Lower Ordovician age. (See 

pp. 33-55.) The massive subcrystalline St. Louis limestone crops 

out only in the Highland Kirn plateau northwestward from Joelton, 

where it is overlain by a thick mantle of cherty residual soil. The 

underlying Fort Payne formation, which in this county is generally 

thin-bedded earthy cherty limestone, crops out in all the upper slopes 

of the Highland Rim escarpment and forms the divide between the 

Cumberland and Harpeth Rivers. The New Providence and Ridgetop shales, which are stratigraphically beneath the Fort Payne 

formation, crop out in an area several miles across northwest of 

Nashville but are not widespread elsewhere. The Chattanooga shale 

crops out as a narrow band following the lower slope of the Highland 

Rim escarpment and inclosing erosion outliers of the plateau as far 

east as Nashville. Heavy-bedded dense and crystalline limestones 

of Devonian and Silurian age crop out along the base of the escarpment and of the outliers of the plateau and in the valley of the Harpeth 

River below Belleview. The stratigraphic relations of the formations 

of these two systems, which lap eastward over the underlying strata, 

have not been traced in detail. The earthy and dense pure limestones 

of Upper and Middle Ordovician age cover most of the rolling terrane 

of the Nashville Basin north and west of Nashville. The massive 

compact Carters limestone member of the Lowville limestone is exposed 

by the Cumberland River in the southeastern part of Nashville and 

crops out extensively farther southeast. The Lebanon and Ridley 

limestones of the Stones River group appear successively in the lower 

parts of the county and cover larger and larger areas toward the 

southeast. The areas within which the several stratigraphic units 

crop out are shown on Plate 4.

GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS

The water-bearing properties of the rocks in Davidson County differ greatly from place to place and for the most part can not be foretold from stratigraphic position alone. Rather, the ability of any 

particular stratum to transmit water is generally limited by the number 

and size of solution channels and hence is dependent upon the solubility of the rock, the number and persistence of joints, and the position of the stratum with relation to present and past equilibrium 

profiles of underground drainage. (See pp. 78-82.) Thus in several 

parts of the county a water-bearing zone occurs in the limestone at 

about the same depth below the surface even though at different 

stratigraphic horizons. On the other hand, a few of the formations
DAVIDSON COUNTY 133

have the same water-bearing properties wherever they occur. For 

example, the outcrop of the Chattanooga shale is everywhere accompanied by perennial sulphur springs of rather small discharge, although 

the same stratum may not be water bearing beneath deep continuous 

cover. The Leipers and Catheys formations, which are for the most 

part very impure earthy limestone and calcareous shale, are generally 

poor water bearers throughout the county.

On the Highland Kim plateau, in the northwestern part of the 

county, the mantle of residual cherty soil supplies dug wells of household magnitude, though many such wells prove inadequate during 

long dry periods. Drilled wells 75 to 160 feet deep encounter water in 

the coarse cherty debris at the bottom of the residual soil mantle or 

in the weathered and channeled limestone just below, 700 to 750 feet 

above sea level. On the slopes of the escarpment that bounds the 

plateau on the southeast many tubular springs occur at the same 

altitude. This water-bearing zone is probably more nearly constant 

in water-yielding capacity than any other within the county.

On the Highland Kim escarpment and among the near-by outlying 

hills, which constitute the more rugged parts of the county, erosion 

has been comparatively rapid, and there has been no fixed equilibrium profile to which solution channels in the limestone could adjust 

themselves. Hence in this area water-bearing channeled zones are 

very erratic in altitude and extent. Under such conditions drilled 

wells in the limestone are very uncertain as sources of water, and the 

likelihood of finding water decreases greatly as the depth exceeds 50 

or 100 feet, as in well 315 (pp. 135,137). Also, dry holes are not 

uncommon, such as well 320. Wells that reach the Chattanooga shale 

in the vicinity of its outcrop, however, generally obtain enough sulphur water to supply individual dwellings. In terranes of this sort 

springs are a relatively certain source of water, particularly the perennial tubular springs (pp. 92-95), which drain large areas of channeled 

limestone. The pure subcrystalline Silurian limestones supply many 

of the larger tubular springs along the base of the Highland Kim 

escarpment. In most of the rugged tracts enough such springs exist 

to meet the present and probable future requirements for water.

In the part of the county that lies in the Nashville Basin, drilled 

wells from 60 to 200 feet deep generally find ample water for household 

purposes in channeled limestone. The water-bearing zones of most 

of these wells fall into one of two groups one from 300 to 350 feet 

above sea level and the other from 400 to 450 feet above sea level. 

The tested capacities of these wells range from a fraction of 1 gallon 

to 228 gallons a minute, although most of the wells have not been 

proved for drafts exceeding 10 gallons a minute. Dry holes have 

been drilled in several localities, as in the blocks bounded by deeply 

cut meanders of the Cumberland River and in the earthy beds of the
134 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Leipers and Catheys formations. Some perennial tubular springs also 

exist in the limestones of this part of the county, particularly in the 

Hermitage formation in the vicinity of Nashville. Most of these 

springs, however, discharge only a few gallons of water a minute in 

the dry season and in general are much less reliable than the springs 

of the Highland Rim escarpment. No potable water has been found 

at depths exceeding 200 feet except in a very few wells, and hence 

deep drilling for water is not generally advisable. In well 313, for 

 example, no water-bearing beds were penetrated below a depth of 101 

feet to a depth of 409 feet, even though the well is on the crest of a 

ridge about 300 feet high. The few deep wells that have been drilled 

Nos. 295, 298, 299, and 303 pass through the deepest beds that 

carry fresh water less than 200 feet below the surface; below these 

beds they penetrate only dense limestone to the St. Peter (?) sandstone 

at a depth of about 1,100 feet. The St. Peter (?) sandstone, however, 

contains water that is too highly concentrated to be satisfactory for 

many uses, as is shown by analyses 295 and 298 (pp. 114-115).

The static level of the water carried by the St. Peter (?) sandstone 

is about 510 feet above sea level in the vicinity of Nashville, so that 

flowing wells, such as Nos. 295 and 298, can be obtained in the lower 

land along the Cumberland River. However, the specific capacity of 

the wells seems to be rather small.

Descriptive data for typical wells and springs in Davidson County 

are tabulated on the following pages, and the driller's record of the 

strata penetrated by well 295 is given on page 59. The chemical 

character of the ground waters is shown by representative analyses 

tabulated on pages 114-117.
Typical wells in Davidson County, Ten

[All drilled wells]

No. on 

Plate 4

272 

276 

276 

277 

279 

280 

281 

284 

285 

286 

287 

289 

290 

291 

292 

293 

294 

295 

296 

298 

299 

300 

302 

303 

807 

309 

310 

311 

312 

313 

314 

315 

816 

317 

318 

319 

320 

821 

322

Location with reference to nearest post office

Old Hickory, Similes NW . ........

Whites Creek, 3% miles SW__ .........................

Whites Creek, 5 miles SW .............................

Whites Creek, 3% miles S ____________ . .....

Whites Creek, 2 miles S ...... ...... .................

Old Hickory, 2J£ miles SW _______________

Old Hickory, 1J£ miles SB .............................

Old Hickory, l^miles SB... ...........................

Nashville, 10H miles NW.. _ ........ .. . .........

Nashville, lO^milesW. ...... ........_

Nashville, 4W miles NW ...... ....... ... _ ............

Nashville, 3H miles NW ...............................

Nashville ________________________

Nashville .........................................

Nashville- _______________________

Nashville...- _ .......................................

Nashville .. _____________________

Old Hickory, 5H miles SW.............................

Pegram, 3>$ miles E.. .................................

Belleview, 1J4 miles W ...... . .. ................

Belleview. ______________________

Belleview, 3H miles NE __ ...... ......... _ .... ....

Belleview, 3M miles E _________________

Nashville, 5J| miles SW ...............................

Nashville, 4J£ miles S . __ ...... ___ ........... __

Woodbine, 3 miles W _________________

Brentwood, % miles W ________________

Owner or lessee

Louisville & Nashville R. E,. .........

J. D. Carrington ___________ ,. W. B. Holt... .

N. S. Walker....... ................ ...

Ralph Drake ______________

J. C. Smith.... 

J. T. Benson ______________

WilliamTate . 

W. T. Pearson.... .......... .......

G. W. Bolin.-. . ............ .......

Phillips-Buttorff Manufacturing Co..

Noel & Co. __ ... .... ____ ......

G. I. Waddey... . . . ........

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry.

N. M. Morton.. ____ .......

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry.

Nashville. Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. 

E. B. Stahlman _________ . __

G W Tjiiftt^elAr

Topo

Val

Val

 ..do.

..... do

 ..do 

 .d

 .. do.

.... .do

 do

Val

Hill

.... .do

Val

 do 

 do

.....do

Hillside

Val

Val

Hilltop

Val

Plain..

Hill

 do 

Pla

[Table continued on pp. 136-137]
Typical wells in Davidson County, Tenn. Co

[All drilled wells]

No. on 

Plato 4

272

275 

276

«277

a 279

280

281 

284

285 

 286 

287

289 

290

291 

 292

293

 294

 295 

296

Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface 

(feet)

76.. ....

Near bottom. 

185........

155± ...

20.........

30.........

40±. ......

90.........

59.........

160.. ...

100± ...

92.........

Near bottom. 

 ..do.. 

90.... 

1,165......

100 

Character of 

material

 do ... ... .....

Cherty limestone .. 

Shale . 

 do . .... ...

Cherty limestone ... 

Shale... . .

 ~do 

Bedding-plane crevice.

.....do -

Bedding-plane crevice.

... -do ....

Sandy limestone. . . 

Solution creviceGeologic horizon

TopofFortPayne 

formation. 

Catheys (?) formation. 

Bigby (?) limestone. 

Fort Payne formation. 

Chattanooga shale 

Silurian limestone-

..... do... ... ... .... 

Leipers (?) formation. 

Bigby (?) limestone. 

Leipers or Catheys 

formation. 

Hermitage (?) formation. 

 -do .....

Lowville (?) limestone. 

Hermitage (?) formation. 

Catheys (?) formation. 

Leipers formation. 

Hermitage formation. 

St. Peter (?) sandstone.

Hermitage formation.

Water 

level 

above 

or 

below 

surface 

(feet)

-40 ...

-15 

-125..

-6 

-20 

-40 

-15 ...

-30 

-50 

-50 

-35 

-20 

-60 

+3H--

-45 

Method of lift

Automatic electric 

pump.

Gasoline force pump..

 ..do ..............

Yield 

(gallons 

a minute)

12± 

3-5.. 

3-5 

H ...

5- _ 

3-5. _ .

5± -

8. ......

2± -

3 

35 

20 

Temperature 

(°F.)

60

58 

59

"16"

64

60 

62

58

62 

66

.. 

....

Sto

Do

.... 

....

 

St

....

Ga
'298 

299

300

-302 

303

307 

309

310 

 311 

 312

313 

314 

315 

«316 

 317 

318 

319

320 

321

322

1, 100 (?) 

J128 

1289 .....

1,100±_._.

195. ....

90 

52. .

136 ....

101........

200. ....

08

Near bottom. 

50 .

100 . _ .

120. .... 

90.... 

(Solution channels 

I filled with sand.

..... do. .

 do. 

Bedding-plane crevice. 

Small solution crevice.

do .. __ .

-...do ...... ... ..

..... do .......

Bedding-plane crevice.

Shale 

..... do....... .... ...

St. Peter (?) sandstone, 

-...do ....... ..

Bigby limestone or 

Hermitage formation. 

Lebanon (?) lime-1 

stone. 1 

Eidley (?) lime-[ 

stone. j 

St. Peter (?) sandstone.

Leipers formation. 

.....do.. .....

Catheys formation. 

Bigby (?) limestone. 

Leipers (?) formation. 

Bigby (?) limestone. 

Hermitage (?) formation. 

Lowville (?) limestone. 

Catheys (?) formation.

Lebanon (?) limestone.

Hermitage formation. 

Lebanon limestone.

+75 (?) 

+8....

-28 

-60 

+Slight

-60 

-45 

-10 

-101-

-136-

-100-

-85 

-60 

Artesian flow and air 

lift.

>Deep-well turbine.- ...

Hand pump .. ..

..... do... 

Automatic electric 

pump.

 do . 

5 . 

15 

228 

L es Sthan2

3-5 

3. 

3-5 

5 ....

3 

H 

3_ .

3. .

None. 

2 

68 

62

63

......

60 

60

60

58

60

58

Dr

N

 

 

... 

No

....

 See analysis, pp. 114-117.
Typical springs in Davidson County, Tenn

No. on 

Plate4

271

273

274

278

282

283

288

297

301

304

305

306

308

Location with reference to nearest 

post office

Joelton, 3Ji miles NW _ _ . ______

Joelton, 3 miles NE ____________

Whites Creek, 4H mUes NE. .............

Whites Creek, 2Ji miles W _ ... .........

Whites Creek, Similes SW... _____

Madison, 2H miles S ......................

Nashville, IK miles NW... ...............

Nashville __________________

Nashville, 4K miles E..... ............. ...

Nashville, 5 miles E...... .................

Nashville, 5K miles E..... ................

Hermitage, 3 miles NW ...................

Nashville, 5 miles SE. ....................

.....do..... __ ...........................

Owner

A. Kirshner __ . ...........

E. H. Fletcher. .............

Fred B. Cassety Coal Co...

Howe Water Co .............

D. B. De Bow _ . ..........

D. C. Buell. ......... .......

.....do.......................

Name

Cool Spring .................

T

V

..

... 

...

H

Vo

. _ 

...

...

H

..

[Table continued on p. 139]
Typical springs in Davidson County, Tenn. Co

No. on 

Plate 4

271 

273

274 

«278

«282 

283

288 

"297 

301

301 

°305

306 

308

Openings

Number

1 _ .....

Several.. 

1 _ .. ...

1 ___ .

1... .....

1..... ...

1

1... __ .

1 ........

1 _ . __

2 _ ,

1 ........

Character

Joints . ..

Bedding-plane solution channel. 

Joint and bedding-plane crevices.

Solution channel along joint 

Bedding-plane solution channel.

Concealed __ . ......

Bedding-plane channel ........

.....do ......................

Joint crevice _ __ .. __ ..

Approximate yield

Gallons a 

minute

20.........

None. . ... 

«..-.-- 

Trickle 

[100..... 

 {Less than 

I 5. 

6 ...... .

1H. ....

6±..... 

m... .... .

2..........

16. ........

2 ... 

13H 

10 .

Date of 

measurement 

(1927)

July 31- 

Aug. 3-

... do 

...do...__

... do....l

Sept. 13j 

July 27-

July 31- 

Aug. 2_ -

July 26- 

July28..

Aug. 3-_

Variability

Probably seasonal .....

 ..do................

- do... . .........

Use

Formerly medi

nal.

DHntl^g

Domestic, stoc

Drinking, bottli

Bottling __ .

Domestic, stock 

« See analysis, pp. 114-117.
140 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

DICKSON COUNTY 

GENERAL FEATURES

[Area, 549 square mites. Population, 18,4911

Dickson County lies in the southwestern part of the region covered 

by this report (pi. 1) and is bounded on the north by Montgomery 

County, on the east by Cheatham and Williamson Counties, on the 

south by Hickman County, and on the west by Humphreys and 

Houston Counties. The county seat, Charlotte, is a town of 291 

inhabitants approximately -ac the center of the county. The chief 

commercial center, however, is Dickson (population 2,902), which is 

on the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway in the southcentral part of the county. The county is wholly rural.

Dickson County lies entirely within the-Highland Rim plateau 

(pp. 16-18), and is drained for the most part by the Cumberland and 

Harpeth Rivers, which constitute parts of its northern and eastern 

boundaries. A small area in the southwestern part of the county, 

however, is drained by the Piney and Duck Rivers into the Tennessee 

River. In general, the county is a dissected plain, the summits of the 

main ridges being remnants of the Highland Rim plateau and having 

the slightly undulating surface characteristic of it. The most extensive plateau remnants occur in the southwestern quadrant of the 

county along the divide between the Cumberland and Tennessee 

Rivers. The stream valleys have mature profiles near their heads and 

youthful profiles in their lower reaches; the mature profiles of dissection are adjusted to the Nashville Basin stage of the Cumberland 

River (pp. 20-22), and the youthful profiles are correlative with the 

present stage of downcutting by the river. The largest of these 

streams are Turnbull, Jones, Barton, and Yellow Creeks, which are 

tributaries of the Cumberland and Harpeth Rivers, and Piney River 

and its tributary, Garner Creek. The surface relief of the county is 

about 550 feet. The highest points, which are on the Highland Rim 

plateau in the southwestern part of the county, are about 900 feet 

above sea level; the lowest points, about 350 feet above sea level, are 

on the Cumberland River at the northeast corner of the county.

Dickson County lies on the western flank of the Nashville dome 

(pp. 62-63), so that in general the rock strata constitute a monocline 

dipping slightly westward or northwestward. This regional structure 

is modified, however, by a superposed dome whose apex is in the vicinity of White Bluff, in the central-eastern part of the county (p. 65), 

and probably by other secondary folds.

The rocks that crop out in Dickson County range in age from Upper 

Cretaceous to the Chattanooga shale (Mississippian or Upper Devonian). The youngest stratigraphic unit is the Tuscaloosa formation, a coastal-plain gravel deposit that covers several square miles of
DICKBON COUNTY 141

the Highland Rim plateau in the vicinity of Tennessee City. The 

massive suberystalline limestones of the St. Louis limestone and 

Warsaw formation underlie the surface throughout the western half 

of the county and cap the interstream tracts as far eastward as the 

county boundary. These rocks do not appear at the surface on any 

of the remnants of the Highland Rim plateau, however, being covered 

by a mantle of cherty residual clay soil as much as 80 feet thick. The 

thin-bedded earthy and cherty limestone of the Fort Payne formation, 

which underlies the Warsaw formation, forms the lower slopes of the 

valleys throughout the eastern half of the county. The underlying 

Chattanooga shale is known to crop out in only two small areas near 

the eastern boundary of the county, one in the bed of Jones Creek 

Valley about 4 miles above its mouth and the other in Turnbull Creek 

Valley between Beaverdam and Nails Creeks. The lithology and 

stratigraphy of these rocks has been discussed on pages 31-41; their 

distribution is shown on Plate 4.

GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS

As is generally true in an area underlain by limestone, the groundwater conditions in Dickson County vary considerably from place to 

place and for the most part are not related to the stratigraphy. 

Rather, the ability of a stratum to transmit water is dependent upon 

the number and size of solution channels and hence is indirectly 

dependent upon the solubility of the limestone, the number and persistence of joints, and the position of the stratum with respect to past 

and present equilibrium profiles of solution channeling. If, as in 

Dickson County, the strata do not differ materially in solubility, the 

water-bearing properties of the rocks are determined by factors that 

are largely independent of stratigraphy and are relatively constant for 

a given physiographic district. (See pp. 78-82.)

Dug and drilled wells in the residual cl-ay that overlies the limestone 

on the Highland Rim plateau generally obtain sufficient water for the 

needs of a single household from coarse chert debris, especially just 

above the underlying rock. In some places, however, the residual 

material is not water bearing or its permeability is so slight that the 

wells are inadequate during long dry periods. The depth of wells hi 

this material ranges from 25 to 80 feet or more. Drilled wells that 

pass through the residual soil find water in channeled zones either in 

the uppermost part of the limestone or at greater depth. Such wells 

are generally less than 200 feet deep. Many of the dwellings on these 

plateau tracts derive their water from rain catches and cisterns.

In the mature and youthful terrane at lower altitudes than the 

Highland Rim plateau channeled zones in the limestone are not likely 

to be persistent at any one level or depth below the surface; hence 

ground-water conditions are exceedingly erratic, and drilling for water
142 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

is very uncertain. In general, however, wells must be drilled somewhat below the level of the near-by perennial drains in order to assure 

an adequate water supply. On the other hand, the likelihood of 

entering a water-bearing channeled zone seems to become materially 

less as a well is drilled much more than 75 feet below the perennial 

surface streams. In these comparatively rugged sections of the 

county springs are a relatively important source of water, especially 

the perennial tubular springs, which drain large volumes of channeled 

limestone. (See pp. 92-95.) The discharge of such a spring may vary 

widely during the year, however, so that its reliability can be determined only by periodic measurements of discharge over a period of 

several years.

In the southern and eastern parts of the county several relatively 

deep wells have encountered a water-bearing stratum just above the 

Chattanooga shale, possibly in the lower part of the Fort Payne formation. Among the wells that have tapped this stratum are Nos. 194, 

206, 216, 220, and 226 (pp. 144-146), of which Nos. 206 and 220 overflow at the surface by artesian pressure. However, the static level of 

the water confined in this bed is about 700 to 725 feet above sea level, 

so that the area within which flowing wells may be expected is not 

extensive and is limited to parts of the lower reaches of Turnbulland 

Jones Creeks. The specific capacity of wells that tap this stratum is 

relatively small, that of well 226, for example, being about 0.4 gallon 

a minute for each foot of drawdown. This water-bearing stratum 

seems to be discontinuous, for it was not found in wells 193, 205, and 

222, and a permeable bed is not known farther east where the strata 

at this horizon crop out in Cheatham County. Hence, the reliability 

of this stratum as a source of water throughout the region is limited. 

The chemical analysis of a sample from well 220 (pp. 114-115) shows 

that the water from this stratum, although rather hard, is not highly 

concentrated and is essentially free from sodium chloride (common salt).

A few wells have been drilled into the beds that underlie the Chattanooga shale in Dickson County, such as Nos. 194, 205, 207, 209, 

and 222. Of these, well 222 reaches the lowest stratigraphic horizon, 

about 1,260 feet below the Chattanooga shale. All such wells find 

these beds to be dry or to contain relatively small amounts of highly 

concentrated brine, as in well 194. Hence, deep drilling for water is 

not likely to be successful in this area.

The chemical character of the ground waters of Dickson County is 

shown by the representative analyses tabulated on pages 112-115. It 

is noteworthy that the waters associated with the Fort Payne formation have a wide range in chemical composition, even in adjacent wells 

that reach approximately the same stratigraphic horizon, such as Nos. 

190 and 191. Of these two wells, No. 190 yields a moderately hard 

calcium bicarbonate water containing 222 parts per million of dissolved
DICKSON COUNTY 148

mineral matter, whereas No. 191 yields a calcium sulphate water 

which is so hard and so highly concentrated as to be unfit for ordinary 

uses.

MUNICIPAL GROUND-WATER SUPPIJDES

Dickson. The municipal water supply of Dickson, the largest town of the 

county, is derived from two springs near the head of the East Fork of the Piney 

River. The collecting and distributing works are the property of the town. The 

upper spring, which is known as Payne Spring No. 1 (No. 224, p. 147), is about a 

mile northwest of the town and constitutes the perennial head of the East Fork. 

It is a seepage spring supplied by underflow in chert gravel and sand, and its 

catchment area comprises about 185 acres of timbered land and 15 acres of tilled 

ground. The improved orifice is a concrete-walled pit about 20 by 25 feet in plan, 

sunk to the water-bearing gravel and roofed over. The yield varies with the seasons, but the estimated minimum is about 50 gallons a minute. This spring, 

about 765 feet above sea level, discharges by gravity into a 404,000-gallon reservoir about 20 feet lower. The second spring, known as Baker Cave Spring (No. 

225), is a tubular spring that issues from limestone in the west bank of the East 

Fork about 300 yards south of the Centerville and Dickson pike and about a 

mile southwest of Dickson. The orifice is about 700 feet abpve sea level. The 

maximum and minimum discharge of the spring are not known, although it is 

reported that the minimum yield exceeds the present draft, which is approximately 

85 gallons a minute. The water from this spring is raised to the reservoir by a 

3-stage centrifugal pump having a rated capacity of 250 gallons a minute. From 

the reservoir the water is pumped directly into the distributing mains by highpressure pumps, including one single-stage centrifugal pump with a capacity of 300 

gallons a minute, a similar pump with a capacity of 600 gallons a minute, and a 

2-stage centrifugal fire pump with a capacity of 750 gallons a minute. All the 

pumps are operated by electric motors. The chemical character of the water 

from Baker Cave Spring is shown by analysis 225 (pp. 114-115). The approximate temperature of the water is 56° F.
Typical welts in Dickson County, Tenn. 

[All drilled wells]

No. on 

Plate 4

189 

190 

191 

192 

196 

197 

198-A 

198-B 

199 

200 

201 

202 

205 

206 

207 

208 

209 

210 

212

214 

215 

216 

218 

219

220 

221 

222 

223 

226 

228 

229 

230

232 

233 

234 

235 

236 

237

Location with reference to nearest post office

Slayden, 3J4 miles NW... _ . ... 

Stayton, 2miles NW.. ...... .. ...............

.....do.......................... .....................

.....do..................................................

Vanleer, 6J4 miles 8W_. . .

Charlotte, 2J^ miles NW . ... . ..............

Charlotte, J^ mile SW .... ... -.. ..

White Bluff, "% miles N. .... .. ........... .....

White Bluff, 5J4 miles N. 

White Bluff, 3% miles N ....... ................

White Bluff, 1J4 miles NW.... ........................

White Bluff, Y2 mile W... .............................

White Bluff........ ..... .. ........... ....

White Bluff. M mile 8 __ ...

White Bluff, 2M miles NE.... ...... ................

Owner or lessee

J. L. Tilley............. ....... ........

W. R. Berry.. ........................

 ..do..... -._-....-. .........

A. L. Miller.. ......................

W. A. Nicks..........................

Mrs. J. A. GiUiam.. ..................

S. V. Pack............................

Will Williams......... . ...

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis 

Ry.

W. M. Adcock _____________

Jesse Gill __ - ___________ ..

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis 

Ry. White Bluffs Canning Co _____ ..

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis 

Ry.

J. T. Lewis. .. _____________

Topogra

Hillside 

.....do ..

Valley..... 

Hillsi

. . do...

Valley 

 do.. 

.... .do 

Valley... 

.... .do...... 

.... .do....

.....do...

Valle

.... .do.....

.... do .

Valley 

Hillsi

do

VaUey.. 

.....do

 do 

Hillto

. do.....

.....do.. 

.....do. 

VallAV
No. on 

Plate*

189 

»190

192 

196 

197 

-198-A 

»198-B 

199

200 

201

202 

205 

206 

207 

208 

209

210

212 

214

Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface 

(feet)

Near bottom. 

60.. ...

38 __ 

90

Near bottom. 

55 _ . .....

65 .. 

30± ....

21.. ___ ..

70 

18 

75±. ......

175 

30. 

75 .. ....

135 .....

Near bottom.

Character of material

Limestone.... _ .

 do... 

 do ..... -

Solution crevice. 

..... do . 

Shaly limestone ...

.... -do .... ......

Bedding-plane 

crevice. 

Solution channel.. 

Bedding-plane 

crevice.

Geologic horizon

Fort Payne (?) formation. 

Fort Payne formation. 

 do 

Fort Payne (?) formation. 

Fort Payne formation. 

St. Louis (?) limestone. 

Fort Payne (?) formation. 

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone. 

Base of chert residuum above St. 

Louis limestone. 

St. Louis (?) limestone. 

Chert residuum 

above St. Louis 

limestone. 

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone.

Top of Chattanooga shale.

Fort Payne formation. 

..... do....... ...

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone. 

. .do ........ 

.....do.............

Water 

level above 

or below 

surface 

(feet)

-40. __

-20- ....

-25 ...

+0. 5 

-12. .....

-21. .....

-65 

-10 _ ...

+0.3 

-168.. ...

60

-65.-, 

Method of lift

Bucket and windlass 

.... .do 

 do 

Artesian flow .....

Hand pump. ...... 

Gasoline force pump..

..... do. .

Artesian flow. _ . . ..

Hand pump. __ 

Yield 

(gallons 

a minute)

1. 

Small...

3 ...

Jt 

2-3 

12. .....

Trickle.

3-5. ....

Temperature

58

59

58

 

 

 

...

S

 

...

 

D

 

-.

* See analysis, pp. 112-115.
Typical wells in Dickson County, Tenn. Cont

[All drilled wells]

No. on 

Plate 4

215 

216 

"218 

"219 

«220 

221 

222 

223

226

228 

«229

230 

232

233

234 

235 

236

237

Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface 

(feet)

42 __ __

226 ........

Near bottom. 

68 ......

246 ........

125.. .

1,373 ......

20... ......

400 .. 

81 ....

75± ... -

110 

200 

71 ____ .

76 

60.... .....

65 

Near bottom.

Character of material

Bedding-plane 

crevice. 

Bedding-plane 

crevice (?)

Bedding-plane 

crevice.

Bedding-plane 

crevice.

Bedding-plane 

crevice. 

 do 

Geologic horizon

 -do... .

Top of Chattanooga shale. 

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone, 

 do ...

Top of Chattanooga shale. 

Fort Payne (?) formation.

Residual chert 

above St. Louis 

or Warsaw limestone. 

Top of Chattanooga shale.

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone. 

 do ..

 ..do 

Fort Payne (?) formation. 

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone. 

 do. 

... ...do 

 . do... ........ .

 ..do 

Water 

level above 

or below 

surface 

(feet)

-25. .....

At casing 

head. 

-15 

-45... ...

+2± . 

-60_ 

-20. __ .

-35. __ .

-75 

-50 ___

on

-40 __ -

-65 .

-5... _ .

-40- __ .

Method of lift

Bucket and rope. .....

Bucket and rope .._. _

Steam force pump .....

Steam force pump. ....

Automatic electric 

pump.

Hand pump. .......... 

Automatic electric 

pump.

Yield 

(gallons 

a minute)

lOdb....

3 ....

5-8 .....

1/30 

4 

75 

M25 

Vi

8.. __ .

1/20 

Temperature 

(°F.)

......

61

58 

58

57

58

......

... 

.. 

No

 d

No

Do

 d

Do

 

1 See analysis, pp. 114-115.
Typical springs in Dickson County, Tenn

No. on 

Plate 4

188 

196 

203 

204 

211 

213 

217 

224 

225 

227

231

No. on 

Plate 4

188

195 

203

204 

211

213 

217 

224 

"225

227 

231

Location with reference to nearest post 

office

Slayden, 3 

Cumberla 

Charlotte, 

Charlotte, 

Buskin, b 

Dickson, '. 

White Bit 

Dickson, : Dickson, : Dickson, «

Burns, \yt

IH miles SE .._____ . .-.

' mile W._._........ ... .........

milesN ._._. -

mile NW.. .............. ......

\i mile NE.......... ............

miles SW ___ . _______

Openings

Number

1 ........

1. .._..._

1 ________

1 ________

1 ________

1 ________

1

1

1 ________

1

1 ________

Character

Bedding-plane solution channel.

Large solution channel __ ... 

 -do ... 

- do.. . . .

Underflow conduitOwner

Edgar Org Warner Ire 

Joseph Me 

W. W. Lai 

Gladys Di 

Boker heir 

William A 

City of Di( 

do

Millan.. ......

3k.... ............

dler. . .

Nashville, Chattanooga & 

St. Louis Ry. 

.. do ........ 

Approximate yield

Gallons a 

minute

75± .

100±. ... 

35± -

40-50 .

4ftfl

25+ . 

5 ___

50± . 

95

5- _____

Date of 

measurement 

(1927)

Sept. 6

Sept. 2 

Sept. 1

...do..... 

Aug. 31

Sept. 2 

Sept. 1 

Aug. 29

Aug. 29

Name

Pond Spring

McMillan Spring ........

Buskin Cave _ - - - _ -

Scbmitto Sprin

Payne Spring 1 

Baker Cave Sp 

McFarland S

g . - -

*0. 1 ......

ring _____

pring.. ......

Variability

Season

Probal 

Season

.....do 

do

al... ...... .... -

>ly seasonal _ 

.....do... ...... 

.do

 .do... .

Season 

._ do

al.. ...... ... 

To

Va

...

 

....

.... 

....

....

 

....

.... 

Use

Domestic, stock

None ... .....

Domestic, stock

.....do..........

Stock..........

Domestic, stock

None. . . .

See analysis, pp. 114-115.
148 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Driller's partial log of Cumberland Furnace wett No. 1, on Mrs. Emma Watt's

property

[No. 193, pi. 4. Well drilled by Tuxbury Oil Co. in April, 1919. Diameter at top, 10 inches; at bottom, 

6J_ inches. Total depth, 1,142 feet; no water-bearing beds below 320 feet]

Feet 

Cherty residual soil__________________________________ 0-52

Limestone, white, large yield of water at 150 feet_______ 52-162

Sandstone, gray, medium hard, water bearing; static

level of water 125 feet below casing head_______ _ 315-320 

Shale, black (Chattanooga shale)________________ 445-522

Driller's partial log of Cumberland Furnace well No. 2, on Mr. Stark's property

[No. 194, pi. 4. Well drilled in December, 1919. Diameter at top, 12J_ inches; bottom, at 6M inches.

Total depth, 1,166 feet]

Feet 

Cherty residual soil_____________________________ 0-11

Limestone, bluish gray; easing set at bottom to shut out 

water___________________________ 11-131

Limestone and shale, water bearing__________________ 278-285

Shale, black (Chattanooga shale)________________ 300-342

Shale, brown__________________________________ 342-369

Sandstone (?), fine grained, white, contains salt water. __ 525-554

Driller's partial log of Henry and Elijah Taylor's wett

[No. 222, pi. 4. Well drilled by Tennessee Central Oil Co. in 1920. Diameter at bottom, 5Ji inches; total 

depth, 1,378 feet; approximate altitude of casing head, 570 feet above sea level]

	Feet 

Soil________________________________ 0-10

Limestone, gray, cherty________________________ 10-109

Shale, black (Chattanooga shale)_________________ 109-114

Limestone, pink______________________________ 114-264

Limestone, bluish gray_______________________ 264-315

Limestone and shale, gray________________________ 315-440

Shale, gray________________________ 440-490

Limestone, sandy, dense_________-_______-_-_____ 490-547

Limestone, hard______________________________ 547-563

Limestone_____________________________ 563-700

Shale, gray_______________________'_____ 700-750

Limestone, hard, brown to gray.__________________ 750-925

Limestone, cherty_______________________________ 925-953

Limestone, dark olive-green; contains salt water____ 1, 373-1, 378

HOUSTON COUNTY

[Area, 197 square miles. Population, 5,555] 

GENERAL FEATURES

Houston County is a rather sparsely settled rural area that lies in 

the west-central part of the region described in this report. (See pi. 

1, p. 24.) Its county seat, Erin (population 819), is on the Louisville 

& Nashville Railroad near the west edge of the Wells Creek Valley.

Houston County is a part of the Highland Rim plateau (pp. 16-18), 

although its surface has been so intricately and so deeply dissected by 

tributaries of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers as to bear little
HOUSTON COUNTY 149

superficial relation to a plain. The flab summit tracts of the divide 

between the two rivers, however, are remnants of the plateau, about 

775 to 800 feet above sea level. By far the greater part of the county 

lies below the plateau level, having been eroded to a submature 

stage in the Nashville Basin cycle (pp. 20-22) and subsequently 

trenched by youthful streams imperfectly adjusted to the present 

stage of the master streams. The total relief is about 475 feet.

The consolidated rocks of Houston County include only the upper 

part of the Mississippian series (pp. 33-39). The interstream remnants 

of the Highland Eim plateau and most of the lower country in the 

eastern half of the county are cut from the massive limestone beds of 

the St. Louis limestone and Warsaw formation. The underlying 

Fort Payne formation, which in this county is made up of dense thinbedded, extremely cherty limestone, crops out in the lower half of 

the Wells Creek Basin and forms the valley slopes of Whiteoak, Cane, 

and Hurricane Creeks, in the western half of the county. The Tennessee River has cut approximately to the horizon of the Chattanooga 

shale along the western boundary of the county, but neither the shale 

nor any of the underlying limestones are known to crop out in that 

area. On the remnants of the Highland Rim plateau the consolidated 

rocks are overlain by a mantle of cherty residual clay and soil, which 

at Tennessee Ridge has been penetrated to a depth of 112 feet by a 

drilled well. Along the Tennessee River the consolidated rocks are 

overlain by clay, sand, and gravel deposited by the stream.

GROUND-WATER CONTHTIONS

In Houston County, as in many other parts of the Highland Rim 

plateau in north-central Tennessee, most domestic water supplies are 

obtained from dug wells and cisterns in the unconsolidated rocks or 

from springs. The dug wells in the cherty clay of the plateau are 

generally about 20 or 25 feet deep but range from 15 to 50 feet. Many 

of these wells are inadequate during periods of drought, so that rain 

water is stored in cisterns as a supplemental or major part of the supply. A few drilled wells on the plateau tracts find water in beds of 

coarse chert debris just above the limestone or in channeled zones 

just below the top of the limestone. On the alluvial plains of the 

Tennessee River practically all water supplies are derived from dug 

wells that pass through a clay hardpan and tap beds of sand and gravel 

approximately at the level of the river.

Inasmuch as Houston County is so deeply dissected, the channeled 

zones of the limestone have probably been drained in many places, 

so that drilling for water is especially uncertain. In general the prospect of finding water is notably less in beds that lie very far below the 

level of the perennial streams, and it is unlikely that any water other 

than concentrated brines will be obtained at depths exceeding 300 

feet.
150 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Probably the most reliable sources of ground water in the county 

are the tubular springs that issue from solution channels of the lime-1 

stone at many points in the lower parts of the area. The discharge 

of such a spring, however, is likely to vary widely from season to 

season and must be determined periodically over a term of several 

years to establish the minimum discharge and probable safe draft. 

Moreover, all such springs are liable to permanent or intermittent 

pollution.by organic waste (pp. 108-109), so that the water should be 

adequately sterilized if it is to be used for municipal supply.

The conditions under which ground water occurs in limestone are 

discussed on pages 69-89. Typical wells and springs of Houston 

County are described by the tabulated data on pages 151-152. The 

chemical character of the ground water from certain of these typical 

wells and springs is shown by the analyses on pages 112-113.

MUNICIPAL GROUND-WATER SUPPLIES

Erin. The one community ground-water supply in Houston County is that at 

Erin, which supplies about 50 residences and a 10-ton artificial-ice plant from a 

tubular spring in the St. Louis limestone (No. 143, p. 152) at the west edge of the 

town. The water from this spring is raised to a small reservoir on a hilltop north 

of the town and distributed by gravity. The spring and distribution system are 

owned and operated by A. J. Mitchum, of Erin. The minimum discharge of the 

spring is less than 10 gallons a minute, so that the capacity of the system is correspondingly small, although adequate for the present demand. A reserve capacity 

several times that of the present system is afforded by other springs of the vicinity.
Typical wells in Houston County, Tenn. 

[No. 139 dug and drilled; others driHed]

No. on 

Plate 4

139 

140 

144 

145 

149 

151 

153

No. on 

Plate*

139

140 

144

145

"149 

 151

153

Location with referencelto nearest post office

Stewart

Tennessee 

Erin, % mi 

Erin, 4 mil 

Erin, % m 

Erin, 9J£ m 

Erin, 10M i

le SW. .... ... .... .....

ilesSW...-....... .......................

ilesSE _____ . .......................

niles SE ___ .. ____ .. ...... ...

Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface 

(feet)

Near bottom.

 do--

177 

300± 

48 

23 

Character of 

material

Solution crevice ....

Bedding-plane crevice, 

 do 

Geologic horizon

St. Louis (?) limestone.

Cherty residuum 

above St. Louis 

limestone. 

Fort Payne formation.

... -do.. ...

 do ....... ...

Fort Payne (?) 

formation. 

Fort Payne formation.

Owner or lessee

Lou 

Ten 

A T

Oar 

Stev 

Yell 

j H

isville & Nashville R. R

\. Bell.... ....... ... 

. Stokes^ _____ ____ . __ .

Water 

level 

above 

or 

below 

surface 

(feet)

-30 

-20 

-20 

Method of lift

..... do.- 

None _ ... __ ... 

.....do _ , 

.....do __ ___ 

Yield 

(gallons 

a minute)

3 

3-5 

3 ...

3-5 

Topog

Vail 

Plat 

Vail

Hitt

Vail

ey-

sid

ey_ 

io- 

Temperature 

(°F.)

60

58

57 

68

62

U

... -

No

... -

Dom

1 See analysis, pp. 112-113.
No. on 

Plate 4

138 

141 

143 

146 

147 

148 

150 

152

No. on 

Plate 4

«138 

141 

"143

146 

147 

148

150 

152

Location with reference to nearest post 

office

Stewart, 1 

Tennessee 

Erin, % m 

McKinnoi 

Stewart, 5 

Tennessee 

Erin, 5 ml 

Slayden, 7

mile W _____________

Ridge, \1A miles S__ ______

ile W. .

i, 4% miles SE.. 

4. miles S_ . . 

Ridge, 5M miles S....... ...... .

es SE.......... ................

Openings

Number

1.. ...

4._._ .

I.. ......

Several. 

1

1 . __

1 .

Several.

Character

Bedding-plane solution channel. 

Bedding-plane and joint channels. 

Bedding-plane solution channel.

Concealed; probably joint 

channel. 

Bedding-plane solution channel.

Owner

Largent Bi 

Theodore 1 

A. J. Mitcl 

W. J. Eder

R. E. Cros 

Dewey Pel 

A. W. Ave 

W. M. Adl

inni

d._._. ..... 

ty... ..... .

ritt..... .......

Approximate yield

Gallons a 

minute

625 

100± 

Less than 

10.

50.. ..-.

45.........

10 

120 

125 

Date of 

measurement 

(1927)

Sept. 19. 

...do 

 do 

Sept. 18.

... do 

 do 

Sept. 19.

Name

McAskill Spring

Variability

Season 

do

al .

 do.. 

 do..-. .

.....do. 

.-...do..... ........ . .. 

..... do - 

-...do 

Ty

s

Va

. 

Hil

Va

...-

Va

VaU

Use

Domestic, stock 

..... do.- 

Domestic, stock

.....do 

Domestic, stock

__ do.. _. ._.

1 See analysis, pp. 112-113.
GBOUND WATEB IN NOETH-CENTEAL TENNESSEE 153

HUMPHREYS COUNTY

[Area, 461 square miles. Population, 12,039] 

GENERAL FEATURES

Humphreys County, which adjoins Houston County on the south, 

occupies the southwest corner of the region covered by this report 

(pi. 1) and embraces the greater part of the most sparsely populated 

area in north-central Tennessee. Waverly and McEwen, with 

populations of 1,152 and 620, respectively, are its two largest towns; 

Waverly is also the seat of the county government.

Humphreys County lies wholly within the Highland Rim plateau 

(pp. 16-18), and extensive tracts along the divide between the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers in its eastern part present the gently 

undulating plain characteristic of that physiographic feature. In 

this part of the county the plain attains a maximum altitude of 

about 825 feet above sea level. Toward the west, however, the 

interstream tracts that represent portions of the once continuous 

plateau become somewhat lower and are about 675 to 725 feet above 

sea level near the Tennessee River. The western part of the county 

is deeply and intricately dissected by the Tennessee and Duck Rivers 

and their subparallel tributaries, which head in mature valleys correlative with the Nashville Basin peneplain and in their lower reaches 

occupy youthful trenches imperfectly adjusted to the present stage 

of stream erosion. The relief in this part of the county is of the order 

of 400 feet.

The consolidated rocks exposed in Humphreys County are of 

Mississippian, Devonian, and possibly Silurian age and in general 

dip nearly westward about 10 to 15 feet to the mile. The youngest 

or uppermost of these rocks are the massive subcrystalline beds of 

the St. Louis limestone and Warsaw formation, which cap all the 

interstream plateau tracts. The underlying Fort Payne formation 

comprises in this county thin beds of dense and extremely cherty 

limestone; it forms the valley slopes of the larger streams and of the 

lower reaches of the tributaries. Neither the New Providence shale 

nor the Ridgetop shale, which appear in the complete stratigraphic 

section (pp. 26-29), is known to be present within the county, and the 

Fort Payne formation rests directly upon the Chattanooga shale. 

Although the Tennessee, Duck, and Buffalo Rivers have cut down to 

the approximate horizon of the Chattanooga shale throughout the 

county, it is known to crop out only in a few small separated areas. 

It is possible, however, that this shale crops out much more extensively in the county than these discontinuous areas indicate. The 

Pegram limestone, of upper Middle Devonian age, is not known in 

Humphreys County, but the underlying Camden chert, also of Middle 

Devonian age, crops out directly beneath the Chattanooga shale

100144 32 11
154 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

at the "whirl" on the Buffalo Biver and probably also at Hurricane 

Eock Spring, on the Duck Eiver (No. 181, pp. 161-162). It is likely 

that this formation also crops out at other places along the lower 

reaches of the Duck and Buffalo Kivers, but the limits of its outcrop 

have not been traced in detail. Some of the limestone that underlies 

the Chattanooga shale in this same area resembles beds of Silurian 

age in Davidson County, but its exact position in the stratigraphic 

section is not known. These formations are described on pages 33-45; 

their areal distribution is shown on Plate 4.

The youngest unconsolidated rocks of the county are the clay, sand, 

and gravel that form the present flood plains of the major streams 

plains which are nearly continuous and locally extensive along the 

Tennessee River and the lower reaches of its tributary, the Duck 

Eiver. Similar stream deposits also form extensive terraces above the 

flood plains on the east bank of the Tennessee Eiver and locally along 

the Duck and Buffalo Eivers on the convex banks of meanders. The 

oldest of the unconsolidated rocks is the Tuscaloosa formation, an 

earthy gravel deposit of coastal-plain origin, of which an erosion 

remnant covers a relatively extensive area along the divide between 

the Cumberland and Tennessee Eivers in the eastern part of the 

county. These unconsolidated deposits are described on pages 30-33, 

and the more extensive areas covered by them are shown on Plate 4.

GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS

In Humphreys County, as in other parts of north-central Tennessee, 

the water-bearing properties of any particular limestone bed are 

not related to its stratigraphic position alone but rather are dependent 

upon its solubility, the number and persistence of joints and the 

position of the bed with relation to present and past equilibrium profiles of solution channeling (pp. 78-82). Hence, the ground-water 

conditions in any stratum are likely to vary greatly from place to place 

but may be relatively uniform in any one physiographic district. 

None of the field relations suggest that there exists in Humphreys 

County any large body of limestone that has been depressed with relation to the water table after it had been rendered permeable by 

channeling. Hence the principal channeled zones generally do not 

contain water under hydrostatic pressure, and their water-yielding 

capacity is correspondingly limited.

In the present stage of economic development in Humphreys 

County most of the water used for domestic purposes is derived from 

dug wells or springs. On the high interstream tracts the wells range 

in depth from 12 to 65 feet and derive their supply from cherty zones 

in the residual clay and soil that overlie the limestone or from beds of 

sand and gravel in the Tuscaloosa formation. In some places an 

adequate supply can not be obtained without digging to great depth,
HUMPHREYS COUNTY 155

and elsewhere the dug wells prove inadequate in periods of drought, 

In these localities cisterns for the storage of rain water are the usual 

source of domestic supply. A few wells have been drilled through 

the residual chert and find water at the top of the solid rock or in 

channeled limestone just below. The maximum draft upon any of 

these wells, however, has been only about 20 gallons a minute. Several wells in the vicinity of McEwen Nos. 163, 164, 165 and 166 

(pp. 159-160) are reported to pass through 200 to 230 feet of unconsolidated gravel or residual chert before reaching solid rock. This 

unconsolidated material is water-bearing in well 164 and may yield 

some water to wells 163, 165, and 166. It is not known whether the 

water-bearing beds are gravel that belongs to the Tuscaloosa formation (see pp. 31-33) or whether they are composed of residual chert. 

In the more rugged parts of the county most domestic water 

supplies are derived from springs, although some are derived from 

dug wells and a few from drilled wells. In these areas, however, the 

water-bearing zones in the limestone are likely to be extremely discontinuous so that drilling for water is uncertain. To judge from the 

experience in other counties, drilling may be unsuccessful if water is not 

found within 50 or 75 feet below near-by perennial streams. Tubular 

springs of relatively large discharge are numerous and constitute an 

adequate water supply to meet the probable future needs of most of 

these rugged areas. Tubular springs (pp. 92-95) are especially numerous in the southwestern part of the county, in the vicinity of the 

confluence of Tennessee, Duck, and Buffalo Rivers, where the limestone has been channeled by subsurface drains adjusted to the surface 

streams. Some of the subsurface channels cut across stream meanders 

or join converging surface streams above the point of confluence. 

Such channels have been formed during several stages of the dissection 

of the Highland Rim plateau. The largest of the tubular springs in 

this part of the county, and the largest spring known to exist in the 

region covered by this report, is Hurricane Rock Spring (No. 181, pi. 4 

and p. 161). This spring is on the east bank of the Duck River about 

half a mile upstream from the mouth of Beech Creek and 4 miles from 

the Tennessee River. It issues from a single solution conduit about 

15 feet wide and 5 feet high in the Camden chert. The conduit is 

adjusted to the present stage of the Duck River, and its orifice is 

submerged during periods of high water. When observed by the 

writer, on September 9, 1927, the discharge of the spring was about 

60 cubic feet a second (27,000 gallons a minute), and the water was 

essentially free from suspended matter and had a temperature of 62 °F. 

This discharge presumably is approximately the seasonal minimum, 

although the maximum discharge and the variability of the spring 

over a long period are not known. The source of the spring is generally ascribed locally to the "whirl," a persistent and strong eddy in the
156 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Buffalo River about 2 miles upstream from the confluence of the 

Buffalo and Duck Rivers and about 4 miles S. 60° E. from the spring! 

The only adequate source for the large amount of water flowing from 

the spring during the period of minimum ground-water discharge is 

the Duck River or the Buffalo River from some point or points upstream from the orifice of the spring. However, the water can not 

flow directly from the intake area to the orifice, for although both 

the Buffalo and Duck Rivers were extremely turbid when observed 

by the writer, the effluent from the spring was clear, even though its 

velocity at the orifice was much greater than that of the surface 

streams. Hence the system of solution channels intervening between 

intake and orifice must store enough water to permit all the suspended 

matter to settle, even though the average gradient of the channels 

is presumably at least as steep as the gradient of the surface streams. 

Consequently, the zone of cavernous limestone drained by the spring 

must be relatively extensive, and the "whirl" may be only one of 

several points at which water enters the zone.

Other typical springs and wells of Humphreys County are described 

by the tabulated data on pages 159-163, and the chemical character of the ground water is represented by the analyses given on 

pages 112-113.

MUNICIPAL GROUND-WATER SUPPLIES

Waverly. The town of Waverly derives its municipal water supply from a 

drilled well (No. 167), owned by the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway 

and leased to the Tennessee Utilities Co., of Waverly. The well, which is 8 inches 

in diameter and 32 feet deep, is on the north bank of Trace Creek and obtains its 

water from the weathered and channeled St. Louis limestone approximately at the 

level of the creek. The chemical character of the water is shown by analysis 167 

(pp. 112-113). The well is equipped with two electrically driven pumps, each of 

which has a capacity of 50 gallons a minute, which raise the water to an 18,000- 

gallon wood-stave pressure tank about 125 feet above the well on a hilltop a 

quarter of a mile south of the town. The water is sterilized with chlorine as it 

passes through the pumps. The distribution system embraces about 2>£ miles 

of mains ranging from 1 to 2}4 inches in diameter and supplies water by gravity 

at a maximum pressure of 80 pounds to the square inch. The draft on the system 

generally ranges from 40,000 to 45,000 gallons a day, a quantity which probably 

approaches the ultimate capacity of the well during periods of minimum groundwater discharge. Hence some additional source of water will be essential if the 

demand is increased by future growth of the community.

Several possible sources of ground water to supplement the present supply of 

Waverly exist; these are (1) drilled wells in the limestone in the vicinity of 

Waverly; (2) a well or wells in the gravel fill of Trace Creek Valley east of 

Waverly; (3) springs on Claxton branch of Blue Creek, 2 miles south of Waverly; 

(4) springs on Mathews branch of Blue Creek, 2 miles southwest of Waverly; (5) 

Carnell Spring, on Little Richland Creek, 2J^ miles north of Waverly.

Drilling wells in the limestone in the vicinity of Waverly is at best uncertain of 

success, for in view of the conditions of ground-water occurrence in limestone 

(pp. 69-89) it is impossible to predict the depth or water-yielding capacity of 

water-bearing beds. Although the cherty de'bris just above the unweathered 

limestone generally yields ample water for individual dwellings, it is very likely to
HUMPHREYS COUNTY 157

prove inadequate as a source of municipal supply throughout the year. A well 

300 feet deep drilled some years ago near the pressure tank on the hilltop south of 

Waverly failed to find a water-bearing bed adequate for the demand of the town 

and has been abandoned. No deeply buried water-bearing stratum is known to 

underlie the vicinity. The chief advantages of drilled wells in the limestone 

would be that the capacity of the source would presumably not show large seasonal 

variations and that the wells could be located in or near the town, with a consequent 

saving in capital expenditure for pipe lines. The chief disadvantages would be 

that the uncertainty of developing wells of adequate yield renders a comprehensive 

and costly program of exploratory drilling advisable before permanent construction and that a supply adequate for emergencies and for future expansion of the 

town may not be obtainable.

At Waverly, Trace Creek flows over a rock bed cut on limestone, but farther 

east its valley embraces a flat alluvial plain underlain by stream gravel. This 

material supplies several household wells from 11 to 25 feet deep, such as Nos. 168 

and 170 (pp. 159-160), although none is known to have a capacity approaching the 

requirements of a municipal supply. The thickness of gravel that lies below the 

water table is unknown; moreover, much of the gravel is poorly sorted as to size and 

contains considerable sand and clay. Hence the permeability of the material is 

presumably relatively small and the size of the ground-water reservoir is unknown, 

although the total volume of water in the gravel may be considerable and a 

thorough test of this potential source is warranted. Test pits or wells should 

first be dug or drilled systematically over the chosen site to ascertain the depth to 

bedrock and the thickness of water-bearing gravel below the water table. Second 

if the gravel is found to be reasonably thick, its water-yielding capacity should be 

determined from a test well or wells at the point where the greatest thickness of 

water-bearing gravel exists. This test should be made when the water table is at a 

a low stage.

If the results of preliminary tests are satisfactory, one or more permanent wells 

should be excavated to bedrock by digging while using temporary lagging to support the walls of the hole or by sinking a temporary casing by well-drilling 

methods. It is essential that the well be sunk to bedrock in order that the largest 

possible yield may be obtained. A permanent casing should then be set axially 

in the well and extending from the surface to the bottom of the well, with that 

part of the casing which penetrates the water-bearing beds thoroughly perforated. 

This casing should be 12 inches or more in diameter; preferably it should be perforated in the shop before being placed in the well. The space between the 

permanent inner casing and the temporary outer casing should then be filled with 

well-rounded gravel that has been screened so that all the particles are more than 

a quarter of an inch but less than half an inch in diameter. As the gravel is 

inserted the outer temporary casing should be raised and the well pumped vigorously, so as to draw the fine sand from the surrounding stream gravel as completely as possible. The rate of pumping should be increased gradually, and 

pumping should be continued until the well attains its maximum yield and no 

more fine material can be drawn into the well. More screened gravel may be 

added in the space outside the perforated casing until a condition of stability is 

attained. By properly developing the well in this way an envelope of highly 

permeable clean gravel is created about the perforated casing, so that for a given 

draft the water enters the well with the least possible velocity and consequently 

with the minimum burden of entrained sand and silt. An air-lift pump is 

especially well suited to developing a well, inasmuch as its yield can be changed 

easily to suit the water-yielding capacity of the gravel. From the yield of the 

well determined in this way when the water table was at its lowest stage the 

number of wells necessary can be determined.
158 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Claxton Branch of Blue Creek, which heads about 2 miles south of Waverly, 

is fed by a group of tubular springs that issue from earthy cherty limestone beds, 

probably in the Fort Payne formation. The largest of these springs (No. 175, 

pp. 161-162) was flowing about 20 gallons a minute on July 19, 1927, whereas the 

total flow of this spring-fed creek was about 100 gallons a minute just above its confluence with Blue Creek, about 2% miles south of the town. The seasonal variation of these springs is unknown. Although Claxton Branch is probably an 

adequate source for the present requirements of the town, it may prove inadequate 

for future requirements unless supplemented by the springs on Mathews Branch, 

about 2 miles southwest of Waverly. Mathews Branch of Blue Creek rises as 

a seepage spring (No. 174), issuing from coarse chert hill wash overlying the Fort 

Payne (?) formation. The catchment area tributary to the spring is about 200 

acres, most of which is covered with hardwood timber. The discharge of the 

spring on July 19, 1927, was about 100 gallons a minute. The orifice was unimproved, and the seasonal variation in discharge is unknown. Periodic measurements of the discharge of both Claxton and Mathews Branches should be made, 

in order to determine their seasonal variation, before plans for their utilization 

are drawn. To develop these spring-fed streams it would be necessary to install 

suitable diversion works, pipe lines, and pumps to raise the water about 200 feet 

above the springs to the crest of the ridge south of Waverly. The cost of such 

a system would exceed that of a well field in the vicinity of the town, especially 

if neither stream were adequate of itself.

Carnell Spring (No. 62) is a tubular spring that issues from the St. Louis limestone in the south bank of Little Richland Creek about 2}4 miles north of Waverly. 

The discharge from the main orifice on July 19, 1927, was about 1.5 cubic feet a 

second (675 gallons a minute, or 975,000 gallons a day); on September 18, when 

the ground-water discharge of the region was approximately at the minimum for 

the season, the spring discharge was about 1.1 cubic feet a second (500 gallons a 

minute, or 700,000 gallons a day). Several smaller openings in a zone extending 

200 yards up the creek above the main orifice add considerably to the aggregate 

discharge. The discharge from the main orifice alone is probably adequate for 

any prospective requirement of the town, although periodic measurements of the 

discharge should be made over a term of several years to establish its variability. 

It is reported by Wade Work, owner of the spring, that when the creek is at its 

highest stage the main orifice is not submerged, although the water issuing from 

it is slightly turbid due to suspended matter. If Carnell Spring should be developed for municipal supply, suitable cut-off walls should be put down to bedrock 

about the orifice in order to prevent seepage of surface waste into the spring, and 

the orifice itself should be thoroughly cleaned and inclosed. A suitable pipe line 

and pumps for raising the water about 200 feet above the spring to the crest of 

the ridge north of Waverly should also be installed. Carnell Spring is half a mile 

farther from Waverly than the springs on Claxton and Mathews Branches of 

Blue Creek, but the heads against which water would have to be raised are approximately the same for these two potential sources. Hence, the development of 

Carnell Spring would be somewhat more costly than that of Claxton Branch or 

Mathews Branch alone but would be less costly than the development of both 

Claxton and Mathews Branches.

In any region underlain by limestone, such as the vicinity of Waverly, the 

ground waters may be polluted permanently or intermittently over extensive 

areas. Hence, in order that public health may be properly safeguarded, any 

ground water to be used for municipal supply should be sterilized by the application of chlorine or other adequate sterilizing agent. Chlorination would be 

required for each of the possible sources of supply for Waverly.
Typical wells in Humphreys County, Tenn

[Nos. 168,170,183,184, and 186 dug; the others drilled]

No. on 

Plate 4

155 

163 

164 

165 

166 

167 

168 

169 

170 

171 

172 

178 

183 

184 

185 

186 

187

No. on 

Plate 4

155 

163 

"164

«Se

Location with reference to nearest post office

Tennessee Ridge, 8J£ miles SB _____________ 

McEwen... - - ___ - - - _ _ _ - - -_ _ -

McEwen, '. 

McEwen, MoEwen, 4 

Waverly, 1

Waverly, 1 

Waverly, 1 

Johnsonvil 

Waverly, 7 

Bold Sprin 

Hurricane 

Bakerville, 

Sycamore 5 

Buffalo, 41A 

Buffalo, 2%

4 mile NE. ............................

miles E ____ . _ . _ . ___ . ...........

mile NE. .- .-_._._.. ...._.........

mfleNE.. ....... ... ..... 

% mUes E _ .. _________ . ____ ..

miles SW._.. _._. ....... ..............

gs, % mile NE. .............................

Mills, 2J.J miles SB......... ... ... .......

2J.: miles NW ._._......'

.landing, 2J.J miles NI 

{ miles NE

:____ . _ ...........

! miles E. .. ... ......... ... .... ., ..

Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface (feet)

60. ........

200+- ....

80 _ . . ....

» analysis, p

Character of 

material

 do..............

Gravel or residual 

chert.

p. 112-113.

Geologic horizon

Fort Payne formation. 

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone(?) 

Tuscaloosa (?) formation.

Owner or lessee

G.I

Me] 

Mcl

S. 'W

5. Ridings __ 

T. Tavlor _ _ Nashville^ Chattanooga & St Louis Ry. 

__ do__ . _ .. ........

P.I

And 

Hun

J M

. Gould...... .....................

erson Coal & Ice Co.---_

nphreys County High S<

[. O. YnilTlfir

shool.-...

M. W. Plant........ _ ....

B. Y. Roeers ______ __ _

Rob 

Jam 

J. T 

T. C 

Jam

Water 

level 

above 

or 

below 

surface 

(feet)

-20

-50

). PerMns ____________ ..

Method of lift

Steam force pump ..... 

Electric force pump ...

Yield 

(gallons 

a minute)

3-5 

5

Topogr

Vail 

Plat

AV

An

..... do... .

. . do_ _ 

Vailey 

An

 do...

__ do_ _

Riv( 

Vail

Rid 

Hill 

Val]

KV

I0-... 

Io_ 

.....do..

lemperature

58

58

U

Dom

BoO

nin
Typical wells in Humphreys County, Tenn. Con

[New, 168,170,183,184, and 186 dug; the others drilled]

No. on 

Plate 4

165

166 

"167 

168 

169

170 

«171

172 

178 

183

184 

185

186 

187

Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface (feet)

303 

Near bottom. 

 do 

Bottom ... 

Near bottom.

400 

Near bottom, 

 do 

... do.......

1,680 

Near bottom.

Kft-lCharacter of 

material

Bedding-plane 

crevice.

Gravel or residual 

chert. 

Weathered limestone.

Geologic horizon

St. Louis or Warsaw (?) formation. 

Tuscaloosa (?) formation. 

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone. 

Alluvium.. .......

Fort Payne (?) formation.

Cherty residuum 

above Fort 

Payne formation. 

Upper part of Ordoviraan system. 

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone. 

Cherty residuum 

above Fort 

Payne formation. 

..... do ... ...

St. Peter (?) sandstone.

Gravel residuum 

from Fort 

Payne formation.

Water 

level 

above 

or 

below 

surface 

(feet)

-35 

-40L-.

-12 

-14 

-6 

 -9....

-38 

-25 

-142-

-90±.

-40±.

Methodoflift

Air lift ..-_... .

Electric suction pump. 

Hand pump or bucketElectric suction pump.

Hand pump_... ... .

Yield 

(gallons 

a minute)

15-20 

50 

10 

20± 

3-5 

3-5 

Temperature 

(°F.)

......

61

57

59

71

U

Boile

..... d

Dom

 d

..... d

< See analysis, pp. 112-113.
Typical springs in Humphreys County, Tenn

No. 

on 

Plate 

4

154

156

157

158

159

160

161

162 '173

174

175

176

177

17O

180

181

182

Location with reference to nearest post 

office

Denver, 4% miles E _______ ... ......

Owner

Milton Petty :. ..

Philip Bradley.. --- 

Wade Work......... ....

L. L. Shipp.: __ , _ .......

J. H. Mathews ..... -

J. J. Claxton __ .....

D. M. McCrary.... ....

Name

Blowing Spring ___ ..

Petty Spring.. ....

Brown's Mm Spring.. ..

Carnell Spring _______

Cold Spring.. __ ......

Claxton Spring ..............

Sulphur Spring _ ..........

To

s

Va

-j-l

....M

. ... .

..... 

 d

. __ 

..... 

 

..... 

 

 d

..... 

 

 .

..... 

..... 

[Table continued on p. 162]
162 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

a

8

Si s!

Is

O 2

« £

2S.T3.a

OH o|

»

ra ®

Jl

sir sisCT g "3*3 *" "''S

 2-a l'£ fe-as^

1 11 Si |31| 111 II i-ll

!>>

i

§»

poo

a s 

a &

S S S S CO »H f.

Q Q

II 

OR

I .-a 

111

 3 o. ft
MONTGOMERY COUNTY 163

Driller's log of J. T. Anderson wttt No. 1

(No. 185, pi. 4, Test well drilled by Tennessee Central Oil Co. in 1921. Casing head approximately 525

feet above sea level]

Feet

Soil, __________________________________________ 0-5

Limestone, dense, blue_______________________ 5-30

Shale, black (Chattanooga shale)________________ 30-50

Sandstone (?) hard, gray_________________________ 50-245

Limestone and shale, dark blue-gray_____________ 245-260

Limestone, pink____________.______ 260-370

Limestone, white______________________________ 370-375

Limestone and green shale, alternate thin beds______ 375-400

Limestone, white______________________________ 400-420

Limestone, pink_______________________________ 420-470

Limestone, brown, dense_________________________ 470-500

Shale, green, soft ____________________ 500-504

Shale, brown, hard_________-___________-_-______ 504-540

Limestone, gray, cherty________________________ 540-590

Limestone, black, sandy and cherty _________ _ ___ 590-650

Shale, black, soft_____________________ 650-710

Limestone, brown_____________________________ 710-800

Limestone, gray______________________________ 800-890

Limestone, gray-brown, very dense._______________ 890-1, 470

Limestone, sandy, gray and white_________________ 1, 470-1, 575

Sandstone, white; small yield of salt water_________ 1, 575-1, 580

Sandstone and blue shale, alternating layers about

6 feet thick___.____________________ 1, 580-1, 650

Limestone, gray; salt water at bottom_____________ 1, 650-1, 700

Limestone, gray, brown__________________________ 1, 700-1, 800

Limestone, brown, very hard; salt water at 1,940 feet_ 1, 800-2, 000

MONTGOMEBY COUNTY

[Area, 516 square miles. Population, 30,882] 

GENERAL FEATURES

Montgomery County, which occupies the north-central part of 

the region described in this report (pi. 1), lies on the most fertile and 

thickly populated part of the Highland Rim plateau. The county 

seat, Clarksville (population 9,242) is the principal commercial center 

of this upland area. Most of the county is a slightly rolling plain 

comprising extensive flat tracts of the Highland Rim peneplain (pp. 

16-18) and shallow mature drains, which are presumably adjusted to 

the Nashville Basin stage of planation (pp. 20-22). Many parts of 

the peneplain remnants, especially in the northeast quadrant of the 

county, drain into sink holes in the limestone or into small intermittent 

and perennial ponds at the bottom of shallow undrained depressions. 

These ponds occur at all altitudes and most of them are far above the 

general level of the ground water. Some are probably caused by the 

filling of sink holes or natural wells by impermeable debris; others 

are probably due merely to unequal depth of chemical weathering of the 

limestone. The peneplain remnants range from about 575 to 700 feet
164 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

above sea level. The south hall of the county is traversed by the 

somewhat meandering youthful valley of the Cumberland River, which 

at Clarksville is about 350 feet above sea level. Hence the total relief within the county is about 350 feet.

The massive crystalline beds of the St. Louis limestone and Warsaw 

formation, of Mississippian age, cover the greater part of the county, 

although there are few visible exposures of these rocks except in the 

youthful stream valleys. In the interstream areas bedrock is mantled 

by as much as 125 feet of clay and soil, which are residual from the 

chemical weathering of the limestone. Montgomery County is unlike areas in which the cherty Fort Payne formation underlies the 

surface in that this residual clay contains comparatively few chert 

fragments. The Fort Payne formation, which crops out in the valleys of the Cumberland River and of Barton and Little Barton Creeks, 

in the southeast corner of the county, consists of thin beds of cherty 

and earthy limestone. The geologic map (pi. 4) shows the outcrop 

areas of these formations; the discussion of stratigraphy (pp. 33-37) 

treats of their lithologic character.

GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS

Most of the residents of the upland areas rely upon cisterns as a 

source of water, inasmuch as the residuum from the weathering of the 

limestone is generally not water bearing and dug wells are generally 

unsuccessful. Water for stock is generally impounded in natural or 

artificial ponds. Comparatively few tubular wells have been drilled, 

although they generally obtain sufficient water for domestic purposes. 

Most of the drilled wells are between 100 and 160 feet deep, and all 

derive their water from channeled zones in the limestone. (See pp. 

69-89.) A few wells, such as Nos. 49, 50, and 55 (pp. 166-167), have 

been drilled more than 200 feet deep in search of water, and several 

relatively deep holes have been drilled in search of oil or gas. So far as 

is known, however, the deepest water-bearing stratum disclosed in any 

of the upland tracts by these wells is 187 feet below the surface, If the 

experience of drilling in adjacent parts of the Highland Rim plateau 

is a sound basis for judgment, it seems likely that potable water will 

not be found more than 200 feet below the upland areas of Montgomery County. In the more deeply dissected parts of the county groundwater conditions are relatively erratic, although many wells from 50 

to 100 feet deep yield sufficient water for domestic supply. Several 

wells in and near Clarksville, such as No. 52, are reported to find 

water about 300 feet below the surface in a sandstone or sandy 

limestone that occurs approximately at the horizon of the sandstone 

member of the Pegram limestone (pp. 41-43). However, there is no 

sound basis for making a definite correlation. This stratum is not 

water bearing in some wells that reach its horizon, as in well No. 55,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY 165

and most of the wells heretofore drilled to it for industrial water supply 

have been abandoned as inadequate. Hence it does not constitute 

a promising source of water in other parts of the county.

The most reliable sources of water in many parts of the county are 

the tufctolar springs (pp. 92-95), which issue from solution channels 

in the limestone. Such springs are especially numerous in the northcentral part of the county, in the vicinity of the converging forks of 

the Red River and of the meandering portion of the course of the Cumberland River. The largest and least variable of the springs issue 

from channels that are approximately adjusted to the present erosion 

stage of the principal streams and are essentially tributaries of the 

regional drainage system. Some issue from channels that probably 

join converging tributaries or the limbs of stream meanders and hence 

they may have a large and relatively invariable discharge, even though 

they do not drain large bodies of limestone. Two springs in Montgomery County, Nos. 43 and 44 (p. 168), are known to discharge more 

than 1,000 gallons a minute and many others discharge 100 gallons a 

minute or more. The discharge from a tubular spring may fluctuate 

greatly, so that the maximum safe draft can be determined only by 

periodic measurements during several years.

Most of the ground waters from the St. Louis limestone and Warsaw 

formation in Montgomery County are only moderately concentrated 

and, except for moderate carbonate hardness, are satisfactory for all 

ordinary uses. A few of the waters from these formations and others 

from the underlying Fort Payne formation, however, are highly concentrated, have much noncarbonate hardness, and are unsatisfactory 

for some purposes. Analyses of representative ground waters are 

tabulated on pages 110-111.
Typical wells in Montgomery County, Tenn

[No. 71 dug, the others drilled]

No. on 

Plate 4

38 

39 

42 

45 

46 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

55 

56 

57 

60 

61 

63 

64 

66 

68 

70 

71

No. on 

Plate 4

38 

39 

 42

Location with reference to nearest post office

Woodlawn 

Woodlawn 

Woodlawn 

ClarksviUe 

Clarksville 

Clarkvsille 

Clarksville 

St. Bethlei 

Clarksville 

Clarksville 

Clarksville 

Clarksville 

Clarksville 

St. Bethleh 

Woodford, 

Sailors Res 

Hackberry 

Palmyra, 6 

Louise, 5 n 

Southside, 

Hickory P

6 miles NW 

7J4 miles NW. 

7 miles NW-... ... ... 

3M miles NW 

2J| miles N..- 

1L£ TTIllOQ "W

iflesSE.. 

2M miles 8... ..... ... ... .

Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface (feet)

115 

Near bottom, 

 do.. 

Character of 

material

Bedding-plane crevice.

Geologic horizon

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone. 

 do ....... ...

 .do.. ....

Owner or lessee

Era 

T.I 

E.I 

C.I 

R. T

Mrs 

I. R

Mrs

T P

Clai 

Gre< 

B.I 

W

Will 

San 

Geo 

Hen 

J. 8 

0 T

C.I 

Geo

Water 

level 

above 

or 

below 

surface 

(feet)

-80 

-20 

-85

X Fort. ... 

. Ernest Whitfield... _____ ...

rge Fort

ry Yarber and James Bi 

Chambers

own ......

Method of lift

Bucket and rope ......

Hand pump .

Yield 

(gallons 

a minute)

3-5 

3-5 

Topogr

Plat 

Hill 

Plat 

Hill 

Plat 

Plat

Hill 

Pl»1

Vail

side 

side 

ey 

do.

Plain

Plat

Hill 

Plat 

Rid 

Hill

ftn

side 

do____

... do^ _ 

Vail 

Plat

Pemperature 

(°F.)

60

68 

 9

ey

U

Dom
45

46

48

49

50

51

52

55

56

 57

60

61

63

»64

66

fi*

70

"71

135 

torn. 

...do. ...

187 

130. __ ..

( 60-70 

1 Nearbot1 torn.

50± ...

torn. 

80±- ___

62 ____ .

70.........

ice.

 .do. . 

 .do 

ice.

White sandstone.

ice.

ices.

... . .do 

.....do..... ........ .

 .do 

... ..do.. .... .....

.... .do... .... ....... 

..... do ..... 

.....do..... .....

... -do... ... 

... -do ....... 

 .do 

Fort Payne (?) formation. 

... ..do .....

saw limestone.

Pegram limestone 

(?). 

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone. 

Fort Payne (?)

formation.

saw limestone. 

... ..do .... ... ...

 do 

.... .do ..... 

... ..do........ .....

... ..do ... .... ...

mation.

from Fort 

Payne (?) formation.

from St. Louis 

or Warsaw limestone.

-110 (?)

-90

-245

-16(?)

I -30

-130

-120 (?)

-125 (?)

-38

-30 

-25

-47

.... -do ..... ... ... ...

AirliftElectric force pomp _

Airlift. 

None _ - ______ 

Bucket and windlass..

Hand pump ...........

 do.......... .......

..... do ... ... ... ...

... -do..... ... ... ...

3-5.....

Ifcfc...

16

35 ......

3-5. __

8-6..1..

3-5. .

3-6 

3-5 

\>i

60

60

50

fi8

69

60

ftt

59

..... 

..... 

Non

Dom

 

..... 

Dri

Dom

> See analysis, pp. 110-111.
Typical springs in Montgomery County, Ten

No. 

on 

Plate 

4

40 

41 

43 

44 

47 

53 

54

58 

59 

62 

65 

67 

69 

72

No. on 

Plate 4

40 

41

43

«44

47 

53

»54

Location with reference to nearest post 

office

Woodlawi 

Woodlawi 

Woodlawi 

Woodlawi 

Clarksvillt 

St. Bethle 

St. Be.thle

Clarksvill 

Hampton 

Sailors Re 

Louise, 3ji 

Louise, 4 1 

Louise, 5y 

Hickory P

i, 4H miles NW. _ .___ __ .... 

i, 4^ miles NW ~

hem, 2M miles SW... ....... ....

3, 3M miles SE. _.___ __._. _ ..

niles SW ____________

oint, 5 miles NE . ____ ....

Openings

Number

1 ... ..

Several.. 

1 ______

1 _______

6 ._ _

Character

Bedding-plane channels. ______

Concealed, probably large solution channel.

Bedding-plane solution channel.

Concealed; probably small 

bedding-plane channels.

Owner

Mrs. T. J. 

T. H. Bats 

E. B. Tral 

H. E. Kill 

T. M. Adi 

J. H. Unse 

do

Shelby - .._ ...

Id................

H. J. Hiett- - _ _ -

Mrs. Marj 

Mrs. L. F. 

Joe Bagget 

George W. 

Montgome 

Mrs. Richi

T Fort. __ - -

Thomas. 

t .

Bryant.., -

ry Oountj 

ird Swift

Approximate yield

Gallons a 

minute

15. __ .

575 ______ 

3, 350 _____

1,900 . 

350 __ .

750± __

Date of 

measurement 

(1927)

Sept. 5 

 do ..

 do .. 

 do 

Sept. 3

Name

Boiling Spring 

Britton Spring 

Donelson Sprit 

Dunbar Cave

g.. .... _

Hiett Spring..^

Hampton Sprii 

Thomas Spring

ig _. .___

Blackwell Sprii 

Blue Spring

ig . .

Variability

Season 

.....do

.....do

 do 

.....do _______

al

 .do...... _ .

T

Va

 d

Gu

Va

 

Hi

Va

....

.... 

....

 ..

Use

Domestic, stock _ 

Stock.. __ . ___

None.... . ___

Stock. ______ 

 .doSwimming p 

Medicinal

ool
MONTGOMERY COUNTY 169

e-s

§8238

o o o o o o

p: S JH.-C

3-3 'S'3'3,
170 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

BOBEBTSON COUNTY

[Area 455 square miles. Population, 28,191] 

GENERAL FEATURES

Like Montgomery County, which it adjoins on the east (pi. 1), 

Robertson County lies in the most densely populated and fertile 

part of the Highland Rim plateau in north-central Tennessee. It 

comprises extensive slightly undulating interstream tracts with a 

local relief of 25 to 50 feet, which are remnants of the Highland Rim 

peneplain (pp. 19-20), and mature and youthful drains, which trench 

the plain to a maximum depth of about 250 feet. The peneplain 

remnants range from about 875 feet above sea level at Ridgetop, at 

the crest of the Highland Rim escarpment in the southeastern part 

of the county, to about 625 feet along the northern boundary of the 

county. The peneplain remnants also include many small undrained 

depressions, of which a large number contain perennial ponds. These 

water bodies occur at all altitudes, and most of them are derived 

wholly from surface run-off; a few such ponds, which are generally 

in the lower parts of the surface, may be supplied by ground water 

through one or more submerged solution channels. All but a very 

small part of the county is drained by tributaries of the Red River, 

which head in relatively shallow mature drains along the crest of the 

Highland Rim escarpment and flow northwestward and westward. 

In their lower reaches these tributaries occupy youthful valleys 100 

feet or more deep. A strip several miles wide along the southern 

boundary of the county from Ridgetop westward is drained by 

Sycamore and Half Pone Creeks.

Robertson County lies on the northwest flank of the Nashville dome 

(pp. 62-63), so that the primary structure of the rocks is that of a monocline dipping very gently northwestward. In all the upland tracts 

the bedrock is the massive limestone that composes the St. Louis 

limestone and Warsaw formation, although there are few outcrops 

of these formations away from the youthful stream valleys. In the 

peneplain tracts the bedrock is concealed by a mantle of residual 

clay and soil, usually between 15 and 50 feet thick but in some places 

100 feet thick. Over most of the county this material contains very 

few chert fragments, unlike the residuum that overlies the Fort Payne 

formation in other counties. In Robertson County the Fort Payne 

formation is composed chiefly of thin-bedded earthy cherty limestone, 

calcareous shale, and impure sandstone. It crops out only in the 

valleys of the tributaries of the Red River south and east of Springfield and in the valley of Sycamore Creek from Ridgetop westward. 

The stratigraphic relations of these rock formations are discussed on 

pages 33-37. Their areal extent is shown on Plate 4.
EOBEETSON COUNTY 171 

GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS

As in other parts of the Highland Rim plateau that are underlain 

by the St. Louis limestone, most of those who reside in interstream 

tracts of Robertson County derive their domestic water supplies from 

cisterns. This condition is chiefly due to the absence of water-bearing 

zones in the residual clay that mantles the plateau, so that dug wells are 

generally inadequate. Relatively few tubular wells have been drilled 

in the county, although such wells generally obtain adequate domestic supplies in channeled zones in the limestone (see pp. 173-175) 

from 30 to 105 feet below the surface. A few wells obtain potable 

water in the limestone as much as 175 feet below the surface, but on 

the other hand some deep wells have found no water-bearing strata 

more than 100 feet below the surface. One typical well, No. 92 

(pp. 173-174), found a small amount of water 20 feet beneath the surface in cherty debris at the top of the solid rock but did not penetrate 

any other water-bearing strata even though drilled to a depth of 311 

feet. Several relatively deep wells, such as Nos. 78,93,94, 99, and 108 

which have been drilled in search of oil or gas, have either been dry 

holes below a depth of 100 to 200 feet or have encountered only highly 

concentrated brine. No extensive permeable stratum is known to 

exist beneath the county. So far as is known, none of the tubular 

wells have been pumped more than 5 gallons a minute, and the total 

capacity of some is much less than 5 gallons a minute.

In those parts of the county which are deeply trenched by the 

streams ground-water conditions in the limestone differ greatly from 

place to place; generally water-bearing beds are not found far below 

the level of the perennial streams. Some of the beds in the upper 

part of the Fort Payne formation, which crops out in the deeper valleys 

south of Springfield, are sandy and appreciably permeable, but their 

water-yielding capacity is not known. In these parts of the county 

both seepage and tubular springs (pp. 90-95) are numerous, and many 

of the domestic water supplies are derived from them. Some of the 

tubular springs have relatively constant discharge and are by far the 

most reliable sources of water in the county. Three of the typical 

springs (p. 176) discharge 100 gallons a minute or more each, and the 

discharge from one (No. 80) was about 725 gallons a minute on 

August 26, 1927, when the ground-water discharge was nearly at its 

seasonal minimum.

Most of the ground waters of Robertson County are moderately 

concentrated and moderately hard calcium bicarbonate waters that 

are suitable for any ordinary use, especially after they have been 

softened. In a few places the water associated with the St. Louis 

limestone and Warsaw formation is highly concentrated and very 

high in noncarbonate hardness; it may also contain considerable 

hydrogen sulphide. In other places, as in well 76, the ground water
172 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

is accompanied by enough petroleum to render it unfit for domestic 

use or for watering stock. The deep-seated waters are very highly 

concentrated brines. Analyses of representative ground waters are 

tabjtilatecy>n pag^a. 110-111,

MUNICIPAL GROUND-WATER SUPPLIES

Orlinda. The only town in Robertson County that derives a municipal 

water supply from an underground source is Orlinda (estimated population, 515), 

on the Highland Rim plateau in the northeastern part of the county. The principal source is a tubular spring (No. 89) that issues from a solution channel in 

the wall of a sink hole about half a mile east of the town. It is reported that the 

discharge ranges from 12,000 to 15,000 gallons a day and that it is sufficient for 

the needs of the town even in periods of extreme drought. From the spring a 

pump with a capacity of 35 gallons a minute raises the water to a 10,000-gallon 

wooden standpipe near the center of the town, whence it is distributed by gravity. 

A drilled well (No. 88) 4 inches in diameter and 80 feet deep constitutes an emergency source; it is equipped with a deep-well pump having a capacity of 5 gallons 

a minute. The water from both the spring and the well is sterilized with chlorine 

before use.
Typical wells in Robertson County, Tenn. 

[All drilled wells]

No. on 

Plate 4

74

715

76

77

78

81

89

83

84

85

86

87

88

92

93

94

95

98

99

101

102

103

104

106

107

108

109

110

112

113

Location with reference to nearest post office

Cedar Hill, 9?£ miles NE__._ - - - -

-do.

Cedar Hill, 4J£ miles NE.. ... .... 

Cedar Hill, 5 miles NE... .. 

Orlinda, M mile E. __..-. _ . __ . _ _ ... ...

Cedar Hill, 4Ji miles SW-- .. ____ 

. dO... ...... ..... ............ .........

Cedar Hill, 6M miles SE_ ......................

Springfield. __ ___ . ____ __ ...

Springfield, 5H miles SE_ ...................

Owner or lessee

I. D. Elliott 

S. B Russell

City of Orlinda .,..... .. ...

Felix Ewing No. 1- __________

John Porter

T. O. McMahan ___________

Callie Walker 

B. B. Seal. _ ........................

Topogr

Valle

PHrtea

... ..do.

 do 

V^ley.

 '.do 

HlUtop

Hillside. _ 

 -do 

...: F.'do .

Valle

.. do 

 ,.dO 

Plateau

Vall

. fdo 

Hillto

__ do-

TTiWtnp

Pl^eau

Hillside

....I'do 

..... do .

[Table continued on pp. 174-175]
174 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

* "3 >, 

111

« !a 3

S -2 §

« *£*

 i 5^ 8 S <« fl S -2«g

« S§ 0

 5 &«

^3 o-g^ <BT3

"S*» M

^11 a§ s

*

11^ S 3 

|ll IB*

t

"3 *.» £j3"S

i 9i^i^

ts -B*» T3 *

DQ ft

1

a

nlz;

E .2

ts

g

"3 SS S 5

 ,

§«i

 il

o. £

.

 op

 a g

I ?

So .2S

2.

fib

o « 

S5S

-

S5 3 r-( rHOS 5
101

102

103

 104

irys

107

ins

109

110

 112

113

torn. 

... do_ 

... do 

115 .

torn. 

...do ...

125 ____

torn.

QfiJ155 

crevice. 

..... do. 

 .do ........

.... .do ... .....

..... do. ..... 

..... do.... ... ... ...

crevice.

saw limestone 

0).

.....do.. ..........

saw limestone.

saw limestone 

(Tfc

mation.

matioa.

mation.

tion.

formation.

-60...

-52...

+1...

35 

-79...

-150-

pump. 

.. _ do. _ ... ...

Hand pump ......_...

.. do.... ... ..

5±._...

5± .

1-2 __

Small 

3-5. .

3-5.. 

67

64

68

5fi

Stoc

Sto

..... d

See analysis, p. 110-111.
Typical springs in Robertson County, Tenn.

No. on 

Plate 4

73 

79 

80 

89 

90 

91 

96 

97 

100 

105 

111

No. on 

Plate 4

 73 

79

80 

89 

90

a 91 

«96

97 

100 

105

111

Location witb reference to nearest 

post office

Adams, 3} 

Cedar HiJ 

QedarHil 

Qrlinda, 1 

Orlinda, 1 

Orlinda, 6 

Springfleh 

Sprmgfiel( 

Springfielc 

Springfielc 

Greeobrie

1, 3M miles NE. . 

1, 4% miles NE-.... .........

mile SB. __ . ________ .

H miles S_ _. ..............

i, 3 miles W......... _.. ..

I, 2M mUes N. . ........

1, 1 mile S....... ........ ........

1, 5 miles SE _ ---.__. _ .-_

r, \\i miles SE . , 

Openings

Number

1 

5

1 

1 

1

1 

1

1 

1 

1

1

Cbaracter

 do..... ................. ...

Small bedding-plane channel..

. __ do. _______ .- _ .

Bedding-plane solution channel.

Owner

Joel Fort

John Snee< 

W. M. Qo> 

City of Or! 

J. W. Dral

James Pay 

Will Powe 

Arthur Po 

J H Pern

1.. ....... ...... ..

11 

r . _ J

R. B. Beal . ..............

Approximate yield

Gallons a 

minute

100 

25

725 

10± 

50=fc

f . 30 

I 50

r 75

t 175

"H

Trickle....

Date Of 

measurement 

(1927)

Aug. 26 

...do ..

...do... .. 

Aug. 27 

_ do ..

...do 

Oct. 8 

Aug. 24 

Oct. 9 

Aug. 4 

Aug. 25

Aug. 25

Name

Mill Cave .. .._

Mclntosh Sprii 

Perry's Park S 

Worsham Sprii

'Ffygpjft Spring

lg

Ig ......

Variability

Season, 

.....do

. .do 

do

ai.. ............

 do........ .... .....

}. ,do ....

}... .do.... ......

Season,al (?) ..

To

s

Val

. . 

Pla

Val

Hill

VaU

Pla

Use

Domestic, stock _ 

Stock ______ 

Domestic, stock.

 do ...... 

Medicinal formerly.

1 See analysis, pp. 110-111.
GROUND WATEB IN NORTH-CENTRA!, TENNESSEE 177

RUTHERFORD COUNTY

[Area, 614 square miles. Population, 32,286] 

GENERAL FEATURES

Rutherford County lies in the southeast corner of the region 

described in this report (pi. 1), approximately at the geographic 

center of the State. Its county seat and principal town, Murfreesboro, has a population of 7,993.

The county occupies the southeastern part of the northern lobe of 

the Nashville Basin (p. 18) and is roughly a natural physiographic 

unit in that its eastern, southern, and western boundaries follow 

approximately the divide surrounding the basin of the Stone River. 

Extensive tracts in its central and western parts lie on the Nashville 

Basin peneplain (pp. 20-22), a nearly featureless plain that slopes 

northwestward and is from 550 to 700 feet above sea level. On this 

plain sink holes, undrained depressions, and "glades" essentially 

flat areas of limestone with little or no soil are numerous. This 

plain is surrounded by a nearly continuous belt of hills along the 

boundaries of the county, the hilly terrane being a product of a mature 

dissection of outlying remnants of the Highland Rim plateau. The 

largest of these remnants is a branching ridge about 4 miles long near 

the southeast corner of the county. Its summit, 1,352 feet above sea 

level, is the highest point in the county and in the entire region covered 

by this report.

The county is drained northwestward by the Stone River, whose 

principal branches occupy trenches cut 25 to 100 feet below the Nashville Basin peneplain. Many extensive tracts on this peneplain, 

however, have no surface drains, and their run-off is carried by solution 

conduits, which discharge as perennial springs. The larger of these 

subsurface drains are adjusted to the surface streams.

Rutherford County lies on the apex of the Nashville dome (pp. 62-63), 

the rock strata dipping radially away from a point near Fosterville, 

south of Murfreesboro. Hence the oldest rocks exposed by that dome, 

of Lower Ordovician age, crop out in the central part of the county 

and are surrounded by concentric bands of the younger formations. 

The youngest strata exposed in the county, which belong to the lower 

part of the Fort Payne formation, include earthy cherty limestone 

and sandy shale; they cap several of the highest ridges in the southeastern and southwestern parts of the county. These beds are underlain by the Chattanooga shale, which is generally accompanied at its 

base by the Hardin sandstone member. This shale is underlain 

unconformably by rocks of Ordovician age, the Devonian and Silurian 

systems and the upper part of the Ordovician system being absent. 

The rocks of Upper Ordovician age that are present are the Leipers 

limestone. Those of Middle Ordovician age are, from the top down-
178 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTBAL TENNESSEE

ward, the Catheys, Cannon, and Bigby limestones, the Hermitage 

formation, and the Lowville limestone, including the Carters member. 

The Upper and Middle Ordovician formations crop out only as narrow 

bands on the upper and middle slopes of the hilly country along the 

boundaries of the county. The Hermitage formation comprises 

earthy limestone, calcareous shale, and calcareous sandstone associated with thin-bedded limestone; the other formations are composed 

wholly of limestone. The Middle Ordovician strata are underlain 

successively by the Lebanon, Ridley, Pierce, and Murfreesboro limestones, of Lower Ordovician age. The thin-bedded Lebanon limestone usually underlies the lower part of the hill slopes along the 

boundaries of the county but also crops out over extensive tracts along 

the edges of the central peneplain, especially in the southern half of 

the county. The dense massive beds of the underlying Ridley limestone are the surface rocks over the greater part of the central peneplain, the outcrop area of this formation being slightly more than half 

the area of the county. The Pierce and Murfreesboro limestones 

crop out in several relatively small areas on the apexes of minor 

structural domes within 9 miles of Murfreesboro. These two formations are the oldest rocks that crop out in the Nashville Basin and are 

not known to be exposed anywhere in central Tennessee outside of 

Rutherford County. The lithologic character and stratigraphic 

relations of these rocks are discussed on pages 35-38; their areal distribution is shown on Plate 4. The nature of the rocks that lie 

beneath the Murfreesboro limestone and do not crop out within the 

county are shown by the record of the Franklin Oil & Fuel Co.'s well 

(No. 427, pi. 4 and pp. 60-61).

GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS

The rocks that underlie the Nashville Basin peneplain in the central 

part of the county, being all limestones, are not generally permeable 

and carry water only in solution channels, bedding planes, or joints 

(pp. 69-89). Hence the water-bearing properties of any one stratum 

may differ greatly from place to place, as the number and size of 

solution channels are dependent chiefly upon the solubility of the 

rock, the number and continuity of joints, and the position of the 

stratum with respect to present and past equilibrium profiles of 

erosion. In general water-bearing openings are much fewer in the 

massive, thick-bedded rocks such as the Ridley and Murfreesboro 

limestones than in the thin-bedded and less competent rocks such as 

the Hermitage formation and the Lebanon and Pierce limestones. 

However, some of the largest solution conduits of the district occur in 

the more massive facies of the limestones. So far as is known, there 

are no water-bearing channels related to the unconformities nor any 

bodies of limestone that have been depressed with relation to the
RUTHERFORD COUNTY 179

water table after channeling. Consequently, there seem to be no 

extensive systems of solution channels underlying those which are 

adjusted to the present surface streams, and thus the limestones are 

generally not water bearing where they lie at more than moderate 

depth.

Over much oi the peneplain the unweafchered rock lies very close to 

the surface, so that dug wells do not furnish adequate supplies of 

water. At most places, however, drilled wells obtain sufficient water 

for domestic purposes and for stock. The water-bearing beds range 

from 40 to 135 feet below the surf ace, though generally from 60 to 100 

ieet. The depth oi water-bearing beds may differ greatly in wells 

which are close together. Some wells, such as Nos. 432, 434, 437, 440, 

and 441 (pp. 184-186), penetrate water-bearing beds from 175 to 250 

feet below the surface, but others of similar depth are dry holes. 

Well 423, for example, did not reach a water-bearing bed, though 

drilled to a depth oi 446 feet. In the vicinity of Murfreesboro wells 

434, 440, and 441 seem to obtain water at about the same stratigraphic 

horizon, from a bed oi soft granular limestone 200 to 245 feet below 

the surface and about 350 to 375 feet above sea level. This bed seems 

to differ greatly in water-yielding capacity from place to place, 

however, so that it can not be assumed to be water bearing in all 

parts of the county. Most of the drilled wells are used for domestic 

purposes only; hence they are pumped intermittently and lightly, 

and their total capacity is not known. In fact, relatively few of the 

wells have proved capacities of more than 5 gallons a minute. On the 

other hand, wells 435,440, 441, and some others that chance to enter 

large solution channels yield 100 gallons a minute or more, although 

the capacity of such wells is likely to vary greatly from season to 

season or even to vary with local precipitation. These wells are 

drilled in cavernous limestone at or near the orifices of large tubular 

springs.

The St. Peter (?) sandstone (p. 61) has been considered a potential water bearer throughout north-central Tennessee. It seems to 

correspond with sandy beds that were entered about 610 feet below 

the surface in the Franklin Oil & Fuel Co.'s test well near Murfreesboro (No. 427, pp. 60-61), and its projected horizon is penetrated by 

well 4 of the Carnation Milk Products Co.'s plant (No. 433, p. 184). 

However, neither oi these wells is reported to have found an appreciable amount of water at this horizon. It is probably inadvisable, 

therefore, to drill to this formation ior ground water in other parts of 

the county.

In general, it is not to be expected that large yields of water can be 

obtained in Rutherford County from wells. For example, of four 

wells drilled in 1927 at the plant of the Carnation Milk Products Co., 

near Murfreesboro, only one was moderately successful. This well,
180 GROUND WATEK IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

No. 435, which, is about 200 feet southeast of the boiler room, derives 

most of its water from a cavernous zone in the Murfreesboro limestone 

between 50 and 65 feet below the surface, although several waterbearing beds of small capacity were penetrated between this cavernous 

zone and the bottom of the well, at a depth of 217 feet. The well is 

pumped by air lift. It is reported by the driller that when first 

tested in May, 1927, the well yielded about 400 gallons a minute for 24 

hours, the drawdown indicated by the difference between starting and 

running pressures in the air line being approximately 70 feet. Hence 

the specific capacity is rather small about 6 gallons a minute for each 

foot of drawdown. During this first test at least 1 cubic yard of fine 

silt and corroded fragments of limestone as large as 2 inches in diameter were discharged from the well, indicating that the solution channels that transmit the water are partly clogged with such debris. 

During the period July to September, 1927, the well was pumped 

almost continuously, and its yield ranged approximately between 75 

and 150 gallons a minute. A part of this variation was perhaps due 

to changes in the efficiency of the air4ift pump as the water level 

declined, but most of the variation was presumably due to seasonal 

fluctuations in the ground-water supply. This presumption is 

strengthened by the fact that the yield of the well increases about 24 

hours after a heavy local rain. It is noteworthy that this well is 

approximately on the projected trace of prominent joints that cut the 

Murfreesboro limestone at the orifice of the Murfreesboro city spring 

(No. 439, p. 187), about a mile to the southeast. Another well (No. 

434), about 150 feet northwest of No. 435, passed through the same 

water-bearing zones; its ultimate capacity is only about 5 gallons a 

minute. A third well (No. 433), which is 650 feet deep, penetrates a 

small water-bearing channel in the Murfreesboro limestone at a depth 

of 80 feet; a small amount of water may also be derived from a depth 

of about 350 feet. The rocks at the projected horizon of the St. 

Peter (?) sandstone were probably penetrated, although little if any 

water was found in them. The total capacity of this well, when 

pumped continuously, is about 12 gallons a minute, with a drawdown 

of about 180 feet. A fourth well (No. 436) comprises a sump 18 feet in 

diameter and 23 feet deep and an 8-inch drilled hole extending 63 feet 

below the bottom of the sump. Water-bearing zones in the limestone 

were penetrated 46 and 55 feet below the surface. Even after the 

well had been shot with dynamite at the bottom, its total capacity 

was only about 10 or 15 gallons a minute, of which about 5 gallons 

seeped from fractures in the walls of the sump and presumably 

originated in a near-by perennial creek. In general, the greatest 

likelihood of wells of large capacity exists where the course of a cavernous zone in the limestone is indicated at the surface by a linear 

arrangement of sink holes or along a line parallel to master joints
RUTHERFORD COUNTY 181

and passing through proved wells or springs. Obviously, however, 

the uncertainty of finding water increases with the distance from the 

proved sites and is very great under even the most favorable 

circumstances.

In many if not most parts of the peneplain that covers the central 

part of the county springs constitute the most reliable source of water 

where perennial streams are absent. The largest of these are tubular 

springs whose water is gathered by systems of solution channels in 

the limestone (pp. 92-95). Some such springs return to the surface 

the water drained from large or small bodies of channeled limestone 

and constitute the perennial heads of surface streams. Typical examples are the city spring at Murfreesboro (No. 439, pi. 4) and Ward 

Spring (No. 428). In other springs of this type a subsurface stream 

is exposed for a short distance where the roof of its channel has collapsed 

or has been pierced by a natural well or subvertical solution channel, 

as in the Love Davis cave (No. 413, see also pi. 5, B), the Blue Sink 

(No. 450), and the Snail Shell cave (No. 455). Springs 416, 417, and 

418, about 5 miles southeast of Smyrna (pi. 4), mark the course of a 

rather well-defined subsurface drain. The aggregate discharge from 

the tubular springs of this district constitutes the subsurface drainage 

that is tributary to the surface streams. Moreover, this groundwater discharge is subject to seasonal fluctuations comparable in magnitude to the fluctuations of the surface run-off, although the variability of all springs is not likely to be the same. Hence, the average or 

minimum discharge of a given spring can be determined only by 

measuring the flow at regular intervals over a long period.

In the hilly parts of the county ground-water conditions are likely 

to differ greatly from place to place, so that drilling is a most uncertain 

method of obtaining ground water. In general, few water-bearing beds 

probably occur very far below the level of near-by perennial streams. 

In many places dug wells derive adequate supplies from the surficial 

mantle of rock waste. Both tubular and seepage springs (pp. 90-95) are 

common and constitute an adequate source of water for domestic 

purposes and for stock in most of these sparsely populated districts.

Usually the ground water from springs and wells of shallow or 

moderate depth in Rutherford County is a moderately concentrated 

calcium-magnesium bicarbonate water of moderate hardness, such as is 

shown by analyses 431, 439, and 466 on pages 118-119. These waters 

are suitable for most ordinary uses after softening. Not all the ground 

waters, however, are of this type. Drillers in Rutherford County 

have noted that water of poor quality is usually encountered in wells 

from 60 to 150 feet deep in a zone about 1 mile wide that trends ap~ 

proximately N. 30° E. through a point about 3 miles west of Murfreesboro. This zone also passes through Sulphur Spring (No. 425, 

pi. 4), about 4 miles north of Murfreesboro. The water, which is
182 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

derived from the upper part of the Murfreesboro limestone, is relatively concentrated in sodium, sulphate, and chloride and usually 

contains hydrogen sulphide. Analyses 432 and 433 are representative. Analyses 427 and 435 represent more dilute waters, which are

1100

427 432 433 435 439 

FIGUEE 6. Chemical character of representative ground waters from the Murfreesboro limestone.

presumably a mixture of the calcium-magnesium bicarbonate and 

sodium bicarbonate-sulphate waters. The chemical character of 

these representative waters is also shown graphically by Figure 6. 

The water from some wells and springs in this zone contains a relatively large quantity of iron, which in the presence of air is precipi-
RUTHERFORD COUNTY 183

tated as the black iron sulphide; it is known locally as "black 

sulphur" water. Comparatively few wells derive water from the 

Murfreesboro limestone in other parts of the county, so that it is 

uncertain whether or not the water from this formation is everywhere 

of similar chemical character. Unfortunately, in many places water 

of satisfactory quality can not be obtained above or below the beds 

that yield the sodium bicarbonate-sulphate waters.

MUNICIPAL QROUKD-WATER SUPPLIES

Murfreesboro. The municipal water supply of the county seat, Murfreesboro, 

is derived from a tubular spring (No. 439, pi. 4 and p. 187), which issues from 

several openings along a cavernous zone in the Murfreesboro limestone near the 

southeast corner of the city. The cavernous zone follows a set of persistent 

joints striking N. 55° W. From the downstream orifice, which is protected by 

concrete cut-off walls sunk to the bedrock, the water is pumped to sedimentation 

tanks, chlorinated, and then pumped to a 700,000-gallon steel tank at the south 

edge of the town. Distribution is effected by gravity. The average daily consumption is reported to be about 700,000 gallons; the maximum about 1,000,000 

gallons. Usually the discharge of the spring is adequate for the total consumption, 

although in the summer of 1925, a year of extreme drought, it reached a minimum 

of 300,000 gallons a day. Furthermore, the discharge increases greatly and the 

water becomes turbid from 6 to 12 hours after heavy rains in the vicinity of the 

spring and along the belt of hills to the southeast. The chemical character 

of the water is shown by the analysis tabulated on page 118 and graphically by 

Figure 6.

During periods of drought the municipal supply is pumped from a gang of six 

wells (No. 440) drilled in the cavernous limestone near the spring orifice, the 

ground-water level being so depressed by pumping that the spring ceases to flow. 

Of these wells one is 147 feet deep, and the other five from 200 to 211 feet. Each 

is equipped with an air-lift pump. During the drought of 1925 two of these wells 

(then 100 feet deep) were pumped continuously for six weeks, and the yield of 

each declined gradually from 300 to about 250 gallons a minute, with a drawdown 

of about 45 feet. Hence their specific capacity is moderate about 6 gallons a 

minute for each foot of drawdown. In 1927, which was also a dry year, the yield 

of the six wells was found to be more than the consumption, although the total 

capacity of the gang was not determined.
Typical wells in Rutherford County, Tenm 

[Nos. 436 and 459 dug and drilled; No. 461 bored; No. 465 dug; all o

No. on 

Plate 4

405 

407 

408 

409 

410 

412 

414 

415 

419 

420 

421 

422 

423 

424 

426 

427 

429 

430 

431 

432 

433 

434 

435 

436 

437 

440 

441 

442 

445 

447 

448 

451 

452 

453 

456 

457 

458 

459

Location with reference to nearest post office

Walter Hill, 3J3 miles N..~ 

Smyrna, 4J£ miles SW._ ________________

Walter Hill, 1$ mile N... ... .... 

Walter Hill, H mile S 

Overall, 3 miles NW 

Overall, 3M miles N ___________________

__ do ______ . _ ----- __ _ --. _ ---.

 do.... .

 do 

 do... . 

do . .

Rockvale, 6}| miles NW... _ 

Overall, J3 mile E _ . _ 

Owner or lessee

J. H. Short 

H. A Lee 

WilliflTn Wfthh Afitata

Q. M. Alsup _____ - ___ - ___ -

J. M. FreeCarnation Milk Products Co ._

- do _ . .

 .do... 

 do 

A. L. Todd 

William Riggs.--. 

Tfyonifv Stokw

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis By

Topogr

Hiver bl

Hills

Plain 

 do 

 do 

 _ do 

___ ..do.. 

 do 

Hills

Plain 

Hillside 

__ do 

..... do 

Hills

Plai

 do - 

 . _.do 

do

 do 

.....do. 

... ..do 

Crofife bed

 do. 

Valle

Hills

Hillt

Plain 

.... .do..

... ..do... 

 do

 do

.... .do 
460 

463 

464 

485 

H* 467 

9

a-* SI Is

)144 32 1

CO

405

407

409 

410 

412 

414 

416 

419

420 

421

422 

423

424 

426 

 427

429 

430

 431

Rueker, 4H 

Eagleville, 1 

Bookvale, 2 

Christiana, 

Fosterville,

miles E.. _ _ .. __ ._ _ ___ .. .... __ __________ ..................

J4 miles £W .. . ,...,..., ., __ , ,^. Walt*'1 Wnrris

Ji mile N c

iville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry 

lo. . ____ .. _

Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface 

(feet)

60 ___ ....

Near bottom, 

on

85- 

100, 135. ... 

115- ......

75. ___ ..

95- .......

135 ____ .

Near bottom. 

105 ___

70 ____ 

43 _____

110± ...

Near bottom.

Character of 

material

Solution channel...

Bedding-plane 

crevice.

Shale 

... ..do ... ... ....

Shale 

Shale... 

Bedding-plane 

crevice.

Solution crevice ....

Limestone.... 

Bedding-plane 

.crevice.

Geologic horizon

 Ridley limestone. .

Eidley (?) limestone. 

.... do.. 

Murfreesboro 

.limestone. 

Ridley ,(?) limestone. 

Ridley limestone..

Murfreesb-oro 

limestone. 

..... do ... ... ...

 .do.. .......

 do. ... .. 

 .do... ... ...

..... do ... ... ..

..... do... ...

..... do ..... 

Ridley limestone.. 

Murfreesboro 

limestone. 

Pierce or Murfreesboro limestone.

Water 

level 

above 

or 

below 

surface 

(feet)

-54 

-48 

-60

-70

-65 

-40

-44

-26

-40 

-60

-40

-36 

-40 

-3 

-32

-60 

-17

Method of lift

.....do ............

None ____ .........

.... .do .... 

 -do ............

.... . do .... .......

 - do.... .... ... ...

..... do...... 

Yield 

(gallons a 

minute)

3MLSg

2

2 ___ .

m

8Ji ~

6. ---.__

4 

K ...

3 .......

3 ___ .

5 __ ...

3-6 ~

..... do 

. do 

Ridg 

Plaii 

Hills

Temperature

......

......

62

60

A WA

ide 

U

Dom

....

 d

Stoc

Non

Dom

St

Non

 

St

Dri

* See analysis, pp. 118-119.
Typical wells in Rutherford County, Tenn. Cont

[Nos. 436 and 459 dug and drilled; No, 4S1 bored; No. 465 dug; all ot

No. on 

Plate 4

 432

 433 

434 

 435 

436

437 

440

441 

442 

445

447 

448

451

452 

453

456 

457

Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface 

(feet)

Near bottom.

80 __ __ 

65-70.. ....

50,65......

46,55 __ ..

240 

60-75- .....

237. 

95

Near bottom. 

32

Near bottom. 

... ..do. .

 ..do ..

110 ____

100 ....

Near bottom.

Character of 

material

Be dding-plane 

crevice

 do 

Solution channels. . 

Soft limestone.. 

Solution channels- .

Solution crevice ....

Bedding-plane 

crevice. 

Solution channel 

Bedding-plane 

channel. 

Solution crevice ....

.....do. ... .

Bedding-plane 

crevice. 

Solution channel 

Geologic horizon

Murfreesboro 

limestone.

 ..do ... .

 do ...

.... .do.. - 

 .-do.. ........

Below Murfreesboro limestone 

(?). Murfrees boro 

limestone.

Murfreesboro 

limestone, 

 .-do. _ ... ...

Lebanon limestone 

Ridley limestone..

Ridley (?) limestone, 

 do 

Murfrees boro 

limestone. 

Ridley (?) limestone. 

Murfrees bo[ro 

limestone.

Water 

level 

above 

or 

below 

surface 

(feet)

-60 

-10

-10 

-30

-30 

-10

-17

-60

-30

-25 

-45

-40±

-25± 

-10

-35 

-10

Method of lift

Airlift .

Airlift ... ..... ..... 

None 

Airlift .......

 .do .... 

 .do.. ............

Bucket and rope ___

Steam force pump .....

Yield 

(gallons a 

minute)

10-12...

5 

75-300- 

10 

Limited 

250ea...

200 

5± 

3 ___ .

6 ....

5-10 

Temperature 

CF.)

60 

60

60

60 

60

......

Us

None 

... -d

Dom

Stoc
458

459

460

463

464

465

467

138 .......

Near bottom.

45. __ .

102 __ 

torn. 

106. .......

- do... ...........

crevice. 

..... do...... ........

..... do... ... ....

.....do... ..........

.....do ..........

 do.. 

-20 

-75...

84

.....do ... ... ...

. .do... ... . .

pumps.

H~ 

H 

10.. _ .

.....d

..... d

Dome

 See analysis, pp. 118-119.,

Typical springs in Rutherford County, Tenn.

No.

on 

Plate 

4

404

406

411

413

416

417

418

425

428

438

439

443

A.A.A.

446

449

450

454

455

461

462 

466

Location with reference to nearest post 

office

Florence, 2% miles NE _ .. ...... ......

Florence, 2H miles NE _ .. ......

Murfreesboro- __ ._

. .do... ..... .

Murfreesboro, 3Ji miles NE _______

Murfreesboro, 6M miles E . _ . 

Bockvale, 3J£ miles N ___________

Murfreesboro, 5 miles SE _________

Rockvale, 1J^ miles W-. .... ........

EaglevUle, 2 miles B.... . .............

Christiana, 9 miles E. ___ . ______

Owner

St. Louis By.

William Dill.. ..... ..

B. S. Brown, jr.... - .

Name

"Big"SprtogI"II"IIIIIII"II

Top

si

Plai

Val

Hill

Pl

Plai

.....

 ..d

.... .

... ..

:..

... -d

Hil

Pl

 d

. .

 

..... 

.... .

Vall

[Table continued on pp. 1&&-189.]
Typical springs in Rutherford County, Tenn. Con

No. on 

Plate 4

404 

406

411 

413

416 

417 

418 

426 

428

438 

"439

443 

444 

446 

449 

410 

454

Openings

Number

1 

2

2

1

1

1 

1 

1 

1

1 

2

4 

2

1 

1 

1 

1

Character

Sink-hole conduit to large solution channel.

Bedding-plane channels. 

Sink-hole conduit to large solution channel. 

Bedding-plane solution channel. 

Sink hole 75 yards long, 20 

yards wide, 20 feet deep. 

Sink hole 50 feet in diameter 

and 15 feet deep.

Large bedding-plane solution 

channel.

Solution channels along joints

Solution channels with roof 

collapsed along joints. 

Bedding-plane channels ___

Bedding-plane solution channels. 

Sink note 75 yards wide, 200 

yards long, 50 feet deep. 

Sink-hole pool 75 yards in diameter.

Approximate yield

Gallons a 

minute

1 

X 

50. 

1,000± 

...do'- 

...do ....

VerysmalL

i2,500± . 

\5,000+ 

JlOO __

INone 

200-700 ....

No flow 

visible. 

100- .

15 

6,000±- _

No flow 

visible. 

250 _

Date of 

measurement 

(1927)

Aug. 7

Aug. 10 

 do. 

Aug. 7 

...do 

 do 

 do 

-.do 

Aug. 11 

Aug. 9 

Sept. 15

Aug. 7 

-.do 

Aug. 9 

Aug. 11 

 do 

Aug. 8

Variability

- do. 

T^r/iK&Kl'Gr jQAasATial

 do ........ .....

. _ do . _____ .

}. do .... ... 

Probably seasonal .....

Seasonal, probably intermittent. 

Flashy, seasonal.. __

.... .do .....

Use

Drinking, medicinal.

Stock . .

Formerly medicinal.

None. ............

Domestic, stock..

Stock... __ ... ..

Stock _ . ........
43d

461 

"463

°466

1

1 

1

1

' Largesolutlon channel exposed

joint. 

Joint and bedding-plane channels.

Bedding-plane channel

flS&t......

2SL ____

f725.. ...

125. __ ... 

flOO ...

l2o

Aug. 11

Aug. 9 

Aug. 11

Oct. 11 

Aug. 9

Sept. 15

}... .do .............

.... .do-.-. .... ..... 

} .do-.. ... ._

| _.da« ____ ...

None ............

Stock...........

" See analysis, pp. 11&-119;
190 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE 

Driller's log of well on William Webb estate

[No. 423, pi. 4]

Limestone, soft, dark__________________-__--_-___-_-_ 0- 90

Limestone, gray, dense___________________..-_-_-_--- 90-107

Limestone, dark, soft____________________---____---__ 107-130

Flint [chert?]_______________________________________ 130-133

Limestone, soft_____________________________________ 133-142

Limestone__--______________________-_-___---_---_ 142-154

Limestone, reddish gray, with layers of white chert 3 feet

apart__-__--__-_______________________-__--__-_ 154-192

Limestone_____________________________ .L 192-204

Limestone, dark, soft__________________________ 204-212

Limestone, buff, with black chert-_______-_____-__-_ 212-292

Limestone, white, thin bedded___.___________ 292-322

Shale, black________________________________________ 332-400

Limestone, cherty at top_._________________---____--- 400-440

Limestone, bluish black, earthy____-____----_-_-----_, 440-446

STEWABT OOUNTT

[Area, 449 square miles. Population, 13,278] 

GENERAL FEATURES

Stewart County, which occupies the northwest corner of the region 

described in this report (pi. 1), is bounded on the west by the Tennessee River, on the north by Kentucky, on the east by Montgomery County, and on the south by Houston County. Its density of 

population, as in the other counties along the east side of the Tennessee River Valley, is less than in other parts of north-central 

Tennessee. The county seat, Dover (estimated population, 406), is 

on the south bank of the Cumberland River near the geographic 

center of the county.

Although the county lies in the physiographic district known as 

the Highland Rim plateau (pp. 16-18), only a part of its northeastern 

quadrant shows any extensive level tracts such as are characteristic 

of that peneplain. Most of the county is deeply dissected by the 

subparallel tributaries of the Tennessee River and of the Cumberland River, which traverses the county from southeast to northwest. 

Even in this dissected area, however, the crest of the divide between 

the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers and the crests of many of the 

subordinate ridges have not been reduced below the peneplain level. 

These peneplain remnants rise southward from an altitude of about 

525 to 600 feet above sea level along the northern boundary of the 

county to nearly 750 feet above sea level along its southern boundary. 

The master streams are about 300 to 335 feet above sea level, so that 

the total relief in the county is about 450 feet. A part of this relief 

is expressed in open mature valleys at the heads of tributary streams, 

but by far the greater part in narrow youthful trenches of the master 

streams and of the lower reaches of the tributaries.
STEWABT COUNTY 191

_ In addition to recent alluvial deposits along the major streams, 

Stewart County embraces both unconsolidated and consolidated rocks, 

which range in age from Upper Cretaceous to Lower Ordovician, 

although the full stratigraphic sequence of the Nashville Basin is not 

recognized. The unconsolidated deposits include the fine micaceous sands of the Eutaw formation and the underlying chert gravel 

of the Tuscaloosa formation, which cover an extensive tract on the 

divide between the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers in the northwest corner of the county. (See pi. 4.) The Tuscaloosa formation 

also occurs in a small area on the crest of the ridge west of Bear 

Spring. The youngest of the consolidated rocks are the massive and 

medium-bedded St. Louis limestone and Warsaw formation, which 

constitute the bedrock over the greater part of the county. Visible 

exposures of these beds are uncommon, however, except in the youthful stream trenches, for on all the remnants of the Highland Rim 

peneplain the bedrock is covered by 50 to 75 feet of residual clayey 

debris. The underlying Fort Payne formation, which in this county 

is a dense thin-bedded and extremely cherty limestone, crops out 

over the lower valley slopes of the Tennessee River and its tributaries 

in the western part of the county, also in the lower part of the Wells 

Creek Basin, near the southeast corner of the county. The carbonaceous Chattanooga shale underlies the Fort Payne formation and 

crops out just above stream level in the Tennessee River Valley at 

the mouth of Standing Rock Creek and farther north. It also crops 

out as a peripheral band surrounding the Wells Creek uplift and 

elsewhere in the Wells Creek Basin. The uppermost of the preChattanooga rocks, which crop out only in the Wells Creek Basin, 

include the Linden formation, of Lower Devonian age, and a rather 

full sequence of Silurian limestones. These are in turn underlain by 

the Hermitage formation and the Lowville limestone, both of lower 

Middle Ordovician age, all Upper Ordovician strata and the upper 

part of the Middle Ordovician being absent. The Lowville is underlain directly by limestone of earliest Ordovician (Beekmantown?) 

age, which is the oldest rock cropping out in north-central Tennessee. 

The general character and stratigraphic relations of both the unconsolidated and consolidated rocks are discussed on pages 24-58, and their 

area! distribution is shown on Plate 4. However, the stratigraphic 

relations within the Wells Creek Basin are known only approximately. 

Stewart County lies on the flank of the Nashville dome, so that in 

general the strata constitute a monocline dipping very slightly northwestward. In the extreme southeast corner of the county, however, 

this regional structure is modified by the Wells Creek uplift (pp. 65-67), 

within which the strata are steeply upturned, locally folded, and 

complexly faulted.
GROUND WATER IN NORTH-OfeNTRAL TENNESSEE

Small steeply tilted blocks also occur about 2 miles east 6f Cumberland City, although the structural Conditions are not fully known 

and can not be delineated on the scale of Plate 4.

QROUND-WATEB, CONDITIONS

In Stewart County, as in other parts of the Highland Rim plateau 

where the bedrock consists of the St. Louis limestone^ the residual clay 

mantle on the upland tracts contains little coarse material and generally yields very little ground water. Hence, most residents of the 

upland store rain water in cisterns for domestic supply and impound 

storm run-off in small artificial ponds for watering stock. On the 

other hand, a few derive water from rather deep dug Wells or from 

drilled wells that enter the limestone. No wells are known to find 

potable water more than 175 feet below the surface or water of any 

character more than 350 feet below the surface, as in well 34 (pi. 4 and 

pp. 194-195), which is 1,636 feet deep. On the plateau remnantsin the 

deeply dissected western part of the county the channeled zones in 

the upper part of the limestone may be drained, so that it is impossible 

to obtain an adequate water supply even for domestic purposes by 

drilling. The Eutaw and Tuscaloosa formations, which underlie a part 

of the plateau (pi. 4), contain beds of permeable material that should 

yield water freely where they are not drained by the valleys of tributary streams. However, the part of the plateau that is underlain by 

these formations is in general very sparsely populated and is covered 

with a dense growth of timber, so that nothing is known of the actual 

water-bearing conditions.

In the stream valleys and on the lower slopes of the dissected areas 

many dug wells derive water from alluvium or from hill wash. 

Ground-water conditions in the underlying limestone differ greatly 

from place to place, although drilled wells usually find water less than 

100 feet below the surface. In general, however, water-bearing beds 

are not likely to be found far below the level of the near-by perennial 

streams. Probably the most reliable sources of ground water in the 

dissected parts of the county are the tubular springs that issue from 

the limestone (pp. 92-95), many of which are used for domestic supplies 

and for stock. The discharge of some of these springs is relatively 

invariable; that of others may vary greatly from season to season, 

even though the minimum discharge may be large. Hence the reliability of a spring can be determined only by periodic measurements of 

its discharge over a term of several years. Large springs of this sort 

seem to be especially numerous at two levels on the lower reaches of 

the tributary streams from 25 to 50 feet above the Tennessee and 

Cumberland Eivers, and near the heads of the tributaries not far 

below the remnants of the Highland Eim plateau. Many seepage 

springs (pp. 90-92) of relatively small discharge also issue from the hill
wash and weathered rocks in the lower parts of the dissected areas, 

especially in the closely jointed oherty limestones of the Wejls Creek 

Basin. Siome of these springs are perennial and constitute, reliable 

sources of water for domestic purposes.

Most ed the ground waters of Stewart Coimty are moderately concentjeated and moderately hard cajcium bicarbonate waters $ueh as: those 

whose analyses are tabulated on pages 110-111. Waters associated 

with the Chattanooga shale in the vicinity of its outcrop, however, are 

likely to l^e rather high in iron and to contain appreciable quantities of 

hydrogen spulphide. Here, as in other parts of north-central Tennessee, 

ground w»ter that occurs in the Mississippian limestone at mo4erate 

depth may be rather high in noncarbonate hardness and may contain 

considerable hydrogen sulphjde.
Typical wetts in Stewart County, Tenn. 

[Nos. 11,14, and 15 dug; all others drilled]

No. on 

Plate 4

6 

S 

10 

11 

12 

14 

15 

19 

20 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

33 

34

No. on 

Plate4

«6

S 

10

11

Location with reference to nearest post office

Bumpus Mills, % mileS.... -. ..- 

Big Rock _ - - - ----___._ __ -_--

Weaver's s Weaver's si 

Weaver's st

Tharpe, 3M 

Dover, 5H 

Dover, 4J4 

Dover, $4 n

Indian Moi 

Indian Moi 

Indian Moi 

Mobley, 2? 

Mobley, 3 

milesNW..-. 

i

 .

lile W

i miles NW. 

nilesE..._ ... ..

Owner or lessee

W. P. Luten _ . 

V. N. Lee... _______ ___ ..

W. W. Outls 

Will Norflitt 

Steve Hester 

E. L. Whitfc

B. F. Biggin 

W. T. Crisp

U. S. Nation 

Aleck Morga 

Mrs. Bert Si 

J A. Keatts

»rd.._ .......... , . .

al Ceme

nith esta

C. K. Keatts ___________________

J. A. Gray.. - -

Marvin Milt

Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface 

(feet)

4A

12-18 

SB

Near bottom.

Character of material

Bedding-plane 

crevice.

Geologic horizon

Chert residuum above St. 

Louis or Warsaw limestone. 

 ..do ....... -

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone (?). 

Cherty residuum above 

St. Louis or Warsaw 

limestone.

Water 

level 

above 

or below surface 

(feet)

-10

- 7=b 

-90 

-75±

Method of lift

Hand pump _____

Hand and gasoline 

pump.

Topog

Hills 

Valle 

Plate

4

ide 

>y.

sau

0- 

__._do^ _

Valle 

Bidg 

VaUe

<1

Bidg 

Hills 

"CIpla 

Bidg 

Valle 

cL

y.

e cre

y

0 ___

« cre

ide

nd 

e cre

yy

lo""

... .do...

Yield 

(gallons 

 a minute)

3-5 

H- ---

Tem

pera

ture 

(°F.

62

57
12

14

15

a 10

20

. 22

23

a 24

26

a 27

33

34

torn.

75 -

50±._ . .

162 ..

torn. 

 ..do _

289- 

crevice. 

.... .do..... .... .

.... .do.... ..... .

T-lTTMVJtOTie.

stone.

St. Louis or Warsaw 

limestone.

Warsaw limestone.

urn above limestone. 

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone.

stone(7).

stone. 

.. do.- ..............

.....do-........ ...

do

Not known _____ . .....

-10-25

-10

-144

 20

Bucket and rope

Hand pump..... ,

.. do 3-5 ..

Very

small

3. __ .

60

58

58

58

' See analysis, pp. 110-111.
Typical springs in Stewari County, Tenn.

No. 

on 

Plate 

4

1

2

3

4

5

7

9

13 

16

17

18

21

25

28

29

30

31

32

35

36

57

Location with reference to nearest post 

office

Model, 5Ji miles W. ___________

Model, 2M miles N. _____ . __ .......

Mpdfil, l< rnilfi STC _ ...

Tobaccoport, 1J^ miles NE ................

Bumpus Mills, }A mile NW ...............

Bumpus Mills, 2M miles NE ..............

Big Hock, 1% miles SB......... _ ..... ...

Tharpe, 7 miles W _____________ 

Tharpe, 2M miles SE ......................

Tharpe, 4Ji miles SE _ . .................

Fort Henry, 3Ji miles NE .................

Dover, 3J£ mUes NW .............. __ .

Indian Mound, Z% miles N ________

Bear Spring, 2M miles NE _______ .

Mobley, 3?2 miles NW __________

Owner

Roy Hargis

Byrd Scott _________

J. W. Tishell 

A. H. WaUace _______

B. 0. Rowlett .... ...

J. M. Fitzhugh... ..........

Claude Johnson ______

T W Seay

G. 1. Halliday. ... .... ...

J. W. Woflord....-..-T .-...

Name

Maynard Spring... .........

Blue Spring.. ...............

Cold Smith Spring. .........

Lee or Stall Spring ..........

Woflord Spring.. ...........

Jbewis Spring.

To

s

Va

....d

.....

.....

....

... .-

 .

....

... .

... .

....

..... 

..... 

.....

 d

....

....

....

... .

Val
NbVorf 

Piste 4

"1 

2

3 

4

5 

7

g

13

16 

17

18

21 

25

28 

29 

30

31

a 32

 35 

36 

37

Openings

.NatatJe*

1 

1

1 

1

; i 

i 

i 

i

3

i 

i 

i

3

1 

1

1

I 

2

1 

1 

1

Character

Concealed; probably joint 

channel. 

Large solution channel __ _

Concealed; probably solution 

channel. 

Joint-plane channel -.

Bedding-plane channel.

Concealed; probably beddingplane channel. 

Bedding-plane oihannelS, ___

Concealed; probably solution 

channel.

....do ..................

Bedding-plane and joint channels. 

Bedding-plane channel. . .

.. do.. . .. ....

 do 

..... do . _

Concealed; probably beddingplane channels.

. _ do _ ... ....

Approximate yield

Gallons a 

minute

25

$-5 

900

2,098 

236 

15

300 

525

1,200

2 

200

25± 

5-8 

1

350 

200

ISO 

5 

125

DSteof 

measurement 

(037)

Sept. 23.

*... db 

...-do 

 Sept. 22.

Sept. 21. 

 do -

 .dO -

Sept. 23.

 do - 

Sept. 22.

Sept. 23.

....doSept. 21.

 dO -

 do 

Sept. 20.

Sept. 21. 

Sept. 24.

Sept; 22. 

Sept. 20. 

 do..-..

Variability

Seasonal ........ ......

 do. . 

4o

^.^db ..............

..... do ....... ..

. do .

.- _ do _________

 do. _ .

Probably seasonal. ....

.... . do .... ..... 

. do... ......

 ..do .........

 do . .....

 ..dO .... ...

 do... ...........

.....do ..........

... .. do...... ...........

.....db ..........

... -do ....... ....

Us*

None __ ...

Domestic, stock

..... do ....... 

Domestic, stock

Norfe ..... 

....-.-do 

Sawmill boiler ..

Domestic .......

Domestic, stock _ 

Stock.... 

Domestic, stock

.. do ....

..... do ..

 do... ... .....

 do ......

« See analysis, pp. 110-111.
198 GBOUND WATEB IN NOBTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Driller's partial log of Midwest Tennessee Oil Co.'s well on Marvin Milton property

[No. 34, pi. 4. So-called Standing Rock Well; casing head about 430 feet above sea level; total depth, 1,636

feet]

Feet

Soil_______ --_ ._._ _ _. _..___._--_-_ 0-30

Chert, dense__--__._._._._.___________.___ 30-164

Shale, black (Chattanooga shale)____._._._____ 164-239

Limestone, white and brown, water bearing. _______ 239-375

Limestone, petroliferous.__________________ ._._ 375-380

Limestone, dense, brown_ ._._._._._.___._._._._._ 380-495

Shale, blue.--_-_._-_-_.___-________---__________ 495-597

Limestone, white__-_._._._._._.____-__-_______ 597-602

Limestone, gray____-_-_._-___._._._._.___ 602-608

Limestone, brown_________________________ 608-612

Limestone, red_________________________ 612-670

Limestone, white_______________._._._._._._ 670-696

Shale, green____________.____ _______ 696-706

Limestone and shale, brown___-----_-____________ 706-742

Limestone, red_________-___._._.--_-_._-_.___ 742-904

Limestone, white____________ ___._._._ 904-924

Limestone, darkblue___________ 924-1,129

Limestone, gray______________________ 1,129-1,220

SUMNER COUNTY

[Area, 663 square miles. Population, 28,6221

GENERAL FEATURES

Sumner County, which occupies the northeast corner of the region 

covered by this report (pi. 1), is bounded on the west by Robertson 

County, on the southwest by Davidson County, and on the south by 

Wilson County. Its county seat and principal commercial center is 

Gallatin (population, 3,050).

Sumner County is divided into two physiographic districts of 

nearly equal area by the Highland Rim escarpment; to the north lies 

the Highland Rim plateau; to the south lies the northern lobe of the 

Nashville Basin (pp. 16-18). In this county the Highland Rim plateau is a very gently undulating plain which slopes northward from 

an altitude of about 900 feet above sea level along its southern edge 

to about 775 to 880 feet in the northwestern part of the county. 

This plain is drained northwestward by subparallel mature valleys tributary to the Red and Green Rivers, branches of the Cumberland and 

Ohio Rivers, respectively. (See pi. 3.) Undrained depressions and 

sink holes are common in many parts of the plain. The Highland 

Rim escarpment is a southward-facing dissected scarp from 350 to 

400 feet high which embraces a belt of rugged topography from 4 to 

1% miles wide produced by the northward advance of Mansker, 

Drake, Station Camp, and Bledsoe Creeks, subparallel tributaries of 

the Cumberland River. Its general trend within the county as defined by a line tangent to the points of protruding spurs is approxi-
StJMNEB COUNTY 199

mately N. 70° E. The Nashville Basin, which lies south of the escarpment, is a rolling terrane whose summits level tracts from 550 to 600 

feet above the sea are remnants of the Nashville Basin peneplain 

and whose drains are youthful to submature valleys adjusted to the 

present stage of the Cumberland River, about 400 feet above sea level. 

Numerous sink holes and undrained depressions occur along the southern edge of the county in the meander belt of the Cumberland River.

The unconsolidated rocks of Sumner County include clay, sand, 

and gravel deposited by the Cumberland River and its larger tributaries during recent erosion cycles, also the mantle of residual clay 

and chert fragments, at least 60 feet in maximum thickness, which 

covers the bedrock of the Highland Rim peneplain.

Inasmuch as the county lies on the north flank of the Nashville 

dome (pp. 62-63), its consolidated rocks constitute a monocline dipping very slightly toward the north-northwest. Its geologic column 

embraces strata that range in age from Mississippian to probably 

Lower Ordovician. The youngest of these, the massive and somewhat cherty St. Louis limestone, constitutes the bedrock beneath the 

Highland Rim plateau in the extreme northwestern part of the county, 

although its visible exposures are limited to the steeper valley slopes. 

This limestone is underlain successively by the Warsaw formation, 

which comprises clay shale, calcareous shale, and thin beds of cherty 

limestone near the top and bottom of its section, and by the Fort 

Payne formation, which in this county consists of thin-bedded limestone containing much nodular and tabular chert, with some sandy 

beds. The Fort Payne formation is the bedrock of the Highland 

Rim plateau in the northeastern quadrant of the county; it also 

crops out in the deeper valleys farther west and on the uppermost 

slopes of the Highland Rim escarpment. In the middle slopes of the 

escarpment this formation is underlain in succession by the interbedded limestone and calcareous shale that constitute the New Providence shale, by the carbonaceous Chattanooga shale, and possibly 

by the Pegram limestone (Middle Devonian) or other rocks of Devonian age. The Chattanooga shale or the Middle or Lower 

Devonian if present in Sumner County is underlain by Silurian 

limestone, earthy limestone, and shale, which constitute a full sequence 

from the Lobelville limestone down to and including the Brassfield 

limestone. Of this sequence the Lobelville and Laurel limestones 

both contain sandy beds that should be permeable to water. The 

Brassfield limestone is underlain in turn by clay and shale and by 

massive gray limestone, which may represent the Fernvale and Araheim formations, respectively, of latest Upper Ordovician (Richmond) 

age. These beds crop out along the base of the Highland Rim escarpment. Farther south, on the Nashville Basin peneplain, the Arnheim 

is underlain by limestones of Upper (?) and Middle Ordovician age, the
200 GROUND WATER Mr NOBT&K5ENTRAL TENNESSEE

older rocks crowing out successively toward the south. The 

rocks of the county, which crop out along the Cumberland River, 

may belong to the uppermost |>art of the Stones River group, of 

Lower OrdovMan age, although the stratigraphy of the Ordovician 

rocks in that part of the county has not been traced. Thte general 

character and stratigra^hic relations of the consolidated rocks tha't 

are exposed in Suinner County are discussed on plages -33-^-58, an4 their 

areal distribution is shown on Plate 4.

GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS

Of the rocks that lie within reach of the drill hi Sumner County, 

only the sandy beds associated with the Pegram, Lobelvile, and 

Laurel limestones are likely to be permeable over extensive areas. 

These beds, which lie just below the Chattanooga shale, crop out 

along the Highland Rim escarpment and are potential water bearers 

only on the plateau farther north. The few wells that reach feheir 

horizons, however, either find the beds to be impermeable or to yield 

highly concentrated salt water with hydrogen sulphide. The overlying Chattanooga shale is also reported to contain salt watet at 

many places, as in wells 117,118, and 120 (pi. 4 and pp. 204-205). In the 

other rocks, all of which are limestones, the only water-bearing "openings are bedding planes, joints, and solution channels, whose number 

and transmission capacity are not at all uniform within any one stratum but are rather related to physiographic environment (pp. 78-82).

On the Highland Rim plateau the residual clay that overlies the 

St. Louis limestone in the northwestern part of the county contains 

very little coarse material and in general is not a source 0f ground 

water. Farther east, however, where the Fort Payne formation constitutes the bedrock, the residual material cont/aias many chert fragments, and some of it yields sufficient water to dug weUs and a few 

drilled wells for household supplies and fot stock. The most permeable zone is usually just above the bedrock. Some of the 'shallower 

dug Wells are inadequate in periods of extreme drought, so that Water 

is drawn from cisterns. Comparatively few wells haVe been dflUed 

into the limestone that underlies the residual material, alt&ougli 

some of them find sufficient water for domestic purpose's between 50 

and 100 feet below the surface. Others, however, are inadequate Jot 

household use, and a fefr have failed to find water-bearing t»ed&. 

The ground water from the residual clay and from the uppermost 

beds of the underlying limestone is generally satisfactory Ifof any 

ordinary purpose, containing a moderate amount of dissolved mineral 

matter and being only moderately hard. Analyses 115 and 1-21 (pp. 

112-113) are representative. However, someof the grottttd waiter tkat 

occurs in the limestone less than i.00 feet fcelow the surface aftd mttck 

of that at greater depth is high in n'0ncarbo»a*fc hardness *»M ra
SOI

hydrogen sulphide and contains so much dissolved matter as to bfe 

Unfit for boost purposes. To judge from conditions in other parts of 

the Highland Hun plateau it is likely that all strata underlying the 

Chattanooga stale or much more than 200 feet beloW tfe'e surface are 

dry or c6ntain only highly concentrated brine such as that repress&nted 

by analysis 120. Hence in the upland areas deep driilling for water fe 

generally inadvisable.

Along the Highland Rim "escarpment and iii other deeply dissected 

parts of t!(l« county ground-water conditions are most variable, for 

channeled zones in the limestone have not adjusted themselves to the 

present erosion cycle. Hence water-bearing £ones are discontinu6us atod are not likely to occur far below the level of the perennial 

streams. Most successful drilled wells in these areas are less than 

50 feet deep. Fortunately, perennial seepage aM tubular springs 

(pp. 90-95) are numerous and constitute an idequate and reliable 

source ol water in many places. Seepage springs are especially 

abundant along the weathered outcrops of extremely cherty members 

in the Fort Payne formation and at the top of the Chattanooga 

shale, an impermeable stratum that prevents i&OwnwBrd percolation of ground Water. The larger of the tubular springs generally 

occur at the perennial heads of the tributary streams, about 75 o£ 

100 'feet below the Highland Rim peneplain, such as No. 115 (p. 206). 

The aggregate discharge from such springs constitutes the groundwater drainage from the peneplain tracts. Generally, the Water from 

the mtermittent springs and from those perennial springs that discharge several gallons a minute or more is suitable for any ordinary 

use. On the other hand, tne water from some of the smaller seepage 

springs is unsuitable for many uses, that wnich issues from the Chattanooga shale feeing generally high in iron and in hydrogen sulphide. 

Furthermore, the water that issues from some of the earthy beds of 

the Fort Payne 'formation is extremely high "in hohcarbonate or permanent hardness and contains appreciable quantities of hydrogen 

sulphide, as is represented by analysis 126. Ba some plates along 

the lower slopes of the Highland Rim escarpment and near its base 

the Silurian and Ordovidan rocks contain hard hydrogen sulphide 

water or highly concentrated brine only 50 feet below stream level, 

so that potable water may hot be obtainable from drUted wells. Iii 

the vicinity of Bethpage, for example, well 123 derives water of good 

quality from the Leipers limestone or the Catheys formation 38 feet 

below the surface. Of two wells on the D. Beard property, a quarter of a mile southwest of well 123, one encounters "black sulphur" 

wfeter and the other "whifce sulphur" water^watefs containing hydrogen sulphide with and without an appreciable quantity of 

respectively. Itt the same vicinity wells more tha:n 50 feet
GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

generally encounter concentrated salt water in the Ordovician rocks, 

from which brine was formerly pumped and evaporated to obtain 

salt for household use. In some wells the salty water contains a 

small amount of oil. In the hilly area southeast of Cotton town 

drilled wells encounter but little water, and that is inferior in quality 

and is associated with natural gas; hence it is in some places difficult 

or impossible to develop adequate household water supplies. Unfortunately, strata bearing fresh water are not likely to occur below 

those from which the salty and oil-bearing waters are obtained.

In the rolling country of the Nashville Basin, which constitutes the 

southernmost part of the county, ground-water conditions differ so 

greatly from place to place that it is impossible to predict the depth 

and water-yielding capacity of the permeable zones. In the interstream tracts many domestic water supplies are derived from drilled 

wells, most of which are between 25 and 50 feet deep. However, not 

all such wells obtain adequate supplies, and some are dry. Neither is 

this shallow ground water satisfactory in chemical character at all 

places, for it is generally high in noncarbonate hardness and may contain an appreciable quantity of hydrogen sulphide. Analyses 131 and 

132 (pp. 112-113) are representative. In a few places the water is extremely concentrated in sulphate, chloride, and hydrogen sulphide, like 

that from Castalian Spring (analysis 137), and is quite unfit for all ordinary uses. Seemingly the earthy Middle Ordovician limestones that 

occupy much of this area have never been extensively channeled, and 

such permeable rocks as exist have been largely drained by the 

tributaries of the Cumberland River. Several relatively deep wells 

in Gallatin, such as Nos. 134, 135, and 136, reach a water-bearing 

zone from 124 to about 200 feet below the surface, at approximately 

the same altitude as the Cumberland River. The tested capacity of 

these wells, which is reported as 80 to 150 gallons a minute, is much 

greater than the capacity of any other known wells within the county. 

Furthermore, the water is only moderately concentrated, has only a 

very little noncarbonate hardness, and is suitable for all ordinary 

purposes if softened. Within the meander belt of the Cumberland 

River along the southern edge of the county the limestone is extremely 

cavernous and contains many sink holes into which the water is 

reported to rise from below when the river is in flood, the water level 

fluctuating with the stage of the river. Hence there are in this area 

systems of solution channels adjusted to the level of the river in its 

present erosion cycle, and it is possible that the deep wells at Gallatin 

tap a channeled zone that is tributary to one of these systems. If 

such is the case, it may be that ground water of satisfactory chemical 

character can be obtained at many other places south of the Highland 

Rim escarpment by drilling to or slightly below the level of the 

Cumberland River. However, no other wells as deep as those at
SUMNEE COUNTY 208

Gallatin are known to exist in the adjacent parts of the county, so that 

the water-yielding capacity of the rocks at the level of the river is 

not known.

MUNICIPAL GROUND-WATER SUPPLIES

Portland. The only municipal ground-water supply in Sumner County is that 

of Portland (population 1,030), which derives its water from Cold Spring (No. 115, 

p. 206) and from another tubular spring about a quarter of a mile to the east. 

These springs, which are about 2 miles northeast of Portland and about 100 feet 

below the level of the Highland Rim peneplain in that vicinity, issue from solution 

channels along bedding planes in the St. Louis limestone or the Warsaw formation. 

Other springs and solution channels at approximately the same altitude indicate 

that the conduits of the municipal springs are parts of a system of channels that 

probably drains a rather extensive area of the peneplain. The discharge of the 

two springs in October, 1927, when the ground-water discharge was approximately 

the minimum for the season, was about 150,000 gallons a day; the maximum 

discharge of the springs is not known. At each orifice are a covered cut-off trench 

lined with concrete, suitable collecting mains, and a pump with a capacity of 

100 gallons a minute. These pumps force the water directly into the distribution 

mains, in which the pressure is equalized by a 150,000-gallon elevated steel tank 

near the center of the town.
Typical wells in Sumner County, Tenn. 

[All drilled wells]

No. on 

Plate 4

114 

117 

118 

120 

121 

122 

123 

125 

127 

128 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136

No. on 

Plate 4

114 

117

Location with reference to nearest post office

Portland, 1 

Westmorela 

... ..do 

Westmorels 

Westmorela 

South Tuni 

Bethpage, 3 

White Hou, 

Cottontowi 

Rogana, M 

Saundersvi 

Saondersvi 

Saundersvi 

Saundersvi]

.....do.....

.....do 

nd, J^ mile E ____ . ...... .. .....

H miles NE...................... ..........

se, Similes S ________________

mfleSE... -.... ...... . ..... .

He, 5U miles NW .. _.._.. . ...

le, 2>| mfles NW ............. . . .... .

le _ _ . ________ . .. .. .......

le, H mile E... ........ ......... ....

Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface (feet)

100 ._...

80.........

Character of 

material

Bedding-plane 

crevice.

Geologic horizon

Warsaw limestoneFort Payne formation.

Owner or lessee

W. M- Davis

Jake 

Jake 

E.G.

Sumr 

Oakls 

L. G. 

Stews 

G. W 

H. M

John 

J. E.

Louis 

Galla 

Louis 

d

Miller No. 1..... __ ... __ - Miller No. 2..... ................

er County High School ..........

irt & Terrell No. 2 _______

. Mitchell.... ....... .........

. Senter. . __ . ....

Mirs.-. .......................

vUle & Nashville E. E.. ........

tin Ice & Coal Co. .... __ ...

ville & Nashville E. E.. ........

n

Water 

level 

above 

or 

below 

surface 

(feet)

-75(?)

Method of lift

None. ... ___ ..

Yield 

(gallons 

a minute)

.........

Topog

Platea 

Hillsid 

. .do

Platea 

Eidge 

Platea 

Valley 

__ do

Hillto] 

Valley 

do

le 

3 

 -do...

Plato:.

... ..do..

..... do.,. 

... ..do 

.....do... . 

Temperature 

(°F.)

......

S

N
118

»120

 121

0122

133

 125

"127

138 

130

m

»132

133

134

 135

136

84___..._._

60_._ 

torn. 

...do... .

115.... __

torn. 

...do.......

 do.. ...

20.... __

30.........

torn. 

124

200-«-

2QO± .

.....do ...........

Bedding-plane 

crevice.

Shale bed. - - 

BetWinf-p lane

crevice.

Flinty limestone. . .

 ..do-. .... ...

Chattanooga shale

(?).

above Fort 

Payne formation.

or Catheys formation.

stone. 

Bigby (?) .limestone.

or C$theys formation.

tion. 

-- *> 

... ..do.......... ...

Cannon (?) limestone. 

Bigby -(?) limestone.

 ..do. 

+3 or..

more 

-43 

-20 

-25-30.

-ID -

±.0 

-SO 

-35.....

-60-100

.....do ..............

Hand pump

Gasoline force pump..

Artesijjn sflow

Ptparn forwiHTmp

.... .do.... .............

 do .. ... ... ... .

5........

3.... _ .

3

8-6......

150......

80 .. 

80. 

58

57

58

58

«2

-58

60

58

58

 

..

D

 

ja

S

 

1 See analysis, PP- H2-H3.
Typical springs in Sumner County, Tenn.

No. on 

Plate 4

115 

118 

119 

124 

126 

129 

137

No. on 

Plate 4

"116 

116 

119 

124

"126

129 

«137

Location with reference to nearest post office

Portland, 

Portland, 

Westmore 

Bethpage, 

Whitehou 

Rogana, 2 

Castalian

2miles NE . 

7H miles NE.-. ... 

3 miles NE 

Openings

Number

1 

1 

1 

Several.

1

2

1

Character

Concealed; probably beddingplane channel.

Owner

J. Baskerv 

Boiling Sp 

Mrs. Care1 

L. Q. How 

Mrs. Carti 

Charles R( 

G. W. Wy

ille

rings Chui 

y Oarter

Approximate yield

Gallons a 

minute

100 

10 

2

7

Trickle.

15 

H

Date of 

measurement 

(1927)

Oct. 19.

 do 

Oct. 18.

Oct. 20.

Oct. 18. 

... do.....

Name

Cold Spring ._

Boiling Spring

'PtrrAA STirinff

Castalian Sprir

Variability

Season 

do

al... .... ....

 do..... 

 ..do....... ......

Seasonal .. .....

ig . ...----

To

s

Val

Pla

Hil

Va

Pla

Val

Use

Domestic, stock _ 

 .do. 

Formerly medic

inal. 

Stock.. 

Medicinal......

» See analysis, pp. 112-113.
WILLIAMSON COUNTY

Driller's log of well No. 1 on Jake Miller property

[No. 117, pi. 4] . Feet

Soil__________________________________ 0-3 

Limestone; fresh water at 80 feet________________ ___ 3-121

Shale, green__________________________ 121-160 

Shale, black (Chattanooga shale); salt water_______ 160-200 

"Cap rock"__________________,_______--- __-_--- 200-220

Sandstone___________________________ 220-228 

Limestone, white_______________________ 228-239 

Cavity_________________________________________ 239-241

Sandstone..________:_________________ 241-255 

Limestone_________________-____ 255-257

Driller's log of well No. 2 on Jake Mitter property

[No. 118, pi. 4] Feet

Soil..._____________________________ 0-8 

Limestone; fresh water at 84 feet_____________________ 8-115

Shale, green. ____________ __ 115-155

Limestone, earthy_______________________________ 155-160

Shale, black (Chattanooga shale); salt water_________ 160-200 :

"Cap rock"___________________________ 200-206 

Shale, brown__________________________ 206-221 

Limestone, white; 6-inch cavity at 228 feet.__________ 221-245

Sandstone____________.______________ _ 245-255

DriUer's partial log of Stewart & Terrett well No. 2

[No. 125, pi. 41

Soil. Feet 

Limestone_ _ ______________________________________ ? 58

Shale, black (Chattanooga shale)____________________ 58-84

Limestone, blue-gray____________________________ _ 84-104

Limestone, light brown, sandy near bottom__ _________ 104-114

Limestone, bluish-gray, sandy._______________________ 114-117

Limestone, bluish-gray_____________________________ 117-147

Limestone, gray, sandy____________--________-__--_-_ 147-153

WILLIAMSON COUNTY

[Area, 586 square miles. Population, 22,8451 

GENERAL FEATURES

Williamson County, which occupies the south-central part of the 

region covered by this report (pi. 1), is bounded on the norfch by 

Cheatham and Davidson Counties, on the east by Rutherford County, 

and on the northwest by Dickson County. Its county seat, Franklin 

(population, 3,377), lies about 20 miles south of Nashville on the 

Louisville & Nashville Railroad.

Like Sumner County, Williamson County is divided into two 

physiographic districts of approximately equal area by the Highland 

Rim escarpment, which trends nearly due south through its center. 

The western half of the county, most of which is drained northward 

by the South Fork and other branches of the Harpeth River, is a part
GROUND WATER JN NO^T^-^^EUAL TENNESSEE

of the Highland Rim plateau (pp. 16-18). Its. naajoF ridge crests, 

remnants of the Highland Rim peneplain, increase in altitude from 

about 800 feet above sea level in the northwestern part of th» county 

to 1,020 feet in its southwest corner. None of these remnants are 

extensive, however, for the peneplain has been dissected^ by the 

closely spaced youthful valleys of a dendritic drainage pattern. 

Hence the topography is rather rugged, especially along the. southern 

boundary of the county, where the Harpeth and Duefc Rivers are 

striving for drainage mastery. The eastern half of the county, which 

constitutes a. part of the northern lobe of the Nashville Basin (p. 

18), is drained northward by the Harpeth and West Harpeth Rivers. 

In their lower reaches these s»fereams kave; planed laterally and have 

cut valley floors half a mile to 3 miles wide at 620 to 670 feet above 

sea level, a stage which is correlative with the much more extensive 

planation by the Stone River in Rutherford County. Furthermore, 

they have reduced the interstream tracts to groups of submature hills 

and branching ridges, the bjghest of which, are in $he south-central 

part of the county and range from 1,165 to 1,250 feet a^oye se^ level. 

These hilly tracts are outliers of the Highland Rim plateau.

The rocks that crop out in WiUiamson County constitute a rather 

full stratigraphic sequence from the St. Louis and Warsaw Hmestones 

of Mississippian age, to. the, Lebanon Uinestone,, of Lower Ordovician 

age (pp. 33-54). The youngest stratigraphic unit, which comprises 

the St. I*ouis and Warsaw limestones, is made up of thick-bedded, 

somewhat cherty limestone and craps out over an extensive tract 

along the western boundary of the county. It also caps the Mgher 

ridges a.a far eastward as the. Highland Rim escarpment but. is not 

known at any point east of the West. Harpetk River. (See, pi. 4.) 

However, visible exposures of the rock generally occur only qn the 

slopes of youthful valleys, for on the remnants of the Highland Rim 

peneplain it is overlain by residual clay and chert as much as 60 feet 

thick. The Warsaw limestone is underlain everywhere by the Fort 

Payne formation, which comprises thin beds of extremely cherty 

limestone and shale, sandy limestone, calcareous shale, and clay shale. 

These beds also 0ap outliers of the plateau in the north-central and 

sotuthrcentiral pajts of the county as well as the highest summits oj t|ie 

ridge that trends southeastward across the county between the 

Harpeth and West Harpeth fivers. In a few places,, as oa the slopes 

o$ Sugar- Riclge, in the south-central part, ol the county, thefije beds »?$ 

underlain by the New Providence shale, wflich consists of clay, sjiale, 

ancj lenses of massive, crinoida) limest,one. The Fort Payne formation, 

or the New Providence shale where that, formation is pyesen^ is underlain in all p&rts, of the county by the carbonaceous Cnattanqoga, 

sh,aje. This alrftbigr^pjbic horizon marker crops out as a narrow bancj 

in tine lowe? part of t&e Highland Rim escarpment and ifcg
WJfetlAMSON

i&entf&nts, also in thfe middle of upper part of the hill slopes farther 

feast. It rests unoonformably upon rocks that range in age from 

lower middle Silurian to Middle Ordoviciah, the jpre-Chattanooga 

Devonian rocks being absent in all parts of the county and the Silurian 

and Upper Ordovician being absent east of Franklin. In a few 

places particularly in the valleys of tributaries of Leipers Creek, a 

branch of the Duck River, near fche soufchwesfc corner of fche county; 

in fche valley of the South Harpeth River near thfc northern boundary 

6f the county; also between the West Harpeth River and Murphy 

Fork about 2% miles east-southeast of Hillsboro fche Chattanooga 

shale rests upon the Osgood limestone or possibly Upon younger beds 

of middle Silurian (Niagaran) age. In fche same localities the Chattanooga shale, or the Osgood limestone where that formation is 

present, is underlain in turn by the soft green or chocolate-colored 

shale with associated bands of crystalline limestone and granular 

crysfcalline limes fcone fchat constitute fche Fernvale and Arnheim formations, of Richmond age. The Leipers formation, which in fchis 

county comprises knofcfcy earfchy limestone and shale or granular 

crystalline limestone without shale, crops out at its proper strafcigraphic horizon along fche base of fche Highland Rim escarpment, 

also in the lower and middle slopes of Sugar Ridge and of the hilly 

tract between Franklin and Brenfcwood. However, fche formation 

thins eastward, both by unconformity at its top and by overlap at its 

base, and is not known to crop out south and east of Franklin. The 

Leipers formation, or the Chattanooga shale where the Leipers is absent, 

rests upon knotty earfchy limestone and shale with associated thick beds 

of impure limestone. These beds, which constitute the Catheys formation, do not crop out anywhere in the county west of the Highland 

Rim escarpment. Together with the underlying massive Cannon 

limestone and the granular, crystalline, laminated Bigby limestone, 

the Catheys formation crops out on the lower slopes and aboufc fche 

flanks of fche hilly tracts of the eastern half of the county. Sfcratigraphically beneath the Bigby limestone is the Hermitage formation, 

which in the central part of the county comprises sandy, granular, 

phosphatic limestone at the top and even-bedded shale and sandy 

limestone below, but which along the east edge of the county is largely 

thin-bedded sandy limes fcone. This formation crops out extensively 

along the flanks of the ridge that divides the Harpeth and West 

Harpeth Rivers in the central part of the county and on the middle 

and upper slopes of the hilly areas in the eastern part of the county. 

It is underlain successively by the massive compact cherty beds of the 

Lowville limestone and by the thin-bedded compact Lebanon limestone, of which fche most extensive outcrop covers the floor and lower 

slopes of the Harpeth River Valley from the vicinity of Franklin 

eastward to and beyond tbe boundary of the county. The Lowville
210 GKOUND WATEK IN NOKTH-CENTBAL TENNESSEE

limestone is also exposed in an area about 3% miles long in the West 

Harpeth River Valley between the Columbia and Lewisburg pikes. 

Both the Lowville and Lebanon limestones crop out in small areas.in 

the south-central part of the county near the heads of the forks of 

Rutherford Creek, a branch of the Duck River. No rocks older than 

the Lebanon limestone are known to crop out within Williamson 

County.

Inasmuch as Williamson County lies on the western flank of the 

Nashville dome (pp. 62-63), its strata are generally inclined very 

slightly westward. However, they do not constitute a true monocline 

but are deformed by secondary open folds of small amplitude.

GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS

In Williamson County, as in other parts of north-central Tennessee, 

none of the unweathered rocks are permeable, so that ground water 

does not circulate in them except along joints or bedding planes or 

through tubular solution channels in the limestone. The number and 

size of the water-bearing openings of this sort are not uniform hi all 

parts of the same stratum but are related to the geomorphologic history of the region (pp. 78-82). Hence ground-water conditions are in 

large measure the. same throughout any one physiographic district.

On the remnants of the Highland Rim peneplain, in the western 

part of the county, water supplies large enough for domestic purposes 

are generally obtained from layers of chert debris in the residual 

material that overlies the bedrock, as in wells 355 and 387 (pi. 4, also 

pp. 215-217), or in the uppermost part of the bedrock itself. So far as 

is known the wells on the peneplain remnants are between 30 and 95 

feet deep, and all yield adequate supplies for household use. One 

well (No. 386) that was drilled on the plateau in search of oil is reported to be 1,060 feet deep and to have passed through waterbearing beds at 33, 67, and 189 feet below the surface. It is reported 

further that the yield from the upper two water-bearing beds was less 

than could be removed with a 20-gallon bailer, whereas the yield from 

the 189-foot bed was much greater, and that no water-bearing beds 

were penetrated between 189 and 1,060 feet below the surface. The 

chemical character of the water from the 189-foot bed is unknown, 

although in other parts of north-central Tennessee the water associated with these rocks at such a depth is so highly concentrated that it 

is wholly unfit for most uses. Some perennial seepage springs also 

issue from the residual material in the heads of the minor drains. 

Generally the residual clay and chert have been thoroughly leached, 

so that the ground water associated with them is only slightly or moderately concentrated and relatively soft, as is shown by analysis 

387 (pp. 116-117).

On the Highland Rim escarpment and other slopes of'the dissected 

parts of the plateau practically all water supplies are derived from
WILL1AMSON COUNTY 211

perennial springs, most of which are seepage springs issuing from the 

weathered rocks. Such springs are especially numerous along the 

outcrops of some beds of earthy and sandy limestone in the Fort 

Payne formation, many of which are rendered permeable when the 

calcareous matrix is leached out during weathering, although they may 

be quite impermeable if unweathered. In fact, the outcrops of some 

of the more sandy limestone beds resemble a coarse and somewhat 

friable sandstone, such as that from which Stillhouse Spring (No. 366, pi. 

4; also pp. 218-219) issues near the head of Dobbins Branch of Leipers 

Fork, as well as springs 380 and 384, on other tributaries of that 

stream. Although they are generally variable and some are intermittent, the minimum annual discharge of the perennial seepage 

springs ranges from a few gallons to about 30 gallons a minute. The 

water from these leached outcrops is generally slightly or moderately 

concentrated in calcium bicarbonate (analysis 366, pp. 116-117), and is 

satisfactory for most uses. As elsewhere, many springs, such as Nos. 358 

and 395, issue from the uppermost part of the Chattanooga shale along 

its outcrop, although generally the minimum annual discharge is less 

than 1 gallon a minute, and the water contains so much iron and hydrogen sulphide that it is unsatisfactory for many purposes. Analysis 395 

is representative. None of these strata that are permeable in the outcrop zone are known to be water-bearing where they are far below the 

surface and unweathered. Other perennial springs in the dissected 

tracts issue from jointed beds in the St. Louis and Warsaw limestones 

or in the massive limestone facies of the Fort Payne formation. 

Although some of these issue from small solution channels that follow 

joints or bedding planes, all are rather variable and presumably derive 

their water largely from the zone of weathering. The discharge from 

any one spring is generally less than 25 gallons a minute, as in Nos. 

379, 381, 382, 383, and 385. However, the aggregate discharge from 

several springs of this sort may constitute a reliable supply of considerable magnitude, such as the municipal supply of Franklin 

(pp. 213-214). The massive crystalline limestones of the Silurian system, which crop out locally just below the Chattanooga shale, seem to 

be relatively much more soluble than the overlying Mississippian limestones, so that under favorable conditions they may be rendered 

cavernous by solution. Cold Spring (No. 359), which issues from a 

solution channel in these rocks, is the largest known spring in the 

west half of the county. Its water contains only a moderate quantity 

of dissolved mineral matter and has moderate carbonate hardness, as 

is shown by analysis 359 (pp. 116-117); hence it is wholly satisfactory 

for most purposes, especially if softened.

In the east half of Williamson County both the quantity and the 

chemical character of the ground water differ greatly from place to 

place, especially in the hilly areas. In a few places the limestone is
*J12 GEOTJND WATEtt IN NORtH*CEN*RAL TENNESSEE

rather cavernous, as at Whitehurst Cave (No. 361, pi. 4), about 4 

miles northeast of Franklin, and along the crest of the ridge crossed 

by the Murfreesboro pike between 4 and 5 miles east-southeast of 

Franklin. These cavernous zones, which occur approximately from 

100 to 200 feet above the major valleys, were clearly formed before 

the Nashville Basin stage of stream planation (pp. 20-22), for they 

have been cut through by streams adjusted to that Stage and generally are completely drained. That along the Muffrfeesboro pike, 

however, constitutes a natural reservoir and impounds Water, which 

is exposed in several sink holes about 740 feet above sea level, 

such as Armstrong's Pond (No. 374), and is discharged by several 

perennial springs between 700 and 740 feet above sea level about the 

periphery of the hilly tract. Presumably the principal outlets of this 

cavernous zone are wholly or partly clogged with debris, else Water 

could not be impounded in it. In these same hilly tracts some drilled 

wells penetrate water-bearing beds between 40 and 200 feet below the 

surface, although most wells are between 60 and 100 feet deep. Some 

Wells that are close together find water at different depths. Generally 

the Water associated with beds 100 feet or less below the surface contains only a moderate amount of dissolved calcium bicarbonate and 

other mineral matter and is not unduly hard. On the other hand, the 

water associated with the shallower beds in a few places and with the 

deeper water-bearing beds at most places is likely to be BO highly concentrated in sulp'hate or chloride and to have so much noncarbonate 

or permanent hardness that it is quite unsuited for general use. Analysis 394 (pp. 116-117) is typical of the calcium sulphate waters. Furthermore, some of the waters are reported to contain hydrogen sulphide, 

as in well 378, or appreciable amounts of petroleum or natural gas, as 

in wells 399 and 401. Both potable and highly mineralized nonpotable 

Water are encountered by well 373 in beds that are approximately 

40 feet and 200 feet, respectively, below the surface. The water from 

this well is usable for domestic purposes only in the wet season, when 

the static level of the ground water in the 40-foot bed is at its highest 

and is considerably above that of the 200-foot bed. Furthermore, 

many wells in the hilly tracts, such as Nos. 357, 363, 388, and 396, do 

not find any Water-bearing beds even though they range from 40 to 

225 feet or more in depth. Well 389 passed through a water"-bearing 

bed that yielded 15 gallons a day about 40 feet below the surface but 

found no other water-bearing beds to a depth of 300 feet. Among 

the most reliable sources of water in the hilly areas are perennial 

springs, such as Nos. 362 and 364, although none are known whose 

minimum annual discharge is much more than 25 gallons a minute. 

In the valleys of the east half of the county ground-Water conditions also differ greatly from place to place. In general the Welife may 

be divided into two groups those which obtain moderately coacfen-
COUNTT

trated calcium bicarbonate water in beds from 30 to about 75 feet 

below the surface and those which find more highly mineralized 

waters containing sulphate, with or without hydrogen sulphide, 

generally in beds between 100 and 135 feet below the surface. However, some wells more than 100 feet deep yield calcium bicarbonate 

water of satisfactory quality, and some others less than 5Q feet deep 

yield water that is much too highly concentrated to be fit for any 

ordinary use. Analyses 365, 370, 376, and 390 (pp. 116-117) are 

typical. Highly mineralized water that is unfit for most uses is found 

in a relatively large proportion of the wells drilled in the Lowville and 

Lebanon limestones on the upper reaches of the Harpeth and West 

Harpeth Rivers. (See pi. 4.) Furthermore, adjacent wells may differ 

greatly in depth to water-bearing beds and in the chemical character 

of the water, and not all wells are successful, None have a reported 

tested capacity exceeding 20 gallons a minute, and the ultimate capacity of several is less than 1 gallon a minute. The water-bearing 

properties of the deeply buried rocks are not known but may be inferred to be similar to those disclosed by well 403, which is in Maury 

County about 5 miles south of Allisona. This well on August 17, 1927, 

was 870 feet deep. Beds ca>rrying potable water were penetrated at 

25 and 60 feet below the surface, but the underlying strata were devoid 

of water to a depth of 855 feet, where a very small amount of concentrated brine was found at the contact (unconformable?) between two 

beds of limestone. Hence deep drilling for water in the east half of 

the county is not likely to be successful. Furthermore, no rocks of 

large water-yielding capacity are known to occur here at any depth. 

It is reported that well 365 discharges by artesian pressure during 

the winter from a solution crevice or unconformity 160 feet below 

the surface. Presumably the artesian condition is local and due to 

trapping of ground water above an obstruction in a solution channel 

or in a discontinuous cavernous zone associated with an 

unconformity.

QROTJND-WATER SUPPLIES

FranMin. The city of Franklin derives its municipal water supply front* 36 

springs along the eastern base of Duck Rive? Bidge, froin 9 to 13 miles west and 

southwest of the city (Nos. 3f>6, 379 to 385). The estimated minimum annual 

discharge of these springs, as reported to the city officials by B. H. JOyee, consulting engineer, of Nashville, is shown by the fallowing table.
214 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Estimated minimum daily discharge of springs constituting municipal water supply

at Franklin, Tenn.

No. on 

Plate 4

366

379

380

381

382

383

384

384

384

386

Name

Stlllhouse Spring _______________

Spring (11 springs).

ner Springs (3 springs).

Green Spring

Goodjine Spring __________ .. _ .....

Silver Spring _________________

Location

Dobbins Branch of Leipers Fork.....

do .

north branch of. 

.....do . . .. 

.....do . .............................

.....do... ..............................

.....do ................. ...........

. __ do................... ...........

.....do..... .... .............

 _do -. -. - 

... ..do ............ ...... ..........

Garrison Branch of Leipers Fork,

south branch of. 

. .do . ..... .......

.....do . . ...... ........

... . .do ....... . ... ..... .......

.....do.... . 

Bally 

discharge 

(gallons)

26,000

40,000

21,000

16,000

16,000

3,000

12,000

8,000

5,000

8,000

4,000

21,000

53,000

8,000

4,000

29,000

273,000

This estimate, however, seems to be based upon measurements made in only 

one season, 1922, in which the surface-water and ground-water discharge in 

central Tennessee were much more than the average. For example, the run-off 

from the Cumberland River Basin above Nashville in the year ending September 

30, 1922, was 28.37 inches, whereas the average run-off in the 20-year period 

ending September 30, 1924, was 22.68 inches and the minimum run-off in the 

same period only 12.40 inches." Hence, the estimates tabulated above may 

be more than twice the minimum discharge of the springs in an unduly dry year.

Each of the 36 springs that constitute the source is provided with a suitable 

cut-off box and discharge pipe connecting with an 8-inch cast-iron pipe which 

discharges by gravity into a 100,000-gallon steel standpipe and a 500,000-gallon 

covered concrete reservoir on a hillside about 2J4 miles southwest of Franklin 

and 130 feet above it. Distribution is effected by gravity, the maximum domestic 

pressure being about 50 pounds to the square inch. The average daily consumption is reported to be about 125,000 gallons, to supply which the entire discharge 

of the source is utilized during the summer and autumn of unduly dry years. 

Hence, some addition to the supply will perhaps become imperative in dry years 

if the population of the city should increase. In view of the small tested capacities of wells drilled in the limestone in the vicinity of Franklin and of the inferior 

quality of the deeper ground water, it is not certain that a material addition to 

the supply can be obtained by drilling wells. Rather, such an addition should 

be sought first in other springs along the flank of Duck River Ridge and second 

in surface water from the Harpeth River or some of its tributaries.

Hillsboro. Most of the residents of Hillsboro (formerly Leipers Fork; estimated 

population 375) derive their domestic water supplies from individual dug wells. 

One group of eight dwellings, however, is supplied from a small perennial spring 

through a distribution system owned and operated in cooperation by the residents.

" Bang, W. R., Water resources of Tennessee: Tennessee Div. Geology Bull. 34, pp. 129-132,1925.
Typical wells in Williamson County, Tenn

[No. 387 dug; all others drilled]

No. on 

Plate 4

364 

365 

356 

367 

360 

363 

366 

367 

368 

369 

371 

372 

373 

376 

376 

377 

378 

386 

387 

388 

389 

390 

391 

392 

393 

394 

396 

397 

398 

399 

400 

401 

402 

403

Location with reference to nearest post office

Franklin, 7 miles N_ 

Franklin, 6% miles NW.. ......

Franklin, 7H miles W. 

Franklin . . _ _ __ ___ - __ -

 -do....... ... ... ... ....

TrfttiklJTi, 7j| TnilftS V. , r r

Franklini 7^1 miles SE _________ ... ______

Arrington, &% miles NW.... _ .

Thompsons Station, % mile NE ____________

Owner or lessee"

Louisville & Nashville B. R_ .........

Tennessee Baptist Orphans' Home __

W. M. Owen _____________

W. L. Henry... . . . .

Louisville & Nashville B. E. .........

8. J. Wilson... 

Bid Wall.. ...... ...

.....do... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

H. A. Laws, M. D __________

Louisville & Nashville R. R._ .....

Topogra

Valley. 

Hillside

Valley.

Hillside _ 

.. do.... 

 ..do.... .

Vallev

 do 

 . .do...

Hills

Vall

Hills

Valley _ 

Hillto

Hillside

Hillsi

Hillto

Valley.. 

..... do..

.....do.....

Hills

VallfiV

Hilltop.

Vollmr

..... do.. 

... ..do.

.....do...

[Table continued on pp. 216-217]
Typical wells in Williamson County, Tenn. Con

[No. 387 dug', all others drilled]

No. on 

Plate 4

m

355 

356 

357

360 

363

"385

867 

368

360

371 

372 

373

876 

"376

377

Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface 

(feet)

40-50 

100 

70 __ .....

None __

160 . ....

60 ._

50 

Near bottom.

Near .bottom. 

200 

132........

75 ...-

Character of material

Bedding-plane crevice.

Solution crevice. ...

Bedding-plane crevice.

Bedding-plane crevice.

Bedding-plane crevice.

Geologic horizon

Bigby limestone 

or Hermitage formation. 

St. Louis or Warsaw limestone. 

Cannon limestoneCannon limestone.

Ridley (?) limestone. 

Cannon limestoneHermitage formation. 

Lowville limestone 

or Hermitage formation.

Lowville limestone

Ridley limestone..

Lowville (?) limestone.

Water 

level 

above 

or 

below 

surface 

(feet)

-30 

-30-46.

-76 

-40...

-40. ..

22

-40...

-20 

-75 

-50-.

-60 

Method of lift

 do... 

... ..do. ........ :..

Yield 

(gallons 

a minute)

Very 

small.

Mo20-. 

Small. _

Very 

small.

Temperature 

(°F.)

58

Us

..... d

.....do 

Dom

 d

..... d

 do

 d

 d

..... d
i

378

386

 387

388

389

"390

391

392

393

"394

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

Near bottom. 

189.... _ .

Near bottom. 

None ......

40 .. 

Near bottom. 

...do 

 do 

90 

Near bottom. 

None . .

60 

40± .

60. ___ 

Near bottom.

25,60 

Shale . 

Bedding-plane crevice.

.....do... ..........

ice. 

.....do... ...........

ice.

ice. 

Limestone __ .

 do ... .

 -.do...... ...

tion.

above St. Louis 

or Warsaw limestone.

of Hermitage formation. 

Cannon or Bigby

limestone.

stone.

stone.

tion.

tion.

limestone.

stone.

tion.

mation.

tion or Lowville 

limestone.

-130-

-35 

-20 

-20...

-15 

-40 

-75 

-40 

-20 

-60 

-4... .

-22 

-25 

.....do.... .............

 do 

pump.

V « r v

small.

5+

0 1

1-2 

us

61

62

..... d

Drin

..... d

\'See analysis, pp. 116-117.
218 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

ll

a ,g a ,_o Q_o

~ n - «j-j p _^ p

® fe M te

PQ^i.

§

O»QO 

I-(CO T-4 t~ooot~

0^

OG 00 t

SSS"5 ^ ^ ^ ^

o o o o o

I?

?MW

^00

a g 

^^^

~cL

issdg
No. on 

Plate 4

358

"359 

361

362 

364

366 

370 

374

379

380 

381

382

383 

384

38S 

 395

Openings

Number

1

X 

1

1

1

1 

1

1

3

3 

1

3

1 

4

2 

3

Character

Joint and bedding-plane creVices.

Large solution channel along 

joints. 

Joint and bedding-plane channel. 

Concealed; probably solution 

channel.

Sink hole leading to solution 

channel.

Joint and bedding-plane crevices. 

.....do..... .. - ....

Joint and bedding-plane channel. 

Joint and bedding-plane crevices.

. .do. 

Joint and bedding-plane crevices, 

 do 

Approximate yield

Gallons a 

minute

Very 

small 

270 

Less 

than 1 

25

10

17 

20 

No 

flow 

noted. 

15

10 

&A

&H

19

47

26 

M

Date of 

measurement 

(1927)

Aug. 18.

.... do 

Aug. 17.

Aug. 15. 

... .do 

Aug. 13. 

Aug. 16. 

Aug. 17.

Aug. 16.

Variability

.....do ..... ... 

..... do.. 

 do 

Probably seasonal .....

.....do....... .......

 .do ... ... ... .

.....do - ...... .... ...

.....do ..... .....

 do .....

.....do. ............

Use

Formerly medic

nal. 

Domestic, stock 

Stock.... _ . __ 

Domestic, stock 

.....do ......

Swimming pool

Stock. -.---.. _ 

.....do..... . .....

 do 

.....do.... .......

 .-do-. ......

-...do ...... 

.....do... .....

Formerly medic

nal.

» See analysis, pp. 116-117.
220 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

WILSON COUNTY

[Area, 613 square miles. Population, 23,929] 

GENERAL FEATCJRES

Wilson County, which occupies the east-central part of the region 

covered by this report (pi. 1), is bounded on the north by Sumner 

County, on the south by Rutherford County, and on the west by 

Davidson County. Its principal cities are the county seat, Lebanon 

(population 4,656), and Watertown (population 928), both of which 

are on the main line of the Tennessee Central Railroad.

This county, which lies near the center of the northern lobe of the 

Nashville Basin, lies for the most part on a dissected plain, the Nashville Basin peneplain (pp. 20-22), whose interstream flats slope gently 

northwestward and generally are between 625 and 700 feet above sea 

level. Its drains, which are adjusted to the present stage of the 

Cumberland River, about 400 feet above sea level, radiate from the 

southeastern quadrant of the county to the Cumberland River on 

the north, the Stone River on the southwest, and Caney Fork of the 

Cumberland River on the east. Near these major streams the surface has been so deeply dissected by the closely spaced branches of 

the dendritic tributaries that it bears little semblance to the original 

peneplain. Away from the major streams, however, and especially 

along the divide between the Cumberland and Stone Rivers, the 

peneplain extends undissected for many miles. Not all of this district is drained by the surface streams, for there are many small sinkholes and some closed depressions covering 1 square mile or more 

that drain radially inward and discharge into solution channels in the 

limestone. The origin of some of these features is related to that of 

the Nashville Basin peneplain, that of others to the older of the two 

partial erosion cycles by which the peneplain was dissected. In contrast to this extensive dissected plain, the southeastern quadrant of 

the county is a hilly and moderately rugged area of which only the 

floors of the major valleys are correlative with the surrounding peneplain. Its hills and ridges, the highest of which are in the vicinity of 

Green vale and reach 1,300 feet above sea level, are maturely eroded 

outliers of the Highland Rim plateau (pp. 16-18), which covers extensive areas in the adjoining counties.

Inasmuch as Wilson County lies on the axis and northwest flank of 

the Nashville dome (pp. 62-63), its rock strata dip radially northward 

and westward from its southeast corner, although this regional dip is 

modified somewhat by open secondary folds. The rocks that crop 

out embrace the lowest part of the Fort Payne formation and the 

underlying Chattanooga shale, the latter of Upper Devonian or early 

Mississippian age, as well as a nearly complete sequence of Ordovician formations down to the Ridley limestone (pp. 35-55). The
WILSON COUNTY 221

entire Middle and Lower Devonian and the Silurian are absent 

throughout the county, being cut out by overlap upon the Ordovician and by the major disconformity that marks the base of the 

Chattanooga shale. The Fort Payne formation and the Chattanooga shale cap the highest hills and ridges in the vicinity of Greenvale, Statesvifle, and Watertown, in the southeastern quadrant of 

the county, as is shown by Plate 4, but do not crop out elsewhere. 

In a few places the Chattanooga shale is underlain by the nodular 

earthy limestone and shale that constitute the Leipers and Catheys 

formations, but in many others the Leipers and Catheys are missing 

and the Chattanooga rests directly upon the Cannon limestone. 

This formation, which comprises gray and blue argillaceous cherty 

limestone at the top and massive dove-colored limestone in its lower 

part, crops out extensively on the middle slopes of the hilly areas 

and on some of the peneplain remnants farther north and west. The 

Hermitage formation, which underlies it and comprises thin-bedded 

argillaceous limestone, clay shale, and phosphatic shale, crops out on 

the middle and lower slopes of the hills in the southeastern part of 

the county and is widespread on the peneplain tract to the north and 

west. Beneath the Hermitage are compact massive and thin-bedded 

dove-colored cherty limestones, which constitute the Lowville, Lebanon, and Ridley limestones in succession from the top downward. 

The Lowville limestone crops out on the lower slopes of some of the 

hills and on the valley floors in the southeastern quadrant of the 

county and on much of the higher ground farther west; the Lebanon 

and Ridley limestones are the most widespread formations on the 

dissected plain of the southwestern quadrant. So far as is known, 

the lowest beds of the Ridley limestone and all underyling strata are 

not exposed at any place within the county.

GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS

In Wilson County, as in other parts of the Nashville Basin, the 

amount and chemical character of the ground water differ widely 

from place to place. Most of the ground water is of meteoric origin 

and circulates along joints, bedding planes, or other solution channels 

of the limestone, the permeability of the rocks depending wholly 

upon the frequency and size of these openings. In many places, 

however, bodies of connate and other highly concentrated water are 

trapped above or below impermeable shaly beds, in deeply buried 

permeable strata, or perhaps in permeable zones related to unconformities. In some of the interstream areas the channeled zones in 

the limestone above the level of the streams have been drained, the 

rocks below stream level are not water bearing, and domestic water 

supplies must be derived from cisterns. Furthermore, at many 

places on the peneplain remnants, bedrock is only a few feet below
222 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

the surface, so that wood or steel tanks are used to store rain water. 

In these same areas storm run-off is generally impounded in small 

natural or artificial ponds for the watering of stock.

Among the most reliable sources of ground water in the county are 

the perennial tubular springs (pp. 92-95), such as those which issue 

at the heads of the perennial creeks (Nos. 323, 329, and 342, p. 233), 

and the underground streams that are exposed where the roof of a 

large solution channel has collapsed (Nos. 331 and 338). The course 

of one such underground stream from 15 to 25 feet or more below the 

surface is indicated in a general way by a belt of sink holes that trends 

northwestward through Blindfish Cave (No. 338); through Cave 

Spring, which is on the fair grounds at the western edge of Lebanon; 

and through the unused City Spring, in the public square at Lebanon. 

The solution channel through which this stream flows is a part of what 

seems to have been an extensive system of channels draining much of 

the Nashville Basin peneplain before its dissection. Hence, some of 

the tubular springs that issue from channels of this system may drain 

large bodies of limestone and be correspondingly less variable in 

discharge than those whose catchment area is small. The discharge 

of most of the tubular springs is extremely variable, increasing notably 

a few hours after a heavy rain and decreasing greatly in the summer. 

Consequently, the reliability of any spring can be determined only by 

periodic measurements of the discharge during several years.

The drilled wells from which domestic water supplies are drawn on 

the Nashville Basin peneplain of Wilson County range in depth from 

22 feet to about 200 feet, although most of them are between 50 and 

75 feet deep. Generally, the portions of the strata that are permeable 

are not continuous, for wells at adjacent sites may be drilled to very 

different depths in order to find water. Generally the tested capacities 

of the wells are not more than 5 gallons a minute, and for some the 

capacities are less than 1 gallon a minute. A few wells, such as No. 

348 (pi. 4, also pp. 230-232), have tested capacities exceeding 10 gallons 

a minute, but unsuccessful wells have been drilled at many places, especially on the crests of the ridges. The difficulties that are encountered 

in obtaining a large amount of water from drilled wells are shown by 

conditions at Horn Springs (No. 326), where 30 or more wells have 

been drilled in an effort to obtain an adequate water supply for a resort 

hotel with outdoor swimming pool. It is reported that each of these 

wells would have yielded enough water for a single household, although 

the chemical character of some of the ground water obtained was 

unsatisfactory, and all but four of the wells have been abandoned as 

inadequate. Several wells that were drilled near the hotel within 200 

yards of Horn Spring No. 2 (No. 326), about 570 feet above sea level, 

range from 35 to 95 feet in depth; all found rather highly concentrated 

water at depths between 17 and 35 feet but no water below. The
WILSON COUNTY 223

Welt A/o./, Cttyoftxbenon 

(A/

O Wall A/o. 2, City of Lebanon

chemical character of the water from these wells, which have been 

abandoned, is presumably similar to that represented by analysis 326 

(pp. 116-117). In a well 292 feet deep, which is about 425 yards northwest of the hotel, near the swimming pool, on the crest of a ridge 

about 615 feet above sea level, at least five water-bearing beds were 

penetrated. The uppermost of these was 17 feet below the surface. 

It is reported that the static level of the ground water was 15 feet 

below the surface and that the drawdown was about 65 feet with a 

yield somewhat less than 10 gallons a minute. Hence, the specific 

capacity of the well is low, between 0.2 and 0.1 gallon a minute for 

each foot of drawdown. About 250 yards northwest of this well and 

590 feet above sea level 

is another well 252 feet 

deep (No. 325), in which 

at least three water-bearing beds were penetrated, 

the uppermost and principal one 160 feet below 

tHe surface. The static 

level of the ground water 

is reported to be about 30 

feet below the surface. In 

a capacity pumping test 

made soon after it was 

completed, in September, 

1927, the well yielded 

about 15 gallons a minute 

for 8 hours, but the correlative drawdown is unknown. About 100 yards 

northeast of well 325 and 

about 25 feet lower in 

altitude is a group of three wells about 20 yards apart and 56, 170, 

and 168 feet deep. The 56-foot well is unused. The tested capacity 

of one of the deeper wells is about 20 gallons a minute and that of 

the other somewhat less, and the specific capacity is about 0.3 gallon 

a minute for each foot of drawdown. It is not known whether or not 

the beds that yield water in these wells are also water bearing in the 

vicinity of the hotel, where they underlie the strata that contain 

the highly concentrated sulphate water.

Several wells in Wilson County have capacities between 50 and 200* 

gallons or more a minute, including Nos. 333, 334, and 335, owned 

by the city of Lebanon; No. 336, owned by the Interstate Ice & Coal 

Co., of Lebanon; and No, 347 (two wells), owned by the city of 

Watertown. Figure 7 shows the approximate plan of the wells at

Wet/No.3, City oflebanon 

(Mo«33Softa<bu/etec/H,e//c

O

Interstate /ce & Coal Cos wel/ 

CNo.336 of tabu/steel well date)

so feet

FIGUBE 7. Sketch plan showing location of wells in Lebanon 

that yield more than 100 gallons a minute
224 GEOUND WATEK IN. NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

Lebanon, all of which tap a common water-bearing bed. Wells 333 

and 334 (Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, city of Lebanon) are 205 and 

196 feet deep and 10 and 8 inches in diameter. They are about 75 

yards east of the Lebanon station of the Tennessee Central Railroad. 

Both of these wells obtain water from the Eidley (?) limestone about 

185 feet below the surface (about 345 feet above sea level); the static 

level in the wet months is 64 feet below the surface (about 465 feet 

above sea level), or about 25 feet below the near-by Sinking Creek. 

Presumably the water was obtained in solution channels. Well 335 

(No. 3, city of Lebanon), which was originally about 200 feet deep, 

was deepened to 351 feet in 1924 without finding any water-bearing 

beds below that which is about 185 feet below the surface. These 

wells are pumped by air lifts. Two of the three wells are generally 

operated 10 hours or more each day, and the yield of each ranges 

from about 100 to more than 200 gallons a minute, varying with the 

season; The specific capacity is relatively large for north-central 

Tennessee and ranges between 5 and 10 gallons a minute for each foot 

of drawdown. In 1927 wells 334 and 335 were pumped steadily from 

September 16 until October 12, and the combined yield decreased 

gradually in that period from 325 to 200 gallons a minute. About 

8 a. m. October 12, about 10 hours after the start of a long heavy 

rain on the adjacent region, the yield began to increase, and on October 

13 it reached a maximum of about 450 gallons a minute. Most of 

the increase in yield was probably due to rise in static level of the 

ground water in response to the rainfall, although a part of it may have 

been due to greater efficiency of the air-lift pumps as their submergence increased with rising static level. Furthermore, it is reported 

that the discharge from well 335 is slightly turbid after rainfall in the 

vicinity, even though it is cased from the surface to the water-bearing

bed.

level

sent

changes take place so promptly after rainfall, the water-bearing bed

tapped by the municipal wells must communicate rather directly

If this report is correct it follows that the changes in static 

induced by rainfall are not merely hydrostatic effects but repreactual saturation, of permeable rock. Furthermore, as the

with the surface by solution channels or other openings which can

transmit water rapidly. Well 336, which is owned by the Interstate

Ice &

weH 3

Coal Co., derives most of its water from an open channel or

cellular zone of the limestone about 18 inches thick and about 185 

feet ]>elow the surface. Another water-bearing bed was penetrated 

at a depth of 85 feet, but none was found below the 185-foot bed, 

although the well is 304 feet deep. Like the Lebanon municipal wells,

36 is pumped by an air lift whose capacity is about 150 gallons

a minute. It also interferes with the municipal wells, whose yield is 

reported to drop 50 or 75 gallons a minute within 15 minutes after 

the piunp oa well 336 is started. The two wells (No. 347) that con*
WILSON COUNTY

stitute the source of municipal water at Watertown, about 12 miles 

southeast df Lebanon, are 250 and 251 feet deep and 6 inches in 

diameter. Both tap a water-bearing bed in the Ridley (?) limestone 

more than 200 feet below the surface and hence not more than 455 

feet above sea level. The static level of the ground water is reported 

as about 40 feet below the surface. Each well is equipped with an 

electrically driven double-acting deep-well pump with a rated capacity 

of 60 gallons a minute. When the wells were first placed in service, 

in October, 1925, one was pumped at full capacity for 36 hours and 

both were pumped concurrently at full capacity for 12 hours in order 

to fill the 200,000-gallon municipal standpipe. Since that time they 

have been pumped about four hours each day. The drawdown under 

ordinary operating conditions is reported as 19 feet, which corresponds 

to a specific capacity of 3 gallons a minute for each foot of drawdown. 

It is perhaps noteworthy that the water-bearing beds in the municipal wells both at Lebanon and at Watertown occur in the Ridley 

(?) limestone. Furthermore, at Lebanon the water-bearing bed is 

about 50 feet below the level of the Cumberland River, whereas at 

Watertown it is about 50 feet above the level of the river. The static 

level of the ground water at Lebanon is about 465 feet above sea 

level and at Watertown about 625 feet above sea level, or about 65 

and 225 feet, respectively, above the Cumberland River. Big Spring 

(No. 329), which is about 7 miles northeast of Lebanon and whose 

altitude is about 520 feet above sea level, discharges by artesian head 

from the Hermitage formation or Lowville limestone. Also, the 

static level of ground water in well 328, about 3% miles northwest of 

Big Spring, is approximately level with the ground surface, or about 

465 feet above sea level. This well finds water confined under artesian 

head in the upper part of the Stones River group (pp. 54-57) about 118 

feet below the surface (350 feet above sea level). These static levels 

seem to define a pressure-indicating surface which is approximately a 

true plane sloping northwestward about 13 feet in each mile and intersecting the water surface of the Cumberland River approximately 

due north of Horn Springs. Such a hydraulic gradient is quite compatible with the assumption that the water-bearing beds at Lebanon, 

Watertown, well 328, and Big Spring are connected by moderately 

permeable material. Even on this assumption, however, the conditions that maintain artesian head remain somewhat uncertain. 

Clearly, the water-bearing beds do not constitute a stratigraphic 

unit nor a channeled zone related to an unconformity, for they occur 

at several stra%£apMe horizons. Furthermore, the relation between rainfall and static level of the ground water in the 185-foot 

bed at Lebanon, together with the chemical character of the water 

from both the Lebanon and Watertown municipal wells (see analyses 

333 and 347, pp. 116-117), indicate that the water is of meteoric origin
226 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE

and that it circulates rather freely. Hence, if the water-bearing beds at 

these several places are actually connected, the water-bearing openings probably constitute a system of solution channels that receives 

water by percolation from the surface and discharges it into the Cumberland Eiver. Such a system might comprise either a few branching ground-water arteries or many braided small channels. Ground 

water might be maintained under artesian head in such a system of 

channels by the hydrostatic pressure of water in the Cumberland 

Eiver if the openings through which discharge was effected were few 

and small or if they were partly clogged by impermeable material 

such as silt and clay. It follows, therefore, that the limestone in 

che northern part of Wilson County may be rather extensively channeled and water bearing at a depth somewhat greater than that 

attained by most wells but generally more than 350 feet above sea 

level. Furthermore, the wells of the Louisville & Nashville Kailroad at Gallatin, Sumner County (Nos. 135 and 136, pp. 204-205), 

which tap a water-bearing bed in the Bigby (?) limestone about 320 

feet above sea level, may indicate an extension of this channeled zone 

toward the north. The static level of the ground water in these wells 

is reported to be between 50 and 100 feet below the surface, or 420 

to 470 feet above sea level. If, however, the water-bearing beds of 

the wells at Lebanon and Watertown, well 328, and Big Spring are 

not connected, the artesian head existing in well 328 must be local 

and due to obstruction of its water-bearing channel. Unfortunately, 

no other deep wells are known to have been drilled in northern Wilson County, so that adqeuate data for analyzing the true hydrologic 

condition are not obtainable.

Although at least one deep well (No. 327) has been drilled in Wilson 

County in search of oil, no satisfactory records of the lithologic 

character or water-bearing properties of the deeper strata are available. It seems probable, however, that potable ground water of 

meteoric origin does not circulate in the limestones much lower than 

a plane about 300 feet above sea level, and that water-bearing beds 

which may occur at greater depth contain only highly concentrated 

water of inferior chemical character.

In the hilly country which constitutes the southeastern quadrant 

of Wilson County reliable ground-water supplies are generally derived 

from perennial springs or from drilled wells that do not extend much 

more than 50 feet below the level of the perennial streams. On the 

middle and upper slopes of the hills some wells either do not find any 

permeable beds, as in well 350, or encounter only highly concentrated 

nonpo table brine, as in well 352.

The chemical character of the ground waters of Wilson County 

differs greatly. The water that issues from most of the perennial 

springs, especially from those of the tubular type, and that which is
WIIJSON COUNTY 227

associated with the more permeable strata 200 feet or less below the 

surface, is generally satisfactory for most purposes. Those represented by analyses 328,330,333,347, and 348 (pp. 116-117) are typical. 

These are moderately concentrated calcium bicarbonate waters that 

have moderate carbonate hardness and some noncarbonate hardness, 

so that they are somewhat objectionable as scale formers and soap 

consumers unless softened. The waters of this type that are associated with the deeper beds are usually higher in noncarbonate hardness. Some, such as No. 353, are much too hard for satisfactory use 

in laundering or as boiler feed water and even if softened are likely to 

be unsuitable for certain purposes. In contrast with waters of this 

type are the highly concentrated sulphate and chloride waters, of 

which analyses 326,344, and 352 are representative. They may occur 

at slight depth in such thin-bedded and shaly formations as the Hermitage formation and Lebanon limestone or at moderate depth in 

any of the rock formations, especially in the hilly areas and the contiguous parts of the peneplain in the southeastern quadrant of the county. These are the areas in which underground drainage has not been 

completely established in the present erosion cycle. The sulphate and 

chloride waters are of two general classes those, such as No. 344, 

which contain much more sodium than other bases and hence are 

moderately soft unless very highly concentrated and those which 

contain large amounts of calcium and magnesium and have much 

noncarbonate hardness. The waters of the first class may be used 

for domestic and some other purposes if they do not contain much 

more than 1,000 parts per million of dissolved mineral matter, although 

they are somewhat objectionable. Those of the second class are 

generally unfit for any ordinary use. A considerable proportion of 

the sulphate and chloride waters contain appreciable amounts of 

hydrogen sulphide and objectionable amounts of iron, which, in the 

presence of air, form a suspended precipitate of black ferrous sulphide. 

In the vicinity of Norene and possibly elsewhere in the southeastern 

quadrant of the county some of the ground water contains moderate 

quantities of hydrocarbon gases. It is reported that for about two 

years gas issued from one well in Norene, about 60 feet deep, in sufficient quantity to illuminate a store. The water from well 352 (pp. 230- 

232) is unusual in that most of the combined sulphur occurs as the hydrosulphide radicle (HS). In general, highly concentrated waters of 

these types are likely to be found in any part of the county in beds 

more than 100 feet below the surface and, so far as is known, in all 

beds much more than 200 feet below the surface. Furthermore, it 

is not known that potable ground water exists at any place in beds 

underlying those which contain the highly concentrated sulphate or 

chlorid.6 water.
228 GROUND WATER IN NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE 

MUNICIPAL GBOUND-WATMR 8UPPUEES8

Lebanon. Lebanon, the county seat of Wilson County, derives its municipal 

supply from three drilled wells about 75 yards east of the Tennessee Central 

Eailroad station, on the west bank of Sinking Creek. These wells, which are 205, 

196, and 351 feet deep, are described on pages 230-232. The chemical character of 

the water is shown by analysis 333 (pp. 116-117). Water is raised from the wells by 

air-lift pumps, chlorinated, and pumped into a 450,000-gallon elevated steel standpipe by two horizontal centrifugal pumps with capacities of 750 and 500 gallons 

a minute. These pumps are driven by directly connected electric motors. Distribution is effected by gravity, and the average domestic pressure is about 45 

pounds to the square inch. The aggregate capacity of the three wells ranges from 

about 200 gallons a minute during long dry periods to 750 gallons a minute during 

the winter and spring. The maximum daily consumption, which is measured by 

an automatic recording flow meter, is about 450,000 gallons, and the average 

consumption about 326,000 gallons. Hence the present source is barely adequate 

to supply the demand in the dry periods.

Foxhill, a suburb of Lebanon, derives an auxiliary water supply from a fourth 

well (No. 337) about a mile northeast of the three already described. This well, 

which is about 250 feet deep and 6 inches in diameter, probably also taps the 

Eidley limestone. It is equipped with an electrically driven deep-well pump with 

a rated capacity of 100 gallons a minute, but its actual yield and specific capacity 

ar& unknown. This well is used only during periods of extreme drought or other 

emergency.

Two possible sources from which additional water can be obtained by the city 

of Lebanon are other wells drilled to the 185-foot water-bearing bed and surface 

water from the Cumberland River, which is about 9 miles north of the city at 

the nearest accessible point. The capacity of the 185-foot bed depends upon the 

cross-sectional area of the belt of channeled limestone that forms it, which can 

be determined only by drilling. If this bed is a small ground-water artery, the 

capacity of the present wells may be as large as its transmission capacity. On the 

other hand, if it comprises several or many braided channels, a considerable additional amount of water may be obtainable. If other wells are drilled, they should 

be located several hundred yards from those now in use and should be tested 

carefully to determine the degree to which they interfere with the present wells, 

especially during the summer and autumn. If they show considerable interference the aggregate capacity of the system may not be increased appreciably. 

On the other hand, an adequate supply can be diverted from the Cumberland 

River at all times, although the cost of the necessary pipe line, filtration plant, 

and diversion structures would be rather large, The sum of the static and friction heads against which water would have to be pumped from the river would be 

greater than from wells. Moreover, the water from the river would require 

filtration as well a& chlorination, whereas the ground water does not need to be 

filtered. Hence, both construction and operating costs for diverting water from 

the river would be much larger than for operation and maintenance of wells. 

However, the capacity of the source may outweigh comparative costs in determining which source of additional water is the more practicable.

Watertown. The municipal water supply of Watertown is drawn from two 

wells (No. 347) 250 and 251 feet deep, south of the Tennessee Central Railroad 

near the southwest corner of the city. Reference to these wells has been made 

on pages 223-225, and the chemical character of the water is shown by analysis 347 

(pp. 116-117). Each well is equipped with a Chippewa double-acting deep-well 

pump, with a rated capacity of 60 gallons a minute, by which water is raised jto a 

200,000-gallon steel tank on a hillside at the northwest corner of the town. Each
WILSON COUNTY 229

pump is driven through a suitable gear train and pump jack by a 5-horsepower 

electric motor. The water is distributed by gravity, and the average domestic 

pressure is approximately 46 pounds to the square inch. The daily consumption 

is reported to be about 18,000 gallons, and approximately half the population is 

served. The wells were pumped continuously at full capacity for 36 hours 

without depletion when they were first placed in service, in October, 1925, whereas 

the present de/nand is met by pumping four hours or less each day. Hence the 

capacity of the source is adequate to care for a considerable increase in demand.
Typical wells in Wilson County, Tenn. 

[All drilled wells]

No. on 

Plate 4

324

325

327

328

330

332

333

334

335

336

337

339

340

343

344

345

347

348

349

850

851

352

353

Location with reference to nearest post office

 do..._ - 

__ do . . .... __ ~- .....

 do 

Gladeville, 3 miles NW.... ....... 

Gladeville, H mile E . __ -...........---.... .....

Gladeville, 5H miles E .

Watertown, H mile W.___ .............................

Statesville, 3H miles NE_ . . _ .--... _ . _ ------

Statesville, M mile N.......... .............. ...........

Norene, Similes 8.... _ ... ____________

Owner or lessee

..... do..... ............................

K. H. Beard-. _ . ___ . _ - .... .

T. H. Phfflips _- 

E. P. Gentry.-. ____ . .. _ ...

J. W. Waldon... -. . . 

Clark Hill . .. ....... .

Topogra

Valle

Hills

Hill slope

Plain . 

 do. 

 do..

.... . do.... 

 do 

..... do 

 do .

... -do 

_ do 

..... do... ..

 do 

.....do 

.....do..

 do 

. . do 

Hillside. 

Valle

Hilltop _ 

Hillsi
No. on 

Plate 4

324 

325

327 

«328

-330 

332

"333

334 

335

336

337 

339

340 

343

344

346

* Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface 

(feet)

160. _______

Near bottom.

 do ..

185=fc _ 

185± 

165±- ....

185. ___

95__ 

30_b ~-

22 ____

28.. ______

Character of 

material

Bedding-plane 

crevice.

 do ..

.... .do... . .

.....do 

Solution channel _

Bedding-plane 

crevice, 

.....do..............

.....do..............

.....do 

Geologic horizon

Lowville or Lebanon limestone

(?),- 

.....do.............

Lebanon (?) limestone.

Lowville (?) limestone. 

Stones Elver group

Eidley (?) limestone. 

.....do.............

.... .do.... ....... ..

.....do.... .........

.....do... ..........

Lowville (?) limestone. 

Hermitage (?) formation. 

Lebanon (?) limestone. 

.....do ........

... ..do...... ....

Water 

level 

above 

or 

below 

surface 

(feet)

-70...

±0 

-25±.

-64... 

-64...

-64±.

-30...

-50...

-10 

-13... 

-21...

-48...

Method of lift

Belt-driven force 

pump.

Hand pump ____ ..

Airlift 

... ..do ... 

 do. 

 .do.... ..... 

Bucket and rope .. __

 do. 

. do 

Yield 

(gallons 

a minute)

15±-~

Si -

ISO.....

100 

Small.-

Less 

than 3.

Temperature 

(°F.)

60 

60

58

60

63 

62

60

Us

Stoc

Swim

and 

Dom

 d

. __ d

Ice p

Dom

._ d

1 See analysis, pp. 116-117.
Typical wells in Wilson County, Tenn.- 

[All drilled wells]

-Cont

No. on 

Plate 4

347

"348 

349 

350 

351

"352 

"353

Water-bearing beds

Depth below surface 

(feet)

Below 200

Near bottom, 

 do.. 

None __ _

Near bottom. 

152__. __ .

75.. ...

Character of 

material

Bedding-plane 

crevice.

Geologic horizon

Ridley (?) limestone.

Lebanon (?) limestone. 

Pierce (?) limestone.

Lebanon (?) limestone. 

..--do..... .--.

do

Water 

level 

above 

or 

below 

surface 

(feet)

-40±.

-45 

-12 

-19...

-55 

Method of lift

Electric force pumps. . 

Bucket and windlassYield 

(gallons 

a minute)

60 each.

See 

notes. 

3i*

Temperature 

(°F.)

59

57 

58

U

Dom

Stock

0 See analysis, pp. 116-117.
Typical springs in Wilson County, Tenn.

«4

f§ No. on 

- Plate 4 

p«.

i.

° 323 

326

329 

» 

331 

338 

341 

342 

346

No. on 

Plate 4

323 

-326 

320 

331 

338

341 

342

346

Location with reference to nearest post office

Martha, t 

Horn Spr

Lebanon,

Mount Ju 

Lebanon, 

Shop Spri 

Shop Spri 

Oladeville

miles N . 

1H miles S"E... ... ..... .

ng, 1^ mifcs N... ... ...... 

Openings

Number

1 

1 

1 

1 

1

1 

1

1

Character

Concealed; probably beddingplane channel.

Concealed; probably solution 

channel. 

Natural well 25 feet deep; leads 

to solution channel. 

Vertical slump and solution 

passage; lead to horizontal 

subsurface 'channel. 

Bedding-plane crevices. 

Concealed; nrobablyjoint and 

beddirjg-p&ne channels. 

Large solution channel .... .. 

Owner

Ed. Adam 

J. A. Hori

Roe Punu

Mrs. Emn 

Tennessee 

R. L. Don 

Ed. Griffli 

Wm. Ingr

311 ... .... -.

Central Railroad, 

aid .... ... .

i _ ... _

iham

Approximate yield

Gallons a 

minute

150

1,800

10 

None.

Date of 

measurement 

(1927)

Oct. 16

Oct. 14

Oct. 13 

...do. 

Oct. 15

Name

Horn Spring ]S 

Big Spring ....

0.2. . ...

Blind Fish Cave ... ....

Shop Spring ... 

Jackson's Cave

Variability

Seasonal- __ - __ ...

Seasons 

Probab

Seasons

do

a

lyseasonal ..... 

d.- .......

 do... ....... .. 

 do. ... ........

T

Va

M

s

Pla

Va

Pla

Hi

Pla

Un

p

Use

Stock ...........

Stock _ . ......

Railroad waterin

station. 

Railroad (for

merly).

Stock..... 

_ ..do .. _. 

None _ . .......

gee analysis, pp. 116-J17. 
INDEX

Abstract of report___ ______ vn-vm 

Acknowledgments for aid__________ 3 

Alluvium, character and water-bearing properties of-...--. . -. 26,30 

Analyses of ground water from north-central

Tennessee....-.--_.___.. 110-119 

Anderson well, driller's log of. ________ 163 

Arnheim limestone, occurrence and character

of 28,46 

Artesian conditions, features of 

Barfield Knob, dome near__________ 63 

Beech Eiver formation, character of____ 27 

Beekmantown group (?), character and waterbearing properties of______ 29 

Bicarbonate, concentration of, in ground

water__ . .- .. 102 

Bigby limestone, character of __. _. __ 28,60-51 

exposure of, in East Nashville_____ pi. 7 

mineral constituents in water of.____ 123 

occurrence of._______________ 60-51 

water-bearing properties of___ ___ 28 

Big Spring, near Lebanon, on Nashville Basin peneplain__________ 96, pi. 9 

Birdsong limestone, occurrence and character

Of..... ..... ................ 27,44

Bob formation, character of_________ 27 

Brassfield limestone, character of______ 27

O

Calcium, dissolved, relation of, to use of

ground water.. ____.. 100-101

Camden chert, occurrence and character of 27,43

Cannon limestone, character of_____ 28,49-50

occurrence of ______________ 60

water-bearing properties of......____ 28

"Capitol" limestone, character and thickness Of___ ... 60-61 

exposures of, in Nashville and East Nashville_______ ______ pi. 7 

Carbonate, concentration of, in ground water. 102 

Carboniferous or Devonian rocks, occurrence

and character of..__._____ 39-41 

Carboniferous rocks, occurrence and character of-. . . ... 33-39

Carlsbad irrigation project, N. Mex., flow of

springs on.. . ...... . 77

Carnation Milk Products Co., well of, general

features of_ ... _" 179-180 

Carnell Spring, general features of_........ 158

Catheys limestone, character of_____ 28,48-49 

mineral constituents in water of ____ 123 

occurrence of..__ . - 49 

static altitude of water in________ 96 

water-bearing properties of._______ 28

Page

Chattanooga shale, character and waterbearing properties of_____ 27,39-41 

mineral constituents in water of __ __ 122 

springs issuing from.._ ... 9* 

static altitude of water in.._______ ' 96 

Cheatham County, analyses of ground waters

from............... .......1. 114-115

general features of.. . 124-125 

ground-water conditions in. 125-126 

typical springs in..-._. . 129-130 

typical wells in______._ ..... x27-129

Chloride, concentration of, in ground water. 10$ 

Climate, general features of.. 5 

Color of ground water, cause of 107 

Counties, summary descriptions by 124-233 

Cretaceous deposits, character and waterbearing properties of.. 31-33 

Cumberland cycle, events of .. 18-19 

Cumberland Furnace wells, driller's logs of.. 148 

Cumberland River, course of-- . 23 

map showing area covered by this report

in relation to drainage basin of... pi. 3

D

Davidson County, analyses of ground waters

from.... 114-115,116-117

general features of._... 131-132 

ground-water conditions in. 132-134 

typical springs in.__.___... 138-139 

typical wells in 135-137

Decatur limestone, character of 27 

Devonian rocks, occurrence and character of. 41-46

See also Carboniferous or Devonian rocks. 

Dickson County, analyses of ground waters

from....-.... . 112-113,114-115

driller's logs of wells in...-. 148 

general features of. 140-141 

ground-water conditions in. 141-143 

typical springs in....: 147

typical wells in 144-146

Dickson, municipal ground-water supply of 143 

Dissolved solids, total, relation of, to use of

ground water. .. 99-100 

Dixon limestone, character of. 27 

"Dove" limestone, character and thickness

of....._....._ . 50

exposure of in East Nashville pi. 7 

Drainage system, general features of 23-24 

Duck River, course of.___ 23

E

Erin, municipal ground-water supply of 150

Eutaw formation, character and water-bearing properties of 26,31 

occurrence of 31 

Exchange silicate process for softening water,

general features of.. 106-106 

Extent of area described in report 1

235
236 INDEX

F Page

Farrar, D. F., analyses of ground water by.. 110-119 

Faults, general features of..-- _ ____ 67-68 

Fern vale formation, occurrence and character

of.. ... 28,46

Fluorescein. See Uranin.

Folds, secondary, general features of____ 63-65 

Fort Payne formation, character and waterbearing properties of _____ 26,35-37 

mineral constituents in water of.____ 122 

springs issuing from___________ 90-91 

static altitude of water in..______. 96 

tabular chert in limestone of...____. pi. 6 

Foster, Margaret D., analyses of ground water

by...... ... _.._..__._. 110-119

Franklin, municipal ground-water supply

of.... ................ ....... 213-214

Franklin Oil & Fuel Co., partial log of test

well of, near Murfreesboro___. 60-61 

Frost, records of.__....__________ 9

G 

Geologic work in central Tennessee, account

of previous--..-.-...._____. 2-3 

Green River, course of____________ 23 

map showing area covered by this report

in relation to drainage basin of.. pi. 3 

Ground water, analyses of representative,

from north-central Tennessee.. 110-119 

chemical constituents of, in relation to

use_______________ 99-108

occurrence of, in limestone.. ______ 69-89

quality of. - .- - 99-124

relation to stratigraphy of.. _ 120-124

resources of, in Tennessee, map showing

progress in survey of______. pi. 1 

sources and circulation of________. 74-77

H 

Hardin sandstone member of Chattanooga

shale, occurrence and character of 40

Hardness of water, effect of, on use____ 103-104

processes for removal of________ 104-106

Harpeth River gap, dome at________ 64-65

Harriman (?) chert, occurrence and character

Of . - 27,44

Hermitage formation, character of ____ 28,51-52

mineral constituents in water of ____ - 123

occurrence of..___________.. 52

Highland Rim cycle, events of_______ 19-20

Highland Rim plateau, interstream tracts of. 16-17

sink-hole topography on_. .__. ... pi. 2

trenching of, by streams_.___._.. 17-18

typical topography of interstream tracts

of. pi. 2

underground drainage on_______ 24 

High-terrace gravel, character and waterbearing properties of_____.. 26,30 

Hillsboro, municipal ground-water supply of. 214 

Houston County, analyses of ground waters

from.................___.... 112-113

general features of ___________ 148-149 

ground-water conditions in___.. .. 149-150 

municipal ground-water supplies in 150 

typical springs in___..._ . 152 

typical wells in______ ..._ 151

Page 

Humphreys County, analyses of ground

waters from_______._.. 112-113

general features of..__________ 153-154

ground-water conditions in_. ____ 154-156

municipal ground-water supplies in.... 156-158

typical springs in____.__.. . 161-162

typical wells in____________ 159-160

Hurricane Rock Spring, discharge of.. 93

general features of___________ 155-156

Hydrogen sulphide, presence of, in ground

water 106-107

Industries of north-central Tennessee, development of. . 4

Iron, dissolved, relation of, to use of ground

water...___.____.__ 100

Joints in the rocks, general features of. 

water-bearing character of... 70

Lascassas, anticline at 64

Laurel limestone, character of 27

Lebanon, municipal ground-water supply of.. 228

Lebanon limestone, character of. 29,54

fossils of___________.__.. 54

occurrence of.... 54

static altitude of water in.. ____ - _ - 96 

water-bearing properties of. 28 

Lego limestone, character of._... 27 

Leipers formation, mineral constituents in

water of... 123

occurrence and character of 28,46-48

section of.___ 47

static altitude of water in 96

Lime and soda process for softening water,

features of 104-105

Lobelville formation, character of 27

Location of area described in report_ 1

Love Davis cave, general features of 181

view showing_ pi. 5

Lowville limestone, character of.-. 28,52-53

mineral constituents in water of. 123

occurrence of.... 53

water-bearing properties of 28

M 

Magnesium, dissolved, relation of, to use of

ground water.. 101 

Marshall Knob, dome near.. 63 

Maury green shale member of Ridgetop shale,

occurrence and character of. 38-39 

Meinzer, O. E., quoted ___. 76,84-85 

Midwest Tennessee Oil Co.'s well, driller's

log of._.__.___..... 198

Miller wells, driller's logs of . 207 

Mississippian rocks, occurrence and character of 33-39

Montgomery County, analyses of ground

waters from 110-111 

general features of , 163-164 

ground-water conditions in 164-165 

typical springs in - 168-169

typical wells in_ . 166-167
KTDEX 28*

Page

Murfreesboro, anticline in eastern part of_ 36 

municipal ground-water supply of ___ 183 

Murfreesboro limestone, character of____ 29,56 

ground water from, chemical character of

181-183

occurrence of ____ 57 

water-bearing properties of...,_____ 28

N

Nashville Basin, general features of........ 18

rocks reached by drilling in, general features Of- . ...___ 58-61

underground drainage in ...____ 24 

Nashville Basin cycle, general features of_ 20-21

high-terrace stage of ________ 21

peneplain stage of .._________ 21-22 

Nashville Basin peneplain, correlation of__ 22

subsurface drainage channel on_____ pi. 5 

Nashville dome, general features of _____ 62-63 

New Providence shale, character and waterbearing properties of.________ 26,37-38

fossils of ________________ 38

occurrence of ______________ 37 

Nitrate, concentration of, in ground water . 10g

O

Ordovician rocks, general features of.. 45-4.

Orlinda, municipal ground-water supply of.. 17° 

Osgood limestone, character of_______ 2

Pegram limestone, character and waterbearing properties of._ 27,41-43 

occurrence of..______________ 41 

type section of ...._ 42

Physiographic districts of central Tennessee,

general features of..______ 15-16 

map showing .......________ pi. l

Physiographic history, outline of ______ 18-23

Pierce limestone, character of ______ 29,55-56

occurrence of- ____________ 56

water-bearing properties of _______ 28

Pohl, E. B., quoted______________ 42-43

Porosity of limestone, character of..____ 69-70

Portland, municipal ground-water supply of. 203

Potassium, dissolved, relation of, to use of

ground water_________ 101-102 

Purpose of investigation__________ 1

Quaternary deposits, character and waterbearing properties of. ....... 26,30

E

Bainfall, records of._____________ 9-15 

Becent cycle, events of____________ 22-23 

Bidgetop shale, character and water-bearing

properties of. . _ 27,38-39

fossils of__________________ 39

occurrence of. . ....______ 38

Ridley limestone, character of ______ 29,54-55

occurrence of . ...________ 55

orifice of tubular spring in_______ pi. 9

static altitude of water in________ 96

water-bearing properties of ... 28

Bobertson County, analyses of ground waters

from.. .....__._...__ 110-111 

general features of . 170

Page

Bobertson County, ground-water conditions in....................... 171-172

municipal ground-water supplies In.. 172 

typical springs in,........................ 176

typical wells in..L 173-175

Butherford County^ analyses of ground

waters from_______ 118-119 

general features ojf_ _______ 177-178 

ground-water conditions in___.. 178-183 

municipal ground-water supplies in 183 

typical springs tof..._ _.... 187-189 

typical wells in..,._______.... . 184-187

St. Louis limestone, character and waterbearing properties of.__ 26,33,34 

mineral constituents in water of 122 

nodular chert in Ipwer part of.. pi. 6 

occurrence of. __________ 33-34 

residual clay overlying_____ pi. 6 

St. Peter (?) sandstone, occurrence and character of.. 61 

static altitude of water in. _ 96 

water-bearing properties of. T . 97,134,179 

Sanitary precautions, need of, for protecting

wells and springs ____ 108-109 

Scope of investigation________ 1 

Seepage springs, chemical character of water

from..... pi. 8 

Silica, dissolved, relation of, to use of ground

water_________.1 100 

Silurian limestones, mineral constituents in

water of 122

Silurian rocks, occurrence and character of.. 44-46

Sinks in limestone, diversion of run-off by 75

features of.___ . 72-73

Sodium, dissolved, relation of, to use of

ground water______ 101-102

Solubility of calcareous rocks, differences in.. 73-74

Solution openings in limestone, features of... 71-72

Springs, artesian, general features of. 96

fracture, general features of 92

gravity, general features of_ 89-90

seepage, general features of ___ 90-92

tubular, general features of___ 92-55

mineral constituents in water of.... 95

Standing Bock Well, driller's log of... . 198

Stevens property, driller's log of test well on. 59

Stewart & Terrell well, driller's log of 207

Stewart County, analyses of ground waters

from_.________ - 110-111

general features of_ 190-192

ground-water conditions in..... 192-193

typical springs in..._____... 196-197

typical wells in_________ 194-195

Stone Biver, structural features on 63-64

Stones Biver group, mineral constituents in

water of... 123 

Stratigraphy, general features of. 24-29 

Structure, general features of 62-68 

Sulphate, concentration of, in ground water,

effect of.... - 102-103 

Sumner County, analyses of ground waters

from... 112-113 

folds in_. _____________. - 64 

general features of____...__ 198-200 

ground-water conditions in. __ 200-203
238 INDEX

Page 

Sumner County, municipal ground-water

supplies in___________. 203 

typical springs to____________ 206 

typical wells in._._...___...... 204-205

Suspended matter, presence of, in ground

water.._-.....-..-.-......_ 107-108

Taytor well, driller's log oL___._____ 148 

Temperature, records of ___________ 6-9 

Tennessee, geologic map of north-central, 

showing location of typical wells 

andsprings. ___ pi. 4(inpocket) 

map of, showing physiographic districts 

and progress in survey of groundwater resources_________ pi. 1 

natural resources of north-central____ 4 

Tennessee Eiver, course of_________ 23 

map showing area covered by this report

in relation to drainage basin of_ pi. 3 

Tertiary (?) deposits, character and waterbearing properties of_______ 26,30 

Transportation, facilities for, in north-central

Tennessee____________ 4 

Tuscaloosa formation, character and waterbearing properties of. ____ 26,32r33 

occurrence of.______________ 31-32

U

Underground drainage systems, cycles in

formation of.. ._______.. 78-82 

general features of._______ 24, 76-77, pi. 5

Uranin, use of, in studies of flow of ground

water.__._.________.. 87-89

W

Waldron shale, character of.________ 27 

Walter Hill, domes near___________ 64

Page

Ward, limestone, character and thickness of.. 60 

exposure of, in East Nashville... pi. 7 

Warsaw formation, character and water-bearing properties of . . 26,34-36 

mineral constituents in water of ___ 122 

occurrences of..... ... 36

Water-bearing openings, relation of, to physiographic history and land 

forms.. .... ........ 84-86

relation of, to stratigraphy. ...____ 82-83 

to structure._..'.................... 83-84

to utilization of ground water._.... 86-89

types and origin of... 69-74 

Water table in limestone regions, general features of.................... 76-76,84-85

Watertown, municipal ground-water supply

Of...... ... ............... 228-229

Waverly, municipal ground-water supply

of...._....__........_.... 156-158

Webb well, driller's log of.. .. . .. 190 

Wells Creek Basin, pre-Lowville rocks of,

character and age of...____~ 57-58 

Wells Creek uplift, general features of. ... 65-67 

White Bluff, anticlines near......_____. 65

Williamson County, analyses of ground

waters from . 116-117 

general features of.. ...... . 207-210

ground-water conditions to 210-213 

municipal ground-water supplies to_. 213-214 

typical springs to___ .... . 218-219

typical wells to__________. 216-217 

Wilson County, analyses of ground waters

from........................... 116-117

general features of . . 220-221

ground-water conditions to.. 221-227 

municipal ground-water supplies in. 228-229 

typical springs to.. _.,. 233 

typical wells in..._.... ..... ._ 230-232

o
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 640 PLATE 4

bbaccoport

eaversi 

Store

Buinpus Mills

St Bethlehem

B \ E

R T

Indian Mound

ThomasviHe

Cumberlan

(Cuba Landing

1 Reconnaissance geology by O.P.Jenkins 

Z Reconnaissance geology by BruceWade

3 Geology by C.WHayes and E.O.UIrich

4 Geology by R.S.Bassler

5 Geology by J.J.Galloway

6 Geology by E.O.UIrich and R.S.Bsssler

Base enlarged from U. S. Geological Survey base map of Tennessee compiled in 1911 and 1912, 

with corrections from topographic maps by the U. S. Geolcgical Survey and from county 

traverse maps by the Tennessee Geological Survey, during the period 1912 1927

WILLIAMS A HEINTZ CO,WASH.D.C.

GEOLOGIC MAP OF NORTH-CENTRAL TENNESSEE, SHOWING LOCATION OF WELLS AND SPRINGS

Scale 250,000 

5

Geology compiled by A. M. Piper from detailed geologic maps by R. S. Bassler, J. J. Galloway, 

C. W. Hayes, and E. 0. Ulrich, also from the third edition of the geologic map of Tennessee 

by the Tennessee Geological Survey, with minor adjustments to the corrected base

EXPLANATION

UNCONSOL1DATED ROCKS

ft!

Ji

;s

(Gravel, sand, and silt, composing flood plains of major

streams; deposits on secondary streams not mapped)

Terrace deposits

(Hounded to subangular gravel, sand, and silt on river

terraces; locally several hundred feet above present

Eutaw formation

(Red micaceous sand with interstratified layers of clay

Tuscaloosa formation

(Gravel derived from chert of Mississippian rocks.

with little sand and clay)

UNCONFORMITY

CONSOLIDATED ROCKS

z 

o: 

ui

ro:

o:

U)

D 

O

UJ 

U

<

Ul

a 

u

St. Louis limestone and Warsaw formation

(Massive fine-grained gray to blue limestone (St. Louis) 

above; thick-bedded coarsely crystalline sandy or 

cherty limestone (Warsaw) below. Both weather to 

reddish clay with loose chert fragments)

Cfp

__J

Fort Payne ("Tullahoma") formation

(Siliecowi ahale, chert, flint, and cherty crinoidal limestone of'extremely variable character; progressively 

more argillaceous from west to east)

(I)

D

o

IE 

111 

U.

Z 

O 

u

New Providence, Ridgetop, and 

Chattanooga shales

(Limestone and greenish clay shale (New Providence a-nd 

Ridgetop) above and carbonaceous black shale (Chattanooga) below)

UNCONFORMITY

Pegram limestone

(Thick-bedded light-gray limestone with coarse-grained 

sandstone at base locally ; forms small violated outcrops)

Camden chert

(Alternating layers of dense bluish-gray limestone and 

yellowish chert; known at only two localities in southern Humphreys County)

UNCONFORMITY

Harriman (?) chert

(White, gray, and buff nonfossUiferous chertv limestone, 

known only in the Wells Cresk Basin, Stewart County)

Birdsong limestone

(Thin-bedded cherty fossHiferous limestone; known only 

in the Wells Creek Basin)

UNCONFORMITY

Decatur limestone

(Thick-bedded light-gray relatively pure limestone)

Lobelville formation

(Thin-bedded earthy limestone and variegated shale)

Bob formation

(Massive pure limestone and variegated shale)

Beech River formation

(Calcareous shale and shaly cherty limestone)

Dixon limestone

(Earthy red limestone and red and purple shale)

Lego limestone

(Compact light-gray miitcrystalline limestone)

Waldron shale

(Light-gray shaly limestone)

Laurel limestone

(Massive purple and reddish limestone)

Osgood limestone

(Thi-n-beddrd compact light-gray, blue, or reddish 

earthy limestone)

Brassfield limestone 

(White or blue cherty fossiliferous limestone)

Fernvale formation

(Soft green or chocolate-colored shale with bands of 

crystalline limestone)

Arnheim formation

(Blue granular crystalline limestone and interbedded 

shale)

UNCONFORMITY

Leipers limestone

(Knotty earthy limestone and interbedded shale, or granular crystalline limestone without shale)

Catheys limestone

(Knotty earthy limestone and shale with thick bands 

of impure blue limestone)

Cannon limestone

(Massivs pure dove-colored and gray limestone, also 

argillaceous cherty blue limestone)

Bigby limestone

(Mainly granular crystalline gray or brown laminated 

and cross-bedded phosphatic limestone)

Hermitage formation

(At western edge of Nashville Basin, chiefly mediumbedded sandy and phosphatic subgranular limestone 

with local beds of shale. Toward the northeast and 

east grades into flaggy blue-gray sandy and earthy 

limestone, calcareous sandstone, and shale)

Z

o

Ul 

0

Middle and Lower

Devonian, Silurian,

and Upper Ordovician

undifferentiated

Lowville limestone

(Massive compact white or light-blue cherty limestone

(Carters limestone member) with thin-bedded dovecolored limestone and yellowish-gray shale at top)

Lebanon limestone

(Thin-bedded compact bluish or dove-colored limestone)

Ridley limestone

(Massive fine-grained blue-gray cherty limestone)

Pierce and Murfreesboro limestones

(Thin-bedded blus or drab brittle limestone with local 

thick beds of bluish-brown coarse crystalline limestone 

(Piercs) overlying massive brittle drab cherty limestone 

(Murfreesboro))

UNCONFORMITY

Upper and Middle 

Ordovician

Ordovician 

undifferentiated

o

o 

o

IT 

O

Limestone of Beekmantown age

(Light-gray fine-grained cherty magnesian limestone) 

+SO

o 

Nonflowing well

(Number refers to description in text and 

in tabulated well data)

Flowing well 

Spring

10 15 MILES

Well or spring for which water 

analysis is tabulated in text

1932