Geology in Relation to 

Availability of Water 

Along the South Rim 

Grand Canyon National Park 

Arizona

By D. G. METZGER

HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 147S-C

Prepared in cooperation with 

the National Park Service

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1961
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Thomas B. Nolan, Director

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

Washington 25, D.G.
CONTENTS

	Page 

Abstract_____________________________________________________ 105

Introduction. ___________________________________________________ 106

Purpose and scope of investigation.._____________________________ 106

History of water supply along the south rim______________________ 108

Topography and drainage-_-__-_____-__----_______-_-______---- 110

Climate..___________________________________ 111

Previous investigations.-.--.-------____________________________ 111

Fieldwork and maps.________________________________________ 111

Acknowledgments. ______---____-____-__________-___________--- 113

Geology and water-bearing properties of the formations________________ 113

Precambrian rocks____________-_____-_-_-_____-___-___-_-__-- 113

Vishnu schist___________________________________________ 113

Grand Canyon series______________-_____-_-_--___-____--- 114

Paleozoic rocks______________________________________________ 114

Tonto group______________________________________________ 115

Tapeats sandstone________________________-____________ 115

Bright Angel shale___________________________________ 116

Muav limestone-___-_________---_________-_-__--___--_ 116

Temple Butte limestone____________________________________ 117

Redwall limestone_______-________-___________-_-_______-_- 117

Aubrey group_____________________________________________ 118

Supai formation_____-_--_-__--___________-___________- 118

Hermit shale________________________________________ 118

Coconino sandstone__________________________________ 119

Toroweap formation___________________________________ 119

Kaibab limestone______-________-___-_____-___________- 120

Triassic sedimentary rocks____________________________________ 120

Structure.-.._________________________________________________ 121

East Kaibab monocline__________-_________________-_--- 121

Waterloo Hill, Desert View, and Cedar Mesa sections.-- 121

Grandview section..__________________________________ 122

Bright Angel fault_______________._________________ 122

Ground-water resources.___________________________________________ 123

Occurrence-____________________________________ 123

Recharge.____________________________________________________ 126

Movement__________________________________________________ 127

Discharge ____________________________________________________ 128

Present water supply at Indian Garden_________________________ 130

Relation of spring discharge to size of drainage basin______________- 130

Quality of water_______________________________________ 131

Conclusions_ ____________________________________________________ 133

References cited.__________________________________________________ 134

Index.________________________________________________________ 137

m
IV CONTENTS

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page 

PLATE 12. Aerial view of the south rim of the Grand Canyon______ facing 108

13. Geologic and structural map of the south-rim area of the

Grand Canyon, Ariz_____________________________ In pocket

14. Columnar geologic section near the village of Grand Canyon,

showing the stratigraphic position of selected springs __ In pocket 

FIGTJEB 22. Map of Arizona showing the location of the south-rim area of

the Grand Canyon National Park______________ 107

23. Map of Coconino Plateau area, Arizona, showing wells and

Havasu and Blue Springs_____ ______ __ _ 112

TABLE

Page

TABLE 1. Chemical analyses of water from springs, Grand Canyon area,

Arizona. --- --- ___________ _________ 132
HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

GEOLOGY IN RELATION TO AVAILABILITY OF WATER

ALONG THE SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL

PARK, ARIZONA

By D. G. METZGER

ABSTRACT

A ground-water investigation of the south-rim area, Grand Canyon National 

Park, Ariz., was made at the request of the National Park Service to determine 

whether a sufficient water supply could be developed to increase adequately the 

supply for Grand Canyon (village) and Desert View. The Park Service estimates that an increase of about 1 cfs would be adequate for the expected 

expansion of the park.

The oldest rock units are the Vishnu schist and the Unkar group of the Grand 

Canyon series of Precambrian age. The Paleozoic formations are, in ascending 

order, the Tapeats sandstone, Bright Angel shale, and Muav limestone of the 

Tonto group of Cambrian age; the Temple Butte limestone of Devonian age; 

the Redwall limestone of Mississippian age; and the Supal formation, Hermit 

shale, Coconino sandstone, Toroweap formation, and Kaibab limestone of the 

Aubrey group of Pennsylvanian and Permian age. The youngest rock units are 

the Moenkopi formation and the Shinarump member of the Chinle formation 

of Triassic age.

The principal aquifer in the Grand Canyon village area is the Muav limestone 

which, in many places, yields water readily to springs. Locally, the Vishnu 

schist, Tapeats sandstone, Supai formation, and Coconino sandstone yield small 

quantities of water to springs. Outside the park, large springs issue locally from 

the Eedwall limestone.

The major geologic structures are the monoclinal flexures associated with the 

East Kaibab monocline, and the Bright Angel fault. The regional dip of the 

strata is commonly 1° to 2° to the south and southwest.

The occurrence of ground water along the south rim is related not only to the 

lithology of the sedimentary formations but also to the geologic structure. 

Ground water occurs in a series of perched water bodies in the sedimentary rock 

sequence. Where an aquiclude occurs, the overlying rock unit generally contains 

water if structural conditions are favorable, as exemplified by the small springs 

that issue from the Supai formation and Coconino sandstone. The main body 

of water in this area occurs in the Muav limestone, which is underlain by the 

Bright Angel shale an aquiclude.

105
106 HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

The amount of recharge to the ground-water reservoir is believed to be only 

a small percentage of the average annual precipitation. Havasu Springs have 

a discharge of 66 cfs and are the natural discharge point for a drainage area 

assumed to be the same as that of Havasu Creek above the springs 2,900 square 

miles.

In the Desert View area monoclinal flexures probably govern the direction of 

ground-water movement, and near Grand Canyon village the Bright Angel fault 

exerts an influence. The total discharge of springs between Hermit and Cottonwood Creeks is about 600 gpm. Of this, more than 500 gpm comes from 

two groups of springs those at Indian Garden and in Hermit Creek.

Chemical analyses of water samples from springs indicate that the amount 

of dissolved mineral matter in the water is small. The range in dissolved 

solids in 14 samples from the report area was from 179 to 667 ppm, and all 

samples except 2 contained less than 400 ppm.

Two possibilities of developing additional water for the village are capture 

and transport of more water from springs at Indian Garden and development 

of the springs in Hermit Creek. If the two sources do not provide the quantity 

of water needed, or if the cost of development is too high, then studies of the 

water resources of the north-rim area would be worth while. There is little 

or no possibility of developing water in the Desert View area.

INTRODUCTION

The Grand Canyon of the Colorado River is a monumental example 

of the cutting and carrying; power of water, which is the chief agent 

in erosional processes. The canyon is a mile deep and 8 to 10 miles 

wide, and it divides the Colorado Plateau into the Kaibab Plateau 

(north rim) and the Coconino Plateau (south rim).

Although the Colorado River one of the largest in the West 

flows along the bottom of this deep gorge, there is a shortage of drinking water along the south rim. As the river cut a canyon through 

the upper rock units the ground water in them drained into the gorge, 

and today water issues from rocks near the bottom of the canyon. 

The ground water draining from rocks along the south rim forms 

springs, such as the springs at Indian Garden, which issue from the 

Muav limestone about 3,200 feet below the south rim. The present 

water supply for the Grand Canyon village area is collected from 

these springs and the water is pumped to the rim. Plate 12 is an 

aerial view of the south rim and shows Indian Garden and Grand 

Canyon (village).

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION

At the request of the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological 

Survey made a ground-water investigation in the Grand Canyon
WATER RESOURCES, SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 107

National Park, Coconino County, Ariz., along the south rim from 

Hermit Creek to the Little Colorado River (fig. 22 and pi. 13). The 

investigation was made primarily to determine the availability of 

additional water supplies along the south rim.

INDEX MAP OF ARIZONA

50 100 MILES 

 I________I

FIGURE 22. Map of Arizona showing location of the south-rim area of Grand 

Canyon National Park.

The development of water supplies along the south rim has been 

a problem from the earliest days when water was hauled, to the 

present time when water is pumped from Indian Garden. Two 

water systems are in use at the Grand Canyon village area: the
108 HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

supply pumped from Indian Garden and used for domestic purposes 

and reclaimed water from the sewage-disposal plant, which is used 

for sanitary purposes and sprinkling of lawns.

The water supply cannot adequately meet the demands of the 

ever-increasing tourist travel nor to meet the future expansions of 

Grand Canyon village and Desert View. At present, water is hauled 

from Grand Canyon village to Desert View, a distance of about 23 

miles. The Park Service believes that, if the anticipated expansion 

occurs, a more economical means of getting water to Desert View 

may have to be found.

Although the present supply is sufficient for domestic purposes, 

more water would be used if available. For example, there would 

be more lawns, and the permanent citizens of Grand Canyon village 

would use the water to grow shrubs and plant gardens. Also, if 

abundant water were available, the Park Service could discontinue 

the use of reclaimed water, as it is expensive and corrodes the 

plumbing. It has been estimated by the Park Service that about 

1.00 cfs increase over the present Indian Garden supply would be 

adequate for the anticipated expansion.

When the tourist looks at the canyon and learns of a water shortage at the village, he is likely to wonder, "Why not use the Colorado 

Elver for more water?" One of the reasons for not using the water 

is the tremendous quantity of sediment carried by the river; it would 

be expensive to remove the sediment from the water. The additional 

pumping lift from the mile-deep canyon also would add to the cost.

HISTORY OP WATER SUPPLY ALONG THE SOUTH RIM

Insufficient water has been the history of water supply along the 

south rim from the time of the earliest settlers to the present. In 

view of present problems of water supply, it is not difficult to imagine 

that water was a scarce commodity for the pioneers who settled near 

the canyon.

The principal settlements along the south rim prior to 1900 were 

those at Grandview Point and Grand Canyon village. According 

to files of the Grand Canyon National Historical Association, water 

for the Grandview Hotel was hauled originally from Hull Tank. 

Later, reservoirs were built below the rim to store water for the hotel. 

Water was transported to Grand Canyon village from nearby stock 

tanks. Some water was carried by burros from springs at Indian Garden. One of the sources of water, "Company Well," was a natural
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 14V5 PLATE 12

AERIAL VIEW OF THE SOUTH RIM OF THE GRAND CA1VYO1N

Indian Garden, IG, is at lower left and the village of Grand Canyon, GC, at upper right. Bright Angel shale,-Cba; Muav limestone, Cm; Kedwall limestone, Mr; 

Supai formation, PPs; Hermit shale, Ph; Coconino sandstone, PC: Toroweap formation. Pt; Kaibab limestone. Pk. Photograph by Tad Nichols.

WATER RESOURCES, SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 109

tank in sec. 33, T. 31 N., R. 2 E. Other sources were small catchment 

areas and cisterns in some of the buildings.

One of the earliest records of the water problems along the south 

rim is an article printed in the Coconino Sun, Flagstaff, Ariz., on 

May 28, 1896. It stated that the "water man" at the Grand Canyon 

was still charging $0.25 a barrel to haul water, and that the rumor 

that he had upped his price to $0.40 was untrue. The size of the barrels is not known.

The railroad to the canyon (now a part of the Santa Fe system) 

was completed on October 12, 1901, and a new era in water supply 

began. Water was hauled in tank cars from Flagstaff and from Del 

Rio (fig. 22) to the canyon and was distributed by the railroad. The 

National Monument was given National Park status by Congressional 

Act of February 26,1919. The cost of the water to the Park Service 

installations at that time was $3.09 per 1,000 gallons.

Hauling water in tank cars was expensive, and in 1924 Santa Fe 

railway engineers began to investigate other sources of water. Four 

possibilities were advanced: Transport water from the San Francisco 

Peaks near Flagstaff; drill wells several miles south of the park 

boundary; pump water from springs at Indian Garden; and pump 

water from. Hermit Creek. The first possibility involved problems of 

surface-water rights and construction of a long pipeline and, therefore, it was not considered further. One well was drilled in sec. 17, 

T. 30 N., R. 2 E., south of the park boundary to a depth of 1,000 feet 

(into the Hermit shale), but it produced no water at that depth. This 

left only the last two possibilities. However, a fifth possibility for a 

small amount of additional water materialized later, after the completion of the sewage disposal plant at Grand Canyon village. This 

plant was completed on May 28,1926, and it afforded an opportunity 

for the reuse of water. The reclaimed effluent from the potable-water 

system has since been used at comfort stations and at other places 

where potable water is not necessary.

By the early thirties, the Santa Fe engineers had decided to develop 

springs at Indian Garden, about 3,200 feet below Grand Canyon 

village. A pipeline was completed on August 26,1932, and pumps with 

a capacity of 278,000 gallons per day (gpd) were installed. This new 

arrangement eliminated the need for hauling water in tank cars and 

reduced the cost of water to $1.66 per 1,000 gallons.

The amount of water lifted from Indian Garden was adequate until 

the end of World War II when a large influx of summer tourists beginning then made it necessary to reduce the per capita allowance of

577866 61-
110 HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

water. Additional reservoirs were constructed that provided storage 

for pumped water during the slack winter season. The amount of 

water in storage by 1958 amounted to slightly less than 4 million 

gallons. This stored water plus the pumped water meets present demands but it will not be adequate for the expected growth of the park.

TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

The slope of the land surface along the south rim is southwestward 

away from the canyon, in the direction of the regional dip of the 

strata. This nearly featureless slope is called the Coconino Plateau. 

The rim marks the northern boundary of the Coconino Plateau east 

to Grandview Point, beyond which the Grandview section of the east 

Kaibab monocline forms the northern limit. The area between the 

Grandview section and the main flexures of the east Kaibab monocline is called the Upper Basin.

The altitude along the south rim ranges from 6,800 to 7,500 feet 

above sea level. The drainage between Hermit Creek and Grandview 

Point is southwestward, between Grandview Point and Desert View is 

southeastward, and between Desert View and Cape Solitude is eastward (pi. 13).

The slope of the land surface on the north rim is in the direction 

of the regional dip, that is, southwestward. This land surface is 

called the Kaibab Plateau. The altitude of the north rim is generally 

more than 8,000 feet about sea level, and the plateau becomes higher 

northward. The drainage is toward the rim, a fact that accounts for 

a larger surface runoff into the canyon from the Kaibab Plateau than 

from the Coconino Plateau.

The canyon has topographic forms much different from those of the 

plateaus (pi. 12). Whereas the plateaus are rather flat and featureless, the canyon has cliffs and steep slopes, which in succession drop 

down to the Tonto platform. This platform, formed on the Bright 

Angel shale, has the gentlest slope found in the canyon. The inner 

gorge, which is carved in schist and gneiss, is V-shaped. The descent 

from the rim over the cliff and steep slopes is very abrupt; in the 

Hermit Creek drainage it is more than 3,500 feet in less than a mile.

Although the Colorado River drains the area, runoff in the southrim area travels along devious paths before it reaches the river. For 

example, the drainage from Grand Canyon village is southwestward 

into Havasu Creek, then northwestward to the Colorado River. 

From Desert View the drainage is southward to the cliffs formed by 

the Grandview flexure, then eastward to the Little Colorado River, 

and finally to the Colorado River. Runoff from the Kaibab Plateau 

is southward to the Colorado River.
WATER RESOURCES, SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 111

CLIMATE

The climate of Grand Canyon is extremely varied, as would be expected from the marked changes in altitude from about 2,000 feet 

above sea level near the Colorado River to 7,000 feet on the south rim 

and more than 8,000 feet on the north rim. At the higher altitudes 

there is more precipitation and the temperature is lower. The vegetation grades from Sonoran Desert types in the inner canyon to Canadian forest types on the north rim.

The north rim, or Kaibab Plateau, is more than 8,000 feet above sea 

level. The winters are cold and there is much snow, but the summers 

are cool. The annual precipitation is about 23 inches. The vegetation consists of pine, Douglas-fir, spruce, and aspen.

The south rim or Coconino Plateau has an altitude about 1,000 feet 

lower than the north rim. The precipitation is only about 15 inches 

per year. The winters are not so cold, although snow is common, and 

the summers are warmer. Ponderosa, pinyon, and other species of 

pine are common along the south rim. Oak and juniper also are 

abundant.

The inner canyon is the driest part of the area, as it receives only 

about 9 inches of precipitation. The winters are mild and temperatures below freezing are rare, but the summers are hot. In summer 

the rocks absorb the heat, and the bottom of the gorge is like an oven. 

Vegetation consists of various desert bushes and cacti. Cottonwoods 

and other water-loving plants thrive along perennial streams.

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

The geologic literature is replete with references to the rock sequence exposed at Grand Canyon, as it is one of the classic areas of 

geologic studies. No attempt will be made to list all the previous 

reports, but only those pertinent to geologic conditions as they affect 

ground water.

Most of the discussion of the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks is based 

on unpublished information in the files of the U.S. Geological Survey, 

which were compiled, largely by J. H. Irwin and P. K. Stevens of the 

Survey, for a regional investigation of the Navajo and Hopi Indian 

Reservations. The discussion of geologic structure is based primarily 

on the work of Babenroth and Strahler (1945).

FIELDWORK AND MAPS

The fieldwork consisted of a hydrologic and geologic reconnaissance 

along the south rim to determine the topographic and the stratigraphic position of springs. All springs along the Tonto trail from 

Grandview Point to Hermit Creek were visited. The geology of that
112 HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

part of the Navajo Indian Reservation shown in the eastern part of 

plate 13 was mapped by J. H. Irwin, P. R. Stevens, J. P. Akers, and 

M. E. Cooley on aerial photographs and aerial mosaics. The geology 

of the larger area to the west was mapped by D. G. Metzger and F. R. 

Twenter on topographic maps of the Grand Canyon.

Data on wells south of the rim and north of U.S. Highway 66 were 

compiled from records of the Museum of Northern Arizona and Babbitt Brothers Kanch and selected wells were visited to obtain more 

information. Personnel from the U.S. Geological Survey who aided 

in the hydrologic fieldwork were R. E. Cattany, J. M. Cahill, R. S. 

Stulik, and F. R. Twenter.

The base map (pi. 13) was compiled from a topographic map of the 

Grand Canyon and from maps prepared by personnel of the Navajo 

ground-water project of the U.S. Geological Survey. The regional 

map (fig. 23) was taken from Arizona Highway Planning Maps.

112C

-36°

NAVAJO 

- INDIAN

'-j-RESERi.- ..-.. .- ^ VATION

Abandoned well "b 

Spring

FIGURE 23. jMap of Coconino Plateau area, Arizona, showing wells and Havasu and

Blue Springs.
WATER RESOURCES, SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 113 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Personnel of the Park Service under the supervision of Mjr. J. S. 

McLaughlin, park superintendent, were very helpful at all times and 

gave splendid cooperation. Particular thanks are given to Mr. C. E. 

Shevlin, assistant park superintendent, who helped in assembling 

many of the basic data; and Mr. J. H. Conn, former park engineer, 

who gave freely of his experience in dealing with water problems at 

the park; and to Messrs. P. E. Schultz, park naturalist, and M. W. 

Wilcox, park engineer. The author extends appreciation to Mr. Jack 

Watson, trail foreman, and Mr. Jack Hall, trail packer, for their 

help on the trail.

Appreciation is extended to the Museum of Northern Arizona for 

much of the information on wells on the Coconino Plateau. Babbitt 

Brothers of Flagstaff provided information on their many stock 

wells.

GEOLOGY AND WATER-BEARING PROPERTIES OF 

THE FORMATIONS

In order to evaluate the ground-water resources of an area it is 

essential to have an adequate knowledge of the geologic framework. 

In the Grand Canyon area, the occurrence of water is related not only 

to the lithologic character of the sedimentary formation,, but also to 

the geologic structure.

Most of the discussion is limited to rocks of Paleozoic age, which 

offer the best possibilities for development of giround water, because 

all but one of the springs issue from these rocks. The Precambrian 

rocks, found only in the inner gorge of the Grand Canyon, are discussed briefly. The Moenkopi formation and the Shinarump member of the Chinle formation of Triassic age are not considered important because they are exposed only as small erosional remnants 

east of Desert View, and thus are not considered as potential groundwater reservoirs.

PBECAMBBIAW ROCKS

The Precambrian rocks of the Grand Canyon are the Vishnu schist 

and the Grand Canyon series. The Vishnu schist is the oldest rock 

in the area; it is intruded by dikes and is separated by a conspicuous 

unconformity from the overlying Grand Canyon series. The Grand 

Canyon series is composed of sedimentary rocks that show little metamorphism, and they are considered younger Precambrian in age.

VISHNU SCHIST

According to Noble and Hunter (1916), about half the rocks 

assigned to the Vishnu schist are gneisses that were originally igneous 

rocks, about 20 percent are intrusive rocks, and only about 30 percent
114 HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

are schists. In the area to the west of Hermit Creek, Noble (1914, 

J>. 33) found three types of schist: quartz schist that grades into mica 

schist, quartz schist that grades into quartz-hornblende schist, and 

hornblende schist. Basic intrusive rocks, siliceous intrusive rocks, 

and pegmatite dikes intrude the Vishnu and have been mapped with it. 

All rocks of the Vishnu schist and accompanying intrusive rocks are 

dense and offer little possibility as sources of water. However, where 

the Vishnu schist is overlain by the Tapeats sandstone, deep disintegration along fractures was observed, and it probably occurred before 

the deposition of the sandstone. Ground water that moves downward 

through the Tapeats sandstone or along faults may proceed farther 

downward into this zone of disintegration. The amount of water 

available would be very small, however, as shown by the small yield 

of a spring (pi. 13 and No. 9, table 1) in the small canyon east of 

Indian Garden.

GRAND CANYON SERIES

The Grand Canyon series is made up of the Unkar and Chuar 

groups. The Unkar group is exposed along the Colorado River below 

Desert View (pi. 13) and in isolated remnants below Indian Garden. 

The Chuar group is exposed only in small areas west of the junction 

of the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers, in the north-rim area, 

and hence is not discussed further.

The Unkar group (Noble, 1914, p. 41) is composed of the Hotauta 

conglomerate, Bass limestone, Hakatai shale, Shinumo quartzite, and 

Dox sandstone. The group was tilted and eroded before deposition 

of the Tapeats sandstone of Cambrian age. The Shinumo quartzite 

was very resistant to erosion and cropped out as isolated hills during 

the advance of the Cambrian sea. Locally, these remnants were not 

buried until during the advance of the Muav sea.

No springs are known to issue from the Unkar group, and because 

of the depth at which it occurs below the south rim it is not considered 

a source of ground water. It is recognized that the buried, isolated 

hills of the Shinumo quartzite may influence the movement of water 

within the Cambrian sedimentary rocks.

PALEOZOIC BOCKS

The sequence of Paleozoic strata in the Grand Canyon is one of the 

classic sections of geology and is probably one of the best known. 

The Paleozoic formations, in ascending order, are as follows: the 

Tapeats sandstone, Bright Angel shale, and Muav limestone of the 

Tonto group; the Temple Butte limestone; the Redwall limestone; 

and the Supai formation, Hermit shale, Coconino sandstone, Toroweap formation, and Kaibab limestone of the Aubrey group.
WATER RESOURCES, SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 115

TONTO GROUP

The three formations of the Tonto group of Middle Cambrian age, 

in ascending order, are the Tapeats sandstone, the Bright Angel shale, 

and the Muav limestone. In the Desert View area the lowermost formation of the Tonto group is separated by an angular unconformity 

from the uppermost formation of the Unkar group, the Dox sandstone. 

West from the Grandview Point area the Tonto group rests on the 

Vishnu schist. The surface of the unconformity has relatively small 

relief except locally, where buried, isolated hills of the Shinumo 

quartzite create a relief as high as 800 feet. McKee (1945) found that 

the Cambrian sedimentary rocks thin from west to east across the 

Grand Canyon.

TAPEATS SANDSTONE

The Tapeats sandstone consists of brown slabby, crossbedded sandstone and lenses of conglomerate containing rounded pebbles. It is 

separated by an angular unconformity from the Unkar group in the 

eastern part of the Grand Canyon and from the Vishnu schist to the 

west. The Tapeats sandstone forms a sheer cliff below the slopeforming Bright Angel shale. McKee (1945, p. 16) stated that its 

thickness varies considerably because of the relief of the Precambrian 

surface and because of changes in strand line during stages of transgression by the Tapeats sea. The thickness of the Tapeats is 300 feet 

north of Desert View (McKee, 1945, p. 142). The Tapeats is conformably overlain by the Bright Angel shale. The gradational contact is arbitrarily placed at the top of the uppermost beds of coarse 

sandstone typical of the Tapeats.

The Tapeats sandstone is well cemented and forms a sheer cliff. In 

many places it is a quartzitic sandstone, but locally it is friable near 

the top. It is overlain by the Bright Angel shale, which retards the 

downward movement of water. Probably a small amount moves 

through the shale, especially through fractures. Several springs (pi. 

13, Nbs. 5, 6, and 7) issue along bedding planes of the Tapeats sandstone.

A common feature associated with seeps issuing from the Tapeats 

sandstone along Hermit and Monument Creeks is salt crystals. These 

form stalactites and stalagmites, some as long as 12 inches, similar in 

appearance to those found in caves. The stalactites are a quarter of an 

inch to half an inch in diameter and are generally hollow, allowing 

the downward movement of water. In potholes in the Tapeats sandstone near one of the seeps, perfect crystals of halite were observed. 

Sturdevant (1926, p. 4), who had some of the crystals analyzed, stated 

that they were nearly pure sodium chloride, or table salt. Farther to
116 HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

the west on the Haulapai Indian Keservation, F. E. Twenter (1959) 

observed similar deposits.

BRIGHT ANGEL SHAUB

The Bright Angel shale, middle unit of the Tonto group, is composed, in ascending order, of soft green micaceous, sandy shale and 

thin beds of sandstone; brown limestone; soft green micaceous, sandy 

shale; and alternating layers of shale and purplish-brown sandstone. 

The Bright Angel shale is about 325 feet thick at its type locality 

(McKee, 1945, p. 21), but McKee pointed out that the thickness may 

be misleading because in many sections one or more tongues of the 

shale are included in the overlying Muav limestone.

The most important hydrologic characteristic of the Bright Angel 

shale is the retardation of the downward percolation of ground water. 

Some water, although probably a very small quantity, percolates 

downward through the shale, as is evidenced by springs (pi. 13, Nos. 

15 and 16) that issue from the shale, as well as by springs that issue 

from the Tapeats sandstone and underlying rocks. The low permeability of the Bright Angel leads to the accumulation of ground 

water in the overlying formation, the Muav limestone, in areas where 

structural conditions are favorable.

MUAV LIMESTONE

The Muav limestone, uppermost unit of the Tonto group, consists 

of thin- to thick-bedded bluish-gray limestone and dolomite having a 

mottled appearance and numerous thin bands or lenses of buff or 

greenish shaly material. In eastern Grand Canyon the limestone is 

impure and the number and thickness of the clastic beds increase. 

Including these "undifferentiated dolomites," the Muav is about 415 

feet thick near Desert View (McKee, 1945, p. 141), and it thickens 

westward. Topographically the Muav limestone forms a blocky cliff 

or steep slope. The Muav limestone rests conformably upon the 

Bright Angel shale and is unconformably overlain by the Redwall 

limestone of Mississippian age, except in a few areas in western Grand 

Canyon where it is unconformably overlain by remnants of the Temple 

Butte limestone of Devonian age.

McKee (1945, p. 77) redefined the Muav limestone by subdividing 

it into members and tongues and by reassigning the upper dolomites. 

The "undifferentiated dolomites" are about 100 feet thick in eastern 

Grand Canyon and thicken westward. For simplicity in this investigation, the Muav limestone was mapped as defined by Noble (1914, 

p. 64-65). McKee (1945, p. 102) named the lowermost dolomite of 

the Muav limestone the "Kanab Canyon member" in eastern Grand 

Canyon. This unit overlies the Bright Angel shale and is the source
WATER RESOURCES, SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 117

of ground water for numerous springs in the Grand Canyon area. On 

the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Twenter (1959) observed that the 

lowermost unit of the Muav limestone is the source of some springs in 

that area. Because the Cambrian seas transgressed eastward, the 

lowermost unit is older in the Hualapai area than it is to the east, and 

McKee (1945) gave that unit the name "Rampart Cave member" of 

the Muav limestone.

Solution channels occur in the limestone units of the Muav limestone, and ground water moves readily through the formation. Most 

of the springs along the south rim issue from the limestone units of 

the Muav limestone. Those at Indian Garden are reported by National Park Service officials to yield about 300 gpm. Where the 

Muav is an aquifer it is underlain by the Bright Angel shale, which 

retards the downward percolation of ground water.

TEMPLE BUTTE LIMESTONE

The Temple Butte limestone of Devonian age occurs as deposits in 

channels cut into the Muav limestone. According to Darton (1925, 

p. 55) it is composed of thin purplish layers of fine-grained sandstone 

that grade into calcareous sandstone and into limestone containing 

fossils. The limestone is rarely more than 100 feet thick and was 

mapped with the Muav limestone because of its limited areal extent.

No springs are known to issue from the Temple Butte limestone, and 

because of its small outcrop area it is considered of little value for the 

storage or transmission of ground water.

REDWALL LIMESTONE

The Redwall limestone of Mississippian age is a light-gray and 

grayish-blue crystalline limestone containing chert. It is more than 

500 feet thick in the Grand Canyon and is very thick bedded, giving 

it a massive appearance. It forms a prominent, high, steep cliff that 

is generally stained red by wash from the red siltstone of the overlying Supai formation. It rests uncomformably upon the Muav limestone of Cambrian age, or where present, the Temple Butte limestone 

of Devonian age, and is unconformably overlain by the Supai formation.

One of the most recognizable features of the Redwall limestone is 

the presence of solution channels that allow the transmission and 

storage of large quantities of ground water. Along the south rim 

the ground water has drained from the Redwall limestone, owing to 

the downcutting of the canyon, and it offers little likelihood of yielding water. Blue Spring to the east and Havasu Springs to the west 

issue from the Redwall limestone. At these places, regional structure 

has provided a means for water to collect in the Redwall limestone.

577866 61 3
118 HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

AUBREY GROUP

The five formations composing the Aubrey group are, in ascending 

order, the Supai formation, the Hermit shale, the Coconino sandstone, the Toroweap formation, and the Kaibab limestone. This 

group is overlain by a few scattered erosional remnants of the Moenkopi formation, which are overlain by the Shinanimp member of 

the Chinle formation.

SUPAI FORMATION

The Supai formation of Pennsylvania!! and Permian age is conposed, for the most part, of alternating siltstone and fine-grained 

sandstone. The basal unit, about 100 feet thick (Noble, 1914, p. 

68), consists of red shale alternating with beds of blue-gray crystalline limestone containing bands and nodules of red chert. The siltstone units are moderately red, Aveathering to pale reddish brown, 

and are in flat lenticular beds. The sandstone units are light brown 

but in many places are stained red by the overlying siltstone. The 

formation is about 950 feet thick (Noble, 1922, p. 59) west of Hermit 

Creek along the Bass trail, and it forms a bench-slope type of 

topography. It is unconformably overlain by the Hermit shale.

The Supai formation is only moderately cemented, but because it 

is composed of siltstone and fine-grained sandstone, water does not 

move readily through it, although some downward percolation of 

water does occur. One spring, Santa Maria Spring (pi. 13, No. 3) 

in Hermit Basin, issues from the Supai formation. In this locality 

water has percolated downward in a structurally favorable area and 

issues along the top of a relatively impermeable layer.

HERMIT SHALE

The Hermit shale of Permian age is composed of red sandy shale 

and fine-grained friable sandstone. It forms a slope between the 

bench-slope-forming Supai formation and the cliff-forming Coconino 

sandstone. It ranges in thickness from about 270 to 320 feet at the 

type locality (Noble, 1922, p. 64) because of the uneven, channeled 

surface of the Supai formation upon which it lies. To the east, the 

Hermit shale becomes thinner and coarser grained. In the eastern 

Grand Canyon it is not readily differentiated from the Supai formation.

At the type locality in Hermit Basin the Hermit shale contains 

1 arge amounts of siltstone and claystone and thus it retards the downward percolation of ground water. Under these conditions, water 

occurs on top of the shale in the basal few feet of the Coconino 

sandstone. Where the Hermit shale grades into siltstone and sand-
WATER RESOURCES, SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 119

stone in the eastern part of the Grand Canyon, it permits the downward percolation of water, although the movement may not be very 

great.

COCONINO SANDSTONE

The Coconino sandstone of Permian age is very fine to medium 

grained, is crossbeclded, and consists of well-sorted rounded to subangular clear, stained, and frosted quartz grains. The cement is 

dominantly siliceous and accessory minerals are rare. Ripple marks 

having wide spacing and low crests are common. The Coconino sandstone ranges from pale orange to grayish orange and is almost white 

in places. It has weathered into a vertical cliff about 600 feet high and 

rests conformably upon the Hermit shale, and it is conformably overlain by the Toroweap formation.

The lithologic character of the Coconino sandstone permits the 

downward percolation of ground water. Where the Hermit shale 

below forms an aquiclude, the downward movement of ground water 

is retarded and the Coconino standstone is an aquifer. Throughout 

most of the Kaibab Plateau area, however, the Coconino is above the 

water table and therefore offers no possibilities for the development of 

ground water. Where it is water bearing the Coconino transmits 

water at rather slow rates that are dependent upon the amount of 

cementation and fracturing within the sandstone. The sandstone is 

sufficiently porous to provide large potential storage.

TOROWEAP FORMATION

The Toroweap formation of Permian age consists in the western 

and central Grand Canyon of two red-bed sequences separated by a 

massive limestone unit and in the eastern Grand Canyon of a lightcolored crossbedded and gnarly bedded sandstone. The sandstone is 

composed of medium-grained to very fine grained subrounded to 

subangular poorly to well-sorted quartz grains. It is pale orange to 

white, weathers to grayish orange or yellowish gray, and forms an 

irregular to vertical cliff. The formation is about 280 feet thick along 

the Bright Angel trail (McKee, 1938, p. 200-201) and thins to the 

east. It rests conformably on the Coconino sandstone and is unconf orinably overlain by the Kaibab limestone.

The water-bearing properties of the Toroweap formation in eastern 

Grand Canyon are similar to those of the Coconino sandstone. Where 

these formations have been penetrated in drilling wT ells they are not 

readily distinguishable. To the west, no springs are known to occur 

in the Toroweap formation, and it is of little importance except that 

it allows the downward percolation of ground water.
120 HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

KAIBAB LIMESTONE

The Kaibab limestone, youngest of the Permian sedimentary rocks 

in northern Arizona, is composed of thick- to thin-bedded calcareous 

sandstone and sandy magnesian limestone. Chert is common in some 

of the limestone. The sandstone unit is composed of medium-grained 

to very fine grained rounded to subangular clear, stained, and rarely 

frosted quartz grains that are fairly well to poorly sorted. The unit 

ranges from yellowish gray to pale orange and weathers 

to yellowish gray and light gray. The limestone unit is composed of 

thick to thin beds of silty, very sandy, fine crystalline yellow-gray 

to grayish-yellow dolomitic limestone. McKee (1938, p. 13) divided 

the formation into three members, the Gamma, Beta, and Alpha, in 

ascending order. The formation is about 300 feet thick along the 

Bright Angel trail (McKee, 1938, p. 200) and forms a blocky, irregular cliff. It rests unconformably on the Toroweap formation and, except for scattered remnants of Triassic sedimentary rocks, underlies 

the present erosion surface of large areal extent in the Grand Canyon 

area.

Although there are few localities in northern Arizona where the 

Kaibab limestone contains water, it plays an important part in the 

hydrology of the region because of its permeability and its large outcrop area. The ground water that issues as springs from underlying 

formations along the south rim is a good indication of the amount of 

water that percolates downward through the Kaibab limestone, although few springs issue from the Kaibab itself. As the total discharge of springs along the south rim (exclusive of Blue Spring 

which has sources other than from the Coconino Plateau) is small, 

considering the large outcrop area of the Kaibab limestone, it is obvious that the recharge per unit area is small. A good soil cover has 

formed on the Kaibab limestone, and much of the precipitation 

doubtlessly is lost from the soil by evaporation and transpiration. 

Evaporation (sublimation) of snow is another form of loss. Locally, 

small springs and seeps issue on top of relatively impermeable beds 

in the Kaibab limestone. Rowes Well was dug at such a seep, but the 

quantity of water available is small.

TRIASSIC SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

The Triassic sedimentary rocks exposed in the Grand Canyon area 

are the Moenkopi formation and the Shinarump member of the Chinle 

formation. The Moenkopi formation is composed of siltstone and 

sandstone, mostly red to red brown, and is 300 to 400 feet thick. 

The Shinarump member of the Chinle varies greatly, ranging from 

fine-grained sandstone to conglomerate in irregular lenses.
WATER RESOURCES, SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 121

The Triassic rocks are exposed in the area of this report as erosional 

remnants of small extent. Thus, they are not considered as potential 

ground-water reservoirs.

STRUCTURE

The major geologic structures along the south rim of the Grand 

Canyon are the monoclinal flexures associated with the east Kaibab 

monocline, and the Bright Angel fault (pi. 13). Minor structures 

include a small monocline and fault in the Hermit Creek basin, a 

rather large slump block also along Hermit Creek, and numerous 

small faults east of Cedar Mesa. The regional dip of the Paleozoic 

strata is 1° to 2° to the south and southwest. The faults and monoclines, for the most part, have a north-northwest trend; locally, they 

trend northeast and, rarely, eastward.

The importance of structure to the occurrence and movement of 

ground water cannot be overemphasized. The regional structure 

doubtlessly governs the regional movement of ground water, but the 

monoclinal flexures and f aults affect the direction of movement locally. 

The largest springs near the Grand Canyon village area those at 

Indian Garden are controlled by the Bright Angel fault.

BAST KAIBAB MONOCLINE

The principal structural feature in the Desert View area is the east 

Kaibab monocline. It bifurcates into two distinct flexures within 

the area and has been subdivided by Babenroth and Strahler (1945) 

into the following sections: Grand view section, Waterloo Hill section, 

Desert View section, and Cedar Mesa section (pi. 13). The difference 

in altitude of the beds on either side of the monocline in the southeastern part of the area at Coconino Point (what might be called the 

"throw", similar to the displacement on either side of a fault) is about 

1,200 feet. The monoclines dip to the north and northeast.

WATERLOO HILL, DESERT VIEW, AND CEDAR MESA SECTIONS

The Waterloo Hill section is the northwestward extension of the 

east Kaibab monocline near Coconino Point (pi. 13). This monoclinal flexure extends about 7 miles and then bifurcates again, forming 

the Desert View and Cedar Mesa sections. The "throw" in the Waterloo Hill flexure is about 600 feet near the southeastern bifurcation and 

about 1,000 feet at the northern bifurcation. The maximum dips 

range from 22° to 30° to the northeast.

The Desert View and Cedar Mesa sections result from the bifurcation of the Waterloo Hill section about 3 miles southeast from Desert 

View (pi. 13), and the flexures rejoin on the north side of the Colorado Kiver outside the area of this report. The flexures are shown
122 HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

on plate 13 on cross section B-B'', which extends from Desert View 

to the canyon of the Little Colorado Kiver near Blue Spring.

The Desert View flexure trends westward from the bifurcation to 

near Desert View, then turns northward and parallels the Canyon 

rim for about 6 miles, to the place where it is cut by the Colorado 

Kiver. The flexure has a "throw" ranging from 600 feet at its origin 

at the bifurcation to 900 feet at Desert View.

The Cedar Mesa flexure trends northward from the point of bifurcation for 3 miles, then northwestward to where it enters the canyon. 

The "throw" in the flexure increases from about 400 feet at the bifurcation to 600 feet northward near the canyon rim. The flexure passes 

into a fault on the north side of the Colorado Kiver.

GRANDVIEW SECTION

The Grandview section is the westward extension of the east Kaibab 

monocline from Coconino Point (pi. 13). The attitude of the strata 

between the Grandview section and Desert View is shown on cross 

section A-A' on plate 13. The Grandview section extends westward 

for about 10 miles and then trends northwestward to where it intersects the Grand Canyon rim about 2 miles east of Grandview Point. 

North of Grandview it turns more to the west, passing through 

Cotton wood and Grapevine Canyons; then it trends more to the north 

to where it occurs at Cremation Canyon. It passes from a monocline 

to a normal fault, and the fault appears to fade out near the Colorado 

River because the trace of the fault is not reflected in the Tapeats 

sandstone on the north side of the Colorado River. The "throw" of 

the Grandview section is about 600 feet near the point of bifurcation 

and about 400 feet to the northwest where the flexure passes into the 

canyon. Where the monocline passes into a fault in Cremation Canyon, the throw is about 300 feet and there is pronounced bending of 

the strata on both sides of the fault.

BRIGHT ANGEL FAULT

The Bright Angel fault intersects the canyon at the west side of 

Grand Canyon village and trends northeastward. It passes along the 

slope east of Indian Garden into a small canyon east of Garden Creek, 

crosses the Colorado River, and extends up Bright Angel Creek on 

the north side. It has a throw of about 180 feet near Indian Garden, 

the strata being dropped to the east. McKee (1931a, p. 20) stated 

that it is a Cenozoic fault but that it follows closely a Precambrian 

fault which had a throw of nearly 1,000 feet.

The springs at Indian Garden are closely associated with the fault, 

which has been an eifective "collection gallery" for ground water in 

the vicinity and yield about 300 gpm. The largest spring issues from
WATER RESOURCES, SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 123

the east slope of the canyon along the fault, at the base of the Muav 

limestone.

Minor geologic structures are common in the Grand Canyon. Many 

faults of small displacement are present, as pointed out by McKee 

(1931b, p. 27). He stated that minor faults occur in all the eight 

canyons used to descend the main canyon. He counted more than 

50 faults in the Hermit Basin in less than a mile along the contact of 

the Toroweap and Coconino. These faults had a throw ranging from 

a few inches to a maximum of 30 feet. A large slump block was 

observed in the Hermit Creek area. It extended for about half a 

mile along the old Hermit trail.

GROUND.WATER RESOURCES

The ground-water resources of the Grand Canyon area are related 

to the lithology of the sedimentary formations and to the geologic 

structure. One of the important lithologic characteristics is the grain 

size. The rocks range from, very fine grained clay through silt and 

sand to coarse gravel. Although clay and silt may contain large 

amounts of water, very little can move through them or drain from 

them, and consequently they offer little hope for the development of 

water. Another consideration is the degree of sorting whether the 

sediment is made up essentially of one grain size or is a combination 

of grain sizes. If a sand is well sorted, it will transmit water readily 

and will have good storage capacity. Also, the amount of cement in 

the sedimentary rocks may be important. Well-cemented rocks hinder 

or completely block the movement of water. In limestone, the most 

important characteristic is the occurrence of solution channels. Most 

limestone is dense, and water wT ill not move through the rock unless it 

contains solution channels.

Geologic structure also is important. The regional dip, monoclinal 

flexures, and faults control the movement and occurrence of ground 

water. In the Grand Canyon area the regional dip is small (1° to 2°) 

and water tends to move downdip on top of relatively impermeable 

layers. Where the regional dip is interrupted by monoclinal flexures, 

water may follow these flexures. Faulting may bring fine-grained 

rocks against permeable rocks and provide a dam against which water 

accumulates in the permeable rocks.

OCCURRENCE

Ground water in the Colorado Plateau occurs as a series of perched 

water bodies in permeable strata, as shown diagrammatically in plate 

14. A rock unit that does not readily transmit ground water and 

prevents or retards the downward percolation of ground water is
124 HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

termed an aquiclude, or confining bed. The occurrence of an acquiclude beneath a permeable bed under favorable structural conditions 

provides conditions for the entrapment and storage of ground water. 

The principal formations constituting aquicludes in the Grand Canyon 

area are the Vishnu schist, the Bright Angel shale, and the Hermit 

shale (pi. 14).

The Vishnu schist and other Precambrian rocks generally form 

an aquiclude. Seeps were observed in many places along the contact 

between the Precambrian rocks and the Tapeats sandstone. They 

occur only where the Precambrian rocks are dense and are not much 

fractured and disintegrated. Locally, disintegration has created some 

porosity in the Vishnu schist, and some water seeps down into the 

schist.

Another important aquiclude in the Grand Canyon area is the 

Bright Angel shale. From Hermit Creek to Cottonwood Creek, numerous springs issue from the overlying Muav limestone along the 

top of the Bright Angel shale. The basal unit of the Muav limestone is a cliff-forming limestone about 30 feet thick (the Kanab 

Canyon member of McKee, 1945, p. 102), which contains numerous 

solution channels. Many of the springs, including the ones at Indian 

Garden, which yield about 300 gpm, issue from this unit. Where the 

Muav limestone has a large saturated thickness, springs issue higher in 

the formation. In Hermit Creek canyon it was observed that the 

uppermost spring of Hermit Creek issues from dolomite in the Muav 

immediately below the Eedwall limestone. This spring yields about 

1 gpm. Downstream, numerous springs were observed and the flow 

of the stream was larger. The flow where the stream crosses the 

Tapeats sandstone was measured at 210 gpm on May 8, 1958 by the 

Geological Survey.

The absence of springs in the Muav limestone in the Desert View 

area is attributed to structural conditions. The dip of the strata 

throughout the Upper Basin is southward at about 100 feet per mile 

except in the vicinity of the monoclinal flexures (pi. 13, cross section 

A-A'). Therefore, water probably moves southward toward the 

Grandview flexure, and as the upthrown Bright Angel shale is a 

hindrance to water moving in the Muav limestone, the water probably 

moves eastward along the flexure. The absence of springs along 

the rim indicates that not enough water is stored in the Muav limestone in the Upper Basin to overflow along the rim.

The only potential aquifer in the Desert View area is the Muav 

limestone. As no wells have tapped the Muav, its productivity is 

not known. However, there are three possibilities related to the occurrence of ground water in the Muav limestone in the Upper Basin:
WATER RESOURCES, SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 125

(1) the Grand view section of the east Kaibab monocline on the south 

and the Waterloo Hill section on the east may impede the movement 

of water, causing it to accumulate in the Muav limestone and to 

"back up" toward, though not reaching, the canyon rim. (2) There 

are neither major barriers or local structural conditions to allow accumulation of water. (3) There is no major barrier, but local structures are favorable for ground-water storage.

If there are effective barriers to ground-water movement along 

the Grandview and Waterloo Hill flexures, ground water will occur 

in the Muav limestone along the base of the flexures and for some 

distance updip. If water is present, the amount that might be 

obtained would depend upon the number and size of the solution 

channels penetrated in the Muav.

If a barrier does not exist along the Waterloo Hill flexure and 

local structures that might trap water are missing along the Grandview flexure, there would seem to be little or no chance of developing 

locally the amount of water needed for Desert View.

The last possibility is that local structures along the Grandview 

flexure are favorable for ground-water storage, even if there is no 

barrier along the Waterloo Hill flexure. Such local structures would 

have to be nearly perpendicular to the Grandview flexure and would 

be in the form of either faults or monoclines. In either case the 

rocks would have to be lifted to the east. This would allow for 

storage of water in the Muav limestone against the Bright Angel 

shale, but the amount of storage probably would be small. It is 

doubtful if such local storage could produce the amount of water 

needed for Desert View.

Ground water occurs in the Redwall limestone only where the underlying Muav limestone is completely saturated. These conditions exist 

at only two localities along the south rim of the Grand Canyon one 

at Blue Spring (fig. 23 and pi. 13) about 9 miles northeast of Desert 

View, and the other at Havasu Springs (fig. 23) about 30 miles 

northwest of Grand Canyon village. In both places, structure is a 

governing factor for the saturation of the rocks. The rocks in the 

vicinity of Blue Spring have been bent downward below the level of 

Desert View by the east Kaibab monocline. Thus, the Muav limestone 

is below stream level and ground water occurs stratigraphically higher 

in the Paleozoic section. Havasu Springs are structurally lower than 

Grand Canyon village because of the regional dip to the southwest. 

The rim is about 1,000 feet lower at Havasu Canyon than at Grand 

Canyon village.

Small deposits of travertine were observed along Hermit Creek, 

and it appears that the stream is still depositing the material. The
126 HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

uppermost spring in Hermit Creek is not very far below the Redwall 

limestone. Apparently the water from the Redwall is actively building up travertine deposits downstream from the outlets of Blue and 

Havasu Springs. The presence of travertine in Hermit Creek may 

indicate that some of the water has moved through the Redwall limestone. None of the springs that issue from the basal part of the Muav 

limestone have deposited travertine.

The Hermit shale in Hermit Basin is fine grained and forms an 

aquiclude. Two springs (pi. 13, Nos. 1 and 2) issue from the basal 

part of the Coconino sandstone, at the top of the shale. A stock well 

in sec. 21, T. 30 N., R. 1 W., southwest of Grand Canyon village, obtains water from the Coconino sandstone where the water is upheld 

by the Hermit shale. At this location, structural conditions are 

favorable for the entrapment and storage of water on the shale. The 

Hermit shale grades into more permeable siltstone and sandstone 

to the east, and in the Desert View area it cannot be readily distinguished from the Supai formation. Therefore, it does not act 

as a barrier to downward movement of water or allow storage in the 

Coconino sandstone. This fact is demonstrated by a dry hole drilled 

at the base of the Grandview flexure in sec. 5, T. 29 N"., R. 6 E., into 

the red beds of the Supai beneath the Coconino sandstone that disclosed 

no water in the Coconino.

Small seeps occur in the Kaibab limestone where the downward 

movement of ground water is retarded by relatively impermeable 

beds. Rowes Well is an example. According to Mr. Art Metzger 

(oral communication) Rowes Well is shallow and was dug at a seep. 

Other small seeps were observed coming from the Kaibab limestone, 

but the amount of water available is very small. In dry years, little 

or no water would be available.

RECHARGE

The Kaibab limestone has, by far, the largest outcrop area of any 

formation in the Grand Canyon area. Outcrops of the other formations are much smaller and are restricted to the canyons of the 

Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers. Thus, the major part of the 

water that recharges the ground-water reservoir must percolate downward through the Kaibab limestone.

The greater part of the drainage area above Havasu Springs is on 

the Kaibab limestone. The discharge of these springs gives some indication of the amount of water that recharges the ground-water 

reservoir. Havasu Springs have a discharge of about 66 cfs (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 1954). If it is assumed that the underground 

drainage area contributing to the springs is the same as the surface
 WATER RESOURCES, SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 127

drainage area of Havasu Creek, which may not be the case, the springs 

represent the natural discharge point for a drainage area of 2,900 

; square miles. This gives a discharge of 0.02 cfs per square mile of 

drainage area, or about 20 acre-feet per year per square mile, equivalent to about 0.3 inch of water per year over the entire drainage area. 

According to U.S. Weather Bureau records, the amount of pre-

 cipitation falling on the Havasu Creek drainage area ranges from 

.about 10 to 20 inches per year, or about 500 to 1,000 acre-feet per year 

per square mile of drainage. Thus the amount of water infiltrating 

into the Kaibab limestone and later discharging from the groundwater reservoir represents only a small fraction of the precipitation.

MOVEMENT

One of the most dominant controls on the movement of ground 

water in the Grand Canyon area is the geologic structure. In the 

Desert View area monoclinal flexures probably govern the direction 

of movement, whereas to the west the Bright Angel fault exerts an 

influence on the movement.

Although there are no wells in the Desert View area, it is believed 

that the general ground-water movement can be ascertained from the 

geologic structure. The dip of the strata in the Upper Basin is southward at about 100 feet per mile, and the movement of ground water 

also is probably southward. The Grandview flexure probably forms 

an effective barrier to this general ground-water movement, as the 

Bright Angel shale and other formations of low permeability 

are upthrown across the path of movement. In all probability 

ground water turns eastward and parallels the flexure, crosses the 

northern sections of the east Kaibab monocline, and ultimately discharges through Blue Spring. Because of the large "throw" on the 

monocline that lowers the Muav limestone, the ground water seems 

to occur in the Eedwall limestone as well as in the Muav, at least near 

Blue Spring, which discharges from the Redwall.

The occurrence of the springs at Indian Garden is due to a restriction of movement caused by the Bright Angel fault. The upthrow is 

to the west, bringing the relatively impermeable Bright Angle shale 

against the lowermost cliff-forming unit of the Muav limestone.

The many springs issuing from the Muav limestone in the stretch 

from Hermit Creek to Cottonwood Creek indicates that the direction of movement of ground water along the rim is northward. 

But there is no evidence as to how far south of the rim this direction is maintained. Surely there is a drainage divide south of the 

rim because the regional dip is southwestward. Sufficient data are 

not available from wells south of the canyon to give any indications 

as to the location of the divide.
128 HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

DISCHARGE

Ground water discharges through springs in the Grand Canyon* 

(table 1) and from a stock well south of the rim. Only small seepsare found in the Kaibab limestone on the rim. The stock well in sec. 

21, T. 30 N., E. 1 W. is the only well shown on figure 23 that was producing water during this investigation.

The springs that issue from the Coconino sandstone are Dripping 

Springs (pi. 13, No. 1) and an unnamed spring (pi. 13, No. 2) along^ 

the Hermit trail. Both springs are very small and yield less than 1 

gpm. "Dripping Springs" is a good descriptive name, because the 

springs bearing that name occur in a recess under the Coconino sandstone and the water drips from the contact of the Hermit and Coconino.

Only one spring was observed that issues from the Supai formation. It is Santa Maria Spring and may flow as much as 1 gpm. The 

water seeps from sandstone about 20 feet thick.

Most of the springs issue from the Tonto group, at several stratigraphic positions. The stratigraphically highest springs within the 

Tonto group issue from the dolomites of the Muav limestone immediately below the Redwall limestone, where the spring flow forms 

Hermit Creek (pi. 13, No. 4). The Muav limestone is almost saturated 

at spring 4, and many other springs enter the creek from the Muav 

in the stretch downstream toward the Colorado River. The total flow 

was 210 gpm on May 8,1958. Indian Garden Springs (pi. 13, No. 8) 

issue from the basal cliff-forming limestone of the Muav limestone. 

According to Park Service records, the flow is about 300 gpm. Some 

small springs occur in the Bright Angel shale (pi. 13, Nos. 15 and 16). 

Three springs (pi. 13, Nos. 5, 6, and 7) were observed to be issuing 

along bedding planes in the Tapeats sandstone, although Monument 

Spring (pi. 13, No 5) is supplied in part from other sources higher in 

the Tonto group.

One spring (pi. 13, No. 9) issues from the Vishnu schist. The occurrence is related to a disintegration zone in the schist, and the water 

has percolated downward from the Tapeats sandstone.

Only two springs in the south-rim area between Hermit Creek and 

Cottonwood Creek yield significant quantities of water. Indian 

Garden Springs are the largest (about 300 gpm). Hermit Springs 

yield about 210 gpm. All other springs yield less than 10 gpm and 

most yield less than 1 gpm. The total flow from the springs is about 

600 gpm.

Two large springs along the south rim are Blue Spring on the Little 

Colorado River and Havasu Springs in Havasu Creek (fig. 23). Blue 

Spring, which forms the perennial flow of the Little Colorado River,
Description of wells in Coconino Plateau area, Arizona

Township 

(N)

26

27

29

30

27

28

30

Location

Range

2E.

IE.

6E.

2E.

1 W.

1 W.

1 W.

Section

10

29

5

17

3

35

21

Owner

Sinclair Oil and Gas Co... 

Babbitt Bros. Ranch .......

Date

drilled

1(Ufl

loanc?}

1952

1942

Reported

depth 

(feet)

1,817

1,470

1,200

1,000

3,540

1,000

Casing

diameter 

(inches)

10

8

8

8

Depth to

water

below land 

surface 

(feet)

0) (')

(')

1,400

1900

Date

5-4-58

Pu

Type

... do... ....

... do ..

...do. 

...do 

...do 

mp

Power

None ......

...do ....

...do ....

... do... ....

...do ...

...do ...

Remarks

Do.

Drilled to red beds below Coconino sandstone. Abandoned.

Do.

Oil test. Bottomed in Bright

Angel shale. 

Production from Coconino

sandstone.

i Reported dry. 

»Reported.

CO
130 HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

flow about 220 cfs and Havasu Springs, about 66 cfs. (U.S. Geological Survey, 1954). They issue from the Eedwall limestone.

Only one of the wells listed in the table and shown on figure 23 

produced water in the spring of 1958. The well in sec. 21, T. 30 N.,. 

E. 1 W., was drilled in 1942 to a depth of 1,000 feet, and the water 

level was reported to be 900 feet below the land surface. Although 

the yield is not large, the water is reported to be satisfactory for 

stock use. The water tapped by this well is perched on the Hermit 

shale, and the ground-water reservoir is probably not very extensiveFarther south in sec. 3, T. 27 N., E. 1 W., the depth to water in an. 

abandoned well in the Supai formation is 1,400 feet. Data are insufficient to determine whether the depth to water represents theregional water table or another perched water table.

PRESENT WATER SUPPLY AT INDIAN GARDEN

Two of the largest springs at Indian Garden are developed and 

piped to a storage reservoir. One of the springs issues from the slope 

east of Indian Garden and the other issues from the creek bed at 

the uppermost end of Indian Garden. The flow of the other small 

springs is not collected at Indian Garden; however, downstream,, 

some of the water is collected and pumped to the storage reservoir 

at Indian Garden. The combined flow is then pumped to the south 

rim, a lift of 3,200 feet. At present, the Park Service operates a weir 

with recording gage downstream from the lower pumphouse, in order 

to determine the amount of water not being used.

RELATION OF SPRING DISCHARGE TO SIZE OF DRAINAGE BASIN

In the Colorado Plateaus there probably is a general relation between the discharge of springs and the size of the surface drainage 

basin above the springs. It has been observed that large springsgenerally discharge from large drainage basins, and vice versa. It 

would be desirable if this qualitative observation could be translated 

into a quantitative answer.

A related problem is the position of the ground-water divide between 

areas of ground-water discharge. In many places on the Colorado' 

Plateau there are not sufficient data to locate a divide with any degree 

of accuracy. It is not known whether the movement of ground water 

in geologic time has been stabilized so that the ground-water and surface-water divides coincide at least approximately or whether the two 

divides are many miles apart.

Three springs along the south rim of the Grand Canyon Blue, 

Havasu, and Hermit may add evidence to the relation of spring discharge to size of drainage basin and, by inference, to the position of
WATER RESOURCES, SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 131

the ground-water divide between areas of discharge. Pertinent facts 

concerning the three springs are given in the following table:

Springs

Blue Spring. ________

Drainage area Discharge 

(cfs)

220

66

.5

Surface 

drainage 

area (sq 

mi)

25,600

2,900

11

Discharge per 

unit drainage 

area (cfs per 

sqmi)

0.01

.02

.04

The springs have a large range in discharge, the ratio of largest to 

smallest being 440 to 1; and a large range in surface drainage area> 

the ratio being 2,300 to 1. However, the discharge per unit drainage 

area shows a small range, the ratio being only 4 to 1.

Geologically, the drainage areas above Havasu and Hermit Springs 

are similar both are on Paleozoic rocks (Kaibab limestone). Blue 

Spring are in the drainage area of the Little Colorado Eiver, and the 

surface geology is much different from that of the other two areas. 

Also, there are other points of ground-water discharge, and not all 

the available water issues from Blue Spring.

If the springs represented all the ground-water discharge and if 

the drainage divides for both ground water and surface water coincided, the figures of 0.01, 0.02, and 0.04 cfs per square mile would 

represent the approximate recharge to the ground-water reservoir. 

The discrepancy in recharge between Blue and Havasu Springs could 

be explained as due to the difference in geologic environments, as well 

as the pressence of other ground-water outlets in the Little Colorado 

drainage area, but because of their geologic similarity the discrepancy 

in recharge between Havasu and Hermit Springs could not be thu& 

explained. It is tentatively concluded that the ground-water and 

surface-water divides do not coincide, or that the discharges and 

drainage areas of Havasu and Hermit Springs are too different to permit a direct comparison on a unit-area basis.

QUALITY OF WATER

Fourteen samples of water from springs along the south rim were 

analyzed for their mineral content. These analyses, and analyses for 

Blue and Havasu Springs also, are given in table 1. The waters,, 

with the exception of that of Blue Spring, are all of good chemical 

quality, although they are hard, and are satisfactory for domestic use 

according to the standards for drinking water of the U.S. Public 

Health Service. The dissolved solids in the 14 samples from the 

report area ranged from 179 to 667 ppm; only 2 samples contained 

more than 400 ppm.
TABLE 1. Chemical analyses of water from springs, Grand Canyon area, Arizona

[Chemical constituents in parts per million except as indicated. Discharge: <, less than; E, estimated; M, measured; N, see remarks]

[Analyses by U.S. Geological Survey, Albuquerque, N. Mex.]

No. 

(pi. 

13)

1 

2 

3

4

5 

6

7 

8

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14

15 

16 

17

Name

Hermit Spring (uppermost spring). 

Hermit Springs (all 

springs).

Indian Garden Spring 

No. 1.

Indian Garden Spring 

No. 2. 

Indian Garden Springs 

(all flow).

Source

Coconino sandstonedo

Supai formation _ 

Muav limestone - ... 

 -.do..... - -

Tapeats sandstone - 

Tapeats(?) sandstone.

Tapeats sandstone 

 ..do-. 

 ..do....- ..

Muav limestone. ... 

do

Muav(?) limestone..

Muav(?) limestone.. 

Eedwall limestone . 

 -.do...- -- 

Discharge (gpm)

<1E 

<1E

IE

5E 

210M

5E 

<1E

<1E

N 

<1E

IE 

IE 

<1E

<1E

IDE 

<1E

<1E

5E

N 

N

i?0

£

0

2

a

i

62 

61 

58

67 

69

61 

63

59 

53

62 

65

-...

53 

69

collection Date of

10-8-57 

10-8-57 

5-9-58

10-15-57 

10-16-57 

10-16-57

10-16-57 4-9-58

4-9-58 

4-9-58

10-17-57 10-17-57

11-5-57

11-4-57 

6-14-50 

10-20-50

)Silica (Si0 2

9.3

9.8 

15

9.0 

9.2 

10

9.5 

13

14 

12

11 

11

11

16 

19

18

(Ca) Calcium 

32 

26 

34

48 

52 

80

46 

42

54 

54

68 

59

63

75 

264 

133

'3

s 

 i

s>

1

24 

24 

34

27 

31

47

69 

29

32 

35

42 

35

40

42 

79 

48

Sodium andpotas- 

(Na+K) sium 

6.0 

6.2 

18

3.4

27 

99

31

9.0

11

11

11 

17

7.8

10 

534 

27

Bicarbonate 

(HC0 )8

193

177 

232

219 

267 

289

172 

254

308 

308

337 

295

366

399 

964 

588

Carbonate (CO 3)

0 

0 

0

16 

0 

0

6 

0

0 

0

0 

0

0

0 

0 

0

Sulfate (SO 4)

10

8.2 

28

16 

33

98

271 

16

17

28

63 

55

21

33 

147 

36

Chloride (Cl)

13 

15

28

9.5 

44 

190

23 

12

13

14

17 

20

11

14 

815 

48

£ 

i

§ fe

0.2 

.2

.7

.2 

.2 

.2

.2 

.2

.2 

.2

.2 

.2

.4

.2 

.2 

.2

6 

5.

s 

£ 

g

4.7 

2.6 

4.4

2.5 

.1 

1.0

.1

1.8

1.0 

.2

.0 

.0

.2

.5 

3.2 

1.4

Dissolved 

solids

CQ

194 

179 

276

239

328 

667

540 

248

293

305

378 

342

334

387 

2,340 

602

Tons per acre-foot

0.26 

.24 

.38

.33 

.45 

.91

.73 

.34

.40 

.41

.51

.47

.45

.53 

3.18 

.82

Hardness as 

CaCOs

3

£

178 

164 

225

231 

257 

393

398 

224

266 

278

342 

291

322

360 

984 

530

Noncar- bonate

20 

18 

35

26 

38 

156

248 

16

14

26

66 

49

22

32

194 

48

Specific conductance 

(micromhos at 

25°C)

347 

328 

483

421 

584 

1,190

833

454

523 

543

648 

588

590

661 

3,940 

1,030

Eemarks

Had been developed 

for rest camp on 

Hermit Trail.

Issues from alluvium 

overlying Tapeats 

sandstone.

Water supply for 

Grand Canyon 

Village. 

Do.

Flow of all springs reported as 300 gpm.

Issues from talus overlying Tapeats sandstone.

Do.

Has flow of 220 cfs. 

Has flow of 66 cfs. Not 

shown on pi. 13.

CO 

fcO

0

§F 

o
WATER RESOURCES, SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 133

An inspection of the analyses indicates that along the south rimr 

as the water percolates downward (pi. 14), there is an increase in 

mineral content of the water. The water from the Coconino sandstone has 179 and 194 ppm of dissolved solids, from the upper part 

of the Muav limestone 239 ppm, from the rest of the Muav 248 to 

887 ppm, and from the Tapeats sandstone 540 and 667 ppm. It has 

been mentioned previously that there are "salt seeps" issuing from 

the Tapeats sandstone. These are very small and no samples were 

collected. It may be postulated that the quality of water from these 

seeps is not as poor as would be suggested by the presence of the salt 

stalactites and stalagmites, for some of the concentration of this mineral content leading to salt deposition doubtless is due to evaporation of the small quantities of water seeping from the rocks.

CONCLUSIONS

Not all the spring discharge at Indian Garden is developed and 

pumped to the south rim. A part of the water is allowed to go downstream in sufficient amounts to maintain the growth of cottonwoods 

and other vegetation. A weir with recording gage has been installed 

by the Park Service downstream from the area of desirable vegetation, to determine the amount of water not used. The data from 

the weir records should indicate the amount of additional water that 

could be obtained from Indian Garden.

The only other springs along the south rim within a short distance 

to Grand Canyon village that could be developed to increase the 

water supply are the Hermit Creek springs. The spring flow in 

Hermit Creek increases downstream and below the Muav limestone, 

where it is about 210 gpm. As this is based on only one measurement^ 

there is no indication of the magnitude of fluctuation or the annual 

average flow. The pumping lift to a point directly above on the 

south rim would be about 3,800 feet, and the water would then have 

to be piped about 4 miles to the storage reservoirs at Grand Canyon 

village. Before any attempt is made to develop water from Hermit 

Creek, records should be kept for a sufficiently long period to determine the range in flow and the average flow.

The two largest springs along the south rim are Blue Spring and 

Havasu Springs. The water of Blue Spring has a high mineral content and is unsuitable for domestic use. Havasu Springs, although 

yielding water of good chemical quality, are about 30 miles from the 

village.

One drilled well south of the park boundary in sec. 21, T. 30 N"., 

R. 1 W., is 1,000 feet deep and obtains water at the base of the Coconino sandstone at a depth of about 900 feet. The amount of water
134 HYDROLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

available is probably small, as the geologic structure that traps the 

water is probably of local extent. It is questionable whether similar 

wells could be located practicably that would produce enough water 

for the anticipated expansion of the park.

A well in sec. 3, T. 27 N., R. 1 W., about 25 miles southwest from 

Grand Canyon village, had a water level 1,400 feet below the land 

surface. This water occurs in the Supai formation. As this is the

 only well where a measurement could be obtained, it is difficult to 

arrive at any conclusions concerning the water in the area. Wells in 

the Flagstaff area produce only about 10 to 35 gpm from the Supai 

formation and are expensive to operate. These factors, plus a pipeline about 25 miles long and a lift of an additional 1,000 feet to reach 

the village, offer little encouragement for the development of water 

from wells.

In the Desert View area, the only probable water-bearing formation 

is the Muav limestone. Because of the depth at which the limestone 

occurs and because of the fact that the zone of saturation in it may be 

thin, or even absent, for some miles to the south, it offers essentially 

no encouragement for the successful development of a water supply.

In conclusion, the best possibilities for development of water along 

the south rim are: capture and transport of additional water from 

springs at Indian Garden and development of springs in Hermit 

Creek. If these two prospects do not provide the water needed, or if 

the cost of development at Hermit Creek is too high, then investigation of the possibility of obtaining water from the north side of the

 Colorado River would be worth while.

REFERENCES CITED

Babenroth, D. L., and Strahler, A. N., 1945, Geomorphology and structure of the

East Kaibab monocline, Arizona and Utah: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 56,

no. 2, p. 107-150. 

Darton, N. H., 1925, A resume of Arizona geology: Arizona Bur. Mines Bull.,

no. 119,298 p. 

McKee, E. D., 1931a, The origin of the Bright Angel fault: Grand Canyon

Nature Notes, v. 6, no. 2, p. 19-21, Grand Canyon, U.S. Natl. Park Service.

 1931b, The origin of Hermit Basin: Grand Canyon Nature Notes, v. 5, 

no. 3, p. 27, Grand Canyon, U.S. Natl. Park Service.

 1938, The environment and history of the Toroweap and Kaibab formations of northern Arizona and southern Utah: Carnegie Inst. Washington 

Pub. 492.

 1945, Cambrian history of the Grand Canyon region: Carnegie Inst

Washington Pub. 563, pt. 1, p. 1-170. 

Jfoble, L. F., 1914, The Shinumo quadrangle, Grand Canyon district Arizona:

U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 549,100 p. 

 1922, A section of the Paleozoic formations of the Grand Canyon at the

Bass trail: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 131-B, p. 23-73.
"WATER RESOURCES, SOUTH RIM, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 135

Uoble, L. F., and Hunter, J. F., 1916, A reconnaissance of the Archean complex

of the Granite Gorge, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof.

Paper 98-1, p. 95-113. 

Studevant, G. E., 1926, Salt in the Tapeats sandstone: Grand Canyon Nature

Notes, v. 1, no. 6, p. 3-5, Grand Canyon, U.S. Natl. Park Service. 

Twenter, F. R., 1959, Geology and promising areas for ground-water develop*

ment in the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Ariz.: U.S. Geological Survey

open-file report. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1954, Surface water supply of the United States, 1952,

Pt. 9, Colorado River basin: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1243,

496 p.

INDEX

Page

Abstract...__________________ 105-106 

Acknowledgments_______________ 113 

Altitude.___________________ 110, 111 

Analyses of water from springs. __ _ 132 

Aquiclude, defined___ ___...... 123-124

Aquicludes In the Grand Canyon area_-__ 124 

Aubrey group, divisions____________ 118

Blue Spring... ...... 120,125,127,128,130-132,133

Bright Angel fault._________ 121,122-123,127 

Bright Angel shale, hydrologio character.......... 116,124,128

 Cedar Mesa flexure_ __.. .. 121-122 

Chuar group, exposures__...____ __ 114 

Climate. ____..________ 111 

Coeonino Plateau_____ _______ 110 

Coeonino sandstone, description and waterbearing character..____.__ 119 

quality of water from___________ 133 

springs in 128 

Conclusions 133-134 

Cremation Canyon. 122

Desert View, possibilities for development of

water supply. __ 134 

present water supply. .. 107-108 

Desert View flexure__ ____ .. 121-122 

Drainage.. ___.....________ 110 

Drainage areas______....._______ 130-131 

Dripping Springs______..._____.... 128,132

East Kaibab monocline___________ 121-122 

Evaporation, loss of water by..________ 120

Faults. . 121,122-123 

Fieldwork. ...... ......__... .. 111-112

Grand Canyon series, water-bearing properties. __.__ 114

Grand Canyon village, present water supply __....... 107-108

Grandview section of East Kaibab monocline. 122

Ground water, discharge________... 128-130

movement_ _____.___ .. 127,130

recharge- __________ .. 126-127

relation to structure__...____ 121,123

Ground-water divide___ ___ 130-131

Ground-water resources, lithologic factors

affecting.. _... _. 123

Havasu Creek, drainage area. - 131 

Havasu Springs 125,126-127,128,130-132,133 

Hermit Basin______________ 118-119,123 

Hermit Creek_______ 109,124,125-126,128,131

Page

Hermit shale, an aqulclude. 124-125,126 

description.._______..__....... 118-119

water-bearing character _.. 118-119,126,130 

Hermit Springs____________ 128,130-132,133

Indian Garden, present water supply_ 130

Indian Garden springs, development of. 109-110

quality of water.. 132

relation to faults_____.__ 121,122-123,127

yield.....___-___ ___ . 124,128

Introduction__ 106

Kaibab limestone, description____ ... 120 

water-bearing character_ ___- 120,126-127 

Kaibab Plateau- 110 

Kanab Canyon member of Muav limestone 116-117

Little Colorado River, drainage area.... 131

Mapping and map sources_ 111-112 

Moenkopi formation._ - 120-121 

Monument Spring___ 128,132 

Movement of ground water_~_ 127,130 

Muav limestone, general character and thickness. 116-117

quality of water from. .. ... 133 

springs in___ 116-117,122-123,124-125,127,128

Occurrence of ground water 123-126

Paleozoic rocks, geology and water-bearing

properties__ 114-120 

Perched water bodies_ 123-124 

Precambrian rocks.._ 113-114 

Precipitation.. .__ . 111, 127 

Previous investigations. 111 

Purpose of the investigation 106

Quality of water_ 131-133

Rampart Cave member of Muav limestone 117

Redwall limestone, description 117

solution channels. 117

water-bearing characteristics 117,125-126

springs in. 128,130

See also Blue Spring and Havasu

References cited 134-135 

Rowes well.. 120,126

Salt crystals, in Tapeats sandstone 115-116 

Santa Maria Spring.... 118,128,132 

Scope of the investigation__ 107-108 

Shinarump member of Chinle formation. 120-121

137
138 INDEX

Page

Slump block, In Hermit Basin._____.. 121,123 

Springs, chemical analyses of water.....___ 132

in Muav limestone. ...._ 116-H7

See also Blue Spring, Indian Garden

springs, Santa Maria Spring 

location and flow... _.__ 128-131 

quality of water.... ._ __.__ 131-133

relation of discharge to size of drainage

area. _ ....... 130-131

Solution channels in limestone, water yield

from . 117 

Structural features, faults... __.__ 122-123 

monocline_ __ 121-122 

slump block. __ .. 121,123 

Structure, relation to ground water. . 121,123 

Supai formation, depth to water.. . . 130,134 

description and water-bearing characteristics___-__________ 118

Tapeats sandstone, character and thickness_ 115 

quality of water from..__________ 133 

salt crystals in.. .. ........... 115-116,133

springs in 128

PageTemple Butte limestone, water-bearing

character. __ .... __. 117" 

Topography 110- 

Tonto group, general description 115- 

See also Tapeats sandstone, Bright Angel

shale, and Muav limestone. 

Toroweap formation, description and waterbearing character. __ _. 119> 

Triassic rocks. 120-121 

Travertine . 125-126

Unkar group, water-bearing properties 114'

Vegetation. . Ill

Vishnu schist, an aquiclude..____ _- 124 

water-bearing properties.. 113-114,128-

Water, cost_ _ _ __ __ 109" 

Waterloo HiU flexure...________ 121,124-125- 

Water supply in south rim, future possibilities. _____________ 133-134 

history..____..___.________ 108-110- 

present__ . . ..._.. 107-108- 

Wells, . . 128,129,130,133-134

o