Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 

1947–2004

Prepared in cooperation with the 

State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Division of Environmental Protection

Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5100

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
FRONT COVER: Water-table surfaces in Nevada, 1947–2004.
Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 

1947–2004

By Thomas J. Lopes, Susan G. Buto, J. LaRue Smith, and Toby L. Welborn

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperation with the

State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Division of Environmental Protection

Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5100
U.S. Department of the Interior

Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

Use of trade, product, or firm names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute 

endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Carson City, Nevada, 2006

For additional information write to:

U.S. Geological Survey

Director, USGS Nevada Water Science Center

2730 N. Deer Run Road

Carson City, NV 89701

Email: GS-W-NVpublic-info@usgs.gov 

URL: http://nevada.usgs.gov/ 

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5100
iii

Contents

Abstract............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................... 2

Methods ............................................................................................................................................................ 2

Water-Table and Depth-to-Water Contours...................................................................................... 5

Water-Table and Depth-to-Water Surfaces ..................................................................................... 5

Water-Table Gradients.......................................................................................................................... 7

Water-Table Levels.......................................................................................................................................... 8

Water-Table Gradients.................................................................................................................................. 13

Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 18

References Cited ........................................................................................................................................... 21

Plates ............................................................................................................................................................. 28

Figures

Figure 1. Hydrographic areas and locations of wells used to evaluate the accuracy of depth-towater surfaces in Nevada. ............................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2. Depth to water in spring 2001 in the Diamond Valley hydrographic area (153), Nevada. ..... 6

Figure 3. Differences in depth to water estimated from depth-to-water surface and water-table 

surfaces versus depth to water estimated from depth-to-water surfaces. ........................... 7

Figure 4. Sites where water-table gradients were characterized. ........................................................... 9

Figure 5. Variables measured at water-table-gradient sites.................................................................... 10

Figure 6. Depth to water estimated from depth-to-water surface versus measured depth to

 water. ............................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 7. Depth-to-water surfaces and areas of predominantly greasewood...................................... 14

Figure 8. Ground-water discharge areas, areas of predominantly greasewood, and depth-towater less than 100 feet. ................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 9. Differences between last and first depth-to-water measurements versus A, well 

depth, B, years between measurements, and C, first depth-to-water measurement. ....... 16

Figure 10. Differences between last and first depth-to-water measurements grouped by 

hydrographic-area number. .......................................................................................................... 17

Figure 11. Ranges in water-table gradients A, beneath alluvial fans and valley floors and B, 

grouped by adjacent consolidated-rock hydrogeologic unit................................................... 18

Figure 12. Water-table gradients in unconsolidated sediments versus A, horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity of adjacent consolidated hydrogeologic unit, B, upgradient precipitation, 

and C, distance to consolidated-rock contact. .......................................................................... 19

Figure 13. Water-table and land-surface altitude versus distance from the well at the lowest 

land-surface altitude in Kyle Canyon, Pine Nut Creek, and Vicee Canyon. ......................... 20
iv

Tables

Table 1. Scoring system for selecting published water-table and depth-to-water contours 

used to determine water-table levels in Nevada......................................................................... 5

Table 2. Information used to characterize water-table gradients in Nevada...................................... 11

Table 3. Water-table measurements for Vicee Canyon, Pine Nut Creek, and Kyle Canyon, 

Nevada.............................................................................................................................................. 12

Conversion Factors and Datums

Multiply By To obtain

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter 

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer 

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 1,233 cubic meter per year

Datums

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; horizontal 

coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27).

Appendix

Appendix 1. Reports with water-level contours for Nevada. ........................................................................ 24

Plates

Plate 1. Map showing water-table contours in Nevada, 1947–2004 ..................................................... 28

Plate 2. Map showing water-table surfaces in Nevada, 1947–2004 ..................................................... 28

Plate 3. Map showing depth-to-water surfaces in Nevada, 1947–2004............................................... 28
Abstract

In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

began a program to protect the quality of ground water in 

areas other than ground-water protection areas. These other 

sensitive ground water areas (OSGWA) are areas that are not 

currently, but could eventually be, used as a source of drinking 

water. The OSGWA program specifically addresses existing 

wells that are used for underground injection of motor-vehicle 

waste. To help determine whether a well is in an OSGWA, the 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection needs statewide 

information on depth to water and the water table, which 

partly control the susceptibility of ground water to contamination and contaminant transport. This report describes a study 

that used available maps and data to create statewide maps of 

water-table and depth-to-water contours and surfaces, assessed 

temporal changes in water-table levels, and characterized 

water-table gradients in selected areas of Nevada.

A literature search of published water-table and depthto-water contours produced maps of varying detail and scope 

in 104 reports published from 1948 to 2004. Where multiple 

maps covered the same area, criteria were used to select the 

most recent, detailed maps that covered the largest area and 

had plotted control points. These selection criteria resulted in 

water-table and depth-to-water contours that are based on data 

collected from 1947 to 2004 being selected from 39 reports. 

If not already available digitally, contours and control points 

were digitized from selected maps, entered into a geographic 

information system, and combined to make a statewide map of 

water-table contours. Water-table surfaces were made by using 

inverse-distance weighting to estimate the water table between 

contours and then gridding the estimates. Depth-to-water surfaces were made by subtracting the water-table altitude from 

the land-surface altitude.

Water-table and depth-to-water surfaces were made for 

only 21 percent of Nevada because of a lack of information 

for 49 of 232 basins and for most consolidated-rock hydrogeologic units. Depth to water is commonly less than 50 feet 

beneath valley floors, 50 to 500 feet beneath alluvial fans, 

and more than 500 feet in some areas such as north-central 

and southern Nevada. In areas without water-table information, greasewood and mapped ground-water discharge areas 

are good indicators of depth to water less than 100 feet. The 

average difference between measured depth to water and depth 

to water estimated from surfaces was 90 feet. More recent and 

detailed information may be needed than that presented in this 

report to evaluate a specific site. 

Temporal changes in water-table levels were evaluated for 1,981 wells with 10 or more years between the first 

depth-to-water measurement and last measurement made since 

1990. The greatest increases in depth to water occurred where 

the first measurement was less than 200 feet, where the time 

between first and last measurements was 40 years or less, and 

for wells between 100 and 600 feet deep. These characteristics 

describe production wells where ground water is fairly shallow 

in recently developing areas such as the Las Vegas and Reno 

metropolitan areas. In basins with little pumping, 90 percent 

of the changes during the past 100 years are within ±20 feet, 

which is about the natural variation in the water table due to 

changes in the climate and recharge.

Gradients in unconsolidated sediments of the Great Basin 

are generally steep near mountain fronts, shallow beneath 

valley floors, and depend on variables such as the horizontal 

hydraulic conductivity of adjacent consolidated rocks and 

recharge. Gradients beneath alluvial fans and valley floors 

at 58 sites were correlated with selected variables to identify 

those variables that are statistically related. Water-table measurements at three sites were used to characterize the water 

table between the valley floor and consolidated rock.

Water-table gradients beneath alluvial fans had a median 

of 0.02, a mean of 0.04, and a standard deviation of 0.05. Gradients beneath valley floors had a median of 0.005, a mean of 

0.03, and a standard deviation of 0.07. Information from this 

and other reports suggest that the average linear velocity of 

ground water is roughly 10 times faster beneath alluvial fans 

than beneath valley floors. Contaminants may travel about 10 

times faster beneath alluvial fans than beneath valley floors, 

depending on the physical and chemical properties of the aquifer material and contaminant.

Gradients in unconsolidated sediments adjacent to different consolidated rocks differed significantly (p-value less 

than or equal to 0.05), which could be related to the horizontal 

hydraulic conductivity of the consolidated rocks and the sediments derived from them. Spearman rank correlations were 

statistically significant between gradients and the horizontal 

hydraulic conductivity of adjacent consolidated-rock hydrogeologic units (-0.30), precipitation up-gradient of the site 

(0.32), distance to the alluvial-fan contact (-0.31), and distance 

to the consolidated-rock contact (-0.41). These relations are 

consistent with the general description of the water table along 

mountain fronts and with precipitation being the driving force 

for gradients. 

Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004

By Thomas J. Lopes, Susan G. Buto, J. LaRue Smith, and Toby L. Welborn
An examination of water tables at three sites suggests 

it may be possible to estimate the water table where data are 

sparse. Kyle Canyon, in Las Vegas Valley, has few domestic 

wells compared to Pine Nut Creek, in Carson Valley. Vicee 

Canyon, in Eagle Valley, has two production wells and is the 

most developed of the three sites. The initial water tables at 

Vicee Canyon and Kyle Canyon had similar shapes and were 

nearly parallel to land-surface altitude. Linear regression of 

water-table altitude with land-surface altitude from both sites 

had a slope of 0.89 and an r-squared of 0.97. If this relation is 

valid for other hydrogeologic settings, then water-table levels 

in undeveloped areas could be estimated from a few measurements. Recent (2000–2004) water tables at Pine Nut Creek and 

Vicee Canyon are similar and are not parallel with land-surface altitude, suggesting that pumping has changed the linear 

relation. At Vicee Canyon, pumping has reversed the gradient 

so that ground water flows from the valley floor toward the 

mountain front. The non-linear relation would depend on the 

amount of pumpage, making it difficult to estimate watertable levels in developed areas. This study used existing data 

to characterize gradients. A study specifically designed to 

characterize gradients may result in stronger correlations that 

could be used to estimate gradients and the water table where 

few data exist.

Introduction

In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

began a program to protect the quality of ground water in areas 

other than ground-water protection areas (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2000). Ground-water protection areas surrounding currently used production wells, are protected under 

the wellhead and source-water protection programs, and constitute a small percentage of Nevada. Other sensitive groundwater areas (OSGWA) are large areas that are not currently, 

but could eventually be, used as a source of drinking water and 

are protected under the OSGWA program. OSGWAs do not 

include areas that could not be used as a source of drinking 

water, such as saline ground water near playas. The OSGWA 

program specifically addresses existing wells that are used for 

underground injection of motor vehicle waste; new injection 

wells are banned. If an injection well is in a ground-water 

protection area or an OSGWA, well owners must either close 

the well or apply for a permit. A permit is granted only if the 

injectate fluids meet drinking-water standards.

Nevada is a large, rural, and hydrologically complex state 

that lies almost entirely within the Great Basin physiographic 

province (fig. 1). Sparse data throughout much of Nevada 

makes it difficult to determine which aquifers could be sensitive to contamination. Rather than designate specific areas as 

an OSGWA, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP) will evaluate site-specific information associated with 

the permit application and determine if the aquifer at the site 

is sensitive (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 

2003). To evaluate permit applications, NDEP needs statewide 

information on depth to water, altitude of the water table, and 

other variables that control the susceptibility of ground water 

to contamination and contaminant transport. The greater the 

depth to water, the greater the probability that contaminants 

will degrade or sorb to sediments before reaching ground 

water, which makes shallow aquifers generally more sensitive to contamination than deep aquifers. If the contaminant reaches ground water, water-table altitude is needed to 

determine the direction and rate of ground-water flow and to 

identify water supplies that could be affected.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation 

with NDEP, started a study in 2001 to compile information on 

variables that could control aquifer susceptibility and vulnerability and to estimate the potential for ground-water degradation from anthropogenic contamination. As part of the study, 

the USGS used available, published water-table and depth-towater contours and other data to determine statewide watertable levels and water-table gradients. This report presents the 

water-table levels and gradients and is one of four reports from 

this study. Maurer and others (2004) describe the hydrogeology of Nevada and areas with similar horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity, soil permeability, precipitation, slope, and aspect. 

Lopes and Evetts (2004) estimated ground-water pumpage and 

artificial recharge for the year 2000 and compiled estimates of 

average annual natural recharge and interbasin flow by hydrographic area. Lopes (2006) described methods and results of 

evaluating the quality of Nevada’s aquifers and their susceptibility to contamination.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to present (1) statewide 

maps of water-table contours and water-table and depth-towater surfaces, and (2) water-table gradients determined from 

water-level measurements. The report includes an assessment 

of temporal changes in water-table levels, an assessment of 

the variables that affect gradients in unconsolidated sediments, 

and general estimates of ground-water velocity. Published 

maps and data from 1947–2004 were used in the study. Potentiometric surfaces of confined aquifers were not included.

Methods

Water-table and depth-to-water contours were compiled 

from published reports and were used to make digital surfaces 

of interpolated water-table levels. Recent data were used to 

make previously unpublished contours for Buffalo and Diamond Valleys. Recent and historical data were used to evaluate 

temporal changes and characterize the water table between the 

valley floor and consolidated rock. Water table and gradients 

in different hydrogeologic settings were characterized using 

field measurements, site characteristics, and graphical and 

   Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004
13 11

10

12

14 9

15

8

7

6

5

4

2

3

16

17

18

1

25

26

24

21

19

98 22

23

28

27

31 32

30B

30A

29 33A

33B

69

68

67

34

35

36

63

37

38 39

40

41

189B

189A 189C

189D

190

191

42

44

43

187

188

177

66

70

71

72

70

65

64

62

61

51 50 49

48

45

46

47

176 178A

186B

186A

185

192

193

194

195

196

201

179

184

178B

175

174

154 152

153

139

151

155A

155B

138

53

54

52

60

59

58

55

56

57

137B 140A

73B

73A

129

130

131

132

128

74

101A

133

127 134

126

125

124

123

79

78

77

75

76

101

97

96

95

99 94

80

81

84 82

83

85

90

91

89

88 87

100

93 100A

100A

92A 92B

86

102

103

104

105

110A 108

107 106

109

114

110B

110C

111A

111B

112

113

115 116

120

119

118

121A

121B

122 135

136 137A

180

183

181

209 182

207

208

173B 155C

172

171

170

156

173A

157

140B

150

149 141

117

143

144

142

145

148

147

146

159

158A

227B

160

158B

169A

169B

168

228

229 227A

226 225 161

211

230

230

162

163

165

164A

164B

166

167

214

213

212

216

217

215

218

223 224

220

222

221

205

219

210

206

204

202

203 197

198

199 200

232

231

1

2

3

4

5

7 6

8

9 10

11

13

12

14

20

Hydrographic areas were delineated by Cardinalli and 

others, 1968, and Rush, 1968

EXPLANATION

Number represents hydrographic area in 

accompanying table

Hydrographic-region and basin boundary

Hydrographic-area boundary

Well location

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1978–88

Hydrographic areas from Nevada Department of Water Resources, 1:750,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1927

120°

36°

38°

40°

42° 118° 116° 114°

146

Index map of Nevada showing 

hydrographic regions and basins

Figure 1. Hydrographic areas and locations of wells used to evaluate the accuracy of depth-to-water surfaces in Nevada. 

Methods   
   Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004

1-NORTHWEST REGION 85. Spanish Springs V. 159. Yucca Flat 86. Sun V. 160. Frenchman Flat 1. Pueblo V. 87. Truckee Meadows 161. Indian Springs V.

 2. Continental Lake V. 88. Pleasant V. 162. Pahrump V. 3. Gridley Lake V. 89. Washoe V. 163. Mesquite V. (Sandy V.)

 4. Virgin V. 90. Lake Tahoe Basin 164. Ivanpah V. (A) Northern Part (B) Southern Part 5. Sage Hen V. 91. Truckee Canyon Segment 6. Guano V.

 7. Swan Lake V. 7-WESTERN REGION 165. Jean Lake V. 8. Massacre Lake V. 166. Hidden V. (South)

 9. Long V. 92. Lemmon V.

 (A) Western Part (B) Eastern Part

 167. Eldorado V.

 10. Macy Flat 168. Three Lakes V. (Northern Part) 11. Coleman V. 169. Tikapoo V. (Tickaboo V.)

 (A) Northern Part (B) Southern Part 12. Mosquito V. 93. Antelope V. 13. Warner V. 94. Bedell Flat 14. Surprise V. 95. Dry V. 170. Penoyer V. (Sand Spring V.)

 15. Boulder V. 96. Newcomb Lake V. 171. Coal V. 16. Duck Lake V. 97. Honey Lake V. 172. Garden V.

 98. Skedaddle Creek V. 173. Railroad V. (A) Southern Part (B) Northern Part 2-BLACK ROCK DESERT REGION 99. Red Rock V. 100. Cold Spring V.

 17. Pilgrim Flat (A) Long V. 174. Jakes V. 18. Painter Flat 175. Long V.

 19. Dry V. 8-CARSON RIVER BASIN 176. Ruby V. 20. Sano V. 177. Clover V. 21. Smoke Creek Desert 101. Carson Desert

 (A) Packard V.

 178. Butte V.

 (A) Northern Part (Round V.) (B) Southern Part 22. San Emidio Desert 23. Granite Basin 102. Churchill V.

 24. Hualapai Flat 103. Dayton V. 179. Steptoe V. 25. High Rock Lake V. 104. Eagle V. 180. Cave V.

 26. Mud Meadow 105. Carson Valley 181. Dry Lake V. 27. Summit Lake V. 182. Delamar V. 28. Black Rock Desert 9-WALKER RIVER BASIN 183. Lake V.

 29. Pine Forest V. 184. Spring V. 30. Kings River V.

 (A) Rio King Subarea (B) Sod House Subarea

 106. Antelope V. 185. Tippett V.

 107. Smith V. 186. Antelope V. (White Pine & Elko) (A) Southern Part (B) Northern Part 108. Mason V. 31. Desert V. 109. East Walker Area

 32. Silver State V. 110. Walker Lake V. (A) Schurz Subarea

 (B) Lake Subarea (C) Whisky Flat --

 187. Goshute V. 33. Quinn River V.

 (A) Orovada Subarea (B) McDermitt Subarea

 188. Independence V. (Pequop V.)

11-GREAT SALT LAKE BASIN Hawthorne Subarea

3-SNAKE RIVER BASIN 189. Thousand Springs V. (A) Herrill Siding--Brush Creek Area

 (B) Toano--Rock Spring Area (C) Rocky Butte Area (D) Montello--Crittenden Creek Area

 (Montello V.)

10-CENTRAL REGION

 34. Little Owyhee River Area 35. South Fork Owyhee River Area 111. Alkali V. (Mineral). (A) Northern Part

 (B) Southern Part

 36. Independence V.

 37. Owyhee River Area 38. Bruneau River Area 112. Mono V. 190. Grouse Creek V. 39. Jarbidge River Area 113. Huntoon V. 191. Pilot Creek V. 40. Salmon Falls Creek Area 114. Teels Marsh V. 192. Great Salt Lake Desert

 41. Goose Creek Area 115. Adobe V. 193. Deep Creek V. 116. Queen V. 194. Pleasant V. 4-HUMBOLDT RIVER BASIN 117. Fish Lake V. 195. Snake V. 118. Columbus Salt Marsh V. 196. Hamlin V. 42. Marys River Area 119. Rhodes Salt Marsh V.

 43. Starr V. Area 120. Garfield Flat 12-ESCALANTE DESERT 44. North Fork Area 121. Soda Spring V. (A) Eastern Part (B) Western Part 45. Lamoille V. 197. Escalante Desert 46. South Fork Area 47. Huntington V. 122. Gabbs V. 13-COLORADO RIVER BASIN

 48. Dixie Creek -- Tenmile Creek Area 123. Rawhide Flats 124. Fairview V. 198. Dry V. 49. Elko Segment 125. Stingaree V. 199. Rose V. 50. Susie Creek Area 126. Cowkick V. 200. Eagle V. 51. Maggie Creek Area 127. Eastgate V. Area 201. Spring V.

 52. Marys Creek Area 128. Dixie V. 202. Patterson V. 53. Pine V. 129. Buena Vista V. 203. Panaca V. 54. Crescent V. 130. Pleasant V. 204. Clover V. 55. Carico Lake V. 131. Buffalo V. 205. Lower Meadow Valley Wash 56. Upper Reese River V. 132. Jersey V. 206. Kane Springs V.

 57. Antelope V. 133. Edwards Creek V. 207. White River V. 58. Middle Reese River V. 134. Smith Creek V. 208. Pahroc V. 59. Lower Reese River V. 135. Ione V. 209. Pahranagat V. 60. Whirlwind V. 136. Monte Cristo V. 210. Coyote Spring V. 61. Boulder Flat 137. Big Smoky V.

 (A) Tonopah Flat (B) Northern Part

 211. Three Lakes V. (Southern Part)*

 62. Rock Creek V. 212. Las Vegas V. 63. Willow Creek V. 213. Colorado V. 64. Clovers Area 138. Grass V. 214. Piute V. 65. Pumpernickel V. 139. Kobeh V. 215. Black Mountains Area 66. Kelly Creek Area 140. Monitor V.

 (A) Northern Part (B) Southern Part

 216. Garnet V. (Dry Lake V.)*

 67. Little Humboldt V. 217. Hidden V. (North)* 68. Hardscrabble Area 218. California Wash 69. Paradise V. 141. Ralston V. 219. Muddy River Springs Area (Upper Moapa V.) 70. Winnemucca Segment 142. Alkali Spring V. (Esmeralda) 220. Lower Moapa V. 71. Grass V. 143. Clayton V. 221. Tule Desert

 72. Imlay Area 144. Lida V. 222. Virgin River V. 73. Lovelock V. (A) Oreana Subarea 145. Stonewall Flat 223. Gold Butte Area 146. Sarcobatus Flat 224. Greasewood Basin 74. White Plains 147. Gold Flat 148. Cactus Flat *Noncontributing part of the

5-WEST CENTRAL REGION 149. Stone Cabin V. Colorado River Basin 150. Little Fish Lake V. 75. Bradys Hot Springs Area 151. Antelope V. (Eureka & Nye) 14-DEATH VALLEY BASIN 76. Fernley Area 152. Stevens Basin 77. Fireball V. 153. Diamond V. 225. Mercury V.

 78. Granite Springs V. 154. Newark V. 226. Rock V. 79. Kumiva V. 155. Little Smoky V. (A) Northern Part (B) Central Part (C) Southern Part

 227. Fortymile Canyon (A) Jackass Flats 6-TRUCKEE RIVER BASIN (B) Buckboard Mesa 228. Oasis V.

 80. Winnemucca Lake V. 156. Hot Creek V. 229. Crater Flat 81. Pyramid Lake V. 157. Kawich V. 230. Amargosa Desert 82. Dodge Flat 158. Emigrant V. (A) Groom Lake V. (B) Papoose Lake V.

 231. Grapevine Canyon 83. Tracy Segment 232. Oriental Wash 84. Warm Springs V.

STATE OF NEVADA--HYDROGRAPHIC AREAS

Figure 1. Hydrographic areas and locations of wells used to evaluate the accuracy of depth-to-water surfaces in 

Nevada—Continued. 
statistical techniques (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992). Statistical 

results were considered significant at a p-value of less than or 

equal to 0.05.

Water-Table and Depth-to-Water Contours

A literature search of published water-table and depthto-water contours for Nevada produced 104 reports with maps 

of varying detail and scope published from 1948 to 2004 

(appendix 1). Twenty-eight maps had depth-to-water contours 

and 90 maps had water-table contours. Two maps cover most 

of Nevada (Rush, 1974; Bedinger and others, 1984). However, 

these maps lack detail and were used only if no other information was available.

Each map was reviewed to determine which hydrographic 

areas (HAs) were covered. Cardinalli and others (1968) and 

Rush (1968) delineated 232 HAs for Nevada, based generally on drainage-area divides (fig. 1; Peltz and others, 2005). 

HAs are different than hydrologic units (National Atlas of the 

United States, 1998) and are used by the State for scientific 

and administrative purposes.

If multiple maps covered the same HA, a scoring system 

was used to determine which map to use in the study (table 1). 

The scoring system was designed such that the highest scores 

were for the most recent, most detailed maps that covered the 

largest area and had plotted control points. The score for each 

map was the sum of points for each of four criteria: percentage of hydrographic area contoured, contour interval, date 

of water-level measurements, and plotting of control points. 

Maps with the highest score were chosen for this study. Plotted control points had less weight than other criteria and were 

not a deciding factor because about 85 percent of the maps 

had plotted points. In cases where multiple maps had the same 

score, maps that covered multiple HAs were chosen so that 

contours would be consistent over as large an area as possible. 

Through this process, water-table contours were selected from 

38 of the reports and were based on data collected from 1947 

to 2004 (appendix 1). The only contours available for Honey 

Lake Valley (HA 97) are simulated water-table contours 

(Handman and others, 1990). Contours were simulated with 

a computer model that was calibrated to within 5 ft of the measured water-table level. Depth-to-water contours from Rush 

(1974) were used to estimate the water table in some HAs, 

such as the Carson Desert (HA 101).

If not already available digitally, contours and control 

points were digitized from selected maps, entered into a 

geographic information system (GIS), and combined with 

available digital contours and points to make a statewide map 

of water-table contours (plate 1; data can be accessed at http://

water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?sir2006-5100_wanv_l). For 

areas with sparse or no published contours, point measurements were retrieved from the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database and were plotted. 

Water levels measured during spring 1996 were used to 

make water-table contours in Buffalo Valley (HA 131; plate 

1). Water levels measured during spring 2001 were used to 

make depth-to-water contours in Diamond Valley (HA 153; 

fig. 2; data can be accessed at http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/

getspatial?sir2006-5100_dtwha153_l). The contours were 

digitized and entered into the GIS. Diamond Valley has had 

large amounts of ground-water pumpage for agricultural use 

since contours were first published by Eakin (1962) (Lopes 

and Evetts, 2004). Comparison of 1962 contours with 2001 

contours indicates that depth to water has increased tens of 

feet in southern Diamond Valley.

Water-Table and Depth-to-Water Surfaces 

Detailed procedures of making water-table and depth-towater surfaces are described by data can be accessed at http://

water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?sir2006-5100_dtwnv_g and 

http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?sir2006-5100_wanv_

g. Briefly, the water table between contours was estimated 

using inverse-distance weighting. Interpolated estimates 

were then converted into a gridded surface of 1,000-ft cells. 

A boundary was drawn around contours to limit the extent 

of interpolation. Where the hydrogeology, water-table contours, and literature indicated a continuous aquifer system, the 

boundary was drawn around contours of contiguous HAs to 

make a single surface. Gradational color shading of the range 

in water-table altitude was used to show the general direction 

of ground-water flow (plate 2). The same procedure was used 

to make a gridded surface of depth to water in HAs for which 

Rush (1974, data can be accessed at http://water.usgs.gov/

lookup/getspatial?nv_dtw750nv_l) 

was the only information available. 

Some HAs, such as Smoke Creek 

Desert (HA 21), have only a single 

contour or have a single contour 

that extends farther than other 

contours in the HA. For these HAs, 

either a surface was not made or the 

extent of the surface was smaller 

than the extent of the contours in 

the HA. Therefore, plates should be 

compared to see what water-table 

information exists in an HA.

Table 1. Scoring system for selecting published water-table and depth-to-water contours 

used to determine water-table levels in Nevada

[Abbreviations: <, less than; > greater than; ≥, greater than or equal to ; ≤, less than or equal to; —, not 

applicable]

Criterion

Score

0 1 2 3

Percentage of hydrographic area contoured — <25 25 to <75 ≥75

Contour interval, in feet — >20 >10 to 20 ≤ 10

Date of water-level measurements — Pre-1975 1975-1989 Post-1989

Were control points on map? No Yes — —

Methods   
Unconsolidated sediment

Consolidated rock

Depth to ground-water contour—Dashed

where approximate. Contour interval 10 feet

Hydrographic-area boundary

Well location

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1978–1988

Hydrographic areas from Nevada Department of Water Resources, 1:750,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1927

116°30'

39°30'

39°45'

40°00'

40°15'

116°15' 116°00' 115°45'

EXPLANATION

0 8 10 MILES

0 8 10 KILOMETERS

2 4 6

2 4 6

10

10

20

20

60

30

40

50

60

70

70

80

80

90

90

110

100

120

140

130

140

150

130

130

150

150

170

170190

190

210

200

220

Hydrographic

area

153

Elko

Reno

Las Vegas

Elko

Reno

Las Vegas

Figure 2. Depth to water in spring 2001 in the Diamond Valley hydrographic area (153), Nevada.

   Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004
Most depth-to-water surfaces were estimated by subtracting the water-table altitude from the National Elevation Dataset (NED; U.S. Geological Survey, 2002) for each cell of the 

water-table surface (plate 3). For HAs for which Rush (1974) 

was the only information available, water-table surfaces 

were estimated by subtracting depth to water from the NED. 

Depth to water was assumed to be one foot where the difference between the water table and NED resulted in a negative 

value, which would indicate a water table above land surface. 

The NED is a digital-raster altitude dataset based primarily 

on USGS 7.5-minute digital elevation models (DEM). The 

vertical accuracy depends on the original source DEM, but is 

about 23 to 49 ft (7 to 15 m; U.S. Geological Survey, 2004). 

Water-resources agencies and well drillers often want to know 

the depth to water for a specific area. Thus, depth-to-water 

surfaces were shown as discrete intervals of color shading 

rather than gradational color shading.

The accuracy of the method used to estimate depthto-water surfaces described above was evaluated in Mason 

Valley (HA 108; Huxel and Harris, 1969) and Carson Valley 

(HA 105; Berger and Medina, 1999), which had both depthto-water and water-table contours. For each valley, gridded 

depth-to-water surfaces were made from depth-to-water contours and from water-table contours. Differences in depth to 

water between the two surfaces were calculated for each cell 

in the grid. The root mean square of differences between the 

cells was 20 ft (6 m) for Mason Valley and 15 ft (4.5 m) for 

Carson Valley. A paired t-test (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992) was 

used to determine if depth-to-water surfaces made from watertable contours are different than surfaces made from published 

depth-to-water contours. The paired t-test indicated that the 

two depth-to-water surfaces are significantly different for both 

valleys (p-value <0.01; fig. 3), but there was no consistent 

bias. Depth to water estimated from water-table contours was 

higher than that estimated from depth-to-water contours in 

Carson Valley and lower in Mason Valley. The largest differences between the surfaces occur near the edges of the valleys, 

where land-surface altitude changes abruptly. Although there 

are differences, the procedure produces reasonable estimates 

of depth to water from water-table contours.

Water-Table Gradients

The water-table gradient is the slope of the water table 

and is calculated as the difference in water-table altitude 

between two points, divided by the distance between the 

points. Gradients can be estimated from water-table contours 

(pl. 1) or from water levels measured in two wells screened in 

the same aquifer. Gradients are necessary to estimate groundwater flow and contaminant transport. The average linear 

velocity of ground water (qx) can be estimated using Darcy’s 

Law (equation 1), where K is horizontal hydraulic conductivity, i is gradient, and n is effective porosity (Freeze and Cherry, 

1979):

qx = (K × i)/ n. (1)

The size of the circles is proportional to the number of occurrences at that difference

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

100

DEPTH TO WATER ESTIMATED FROM DEPTH-TO-WATER SURFACE, IN FEET

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

DEPTH TO WATER ESTIMATED FROM DEPTH-TO-WATER

SURFACE—DEPTH TO WATER ESTIMATED FROM WATERTABLE SURFACE, IN FEET

Mason Valley

Carson Valley

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

Figure 3. Differences in depth to water estimated from depth-to-water surface and water-table surfaces versus depth to water 

estimated from depth-to-water surfaces. 

Methods   
Effective porosity is the interconnected pore volume 

that contributes to fluid flow. Effective porosity is less than 

total porosity because it excludes isolated pores. The rate of 

contaminant transport is estimated by multiplying the average 

linear velocity by the retardation factor, which depends on the 

physical and chemical properties of the aquifer material and 

contaminant (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). 

Gradients in unconsolidated sediments of the Great Basin 

are generally steep near mountain fronts and shallow beneath 

valley floors (Eakin and others, 1976; Maurer and others, 

2004). Variables that could affect gradients in unconsolidated 

sediments include the source rock and texture of unconsolidated sediments, the amount of recharge and distance from 

recharge areas, and other variables such as the horizontal 

hydraulic conductivity of adjacent consolidated rocks. For 

example, intrusive rocks have a lower horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity than carbonate rocks and unconsolidated sediments (Maurer and others, 2004). Precipitation could be the 

same on two mountains, one composed of intrusive rocks and 

the other composed of carbonate rocks, but gradients in the 

unconsolidated sediments could be steeper near the intrusive 

rocks than near the carbonate rocks because of the large contrast in horizontal hydraulic conductivity.

The water table, between the valley floor and consolidated rock, and the variables that could affect the water table 

has not been well characterized. To identify which variables 

are most important, the gradient between 58 pairs of wells 

was correlated with the distance to the alluvial-fan contact, 

the distance to and horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the 

adjacent consolidated-rock hydrogeologic unit (Maurer and 

others, 2004), and precipitation upgradient of the site (Oregon 

Climate Service, 1997) (figs. 4, 5; table 2). This is a reconnaissance-level characterization of gradients because existing data 

were used in the analysis. Data in the USGS National Water 

Information System (NWIS) and either water-table contours 

or topography were used to select well pairs at the 58 sites that 

are roughly aligned along ground-water flow directions. However, the wells are at different depths and water levels were 

measured at different times. The drainage area upgradient of a 

site could not easily be determined, so it was approximated by 

a 1-mi-wide area between the site and the HA boundary. 

Sixteen of the 58 well pairs are in alluvial fans and 42 

are in valley floors, and well pairs are adjacent to most types 

of consolidated-rock hydrogeologic units in Nevada. Consolidated-rock hydrogeologic units associated with gradients 

were described by Maurer and others (2004). The two major 

hydrogeologic units in Nevada are consolidated rocks and 

unconsolidated sediments, which have different hydrologic 

properties. Consolidated rocks were subdivided into eight 

hydrogeologic units. In order of decreasing area covering 

Nevada, consolidated-rock hydrogeologic units consist of 

Quaternary to Tertiary age volcanic flows of (1) basaltic; (2) 

rhyolitic; and (3) andesitic composition; (4) volcanic breccias, 

tuffs, and volcanic rocks older than Tertiary age; (5) carbonate rocks; (6) Tertiary-age consolidated and semi-consolidated 

tuffaceous rocks and sediments; (7) clastic rocks consisting 

of sandstone and siltstone; and (8) intrusive and metamorphic 

rocks. Unconsolidated sediments were subdivided into (1) 

alluvial slopes, (2) valley floors, (3) fluvial deposits, and (4) 

playas.

Water-level measurements and linear regression were 

used to characterize the water table between the valley floor 

and consolidated rock at Vicee Canyon in Eagle Valley (HA 

104), Pine Nut Creek in Carson Valley (HA 105), and Kyle 

Canyon in Las Vegas Valley (HA 212) (table 3). Land-surface altitude was measured to within 0.1 ft for wells at Vicee 

Canyon and Pine Nut Creek and estimated to within 1 to 40 

ft for wells at Kyle Canyon. Kyle Canyon is associated with 

carbonate rocks and has fewer domestic wells than Pine Nut 

Creek, which is associated with Tertiary sediments. Vicee 

Canyon is associated with intrusive rocks, has two production 

wells, and is the most developed of the three sites. The initial 

water table prior to large pumping at Vicee Canyon and Kyle 

Canyon was approximated using the earliest measurements 

taken on multiple dates. No early water-level data were available for Pine Nut Creek. Measurements used to approximate 

the water table at Kyle Canyon were made from 1969 to 1990 

during September to April when pumping is usually low and 

prior to most snowmelt. A recent (2004) measurement of a 

well in Kyle Canyon indicates that water levels have changed 

little in the area. At Vicee Canyon, water-level measurements 

made from 1972 to 2002 were used to approximate the initial 

water table.

Water-Table Levels

Water-table and depth-to-water surfaces were made for 

only 21 percent of Nevada because of a lack of information for 

49 of 232 HAs and for most consolidated-rock hydrogeologic 

units (plates 2 and 3). The surfaces represent water-table levels 

in 40 percent of the unconsolidated sediment and 3 percent of 

the consolidated-rock hydrogeologic units. Water-table levels 

exist for the most populated HAs of Las Vegas Valley (HA 

212), Truckee Meadows (HA 87), Eagle Valley (HA 104), and 

Carson Valley (HA 105), although most of these HAs do not 

have recent information.

The accuracy of the surfaces was evaluated by comparing depth to water measured at 682 wells from January 2000 

to March 2004 with depth to water estimated from depth-towater surfaces (figs. 1 and 6). The root mean square of differences between measured and estimated depth to water was 90 

ft. To evaluate a specific site, more recent and detailed data 

may be needed. A paired t-test indicated no significant difference between measured and estimated depth to water (p-value 

0.40), thus depth-to-water surfaces do not over- or under-estimate depth to water. The large differences between measured 

and estimated depth to water could be due to the error of the 

NED, temporal changes in depth to water due to natural variations and pumping, incorrectly extrapolating contours, or a 

combination of these explanations. For example, some water-

 Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004
58

57

10–11

4–6 12

7–9

52–56

1–3

50–51

47–49

23

22

25–28

29–34 13–15

17–20

36

37

43–46

41–42

38–39

40

24

35

16

21

EXPLANATION

Hydrographic-area boundary

Site where gradient was characterized—Number

refers to sites in Table 2

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

120°

36°

38°

40°

42° 118° 116° 114°

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1978–1988

Hydrographic areas from Nevada Department of Water Resources, 1:750,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, North American datum of 1983

Figure 4. Sites where water-table gradients were characterized.

Water-Table Levels   
Valley floor

Alluvial fan

Consolidated rock

Approximate drainage area upgradient of site

Transect line

Hydrographic-area boundary

Well location

EXPLANATION

A = Distance between wells

B = Distance from site to alluvial fan contact

B + C = Distance from site to consolidated- rock

contact

B + C + D = Distance from site to

hydrographic-area boundary

D C B A

1mile

DEPTH TO WATER ESTIMATED FROM DEPTH-TOWATER SURFACE, IN FEET

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

MEASURED DEPTH TO WATER, IN FEET

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

1:1 line

Figure 6. Depth to water estimated from depth-to-water surface versus measured depth to water. 

10 Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004

Figure 5. Variables measured at water-table-gradient sites.
Table 2. Information used to characterize water-table gradients in Nevada—Continued

Site

Downgradient

watertable 

altitude, 

NGVD 1929

Upgradient

water-table 

altitude, 

NGVD 1929

Distance 

between 

wells, in 

feet

Gradient

Unconsolidated 

hydrogeologic

unit of 

gradient

Distance 

from site to 

alluvial-fan 

contact, in 

feet

Distance from 

site to 

consoldatedrock 

contact, in 

feet

Adjacent 

consolidated 

hydrogeologic 

unit

Hydraulic 

conductivity, 

in feet per 

day

Precipitation 

upgradient 

of site, in 

acre-feet 

per year

1 4,514 4,534 3,476 0.006 Valley floor 1,702 17,089 Clastics 9 1,633

2 4,514 4,525 2,406 .005 Valley floor 13,012 20,484 Basalt 650 1,173

3 4,520 4,534 2,374 .006 Valley floor 14,635 42,916 Clastics 9 1,003

4 5,851 5,937 2,255 .038 Valley floor 17,581 51,178 Clastics 9 4,328

5 5,619 6,482 8,798 .098 Valley floor 81,459 24,429 Clastics 9 2,736

6 5,619 6,479 14,061 .061 Valley floor 80,668 8,020 Clastics 9 3,026

7 5,797 5,857 4,546 .013 Valley floor 15,836 25,263 BTOV 300 3,753

8 5,797 5,888 7,754 .012 Valley floor 20,549 15,793 Basalt 650 4,175

9 5,786 5,892 7,685 .014 Valley floor 50,482 19,818 Basalt 650 3,956

10 5,492 5,753 4,758 .055 Valley floor 21,405 46,970 Clastics 9 4,525

11 5,673 5,711 4,973 .008 Valley floor 52,267 2,683 BTOV 300 2,436

12 5,845 6,584 3,822 .193 Valley floor 13,297 22,730 BTOV 300 4,954

13 4,253 4,285 4,992 .006 Valley floor 4,438 34,663 Basalt 650 2,543

14 4,321 4,342 10,734 .002 Valley floor 5,943 58,696 Andesite 30 4,066

15 5,049 5,083 1,875 .018 Alluvial fan — 19,641 Intrusives 15 2,502

16 6,476 6,760 2,824 .101 Alluvial fan — 11,903 Intrusives 15 2,246

17 5,503 5,860 4,706 .076 Alluvial fan — 25,279 Andesite 30 1,092

18 5,385 5,488 5,536 .019 Alluvial fan — 41,761 Andesite 30 1,297

19 5,467 6,093 6,767 .093 Alluvial fan — 28,625 Andesite 30 2,128

20 5,347 6,108 10,403 .073 Alluvial fan — 42,223 Andesite 30 2,662

21 5,355 5,379 1,110 .022 Alluvial fan — 6,855 Andesite 30 791

22 5,054 5,073 7,464 .003 Valley floor 31,153 70,500 Intrusives 15 154

23 4,402 4,432 5,491 .005 Valley floor 20,047 77,106 BTOV 300 4,453

24 5,037 5,097 7,120 .008 Valley floor 0 44,956 Intrusives 15 475

25 5,036 5,041 3,771 .001 Valley floor 6,294 17,978 Intrusives 15 776

26 5,025 5,042 3,246 .005 Valley floor 13,382 19,031 Intrusives 15 1,202

27 5,032 5,042 4,556 .002 Valley floor 22,832 29,438 Intrusives 15 345

28 5,346 5,685 3,895 .087 Alluvial fan — 45,654 Intrusives 15 4,837

29 5,030 5,055 4,214 .006 Valley floor 8,794 22,389 Intrusives 15 2,320

30 5,025 5,075 6,944 .007 Valley floor 6,481 26,624 Intrusives 15 2,300

31 5,025 5,031 3,325 .002 Valley floor 24,292 30,383 Intrusives 15 465

32 5,037 5,042 2,189 .002 Valley floor 16,095 29,605 Intrusives 15 1,091

33 5,031 5,067 7,403 .005 Valley floor 22,668 41,800 Intrusives 15 2,276

34 5,032 5,035 5,699 .001 Valley floor 19,388 26,807 Intrusives 15 415

35 4,114 4,125 807 .014 Valley floor 4,631 29,937 Basalt 650 184

36 5,256 6,346 6,742 .162 Alluvial fan — 50,296 Intrusives 15 3,481

37 5,287 5,301 2,951 .005 Valley floor 14,475 44,218 Andesite 30 392

38 5,197 5,208 3,749 .003 Alluvial fan — 28,966 TS 10 422

39 5,197 5,199 6,180 .0003 Alluvial fan — 42,374 TS 10 141

40 5,114 5,220 3,187 .033 Valley floor 10,453 15,970 BTOV 300 834

41 2,428 2,431 12,144 .0002 Valley floor 39,832 55,760 Basalt 650 56

42 2,080 2,431 11,472 .031 Valley floor 37,628 54,812 Basalt 650 47

43 5,536 5,564 24,808 .001 Valley floor 91,978 151,962 Carbonates 1,650 3,286

44 5,524 5,564 23,950 .002 Valley floor 88,688 130,836 Carbonates 1,650 2,717

45 5,525 5,564 34,711 .001 Valley floor 148,223 222,981 Carbonates 1,650 3,421

46 5,528 5,564 25,497 .001 Valley floor 96,563 156,945 Carbonates 1,650 2,961

47 6,033 6,057 12,351 .002 Valley floor 34,050 53,323 Carbonates 1,650 1,458

48 6,033 6,147 10,000 .011 Valley floor 32,800 51,220 Carbonates 1,650 1,338

49 5,995 6,147 24,351 .006 Valley floor 79,871 91,282 Carbonates 1,650 1,266

50 5,596 5,679 74,254 .001 Valley floor 212,036 276,048 Carbonates 1,650 2,704

Table 2. Information used to characterize water-table gradients in Nevada

[Site: Pairs of wells used to characterize gradients; locations shown on figure 4. Adjacent consolidated hydrogeologic unit: BTOV, breccia, tuffs, and older volcanic rocks; TS, tertiary sediments. Hydraulic conductivity: average horizontal hydraulic conductivity of adjacent consolidated hydrogeologic unit. Abbreviations: NGVD, National Geodetic Vertical Datum; —, does not apply]

Water-Table Levels 11
Table 2. Information used to characterize water-table gradients in Nevada—Continued

Site

Downgradient

watertable 

altitude, 

NGVD 1929

Upgradient

water-table 

altitude, 

NGVD 1929

Distance 

between 

wells, in 

feet

Gradient

Unconsolidated 

hydrogeologic

unit of 

gradient

Distance 

from site to 

alluvial-fan 

contact, in 

feet

Distance from 

site to 

consoldatedrock 

contact, in 

feet

Adjacent 

consolidated 

hydrogeologic 

unit

Hydraulic 

conductivity, 

in feet per 

day

Precipitation 

upgradient 

of site, in 

acre-feet 

per year

51 5,596 5,631 92,788 .0004 Valley floor 323,152 382,012 Carbonates 1,650 1,813

52 5,541 5,641 12,040 .008 Alluvial fan — 94,959 Carbonates 1,650 2,252

53 5,541 5,627 16,703 .005 Alluvial fan — 86,572 TS 10 1,759

54 5,109 5,541 15,370 .028 Alluvial fan — 74,804 Clastics 9 956

55 5,109 5,536 14,831 .029 Alluvial fan — 76,860 Clastics 9 1,433

56 5,109 5,617 16,203 .031 Alluvial fan — 112,245 Carbonates 1,650 2,398

57 5,442 5,550 11,509 .009 Valley floor 10,178 62,028 Carbonates 1,650 11,372

58 6,402 6,411 5,949 .002 Valley floor 29,382 43,837 BTOV 300 4,378

Table 3. Water-table measurements for Vicee Canyon, Pine Nut Creek, and Kyle Canyon, Nevada.

[Abbreviations: USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NGVD, National Geodetic Vertical Datum; —, no data; NA, not applicable] 

USGS 

well 

number

Landsurface 

altitude, 

NGVD 1929

Distance 

from well 

at lowest 

altitude, 

in miles

Initial measurement Recent measurement

Date of 

water-level 

measurement

Depth to 

water, 

in feet 

below 

land 

surface

Watertable 

altitude, 

NGVD 

1929 

Date of 

water-level 

measurement

Depth to 

water, in 

feet below 

land surface

Watertable 

altitude, 

NGVD 1929

Vicee Canyon

391110119460602 4,724 0.00 Feb 2, 2002 4.70 4,719.30 Jan 20, 2004 5.80 4,718.20

391100119465101 4,785 .59 Sep 9, 1997 40.00 4,745.00 Jan 20, 2004 85.10 4,699.90

391110119470501 4,800 .88 Jul 17, 1975 45.16 4,754.84 Oct 15, 2003 100.48 4,699.52

391057119471901 4,860 1.10 Jul 8, 1972 94.00 4,766.00 Jan 20, 2004 162.96 4,697.04

391055119473301 4,927 1.27 — — — Jan 20, 2004 232.84 4,694.16

391105119481101 5,181.5 1.86 Aug 4, 1994 139.00 5,042.50 Jan 20, 2004 140.80 5,040.70

391111119481901 5,207.5 1.98 Aug 6, 1994 96.00 5,111.50 Jan 20, 2004 95.97 5,111.53

Pine Nut Creek

385618119422501 4,869.40 0.00 Jan 28, 2000 46.00 4,823.40 Oct 19, 2001 48.63 4,820.77

385610119415001 4,915.80 .52 Jan 28, 2000 92.50 4,823.30 Oct 19, 2001 98.64 4,817.16

385604119415001 4,897.90 .56 Jan 18, 2000 69.90 4,828.00 Oct 19, 2001 74.90 4,823.00

385554119414701 4,920.60 .65 Jan 28, 2000 96.30 4,824.30 — — —

385606119411501 4,949.00 1.00 Jan 18, 2000 110.20 4,838.80 Oct 19, 2001 124.36 4,824.64

385559119411801 4,932.60 1.04 Jan 18, 2000 83.40 4,849.20 Oct 19, 2001 96.70 4,835.90

385559119411301 4,938.70 1.12 Jan 24, 2000 91.00 4,847.70 Oct 19, 2001 102.86 4,835.84

385541119410601 4,957.40 1.30 Jan 6, 2000 110.70 4,846.70 Oct 19, 2001 119.79 4,837.61

385602119401301 5,005.00 1.92 NA NA NA Oct 19, 2001 17.30 4,987.70

Kyle Canyon

361939115154801 2,454 0.00 Feb 9, 1980 68.95 2,385.05 — — —

361924115200301 3,040 3.95 Dec 1, 1969 510.00 2,530.00 — — —

362004115205401 3,112 4.38 Feb 26, 1990 644.60 2,467.40 — — —

361922115210901 3,220 4.97 Dec 14, 1973 730.00 2,490.00 — — —

361907115212801 3,298 5.30 Feb 26, 1990 697.80 2,600.20 — — —

361937115215601 3,327 5.55 Feb 2, 2004 747.76 2,579.24 — — —

361816115241301 3,840 7.98 Sep 1, 1964 417.00 3,423.00 — — —

361622115350501 5,660 18.30 Feb 28, 1980 506.13 5,153.87 — — —

361607115353801 6,740 18.90 Apr 15, 1980 227.30 6,512.70 — — —

361544115365101 7,040 20.10 Feb 28, 1980 220.80 6,819.20 — — —

12 Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004
table contours are perpendicular to the consolidated-rock contact, which would indicate no inflow from the mountain front. 

Most water-table contours are based on measurements on the 

valley floor and may have been incorrectly extrapolated to the 

consolidated-rock contact. Few measurements were made on 

alluvial fans and near the consolidated-rock contact, presumably because there are few wells to measure in these areas.

Depth to water is commonly less than 50 ft beneath valley 

floors, 50 to 500 ft beneath alluvial fans, and greater than 500 

ft in a few areas, such as north-central and southern Nevada 

(plate 3). Depth to water in unconsolidated sediments could be 

related to recharge, the proximity to and horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity of nearby consolidated rock, the amount and 

proximity of pumping, and whether the basin is hydraulically 

open or closed (Maurer and others, 2004, fig. 1).

Greasewood is a phreatophyte and a good indicator of a 

shallow water table. Greasewood, mapped by the Gap Analysis Program (GAP; Edwards and others, 1996), is the predominant species over 3,700 mi2

 of Nevada (fig. 7). However, 

greasewood also occurs in areas where it is not the predominant species. About 80 percent of the greasewood grows in 

areas where depth-to-water surfaces were made. In these areas, 

81 percent of the greasewood is where depth to water is less 

than 50 ft, 10 percent is where depth to water is 50 to 100 ft, 

and 9 percent is where depth to water is greater than 100 ft it 

is unlikely that greasewood could grow where depth to water 

is greater than 50 ft, unless the roots are tapping into perched 

aquifers, which do not represent the regional water table. 

Greasewood growing where depth to water is greater than 50 ft 

also could reflect differences in resolution between GAP and 

the depth-to-water surfaces. In general, the presence of greasewood in figure 7 in areas for which no surface has been made 

indicates areas where the water table has not been mapped and 

where depth to water likely is less than 50 ft.

Ground-water discharge areas are areas where shallow 

ground water evaporates from the soil and is transpired by 

vegetation (Harrill and others, 1988). Ground-water discharge 

areas cover about 11,000 mi2, about 10 percent of Nevada 

(fig. 8). However, only about 50 percent of the greasewood 

is within ground-water discharge areas, indicating that some 

ground-water discharge areas have not been mapped (fig. 8; 

Edwards and others, 1996). The largest areas of greasewood 

outside ground-water discharge areas are in the Black Rock 

Desert (HA 28) and Desert Valley (HA 31). Where water-table 

surfaces overlap ground-water discharge areas, depth to water 

is generally less than 100 ft. Discharge areas that do not overlap a surface indicate areas where the water table has not been 

mapped and where depth to water is less than 100 ft.

Temporal changes in water-table levels were evaluated 

for 1,981 wells with 10 years or more between the first and 

last depth-to-water measurements made since 1990. Temporal 

changes were calculated by subtracting the last depth-to-water 

measurement from the first measurement. Positive values of 

temporal change indicate the water table has dropped and 

negative values indicate the water table has risen. Temporal 

changes were related to well depth, number of years between 

measurements, and the first depth-to-water measurement (fig. 

9). The time between measurements ranged from 10 to 102 

years, with a mean of 27 years. Four wells in southern Nevada 

had depth to water that changed by more than ±400 ft. These 

four wells, not plotted in figure 9, are in Kawich Valley (HA 

157; 738 ft), Yucca Flat (HA 159; 836 ft), Gold Flat (HA 147; 

-863 ft), and Hot Creek (HA 156; -1,592 ft).

A paired t-test between first and last depth-to-water 

measurements indicated that the measurements are significantly different (p-value <0.01). Depth to water has increased 

by an average of 5 ft. The greatest increases in depth to water 

occurred where the first measurement was less than 200 ft, 

where the time between first and last measurements was 40 

years or less, and for wells 100 ft to 600 ft deep (fig. 9). These 

characteristics describe production wells where the water 

table is fairly shallow in recently developing areas such as the 

Las Vegas and Reno metropolitan areas. The water table has 

changed little in wells that are less than 100 ft or greater than 

1,000 ft deep or with more than 60 years between the first and 

last measurements. Many of these wells are in basins with 

little development. 

The largest increases in depth to water occurred in the 

Middle Reese River Valley (HA 58), Eagle Valley (HA 104), 

Smith Valley (HA 107), Mason Valley (HA 108), Yucca Flat 

(HA 159), and Las Vegas Valley (HA 212; fig. 10). Except 

for Yucca Flat, these HAs are areas where large amounts of 

ground water have been pumped for agricultural irrigation and 

municipal supply (Lopes and Evetts, 2004). Natural variations in water-table levels due to climate and recharge were 

determined using 444 measurements in HAs where pumpage during 2000 was 10 percent or less of the average annual 

natural recharge (Lopes and Evetts, 2004). These HAs include 

2–8, 10–21, 23, 25–28, 34–44, 46, 47, 50, 53, 55, 62, 63, 68, 

79–82, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 106, 109, 111–116, 118–121, 124, 

125, 127, 130, 131, 132, 134–136, 138–141, 144, 145, 147, 

148, 150, 151, 152, 155, 157, 158, 161, 168, 169, 171–176, 

178–182, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 192–197, 200, 201, 

204–208, 210, 211, 217, 221, 227, 231, and 232. The change 

in depth to water in these HAs is normally distributed, with a 

mean of -1 ft and a standard deviation of 30 ft. A two-sided 

t-test indicated that the mean is not significantly different than 

zero (p-value = 0.6). Ninety percent of the changes are within 

±20 ft, which is about the natural fluctuation in the water 

table.

Water-Table Gradients

Water-table gradients were characterized between pairs 

of wells at 58 sites in Nevada. The 16 gradients measured 

beneath alluvial fans ranged from 0.0003 to 0.2 and had a 

median of 0.02, a mean of 0.04, and a standard deviation of 

0.05. The 42 gradients measured beneath valley floors ranged 

from 0.0002 to 0.3 and had a median of 0.005, a mean of 

0.03, and a standard deviation of 0.07. In comparison, previWater-Table Gradients 13
EXPLANATION

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1978–88 Greasewood distribution from 30-meter GAP analysis data, 1996 Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1927

120°

36°

38°

40°

42° 118° 116° 114°

Greasewood

Depth to water, in feet—Measured from wells

shown in figure 1

Less than 50

50 to 100

Greater than 100

Figure 7. Depth-to-water surfaces and areas of predominantly greasewood.

14 Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004
EXPLANATION

Ground-water discharge area

Greasewood

Depth to ground water less than 100 feet

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

120°

36°

38°

40°

42° 118° 116° 114°

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1978–88

Greasewood distribution from 30-meter GAP analysis data, 1996

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 11, North American Datum of 1927

Ground-water discharge areas from Harril and others, 1988

Areas of predominantly greasewood from Edwards and others, 1996

Figure 8. Ground-water discharge areas, areas of predominantly greasewood, and depth-to-water less than 100 feet.

Water-Table Gradients 15
Differences are for wells with at least 10 years between measurements

YEARS BETWEEN MEASUREMENTS

FIRST DEPTH-TO-WATER MEASUREMENT, IN FEET

WELL DEPTH, IN FEET (LOGARITHMIC)

-100 100 300 500 700 900 1,100 1,300 1,500 1,700 1,900 2,100 2,300 2,500

-400

-200

0

200

400

5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105

FIRST DEPTH-TO-WATER MEASUREMENT—

LAST DEPTH-TO-WATER MEASUREMENT, IN FEET

-400

-200

0

200

400

A

B

C

-400

-200

0

200

400

100 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 103 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4

Figure 9. Differences between last and first depth-to-water measurements versus A, well depth, B, years between 

measurements, and C, first depth-to-water measurement. 

ous studies in Nevada measured gradients beneath alluvial 

fans that range from 0.005 to 0.02 and beneath valley floors 

from 6 x 10 –7 to 0.002 (Handman and Kilroy, 1997, p. 61; 

Harrill and Preissler, 1994, p. 10; Maurer, 1986, p. 17; Prudic 

and Herman, 1996, p. 16; Thomas and others, 1989, pl. 2). 

Gradients between 26 wells in basin fill and consolidated rock 

and the lake-surface altitude of Lake Tahoe ranged from 0.001 

to 0.120 and had a median of 0.02, a mean of 0.02, and a standard deviation of 0.03 (Thodal, 1997, p. 24).

Gradients from this study, horizontal hydraulic conductivity from Maurer and others (2004), effective porosity, and 

equation 1 can be used to estimate ground-water velocities in 

Nevada. Effective porosity is closely approximated by specific 

yield, which is a more commonly measured variable. Specific 

yield is the fraction of the saturated aquifer that drains by 

gravity when the water table drops. Effective porosity and specific yield exclude isolated pores and water that is too strongly 

adsorbed to clay and other particles to drain. Porosity and 

specific yield depend on variables such as particle size, degree 

of sorting, and depth (Cohen, 1963; Johnson, 1967). Basins 

that have large, flow-through rivers tend to have well-sorted 

sediments and higher specific yields than other basins. For 

example, the median specific yield of Carson Valley is 21 percent, compared to 10 to 14 percent for Paradise Valley, Smith 

Creek Valley, and Stagecoach Valley (Harrill and Prudic, 1998, 

table 7).

Alluvial fans have a median gradient of 0.02 and a mean 

horizontal hydraulic conductivity of about 70 ft/d and valley 

floors have a median gradient of 0.005 and a mean horizontal 

hydraulic conductivity of about 45 ft/d (Maurer and others, 

2004, table 2). An effective porosity of 0.12 was used for 

alluvial fans and 0.2 for well-sorted sand and gravel in valley 

floors. Using these values in equation 1, the average linear 

velocity of ground water beneath alluvial fans is about 14 ft/d, 

compared to about 1 ft/d beneath valley floors. This indicates 

that contaminants travel roughly 10 times faster beneath alluvial fans than beneath valley floors, depending on the physical and chemical properties of the aquifer material and the 

contaminant.

Like the t-test, the two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test 

compares differences between two populations, but the 

Wilcoxon rank-sum test is more appropriate for small sample 

sizes. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test indicated that gradients 

beneath alluvial fans are significantly larger (p-value = 0.01) 

than gradients beneath valley floors, even though the largest 

gradients were measured beneath valley floors (fig. 11A). This 

16 Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004
finding is consistent with the general description of the water 

table in Nevada. The large gradients measured in the valley 

floor could be due to error in location of the wells, the alluvial 

fan-valley floor contact, well altitude, or other reasons.

The Kruskal-Wallis rank test compares differences 

among more than two populations. This test indicated significant differences (p-value = 0.01) among gradients adjacent 

to different consolidated rocks (fig. 11B). These differences 

could be related to the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the 

consolidated rocks and the sediments derived from them. The 

Spearman rank correlation is used to determine if a general 

but not necessarily linear relation exists between correlated 

variables. The Spearman rank correlation between the gradient 

and horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the consolidated rock 

was -0.30 (p-value = 0.02; fig. 12A). The inverse correlation 

makes hydrologic sense if gradients in unconsolidated sediments are related to the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 

adjacent consolidated rocks.

Spearman rank correlations were statistically significant 

between gradients and precipitation upgradient of the site 

(0.32; fig. 12B), distance to the alluvial-fan contact (-0.31), 

and distance to the consolidated-rock contact (-0.41; fig. 

12C). Although weak, these correlations also make physical 

sense. Decreasing gradients with increasing distance from the 

mountain front is consistent with the general description of 

the water table along mountain fronts (Eakin and others, 1976; 

Maurer and others, 2004) and with precipitation upgradient of 

a site being the driving force for gradients. 

Prior to pumping, the water tables in Vicee and Kyle 

Canyons had similar shapes and were nearly parallel to 

land-surface altitudes (fig. 13). Linear regression of watertable altitude with land-surface altitude from both sites had a 

significant (p-value <0.01) slope of 0.89 and an r-squared of 

0.97. This relation supports using linear interpolation of watertable contours. If this relation is valid for other hydrogeologic 

settings, then the water table could be estimated from a few 

measurements in a basin.

Figure 10. Differences between last and first depth-to-water measurements grouped by hydrographic-area number. 

Differences are for wells with 10 or more years between measurements. See figure 1 for hydrographic-area names and locations

190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240

HYDROGRAPHIC-AREA NUMBER

180 185

-200

-100

0

100

200

-200

-100

0

100

200

-400

-200

0

200

400

-400

-200

0

200

400

FIRST DEPTH-TO-WATER MEASUREMENT—

LAST DEPTH-TO-WATER MEASUREMENT, IN FEET

65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

0

120

60

Water-Table Gradients 17
UNCONSOLIDATED-SEDIMENT HYDROGEOLOGIC UNIT

ADJACENT CONSOLIDATED-ROCK HYDROGEOLOGIC UNIT

Alluvial fan Valley floor

Andesite Basalt Breccia/

tuff/older

volcanics

Carbonates Intrusives Tertiary

sediments

clastic/

sandstone/

siltstone

WATER-TABLE GRADIENT

0.0001

0.0010

0.0100

0.1000

1.0000

0.0001

0.0010

0.0100

0.1000

1.0000

A

B

Figure 11. Ranges in water-table gradients A, beneath alluvial fans and valley floors and B, grouped by adjacent consolidatedrock hydrogeologic unit.

The recent (2000–2004) water tables at Pine Nut Creek 

and Vicee Canyon are similar and are not parallel to landsurface altitudes. At Pine Nut Creek, the water table is fairly 

flat to about one mile into the alluvial fan and then changes 

abruptly near the consolidated-rock contact, which is similar 

to the recent water table at Vicee Canyon. This similarity 

could be due to pumping in the alluvial fan that has lowered 

the water table or Pine Nut Creek has unique hydrogeologic 

characteristics. Production wells at Vicee Canyon have had a 

large effect on the water table. Recent measurements indicate 

that the gradient has reversed, with flow from the valley floor 

toward the consolidated rock. The lowest water-table altitude 

is at mile 1.27, between the production well drilled in 1972 

and the consolidated-rock contact (fig. 13), which is consistent 

with pumpage near a low-flow boundary. The non-linear relation at Vicee Canyon likely depends on the amount of pumpage, which would make it difficult to estimate the water table 

at developed sites. This study used existing data to characterize gradients. A study specifically designed to characterize 

gradients may result in stronger correlations that could be used 

to estimate gradients and the water table where few data exist.

Summary

In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

started a program to protect the quality of ground water in 

areas other than ground-water protection areas. OSGWAs are 

areas that are not currently, but could eventually be, used as 

a source of drinking water. The OSGWA program specifically addresses existing wells that are used for underground 

injection of motor vehicle waste. If an injection well is in a 

ground-water protection area or an OSGWA, well owners must 

either close the well or apply for a permit. NDEP will evaluate 

site-specific information associated with the permit application 

and determine if the aquifer at the site is sensitive, rather than 

designate specific areas as OSGWAs. To evaluate permit applications, NDEP needs statewide information on depth to water 

and the water table, which partly control the susceptibility of 

ground water to contamination and contaminant transport. In a 

cooperative study with NDEP, the USGS used published maps 

and data to make statewide maps of water-table levels and 

characterize water-table gradients.

18  Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004
A literature search of published water-table and depthto-water contours produced maps of varying detail and scope 

in 104 reports published from 1948 to 2004. Twenty-eight 

maps had depth-to-water contours and 90 maps had watertable contours. The most recent, detailed maps that covered 

the largest area and had plotted control points were chosen for 

this study. Where multiple maps covered the same HA, the 

map that covered multiple HAs was chosen. These selection 

criteria resulted in water-table and depth-to-water contours 

that are based on data collected from 1947 to 2004 being 

selected from 39 reports. If not already available digitally, 

contours and control points were digitized from selected maps, 

entered into a GIS, and combined to make a statewide map of 

water-table contours. Water-table surfaces were made by using 

inverse-distance weighting to estimate the water table between 

contours and gridding the estimates. Depth-to-water surfaces 

were made by subtracting water-table altitude from land-surface altitude.

Water-table and depth-to-water surfaces were made for 

only 21 percent of Nevada due to a lack of information for 

49 of 232 HAs and in most consolidated-rock hydrogeologic 

units. Depth to water is commonly less than 50 feet beneath 

valley floors, 50 to 500 feet beneath alluvial fans, and greater 

than 500 feet in some areas such as north-central and southern 

Nevada. In areas without water-table information, greasewood 

and mapped ground-water discharge areas are good indicators 

of depth to water that is less than 100 feet. The accuracy of the 

surfaces was evaluated by comparing depth to water measured 

at 682 wells with depth to water estimated from depth-towater surfaces. The average difference between measured and 

estimated depth to water was 90 feet. To evaluate a specific 

site, more recent and detailed data may be needed.

The greatest increases in depth to water occurred where 

the first measurement was less than 200 feet, where the time 

between first and last measurements was 40 years or less, 

and for wells 100 feet to 600 feet deep. These characteristics 

describe production wells where ground water is fairly shallow 

Least squares fit to show the

general relations between

variables

Least squares fit to show the

general relations between

variables

Least squares fit to show the

general relations between

variables

HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, FEET PER DAY

PRECIPITATION, ACRE-FEET PER YEAR

DISTANCE TO CONSOLIDATED-ROCK CONTACT, FEET

WATER-TABLE GRADIENT

Spearman rank correlation = -0.30

Spearman rank correlation = 0.32

Spearman rank correlation = -0.41

A

B

C

0.0001

0.0010

0.0100

0.1000

1.0000

0.0001

0.0010

0.0100

0.1000

1.0000

0.0001

0.0010

0.0100

0.1000

1.0000

Andesite

Basalt

Breccia/tuff/older volcanics

Carbonates

Intrusives

Tertiary sediments

Clastic/sandstone/siltstone

10 10 10 10 10 10 -1 0 1 2 3 4

101 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 10 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5

10 10 10 10 10 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6

Figure 12. Water-table gradients in unconsolidated sediments versus A, horizontal hydraulic conductivity of adjacent 

consolidated hydrogeologic unit, B, upgradient precipitation, and C, distance to consolidated-rock contact.

Summary 19
Ground-water levels measured on multiple dates were used to approximate the initial ground-water altitude surface. Lines were fit using kernel smoothing ALTITUDE ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL, IN FEET

DISTANCE, IN MILES

2,200

3,900

5,600

7,300

4,780

4,860

4,940

5,020

4,550

4,800

5,050

5,300

-2 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25

-0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Alluvial fan Carbonates

Alluvial fan Tertiary sediments

Alluvial fan Intrusive

Valley floor Alluvial fan

Valley floor Alluvial Fan

Valley floor Alluvial fan

Kyle Canyon

Land surface

Initial water table, multiple dates (1969–90)

Pine Nut Creek

Land surface

Water table, January 2000

Water table, October 2001

Vicee Canyon

Land surface

Water table, December 2003–January 2004

Initial water table, multiple dates (1972–2002)

Municipal well (drilled 1997)

Municipal well (drilled 1972)

Figure 13. Water-table and land-surface altitude versus distance from the well at the lowest land-surface altitude in Kyle 

Canyon, Pine Nut Creek, and Vicee Canyon. 

in recently developing areas such as the Las Vegas and Reno 

metropolitan areas. In basins with little pumping, 90 percent 

of the changes during the past 100 years are within ±20 feet, 

which is about the natural variation to expect in the water table 

due to changes in the climate and recharge.

Gradients in unconsolidated sediments of the Great Basin 

are generally steep near mountain fronts and shallow beneath 

valley floors. Variables that could affect gradients in unconsolidated sediments include the source rock and texture of 

unconsolidated sediments, amount of recharge and distance 

from recharge areas, and other variables such as the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of adjacent consolidated rocks. To 

identify important variables, gradients beneath alluvial fans 

and valley floors at 58 sites were correlated with the distance 

to the alluvial-fan contact, distance to and horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the adjacent consolidated hydrogeologic 

unit, and precipitation upgradient of the sites. In addition, 

water-level measurements were used to characterize the water 

table between the valley floor and consolidated rock at Vicee 

Canyon in Eagle Valley, Pine Nut Creek in Carson Valley, and 

Kyle Canyon in Las Vegas Valley.

Water-table gradients beneath alluvial fans ranged from 

0.0003 to 0.2 and had a median of 0.02, a mean of 0.04, and 

a standard deviation of 0.05. Gradients beneath valley floors 

ranged from 0.0002 to 0.3 and had a median of 0.005, a mean 

of 0.03, and a standard deviation of 0.07. Information from 

this and other reports suggest that the average linear velocity 

of ground water is roughly 10 times faster beneath alluvial 

fans than beneath valley floors. Contaminants may travel 

about 10 times faster beneath alluvial fans than beneath valley 

floors, depending on the physical and chemical properties of 

the aquifer material and contaminant.

Gradients associated with different types of consolidated 

rocks are significantly different, which could be related to the 

20 Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004
horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the consolidated rocks 

and the sediments derived from them. Spearman rank correlations were statistically significant between gradients and the 

horizontal hydraulic conductivity of adjacent consolidatedrock hydrogeologic units (-0.30), precipitation upgradient of 

the site (0.32), distance to the alluvial-fan contact (-0.31), and 

distance to the consolidated-rock contact (-0.41). These relations are consistent with the general description of the water 

table along mountain fronts and with precipitation being the 

driving force for gradients.

Before large pumping in Vicee and Kyle Canyons, the 

water tables in both areas were similar and were nearly parallel to land-surface altitude. Linear regression of water-table 

altitude with land-surface altitude from both sites had a slope 

of 0.89 and an r-squared of 0.97. If this relation is valid for 

other hydrogeologic settings, then the water table could be 

estimated from a few measurements in a basin. The recent 

water tables at both Pine Nut Creek and Vicee Canyon were 

not parallel with land-surface altitude. This similarity could be 

due to pumpage in the alluvial fan that has lowered the water 

table or Pine Nut Creek has unique hydrogeologic characteristics. Production wells in Vicee Canyon have reversed the 

gradient and caused ground water to flow from the valley 

floor toward the consolidated rock. The non-linear relation 

at Vicee Canyon likely depends on the amount of pumpage, 

which would make it difficult to estimate water-table levels at 

developed sites. This study used existing data to characterize 

gradients. A study specifically designed to characterize gradients may result in stronger correlations that could be used to 

estimate gradients and the water table where few data exist.

References Cited

Bedinger, M.S., Harrill, J.R., Langer, W.H., Thomas, J.M., and 

Mulvihill, D.A., 1984, Maps showing ground-water levels, 

springs, and depth to water, Basin and Range Province, 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83–4119-B, 2 sheets, scale 1:500,000.

Berger, D.L., and Medina, R.L., 1999, Spatial ground-water 

data base in Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada, and 

Alpine County, California—Development and documentation: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99–4188, 1 CD-ROM.

Cardinalli, J.L., Roach, L.M., Rush, F.E., and Vasey, B.J., 

1968, State of Nevada hydrographic areas: Nevada Division 

of Water Resources map, scale 1:500,000.

Cohen, Philip, 1963, Specific yield and particle-size relations 

of Quaternary alluvium, Humboldt River Valley, Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1669-M, 24 p. 

Eakin, T.E., 1962, Ground-water appraisal of Diamond Valley, 

Eureka and Elko Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources - Reconnaissance Report 6, 60 p. 

Eakin, T.E., Price, Don, and Harrill, J.R., 1976, Summary 

appraisals of the Nation’s ground-water resources—Great 

Basin Region: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

813-G, 37 p.

Edwards, T.C., Jr., Homer, C.G., and Bassett, S.D., 1996, 

Nevada GAP Analysis—An environmental information system: Unpublished technical report 96–5, Logan, Utah, Utah 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Utah State 

University, 435 p., plus 2 CD-ROMs.

Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 604 p.

Handman, E.H., and Kilroy, K.C., 1997, Ground-water 

resources of northern Big Smoky Valley, Lander and Nye 

Counties, central Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 96–4311, 97 p.

Handman, E.H., Londquist, C.J., and Maurer, D.K., 1990, 

Ground-water resources of Honey Lake Valley, Lassen 

County, California, and Washoe County, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

90-4050, 112 p. 

Harrill, J.R., Gates, J.S., and Thomas, J.M., 1988, Major 

ground-water flow systems in the Great Basin region of 

Nevada, Utah, and adjacent States: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-694-C, scale 

1:1,000,000, 2 sheets.

Harrill, J.R., and Preissler, A.M., 1994, Ground-water flow 

and simulated effects of development in Stagecoach Valley, 

a small, partly drained basin in Lyon and Storey Counties, 

Western Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1409-H, 74 p.

Harrill, J.R., and Prudic, D.E., 1998, Aquifer systems in the 

Great Basin Region of Nevada, Utah, and adjacent states—

Summary report: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1409-A, 66 p.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1992, Statistical methods in 

water resources: New York, Elsevier Science Publishers., 

522 p.

Huxel, C.J., Jr., and Harris, E.E., 1969, Water resources and 

development in Mason Valley, Lyon, and Mineral Counties, 

Nevada, 1948–65: Nevada Division of Water Resources, 

Bulletin 38, 77 p.

Johnson, A.I., 1967, Specific yield—Compilation of specific 

yields for various materials: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 1662-D, 74 p

References Cited 21
Lopes, T.J., and Evetts, D.E., 2004, Ground-water pumpage 

and artificial recharge for 2000 and average annual natural 

recharge and interbasin flow by hydrographic area: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Information Report 2004–

5239, 87 p.

Lopes, T.J., 2006, Quality of Nevada’s aquifers and their susceptibility to contamination, 1990–2004: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5127, 52 p.

Maurer, D.K., 1986, Geohydrology and simulated response to 

ground-water pumpage in Carson Valley—A river-dominated basin in Douglas County, Nevada, and Alpine County, 

California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 86–4328, 109 p. 

Maurer, D.K., Lopes, T.J., and Medina, R.L., 2004, Hydrogeology and hydrologic landscape regions of Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–

5131, 41 p.

National Atlas of the United States, 1998, Hydrologic units: 

compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1:3,500,000 scale 

map, accessed July 12, 2004, at http://nationalatlas.gov/

hucmapwhole.html

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 2003, Fact 

sheet: accessed on December 30, 2003, and July 12, 2004, 

at http://ndep.nv.gov/sec/uicfact.pdf

Oregon Climate Service, 1997, Nevada average monthly or 

annual precipitation, 1961–1990: Corvallis, Oregon, Oregon 

State University, accessed July 12, 2004, at http://www.ocs.

orst.edu/pub/maps/Precipitation/Total/States/NV/nv_vect_

meta.html

Peltz, L.A., Medina, R.L., and Buto, S.G., 2005, 1:750,000-

scale hydrographic areas and basin-wide pumpage, recharge 

and interbasin flow estimates of Nevada: U.S. Geological 

Survey data available on the Web, accessed November 

29, 2005, at http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?nv_

ha750nv

Prudic, D.E., and Herman, M.E., 1996, Ground-water flow 

and simulated effects of development in Paradise Valley, a 

basin tributary to the Humboldt River in Humboldt County, 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1409-F, 

92 p.

Rush, F.E., 1968, Index of hydrographic areas in Nevada: 

Nevada Division of Water Resources, Information Report 6, 

38 p.

Rush, F.E., 1974, Static ground water levels of Nevada: 

Nevada Division of Water Resources map, scale 1:750,000, 

1 sheet.

Thodal, C.E., 1997, Hydrogeology of Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada, and results of a ground-water quality 

monitoring network, water years 1990–92: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4072, 

53 p.

Thomas, J.M., Carlton, S.M., and Hines, L.B., 1989, Groundwater hydrology and simulated effects of development in 

Smith Creek Valley, a hydrologically closed basin in Lander 

County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1409-E, 57 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, Technical 

Assistance Document (TAD) for delineating “Other Sensitive Ground Water Areas:” Washington, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Report 816-R-00-016, 

24 p., available online at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/

tad_sensitive_gw.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey, 2002, The National Map—Elevation: 

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 106–02, 2 p., accessed 

July 12, 2004, at http://ned.usgs.gov//faq.asp

U.S. Geological Survey, 2004, What is the average vertical 

accuracy of NED?: U.S. Geological Survey data available 

on the Web, accessed July 12, 2004, at http://ned.usgs.

gov//faq.asp#vertical 

22 Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004
 23
Appendix 1. Reports with water-level 

contours for Nevada.

[Asterisk indicates report selected for this study]

*Arteaga, F.E., 1982, Mathematical model analysis of the 

Eagle Valley ground-water basin, west-central Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 80-1224, 55 p.

*Bedinger, M.S., Harrill, J.R., Langer, W.H., Thomas, J.M., 

and Mulvihill, D.A., 1984, Maps showing ground-water levels, springs, and depth to water, Basin and Range Province, 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4119-B, 2 sheets, scale 1:500,000.

*Berger, D.L., 1995, Ground-water conditions and effects of 

mine dewatering in Desert Valley, Humboldt and Pershing 

Counties, northwestern Nevada, 1962-91: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4119, 

94 p.

*Berger, D.L., Ross, W.C., Thodal, C.E., and Robledo, 

A.R., 1997, Hydrogeology and simulated effects of urban 

development on water resources of Spanish Springs Valley, 

Washoe County, west-central Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4297, 80 p.

*Berger, D.L., and Medina, R.L., 1999, Spatial ground-water 

data base in Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada, and 

Alpine County, California—Development and documentation: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4188, 1 CD-ROM

*Berger, D.L., Maurer, D.K., Lopes, T.J., and Halford, K.J., 

2004, Estimates of natural ground-water discharge and characterization of water quality in Dry Valley, Washoe County, 

West-Central Nevada, 2002-2003: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5155, 46 p.

Blankennagel, R.K., and Weir, J.E., Jr., 1973, Geohydrology of 

the eastern part of Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-B, 35 p.

Burbey, T.J., 1993, Shallow ground water in the Whitney Area, 

southeastern Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada—Part 

II, Assessment of a proposed strategy to reduce the contribution of salts to Las Vegas Wash: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4051, 58 p.

Burbey, T.J., 1995, Pumpage and water-level change in the 

principal aquifer system of Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, 

1980-90: Nevada Division of Water Resources, Information 

Report 34, 224 p.

Burbey, T.J., 1997, Hydrogeology and potential for groundwater development, carbonate-rock aquifers, southern 

Nevada and southeastern California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4168, 65 p.

Byers, F.M., Jr., and Hawkins, W.L., 1981, Geology of drill 

hole UE-18t and Area 18, Timber Mountain caldera moat, 

Nevada Test Site, with a section on geophysical logging by 

D.C. Muller: U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-474-

312 [Special Studies I-097], 69 p.

Carlsen, C.L., Lunnis, R.C., and Prudic, D.E., 1991, Changes 

in water levels and water quality in shallow ground water, 

Pittman-Henderson Area, Clark County, Nevada, resulting 

from diversion of industrial cooling water from ditch to 

pipeline in 1985: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 89-4093, 69 p.

Cohen, Philip, 1963, An evaluation of the water resources 

of the Humboldt River Valley near Winnemucca, Nevada: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Water Resources Bulletin 24, 103 p.

*Cohen, Philip, 1964, A brief appraisal of the ground-water 

resources of the Grass Valley area, Humboldt and Pershing 

Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Ground-Water Resources - Reconnaissance Report 29, 40 p.

*Cohen, Philip, 1964, Preliminary results of hydrologic 

investigations in the valley of the Humboldt River near 

Winnemucca, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources, Water Resources Bulletin 22, 59 p.

*Cohen, Philip, and Everett, D.E., 1963, A brief appraisal of 

the ground-water hydrology of the Dixie-Fairview Valley 

area, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Ground-Water Resources - Reconnaissance Report 23, 40 p.

Cohen, Philip, and Loeltz, O.J., 1964, Evaluation of hydrogeology and hydrogeochemistry of the Truckee Meadows 

area, Washoe County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1779-S, 63 p.

Cooley, R.L, Spane, F.A., Jr., and Scheibach, R.B., 1974, Reno 

folio hydrologic map: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Environmental Series Reno Area.

Covay, K.J., Banks, J.M., Bevans, H.E., and Watkins, S.A., 

1996, Environmental and hydrologic settings of the Las 

Vegas Valley area and the Carson and Truckee River Basins, 

Nevada and California: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 96-4087, 72 p.

Crosthwaite, E.G., 1963, Ground-water appraisal of Antelope 

and Middle Reese River Valleys, Lander County, Nevada: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Ground-Water Resources - Reconnaissance Report 19, 33 p.

24 Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004
D’Agnese, F.A., Faunt, C.C., Turner, A.K., and Hill, M.C., 

1997, Hydrogeologic evaluation and numerical simulation 

of the Death Valley regional ground-water flow system, 

Nevada and California: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 96-4300, 124 p.

Domenico, P.A., Stephenson, D.A., and Maxey, G.B., 1964, 

Ground water in Las Vegas Valley: Desert Research Institute, Technical Report no. 7, 53 p.

Doty, G.C., and Thordarson, William, 1983, Water table in 

rocks of Cenozoic and Paleozoic age, 1980, Yucca Flat, 

Nevada Test Site, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 83-4067, 1 sheet, scale 

1:48,000.

*Eakin, T.E., 1961, Ground-water appraisal of Long Valley, 

White Pine and Elko Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources - Reconnaissance Report 3, 35 p.

Eakin, T.E., 1962, Ground-water appraisal of Diamond Valley, 

Eureka and Elko Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources - Reconnaissance Report 6, 60 p.

*Eakin, T.E., and Lamke, R.D., 1966, Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Humboldt River Basin, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources Bulletin 32, 107 p.

*Eakin, T.E., Hughes, J.L., and Moore, D.O., 1967, Waterresources appraisal of Steptoe Valley, White Pine and Elko 

Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources, Water Resources - Reconnaissance 

Report 42, 48 p.

Eakin, T.E., Maxey, G.B., and Robinson, T.W., 1951, Ground 

water in Goshute and Antelope Valleys, Elko County, 

Nevada, in Eakin, T.E., Maxey, G.B., Robinson, T.W., Fredricks, J.C., and Loeltz, O.J., Contributions to the hydrology 

of eastern Nevada: Nevada State Engineer, Water Resources 

Bulletin 12, p. 17-34.

Ervin, E.M., Luckey, R.R., and Burkhardt, D.J., 1994, Revised 

potentiometric-surface map, Yucca Mountain and vicinity, 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4000, 17 p.

*Everett, D.E., 1964, Ground-water appraisal of Edwards 

Creek Valley, Churchill County, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources - Reconnaissance Report 26, 18 p.

Fridrich, C.J., Dudley, W.W., Jr., and Struckless, J.S., 1994, 

Hydrogeologic analysis of the saturated zone ground-water 

system under Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Journal of Hydrology, v. 154, p. 133-168.

Glancy, P.A., 1968, Water-resources appraisal of MesquiteIvanpah Valley area, Nevada and California: Nevada Division of Water Resources, Reconnaissance Report 46, 57 p.

Glancy, P.A., 1986, Geohydrology of the basalt and unconsolidated sedimentary aquifers in the Fallon area, Churchill 

County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2263, 62 p.

*Hale, G.S., Trudeau, D.A., and Savard, C.S., 1995, Waterlevel data from wells and test holes through 1991 and potentiometric contours as of 1991 for Yucca Flat, Nevada Test 

Site, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 95-4177, scale 1:48,000.

*Handman, E.H., and Kilroy, K.C., 1997, Ground-water 

resources of northern Big Smoky Valley, Lander and Nye 

Counties, central Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 96-4311, 97 p.

*Handman, E.H., Londquist, C.J., and Maurer, D.K., 1990, 

Ground-water resources of Honey Lake Valley, Lassen 

County, California, and Washoe County, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

90-4050, 112 p.

*Harrill, J.R., 1968, Hydrologic response to irrigation pumping in Diamond Valley, Eureka and Elko Counties, Nevada, 

1950-65, with a section on surface water by R.D. Lamke: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Water Resources Bulletin 35, 85 p.

*Harrill, J.R., 1969, Hydrologic response to irrigation pumping in Hualapai Flat, Washoe, Pershing, and Humboldt 

Counties, Nevada, 1960-67: Nevada Division of Water 

Resources, Bulletin 37, 75 p.

Harrill, J.R., 1970, Water-resources appraisal of the Granite 

Springs Valley area, Pershing, Churchill, and Lyon Counties, Nevada: Nevada Division of Water Resources, Reconnaissance Report 55, 36 p.

*Harrill, J.R., 1973, Evaluation of the water resources of 

Lemmon Valley, Washoe County, Nevada, with emphasis on 

effects of ground-water development to 1971: Nevada Division of Water Resources, Bulletin 42, 130 p.

Harrill, J.R., 1976, Pumping and ground-water storage depletion in Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, 1955-74: Nevada Division 

of Water Resources, Bulletin 44, 70 p.

Harrill, J.R., 1977, Hydrologic map, south Lake Tahoe quadrangle: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Urban Map 

Series, Map 2Af, scale 1:24,000.

Harrill, J.R., 1986, Great Basin regional aquifer-system study, 

in Sun, R.J., ed., Regional aquifer-system analysis program 

of the U.S. Geological Survey-Summary of projects, 1978-

84: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1002, p. 146-151.

Appendix 25
Harrill, J.R., 1986, Ground-water storage depletion in Pahrump Valley, Nevada-California, 1962-75: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2279, 53 p.

Harrill, J.R., and Katzer, Terry, 1980, General ground water, 

Las Vegas SE quadrangle: Nevada Bureau of Mines and 

Geology Urban Map Series, Map 3Af, scale 1:24,000.

Harrill, J.R., and Moore, D.O., 1970, Effects of ground-water 

development on the water regimen of Paradise Valley, 

Humboldt County, Nevada, 1948-68, and hydrologic reconnaissance of the tributary areas: Nevada Division of Water 

Resources, Bulletin 39, 123 p.

Harrill, J.R., and Preissler, A.M., 1994, Ground-water flow 

and simulated effects of development in Stagecoach Valley, 

a small, partly drained basin in Lyon and Storey Counties, 

western Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1409-H, 74 p.

Harrill, J.R., Welch, A.H., and Preissler, A.M., 1992, Hydrogeochemical evidence for subsurface inflow to Stagecoach 

Valley, Lyon County, Nevada, in Subitzky, Seymour, ed., 

Selected papers in the hydrologic sciences, 1988-92: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2340, p. 179-193.

Herrera, N.B., Seiler, R.L., and Prudic, D.E., 2000, Conceptual 

evaluation of ground-water flow and simulated effects of 

changing irrigation practices on the shallow aquifer in the 

Fallon and Stillwater areas, Churchill County, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

99-4191, 70 p.

Hines, L.B., 1992, Quantification of natural ground-water 

evaporation in Smith Creek Valley, Lander County, Nevada, 

in Subitzky, Seymour, ed., Selected papers in the hydrologic 

sciences, 1988-92: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2340, p. 9-20.

*Hood, J.W., and Rush, F.E., 1965, Water-resources appraisal 

of the Snake Valley area, Utah and Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources - Reconnaissance Report 34, 43 p.

*Huxel, C.J., Jr., and Harris, E.E., 1969, Water resources and 

development in Mason Valley, Lyon and Mineral Counties, 

Nevada, 1948-65: Nevada Division of Water Resources, 

Bulletin 38, 77 p.

*Huxel, C.J., Jr., Parkes, J.E., and Everett, D.E., 1966, Effects 

of irrigation development on the water supply of Quinn 

River Valley area, Nevada and Oregon, 1950-64: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources Bulletin 34, 80 p.

Katzer, Terry, 1980, General ground-water map, Carson City 

quadrangle: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Urban 

Map Series, Carson City Folio, Map 1Af, scale 1:24,000.

Katzer, Terry, Harrill, J.R., Berggren, Gregg, and Plume, 

R.W., 1985, Ground-water map, Las Vegas SW quadrangle: 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Urban Map Series, 

Las Vegas SW Folio, Map 3Bf, scale 1:24,000.

Kilroy, K.C., 1991, Ground-water conditions in Amargosa 

Desert, Nevada-California, 1952-87: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4101, 93 p.

Laczniak, R.J., Cole, J.C., Sawyer, D.A., and Trudeau, D.A., 

1996, Summary of hydrogeologic controls on ground-water 

flow at the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

96-4109, 59 p.

Lawrence, S.J., 1996, Nitrate and ammonia in shallow ground 

water, Carson City urban area, Nevada, 1989: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4224, 

53 p.

Lico, M.S., 1992, Detailed study of irrigation drainage in 

and near wildlife management areas, west-central Nevada, 

1987-90, Part A. Water quality, sediment composition, and 

hydrogeochemical processes in Stillwater and Fernley Wildlife Management Areas: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 92-4024-A, 65 p.

*Malmberg, G.T., 1961, A summary of the hydrology of 

the Las Vegas ground-water basin, Nevada, with special 

reference to the available supply: Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Water Resources Bulletin 18, 23 p.

*Malmberg, G.T., and Worts, G.F., Jr., 1966, The effects of 

pumping on the hydrology of Kings River Valley, Humboldt 

County, Nevada, 1957-64: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water Resources Bulletin 31, 

57 p.

Maurer, D.K., 1986, Geohydrology and simulated response to 

ground-water pumpage in Carson Valley, a river-dominated 

basin in Douglas County, Nevada, and Alpine County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4328, 109 p.

Maurer, D.K., 1992, Hydrogeology of the Genoa quadrangle, 

Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Urban Map 

Series, Genoa Folio, Map 1Cf, scale 1:24,000.

*Maurer, D.K., 1997, Hydrology and ground-water budgets of 

the Dayton Valley Hydrographic Area, west-central Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 97-4123, 89 p.

Maurer, D.K., and Fischer, J.M., 1988, Recharge to the Eagle 

Valley ground-water basin by streamflow in Vicee Canyon, west-central Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 88-4158, 66 p.

26 Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004
Maurer, D.K., and Moffatt, R.L., 1992, General hydrology of 

the Vista quadrangle [Nevada]: Nevada Bureau of Mines 

and Geology Urban Maps Series, Vista Folio, Map 4Hf, 

scale 1:24,000.

Maurer, D.K., and Peltz, L.A., 1994, Potential for, and possible effects of, artificial recharge in Carson Valley, Douglas 

County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 94-4126, 4 sheets.

*Maurer, D.K., Plume, R.W., Thomas, J.M., and Johnson, 

A.K., 1996, Water resources and effects of changes in 

ground-water use along the Carlin Trend, north-central 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4134, 146 p.

Maxey, G.B., and Eakin, T.E., 1949, Ground water in White 

River Valley, White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln Counties, 

Nevada: Nevada State Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin 

8, 59 p.

Morgan, D.S., 1982, Hydrogeology of the Stillwater geothermal area, Churchill County, Nevada: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 82-345, 95 p.

Morgan, D.S., and Dettinger, M.D., 1996, Ground-water 

conditions in Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada, Part 

II. Hydrogeology and simulation of ground-water flow: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2320-B, 124 p.

Nowlin, J.O., 1982, Ground-water levels and water quality in 

an area near Topaz Lake, Douglas County, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 80-2046, 76 p.

O’Hagan, M.D., and Laczniak, R.L., 1996, Ground-water levels beneath eastern Pahute Mesa and vicinity, Nevada Test 

Site, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 96-4042, 1 sheet.

Olmsted, F.H., Glancy, P.A., Harrill, J.R., Rush, F.E., and Van 

Denburgh, A.S., 1975, Preliminary hydrogeologic appraisal 

of selected hydrothermal systems in northern and central 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 75-56, 

360 p.

Phoenix, D.A., 1948, Geology and ground water in the 

Meadow Valley Wash drainage area, above the vicinity of 

Caliente, Nevada: Nevada State Engineer, Water Resources 

Bulletin 7, 117 p.

Plume, R.W., 1985, Ground-water resources in Kyle and Lee 

Canyons, Spring Mountains, Clark County, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-438, 47 p.

Plume, R.W., 1995, Water resources and potential effects of 

ground-water development in Maggie, Marys, and Susie 

Creek Basins, Elko and Eureka Counties, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

94-4222, 87 p.

*Plume, R.W., and Ponce, D.A., 1999, Hydrogeologic framework and ground-water levels, 1982 and 1996, Middle 

Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4209, 

2 sheets.

*Prudic, D.E., and Herman, M.E., 1996, Ground-water flow 

and simulated effects of development in Paradise Valley, a 

basin tributary to the Humboldt River in Humboldt County, 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1409-F, 

92 p.

Prudic, D.E., Harrill, J.R., and Burbey, T.J., 1995, Conceptual 

evaluation of regional ground-water flow in the carbonate-rock province of the Great Basin, Nevada, Utah, and 

adjacent States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1409-D, 102 p.

Robison, J.H., 1984, Ground-water level data and preliminary 

potentiometric-surface maps, Yucca Mountain and vicinity, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 84-4197, 8 p.

*Rush, F.E., 1967, Water-resources appraisal of Washoe 

Valley, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Water Resources - Reconnaissance 

Report 41, 39 p.

Rush, F.E., 1971, Regional ground-water systems in the 

Nevada Test Site area, Nye, Lincoln, and Clark Counties, 

Nevada: Nevada Division of Water Resources, Reconnaissance Report 54, 25 p.

*Rush, F.E., 1974, Static ground water levels of Nevada: 

Nevada Division of Water Resources map, scale 1:750,000, 

1 sheet.

Rush, F.E., 1975, Hydrologic map, Washoe City quadrangle: 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Urban Maps Series, 

Washoe City Folio, Map 5Af, scale 1:24,000.

*Rush, F.E., and Eakin, T.E., 1963, Ground-water appraisal of 

Lake Valley in Lincoln and White Pine Counties, Nevada: 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Ground-Water Resources - Reconnaissance Report 24, 29 p.

*Rush, F.E., and Katzer, T.L., 1973, Water-resources appraisal 

of Fish Lake Valley, Nevada and California: Nevada Division of Water Resources, Reconnaissance Report 58, 70 p.

*Rush, F.E., and Schroer, C.V., 1970, Water resources of 

Big Smoky Valley, Lander, Nye, and Esmeralda Counties, 

Nevada: Nevada Division of Water Resources, Bulletin 41, 

84 p.

Rush, F.E., and Schroer, C.V., 1976, Geohydrology of Smith 

Valley, Nevada, with special reference to the water-use 

period 1953-72: Nevada Division of Water Resources, Bulletin 43, 95 p.

Appendix 27
Schaefer, D.H., and Harrill, J.R., 1995, Simulated effects of 

proposed ground-water pumping in 17 basins of east-central and southern Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 95-4173, 71 p.

*Schaefer, D.H., and Whitney, Rita, 1992, Geological framework and ground-water conditions in basin-fill aquifers of 

the Dayton Valley and Churchill Valley hydrographic areas, 

western Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 91-4072, 12 p.

*Seiler, R.L., and Allander, K.K., 1993, Water-level changes 

and directions of ground-water flow in the shallow aquifer, 

Fallon area, Churchill County, Nevada: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4118, 

74 p.

*Sinclair, W.C., 1962, Ground-water resources of Pine Forest 

Valley, Humboldt County, Nevada: Nevada Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water 

Resources - Reconnaissance Report 4, 22 p.

*Sinclair, W.C., and Loeltz, O.J., 1963, Ground-water conditions in the Fernley-Wadsworth area, Churchill, Lyon, Storey, and Washoe Counties, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1619-AA, 22 p.

*Thomas, J.M., Carlton, S.M., and Hines, L.B., 1989, Groundwater hydrology and simulated effects of development in 

Smith Creek Valley, a hydrologically closed basin in Lander 

County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1409-E, 57 p.

Thomas, J.M., Mason, J.L., and Crabtree, J.D., 1986, Groundwater levels in the Great Basin region of Nevada, Utah, and 

adjacent states: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-694-B, 2 sheets.

Thomas, J.M., Welch, A.H., and Dettinger, M.D., 1997, Geochemistry and isotope hydrology of representative aquifers 

in the Great Basin Region of Nevada, Utah, and adjacent 

states: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1409-C, 

100 p.

Waddell, R.K., Robison, J.H., and Blankennagel, R.K., 1984, 

Hydrology of Yucca Mountain and vicinity, Nevada-California—Investigative results through mid-1983: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4267, 

72 p.

*Walker, G.E., and Eakin, T.E., 1963, Geology and ground 

water of Amargosa Desert, Nevada-California: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Ground-Water Resources - Reconnaissance Report 14, 45 p.

Wilson, J.W., 2001, Potentiometric surface, carbonate-rock 

province, southern Nevada and southeastern California, 

1998-2000: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-

335, 15 p.

Winograd, I.J., and Thordarson, William, 1975, Hydrogeologic 

and hydrochemical framework, south-central Great Basin, 

Nevada-California, with special reference to the Nevada 

Test Site: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-C, 

126 p.

Worts, G.F., Jr., and Malmberg, G.T., 1966, Hydrologic 

appraisal of Eagle Valley, Ormsby County, Nevada: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources - Reconnaissance Report 39, 55 p.

Zones, C.P., 1961, Ground-water reconnaissance of 

Winnemucca Lake Valley, Pershing and Washoe Counties, 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1539-

C, 18 p.

Zones, C.P., 1963, Ground water in the alluvium of Kings 

River Valley, Humboldt County, Nevada: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1619-L, 38 p.

Plates

Plates are found in separate PDF files. Click on the 

desired link to view or download plate. 

Plate 1. Map showing water-table contours in Nevada, 1947–

2004. 

Plate 2. Map showing water-table surfaces in Nevada, 1947–

2004. (Lower resolution version here)

Plate 3. Map showing depth-to-water surfaces in Nevada, 

1947–2004. (Lower resolution version here)

28  Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004
Lopes and others—Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947–2004—USGS SIR 2006–5100