GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 177 

WATER RESOURCES OF THE 

MAHONING RIVER BASIN, OHIO 

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE 

YOUNGSTOWN AREA 

.By W. P. Cross, M. E. Schroeder, a~d S. E. Norris 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

W. E. Wrather, Director 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 177 

WATER RESOURCES OF THE MAHONING RIVER BASIN, OHIO 

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE YOUNGSTOWN AREA 

By W. P. Cross, M. E. Schroeder, and S. E. Norris 

BASED ON DATA COLLECTED IN COOPERATION WITH THE 

DIVISION OF WATER, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

AND 

PITTSBURGH DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY 

Washington, D. C., 1952 

Free on application to the Geological Survey, Washington 25, D. C. 
::: 

Plate 1, -View of industrial development along the Mahoning River at Youngstown (Courtesy of Youngstown Vindicator, Youngstown, Ohio). 
CONTENTS 

. Page Page 

Introduction . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. • . • . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .. 1 

Purpose.................................................. 1 

Acknowledgments...................................... 1 

Description of area . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. 3 

Climate................................................... 3 

Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Industrial development............................... 6 

Water development .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . 7 

Quantity and quality of water available . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

Surface water . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . 8 

Discharge............................................. 8 

Droughts............................................... 15 

Floods................................................. 18 

Chemical quality.................................... 21 

Temperature......................................... 32 

Pollution............................................... 35 

Ground water............................................ 36 

Sources of ground water.......................... 36 

Glacial d~osits ...... ~........... ................ 36 

Bedrocks............................... . .. .. .. .. . . . 36 

Quantity and quality ·Of water available -Cont. 

Ground water-Continued 

General principals of occurrence.............. 40 

Water-table and artesian conditions .......... 40 

Water-level fluctuations .......................... 41 

Yield of wells .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . 41 Chemica~ quality . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. . 44 

Temperature . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . 46 

Present water use .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . .. . . .. .. 46 

Public supplies. . .. .. . .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 46 

Private industrial supplies.......................... 49 

Water require:qlents ... ~ .................................. 51 

Possibilities of expanding water supply............ 53 

Surface-water supply................................. 53 

Ground-water supply . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . 54 

Water laws . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. .... .. .. .. .. 55 

Summary .................................................... 55 

Selected bibliography ..... , .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .... . .. .. .. .. 56 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

View of industrial development along the Mahoning River at Youngstown (Courtesy of Youngstown 

Page 

Plate 1. 

Figure 1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

B. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

lB. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

Vindicator, Youngstown, Ohio) .... : .................................................................................... . Map of Mahonil)g River basin showing principal cities, reservoirs, and gaging stations ............... .. Air temperatures at Warren, 19 21-45 .................................................................................. . Monthly precipitation at Warren, 1921-45 ............................................................................. . flow-duration curves, Eagle Creek at Phalanx Station and West Branch Mahoning River near Newton Falls ..............•.........•••.•....•....•.................. · .......... , ............................................. . Flow-duration curves, Mahoning River near Deerfield and Deer Creek at Limaville ................... .. Flow-duration curves, Mahoning.River near Berlin Center ...................................................... . Unit-storage graphs, Deer Creek at Limaville and Eagle Creek at Phalanx Station ...................... . Unit-storage graphs, Mahoning River near Berlin Center and West Branch Mahoning River near 

Newton Falls .................................................................................................................. . Drought-frequency graphs for Eagle Creek at Phalanx Station and Deer Creek at Limaville ......... .. Drought-frequency graphs for Mahoning River near Berlin Center and West Branch Mahoning 

River near Newton Falls ................................................................................................ .. Flood frequencies for annual floods on selected streams in the Mahoning River basin ................. .. Flood frequencies for all floods on selected streams in the Mahoning River basin ...................... .. Map of Mahoning River basin showing points at which surface-water samples were collected for 

chemical analysis ...•••...•....••••..•..•.......•..••••.....•...•.••....•.••••••••••.•••••••••••••••.•••.•••..••..••••••••.•• Composition of selected surface waters in the Mahoning River basin ......................................... . Relation ot total hardness, dissolved solids, and specific conductance to streamflow,. Mahoning 

River at Warren, Ohio, water year Oct. 1946 to ·Sept. 1947 ................................................... . Water temperatures, air temperatures, and flow of Mahoning River for year ending 

September 30, 1950 ..... ..................•.....................................•...................•..•............•..•..• Temperature-discharge relations, M'-honing River at Youngstown ............................. , .............. .. Map of Mahoning River basJ.n showing the distribution and water-bearing characteristics or the 

glacial deposits (Geology by G. W. White) ......................................................................... .. Map of Mahoning River basin showing the distribution and water-bearing characteristics of the 

consolidated rocks .................•.....•••.•.....................•..•..........•••.•......•.•.......•...•.....•.••......... Graphs showing fluctuations in water levels in wells at Canfield and Youngstown ........................ .. Graphs showing fluctuations in water levels in wells at .Warren and Windham .............................. . Composition of selected ground waters in the Mahon~ng River basin .......................................... . Municipal use of surface water in the Mahoning River basin, 1930:-50 ...................................... .. Map of Mahoning River basin showing areas of p'rincipa.l ground-water pumpage ......................... . 

III 

ii 

2 

4 

5 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

19 

20 

22 

26 

30 

33 

35 

37 

39 

42 

43 

45 

49 

50 
Table l. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

TABLES 

Page 

Population of Youngstown. area (Bureau of Census data)............................................................ 6 

Capacity and production of steel industry in the Youngstown area, 1948 ...................................... 6 

Summary of streamflow data for streams in the Mahoning River basin........................................ 9 

Minimum daily flows, Mahoning River at Youngstown.............................................................. 15 

Flood stages and discharges, Mahoning River at Youngstown .... .. . .. .. .. .. .. ... . .... .... .. .. . .. ... .. .. .. . .. .... 18 

Mineral constituents and related physical measurements for surface waters in the Mahoning 

River basin 23 ................................................................................................................... . Mineral constituents and related physical measurements for daily sampling station on Mahoning 

River at Warren, Ohio, during July: 1946 to September 1948 .................................................. . Range in concentration of chemical constituents and in related physical measurements of surface 

water in the Mahoning River basin ..................................................................................... . Maximum daily and mean monthly temperature of Mahoning River water of the No. 5 power house 

intake of the Campbell Plant of the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co ......................................... .. Water-bearing properties of the principal bedrock formations in the Mahoning River basin ......... . Range in concentration of chemical constituents and in related physical measurements of fresh 

ground waters _in the Mahoning River Basin (based on 14 analyses) ......................................... . Average use of surface water in the Mahoning River basin for public supplies (1930-50) ............... . 

Use of water in the Mahoning River basin from public supplies having surface sources, 1950 ....... .. 

Industrial use of water in the Mahoning River basin from public supplies using surface sources, 

1950 ............................................................................................................................. . Use of ground water for public supplies in the Mahoning River basin ........................................ .. 

Industrial use of ground water in the Mahoning River basin, about 1946 .................................... .. Industrial use of raw river water in the Mahoning River basin (from Mahoning Valley Industrial 

Council, 1951)· .................•............................................ ; ..•.................•..................•.....•... 

27 

31 

34 

38 

46 

47 

48 

48 

49 

49 

51 
WATER RESOURCES OF THE MAHONING RIVER BASIN OHIO ' . 

WITH ·sPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE YOUNGSTOWN AREA 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose 

The purpose of this report is to summarize the available information on water for the Youngstown area that 

will assist with the further proper development, control 

and use of_ the water resources of this industrial region. 

Shortage of water for industrial use, gross pollution, 

high temperature of river water and danger of floods 

present serious water problems to the Youngstown area. 

Plate 1 shows a view of the industrial development along 

the Mahoning River in Youngstown. Approximately 11 

percent of the Nation's steel producing capacity is in 

the Mahoning River valley, from Warren through ·Niles 

and Youngstown to the Pennsylvania-Ohio State line. 

The population of this heavily industrialized area is 

about one-third of a million. The Mahoning River is 

used for domestic and industrial water supply as well 

as for disposal of sewage and industrial waste. The 

river below Youngstown is reported to be among the 

worst polluted streams in the United States. High temperatures of the river water, sometimes as great as 

120 F, combined.with low volumes of flow and gross 

pollution, constitutes a critical water problem. Added 

to this is the danger of floods which is accentuated by 

channel constrictions. Although the four reservoirs 

that have been constructed in the Mahoning River basin 

since the disastrous flood of 1913 provide some degree 

of flood protection, a storm of cloudburst proportions, 

particularly in uncontrolled areas, might be a crippling blow to a vital part of the United States industry. 

Many p\ans have been considered for the Mahoning 

River valley to provide flood control, low-water regulation, temperature and pollution abatement, and transportation by canal from the Ohio River to Lake Erie. 

Despite many technical and reia:ted reports on these 

subjects, the several interrelated water problems have 

·been only partially solved. The available information 

9~ water resources is summarized in this report. Other 

1mportant aspects, such as the consideration of costs 

and benefits, must also be carefully studied but are 

beyond the scope of this report. References are made 

to sources of information throughout this report, and 

the appended selected bibliography lists all oi the more 

important of the many previous studies that have been 

published. 

Acknowledgments 

This report is one of a series concerning watersupply conditions in certain selected areas of strategic 

importance and is intended to provide information of 

value for national defense and related purposes. These 

reports are sponsored by and prepared with the g~idance of the Water Utilization Committee in the Water 

Resources Division of the U. S. Geological Survey, 

which is under the general supervision of Carl G. 

Paulsen, Chief Hydraulic Engineer. 

The factual and interrelated information as summarized in this report have been accumulated during a 

quarter of a century by Federal, State, and local agencies as well as by private organizations in connection 

with the reports and investigations for water developments in the Mahoning River valley. 

Some of the basic water-resources data used in this 

report have been collected by the Geological Survey in 

cooperation with agencies of the State of Ohio and the 

Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers. Other data 

and information have been taken directly from technical reports of the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of 

Census, U. S. Weather Bureau , U. S. Public Health 

Service, Ohio Geological Survey, Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, and several consulting engineers, 

These sources of data are generally indicated through 

bibliographical references which will serve as a guide 

to principal informants. 

However, because of their particular interest and 

understanding of the probfems, several organizations 

and individuals favored us with their confidence and 

assistance, Acknowledgments are especially due the 

Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers; Division of 

Water, Ohio Department of Natural Resources; 

Mahoning Valley Sanitary District; Mahoning Valley 

Industrial Council; Ohio Water Service Company;-

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company; cities of 

Alliance, Newton Falls, ·warren, and Youngstown; and 

the Ohio Department of Health for providing specific 

information and advice in connection with the preparation of this report. 

The Illustrations for this report were prepared under 

the direction of John C.. Krolczyk, Ohio Division of 

Water. 
9 iii ttl IP 

[) 

INDEX MAll' 

~----1 

I ____ _ 

u M 8 

EXPLANATION 

EXISTING RESERVOIR 

- PROPOSED RESERVOIR 

IOI STREAM GAGING STATION 

A 

.• ··'· •.. •·•• •• OUTLINE OF DRAINAGE AREA 

ABOVE GAGING STATION 

I ----1 

L L 

N A 

I 

I 

z -Z 

%:&&1 Q.. 

I 

I 

~-----

Figure 1. -Map of Mahoning River basin showing principal cities, reservoirs, and gaging stations. 

2 
Deacription of Area 

The Mahoning River basin \lea i,n northeaatern Ohio 

(see tig. 1). The source of the Mahoning River 11 

IC?Utheast of Alliance, in Stark County, and it tlowa · 

northeaatward to near Warren, where it turns sharply 

to the southeast, and flows about 40 miles to its mouth 

near New Cast.le, Pa. There it joins the Shenango 

River to form the Beaver River, a tributary of the Ohio. 

The principal tributaries are the West Branch which 

empties into the Mahoning River below Newton Falls, 

Eagle Creek which enters from the west above Warren, 

Mosquito Creek which flows in from the north at Niles, 

and Meander Creek empties into it from the south at 

Niles. The river drains 599 sq mi at Warren, 899 eq 

mi at You~gstown, and 1, 133 sq mi at the mouth. Of 

the total area, 1, 078 sq mi are in Ohio, 

Like many Ohio River tributaries, the Mahoning 

River is steepest in its lower reaches. The average 

stream slope is 2. 2 ft per mile from Milton Dam to 

Warren, and 2, 6 ft .per mile from Warren to the mouth. 

The valley is moderately broad below Niles, averag·mg 

about one-half mile in width. Above Niles the valley 

sides become progressively flatter upstream. In the 

industrial area below Warren there are a series of low 

dams, pondiq water for cooling purposes, In this 

reach, particularly in the vicinity of Youngstown, earth 

fills and dumps occupied by railroads and mills co~­

strict the natural str.eam channel. 

The entire Mahoning River basin is within the glaciated section of the Allegheny Plateau and has the 

characteristic rolling terrain of glaciated areas. The 

basin ia relatively flat in the north where it meraes with 

the glacial plains; in the southeast it has steeper hi.ll 

alopes and deeper tributary valleys. 

The g.laciera blocked northward !.lowing streams in 

the baain, reversed their direction of flow, and rearranged drainage patterns. The sharp bend in the 

Mahoning River north of Warren was caused by a glacier 

blocking the river which formerly f.lowed northward past 

Warren and on tarough the present Grand River valley. 

Climate 

Ohio normally ta. an abundance of precipitation, 

which is well distributed throughout the year. Serious 

floods and droughts have not occurred as frequently in 

the Mahoning River basin as in some nearby areas. 

· Summer temperatures are usually high, but not unduly 

oppressive; winter temperatures ordinarily are not 

severe, and snowfall is generally moderate. The average temperature for the State is about 51 F, and the 

average annual rainfall for the 65 -year period ending 

in 1948 is 37. 93 in. (Division of Water, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1950). 

The average annual precipitation and temperature in 

the Mahoning River basin is about the same as the average for the State. The average annual precipitation at 

Warren for the 25-year period ending in 1945, is 37.39 

in., and the average temperature for the same period 

is 50. 7 F.. An area south of Warren has slightly less 

than average precipitation. At Canfield the 25-year 

average annual precipitation is 34. 23 in., al)d the average temperature is 49. 4 F for the same period. The 

fact that the Mahoning River valley is beyond the 

3 

ameliorating effect of Lake Erie haa more effect on 

the climate than the above average• would indicate, 

Winter temperatures are on the average the lowest in 

the State and the average length ot growing aeason 

between killing frosts in the uplands is about 141 days, 

shorter than for any other region in Oh~o (U, S. Department of Agriculture, 1941). The average depth ot snow 

reported at Warren for the 25 -year period ending in 

1945 is 49. 3 in,, or about the highest for the State, 

• 

The queations of changing climate, cycles of wet and 

dry years, and trenda are of considerable interest, but 

unfortunately the available recorda are too short to 

give definite answers. In other parts of the country 

there appears to be· a alight trend toward a drier, 

warmer climate, and in Ohio the temperature records 

indicate a poasible s.light trend toward increasing temperature• in winter, but there is no suggestion of a 

change in precipitation, therefore it must be conclud· 

-ed that our climate is not changing at a significant 

rate. 

Averages of temperature and rainfall are misleading 

because the records may conceal wide variations from 

year to year, There are large random variations in 

temperature and precipitation from year to year 

throughout Ohio, For example, during the drought 

period 1930-36 the precipitation at Warren was 18. 56 

ill, less than normal, or an average of 34, 74 in. of 

annual precipitation as compared with the long-period 

average of 37. 39 in, Variations within a year are 

shown by figures 2 and 3, These charts give the mean 

temperature and precipitation by montha for the station at Warren, and also indicate the variation of the 

maximum and minimum from the mean. The large 

range in precipitation is a definite indication that occasional severe floods and droughts are to be anticipated 

in the Mahoning River basin. 

Population 

The Mahoning River basin is densely populated, particularly in the vicinity of the heavy industrial and commercial development which flanks the river on both 

sides from Warren to the Ohio-Pennsylvania State line. 

The 1930, 1940, and 1950 population of the three counties with major portions of their areas within the 

Mahoning. River basin, and of all urban areas within the 

basin, are listed in table 1. · 

The increase in population in the area covered by 

this report follows the trend throughout the State. 

Ohio gained about 15 percent in population during the 

last decade, and Mahoning and Trumbull Counties combined gained about 12 percent. As in other parts of the 

State, the largest rate of increase was in the rural 

nonfarm areas. The total urban population of the 

Mahoning Riv2r basin as listed in the table increased 

from 29.9, 982 to 318, 830, or about 6 percent. The fact 

that some of the smaller communities were not listed 

in 1940 accounts for part of the apparent gain. 

The population for the 10 cities and towns in the 

valley between Milton Dam and the Ohio-Pennsylvania 

State line has increased from 271, 667 to 280, 964 in the 

past 10 yr, or about 3 percent. The increase in population in the M~:thoning River basin has been less than 

had been predicted (Ohio State Planning Board, 1936). 

This might be construed as indicating that the area is 
il 

• "f'/ 

120 

iv. 

'l' 

,f' 

100 

MAXIMUM DAILY 

!:: 80 

"' %: 

z 

"' a:: 

:z: 

~ 

Cl) 

"' "' a:: MAXIMUM MONTHLY MEAN 

C) 

"' 0 

! 

l.a.i" 

a:: 

::» 

..... 

C( 

a:: 

"' Q. 

2 

"' tMINIMUM DAILY 

Figure 2, -Air temperatures at Warren, 1921-45. 

4 
Cl) 

LLI 

:1: 

(J 

z 

z 

z 

0 

~ a: 

5 

LLI 

a: 

0. 

10~--~----~----~----~----~----T-----~--~----~----~----~--~ 

Figure 3, -Monthly precipitation at Warren, 1921-45. 
Table 1, -Population of Younastown area 

(Bureau of Census data) 

Subdivision 

(by couaty) 

Trumbull County .... ,, ..... , ... 11,. 11 ............... 11 ... 111 .... . 

Cortland ......................................................... . 

*Girard ........................................................... . 

Halls Corners ................................................. . 

*Leavittsburg ................................................... . 

*McDonald ....................................................... . 

•Newton Falls ........... t•••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••• 

*Niles ............................................................. . 

*Warren .......................................................... . 

Mahoning County ......... , ••• , ............. , .................. , •• 

Beloit ............................................................ . 

Canfield ......................................................... . 

*Campbell. ...................................................... . 

*Craig Beach ................................................... . 

East Alliance .................................................. . 

*Lowellville ..................................................... . 

Poland .............. : ............................................ . 

Sebring .......................................................... . 

*Struthers ...................................................... .. 

*Youngstowna ................................................... . 

Portage County ................................................. .. 

Garrettsville ................ , •• , ............................. , • 

Windham ........................................................ . 

Stark County: 

Alliance ........................................................ .. 

Limaville ....................................................... . 

Columbiana County: 

Columbiana .................................................... . 

aPartly in Trumbull County. 

*Adjacent to Mahoning River. 

barely maintaining its place as a leading industrial 

region; but production, employment, and water- consumption data show that the population figures are mjsleading in some respects. The total demand for water 

has increased beyond expectations and as in many other 

cities the average per capita use has spiraled upward. 

People generally are living farther from their work 

and the movement to suburbs and rural homes in the 

Youngstown area in the last decade has been typical of 

nearly all large metropolitan ar~as. .!!_lis suburban 

movement and the formation of new households have 

produced many problems among which is that of an 

adequate water supply. Moreover, industrial use of 

water has grown at tremendous rates with expanding 

productive capacity. 

Industrial Development 

During the last 100 yr the Youngstown area has been 

one of the Nation's leading iron and steel centers. At 

first local ores and fuels from nearby forests were 

utilized. When more distant ores and fuels were used, 

the Youngstown area grew and prospered as an iron 

and steel center because of its strategic location on 

major transportation routes between the sources of ore 

and fuel. Today the Youngstown steel district is the 

6 

Population in year indicated 

1930 1940 1950 

123,063 132, 315 158, 915 

1, 014 1, 259 

9, 859 9, 805 10, 113 

254 

2,533 

1, 529 1, 858 

. 3, 458 3, 120 4, 451 

16, 314 16, 273 16, 773 

41,062 42,837 49,856 

236,142 240,251 257, 629 

706 778 

1, 141 1,465 

14,673 13, 785 12,882 

198 569 

1, 474 

2, 550 2, 359 2,227 

1, 240 1, 652 

3, 949 3, 902 4, 045 

11, 249 11, 739 11, 941 

170,002 167, 720 168,330 

42,682 46,660 63, 954 

1, 264 1, 504 

316 3, 968 

23,'047 22,405 26, 161 

209 209 

2, 687 3, 369 

fourth largest in the United States. Table 2 shows the 

annual capacity and production of coke, pig iron, and 

ingot steel for the year 1948 (Pittsburgh District, 

Corps of Engineers, 1950). 

Table 2. --Capacity and production of steel industry 

in the Youngstown area, 1948 

Coke: 

Number of byproduct ovens 

Annual capacity, net tons 

Percent of U. S. capacity 

1948 production, net tons 

Pig iron: 

Number of blast furnaces 

Annual capacity, net tons 

Percent of U. S. capacity 

1948 production, net tons 

Steel ingots and steel for castings: 

Number of open hearths 

Annu-al capacity, net tons 

Number of Bessemer converters 

Annual capacity, net tons 

Number of electric furnaces 

Annual capacity, net tons 

Total capacity, net tons 

Percent of U. S. capacity 

1948 production, net tons 

710 

3, 182, 000 

5. 1 

3,046,000 

25 

7,464,000 

• 11. 3 

7,023,000 

81 

7,686,000 

6 

1,724,000 

11 

522,000 

9, 932,000 

10.5 

10, 500, 000 
The steel and metal-fabrication industry employs 

about 70, 000 persons in the Youngstown area, and it 

is estimated that 85 percent of industrial workers in 

the area are supported directly or indirectly by th.is 

industry. Other industries include aluminum extrusion and the manufacture of electrical products, 

bronze, aluminum, rubber, stone, glass, clay, concrete, wood, leather, paint and chemicals. Limestone 

used for fluxing in the manufacture of steel is quarried 

in the Mahoning River valley in Pennsylvania., High 

silica sandstone is quarried near Phalanx, Ohio,for 

manufacturing high-silicon steel, molding, filtering, 

sand blasting, and other purposes. 

The Youngstown area is an important transportation 

center because it is situated in the narrow gap between 

the barriers of Lake Erie on the north and the rough 

terrain of the unglaciated Allegheny Plateau to the 

south, and on the shortest. route from the Ohio River 

to Lake Erie. It is served by four major railroads; 

the Pennsylvania, Baltimore and Ohio, Erie, and 

Pittsburgh and Lake Erie, and many connecting and 

steel company railroads. It is served by two airlines 

as well as several Federal and State highways. 

Because of the phenomenal amounts of water required for steel manufacture, most of the industry is 

concentrated on the banks of the Mahoning River in the 

25-mile stretch from Warren to Lowellville. Five 

steam-power plants serving the industry, which utilize 

vast quantities of river water for condenser cooling 

are also situated in this area. 

Water Development 

The first large reservoir built in the Mahoning River 

basin was Milton Reservoir, constructed by the city· 

of Youngstown in 1916-17. The dam is located about 

5 miles above Newton Falls. The draina1e area above 

the dam is 276 sq mi and th.e total capacity of the reservoir is 29, 150 acre-ft. It was intended to provide 

water for public and industrial use in the Younastown 

area, and orainal plans included conduits from the reservoir to Younastown. However, 1e1a1 complications 

concernin1 riparian ri1hts in the river between the 

dam and Youn1stown prevented the construction of 

conduits, and the reservoir has been used for low-flow 

re1ulation, flood control, and recreation, At the 

present time the operation of Milton and Berlin Reservoirs is coordinated. 

The Mahoninl River was used as the source of municipal water for Youngstown and Niles for many years, 

but because of insufficient quantity of water and gross 

pollution the supply became increasingly critical. In 

1926 the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District was formed 

for the purpose of providing a satisfactory domestic 

water supply for these two municipalities. Plans were 

drawn for a reservoir on Meander Creek (W. H. Dittoe, 

1926). The Mineral Ridge Dam on Meander Creek 2 

miles above Niles was completed in 1930, the gates 

closed on January 1, 1931, and water was piped to 

Niles ~nd Youngstown for the first time in July 1932. 

This reservoir has a usable capacity of 32, 400 acreft, with a drainage area of 841 9 sq mi. The reservoir 

was designed to provide a safe yield of approximately 

30 'million gallons per day (mgd), an amount believed 

at the time of design to be sufficient for use until aoout 

1960, Increases in water demand have exceeded ex7 

pectations, however, and thouah the reservoir has provided water about as planned, it can no lonaer satisfy 

the needs for domestic and industrial w'ater for the two 

cities. 

As part of the 1eneral comp'l"ehensive plan fo,· flood 

control in the Ohio River basin, several reservoir 

projects have been considered for the Mahoning River 

basin. Two of these-Berlin Reservoir above Milton 

Reservoir on the Mahoning River and Mosquito Creek 

Res,ervoir 9 miles above NUes-were constructed 

during World War II. The Mosquito Creek Reservoir. 

as originally planned was a dual-purpose project for 

flood control and low streamflow regulation. Its construction was authorized during the war period to provide augmentation of low flow in the Mahoning River 

for industrial water -supply purposes. Its operation 

during that period of emergency was in accordance 

with the intent of the original plan. The Berlin Reservoir as originally planned was primarily for flood 

control with incidentaJ storage for low-water regulation during the summ.er. However, the storage 

allocation was modified for the period of the emergen~y 

to provide greater low-now augmentation than would 

have been possible under the original plan of operation. 

Berlin Reservoir, with total capacity of 91, 200 acreft. and a drainage area of 249 sq mi was placed in 

operation in July 1943, and is used in combination with 

Milton Reservoir for flood control and low-flow augmentation, Plans have been made for a project which 

will divert water from Berlin Reservoir into Meander 

Creek Reservoir, thereby eventually providing an additional 34 mgd public water supply for Young&t!own 

and Niles. These plans for diversion are being made 

by the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District under a contract with the Federal Government for the purchase of 

water from Berlin Reservoir. Some delay in construction of the diversion project has been encountered because of litiiation. 

Mosquito Creek Reservoir, completed in April 1944, 

With a capacity of 104, 100 acre-ft, and a drainage area 

of 97. 4 sq mi, located on the upper reaches of Mos• 

quito Creek, has an uncontrolled wasteway into the 

Grand River basin, which has not yet been used. 

Mosquito Creek Reservofr has a lar1e capacity in relation to the flow of Mosquito Creek. It will store more 

than the runoff from an av~rage year. It has been used 

for flood control and low-flow augmentation. However, 

facilities are being planned and constructed for the diversion of water from Mosquito Creek Reservoir for 

the public water supply of Warren. The water is to be 

purchased from the Federal Gov~rnment under contract. 

Contracts have been awarded for a new water-purifica .. 

tion plant and pipelines, which will provide Warren with 

up to 16 m1d for public use from Mosquito Creek Reservoir. At present Warren uses the highly polluted 

water of the Mahoning River, a source that is becominl increasingly costly because the treatment requirements are rapidly changinl. 

The City of Alliance in the headwaters of the Mahoning River uses the river as a source of public water 

supply. Increased consumption and low flows during 

drought periods have created difficulties, Plans have 

been completed for the construction of a dam and reservoir on Deer Creek near the upper end of the Berlin 

Reservoir. The storage will be about 1 billion gal 

(3, 100 acre-ft) and the estimated yield 7 mgd. 
Several small dams and reservoirs have been built 

on the minor tributaries of the Mahoning River near 

Youngstown by private water companies for the purpose 

of supplying raw water to industry. The first dam was 

built at Lake Hamilton on Yellow Creek in 1906, and the 

last reservoir, Evans Lake, was built on Yellow Creek 

in 1949. The Ohio Water Service Company, the sue .. 

cessor of several earlier private water companies,now 

has a supply system comprising nine reservoirs. Four 

of these are on Yel~ow Creek which flows into the Mahoning River from the south at Struthers below Youngstown. Burgess Lake is on a tributary of Yellow Creek. 

Dry Run Lake is on Dry Run, a tributary flowing into 

the Mahoning River from the north at the center of 

Youngstown. Girard Lake and two other small lakes 

are on Squaw Creek, which flows into the Mahoning 

River from the north at Girard. The total capacity of 

all of these lakes is 7. 2 billion gal (22, 000 acre~ft) 

with a yield of about 30 mgd. The Ohio Water Service 

Company furnishes domestic water to Struthers, Poland, 

and adjacent small areas, and sells raw water to Campbell. However, these public supplies are only about 7 

percent of the water sold by this company. Raw water 

of relatively good quality is delivered to many industries by means of a distribution system extending 

throughout the valley from Girard to Struthers, 

QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF WATER AVAILABLE 

Surface Water. 

Discharge 

Stream-gaging stations in the Mahoning River basin 

are shown on figure 1 and the periods of record and 

a summary of the data are listed in table 3. The numbers on figure 1 correspond to the station numbers in 

table 3, The records cover only a few years, and 

interpretation is complicated by the regulation at the 

four storage reservoirs. It should be noted that of the 

899 sq mi of drainage area above Youngstown, 459 sq 

mi are now above reservoir dams. The records collected on the Mahoning River below Milton Dam since 

1917 are affected by regulation. The records collected 

on Meander Creek, Mosquito Creek, and the Mahoning 

River near Berlin Center since the completion of the 

reservoirs on these streams are affected by regulation. 

The average annual runoff for Ohio is about 13 in. 

As might be expected from the rainfall and temperature data, the average annual runoff in the Mahoning 

River basin is also about 13 in. The variations in the 

average discharge in inches for the gaging stations 

shown in table 3 are mostly the result of random variations in annual rainfall rather than an indication of 

significant differences in runoff or in the rainfall-runoff relation. No corrections have been made for regulation or evaporation in reservoirs, for diversion 

around some of the gages, nor for the variations in 

lengths and dates of record. All these factors should 

be kept in mind in studying the streamflow data. 

The mean discharge of the Mahoning River at 

Youngstown for the 29 yr ending in 1950 is 809 cfs. 

Water diverted for the public supply of Youngstown is 

not included because it bypasses the gage. The water 

intake is upstream from the gage and most of the sewer outlets are downstream from the gage. The water 

demand of Youngstown has gradually increased until 

8 

in 1950 it was approximately 30 cfs. It may be concluded from this comparatively long record that the 

average discharge at Youngstown cannot be materially 

increased above about 800 cfs or 0. 89 cfs per square 

mile without diversion into the Mahoning River from 

outside the basin or less diversion around the gage. 

Records in table 3 show an average discharge of 

about 0. 9 cfs per square mile for a number of points 

in the basin. 

Although no significant trends have been detected in 

the annual mean runoff seasonal runoff varies greatly. 

Fl-ow-duration curves and tables reveal this characteristic strikingly. The flow-duration curve is a cumulative frequency curve, prepared by arranging all 

daily discharges of record in order of magnitude, and 

dividing them according to percentages of time during 

which specific flows are equalled or exceeded (Ohio 

Division of Water, 1949). Figures 4, 5, and 6 show 

flow-duration curves for the flow at five gaging 

stations in the upper Mahoning River basin, and several points on the flow-duration curve are shown in 

table 3 for all stations in the basin. 

The general slope of the flow-duration curve {s an 

indication of the natural storage in a basin. For example, if a basin were entirely paved, a flood would 

occur immediately after every rain followed by a short 

period of decreasing flow as the stream dr~ined out, 

and finally a period of no flow until the next rain. The 

duration curve would be very steep. For a lake or 

swamp, on the other hand, there would be only slight 

increase in flow. The duration curve would be nearly 

horizontal. Large quantities of stored ground water 

would have the same effect as a lake in reducing high 

flows and increasing low-water flows. The effect of a 

storage reservoir on the flow of the Mahoning River 

below Berlin Dam near Berlin Center is shown on 

figure 6. Flood flows are reduced and the mean flow 

is unchanged. Part of the time most inflow is stored 

in the reservoir. then the discharge is less below the 

dam than it would have been without storage in the reservoir. However, when a large part of the flow into 

the reservoir is stored, the streamflow is usually not 

low; therefore, the tributary inflow below the dam is 

sufficient to supply all demands. lt is to be emphasized, 

however, that figure 6 shows only regulated flow 

at the dam; whereas, regulation is maintained not for 

the effect immediately below the dam but for the effect 

in the industrial region from Warren to Youngstown. 

A study of the flow-duration curves of figures 4, 5, 

and 6showsthat the streams in the upper end of the 

Mahoning River basin are fairly well sustained during 

dry weather. The general slopes of the duration 

curves shown are about the same as the average for 

the State. The records, as summarized in table 3, 

making due allowance for the short records and the 

variable periods of time covered, indicate that Deer 

Creek, Eagle Creek and West Branch generally have 

better sustained flow than the lower tributaries, and 

that much of the dry-weather flow of the Mahoning 

River, other than reservoir outflow, comes from this 

western part of the basin. Mosquito Creek, prior to · 

regulation, had extremely low sustained flows in dry 

weather. It is unfortunate that all of the flow records 

of any length not affected by artificial storage are for 

the area of relatively high sustained flow. 
co 

Table 3. -Summary of streamfiow data for streams in the Maboning River basin 

No. Discharge Flow-duration 

on AYerage Maxi.- Mini- (percent of time) 

fig. Stream and location County DrainagE mum mum to I 25 50 75 I 90 

1 area Year~ 

reco cfs/ Inches (cfs/ (cfs/ Di.schar2e ~ ualed or exceeded 

(sq mi) sqmi sqmi] ~mi) cfs/ cfs/ cfs/ 

sqmi sqmi sqmi 

1 Mahoning River ~t Alliance~/ •.•••.•••• Stark 87.9 9. 1942-50 0.~1L.47 79.& 0 1.88 0.683 0.191 

2 Mahoning River near Deerfield •.•••••• Portage 175 a. 1924-31 t.o3 13,98 58.9 .013 2;.54 .968 .• 331 

3 Mahoning River near Berlin Center •• Mahoning 247 12. J.931._42 • 85 11.59 34.9 .008 2.19 • 599 .202 

3 Mahoning River below ~erlin Dam Mahoning 249 . 7. 1944-50, • 12.03 14.3 0 - 1.76 1. 18 .683 

near Berlin Center.~ 

4 Mahoning River at Pricetown!:/. T"" Mahoning 27& 121. 1930-50 .859 ~1.65 24.5 .001 2.04 • 942 .40& 

5 Mahoning River at Leavittsburg~ •.••• Trumbull 580 9. 1942-50 .921 12.50 13.6 .ll& 1.98 .866 .536 

6 Mahoning River at Warren~/!) •••••••• Trumbull 599 11. 1925-35 .845 ll. 47 17.5 .oto 2.04 • 760 .282 

7 Mahoning River at Youngs tow~'~!/ !1 .. Mahoning 899 ~9. 1922-50 .900 12.22 19.& .031 2.47 .980 .384 

7A Mahoning River at Lowellville!/ ..... Mahoning 1))76 1. 1944-50 .883 11.99 21.4 .118 1.88 • 925 .533 

7B Beach Creek near Bolton ................ Stark 18.8 1. 1944-50 .894 ~2.11 118 .005 1.98 • 632 .172 

8 Deer Creek at Limaville ................ Stark 31.9 9. 1942-50 .956 ~2.98 39.2 .038 2.11 • 743 .264 

9 Mill Creek near Berlin Center ........ Mahoning 19.7 9. 1942-50 .853 ~1.55 9&.4 .005 1.82 .579 .139 

10 Kale Creek near Pricetown ............. Trumbull 21.7 9. 1942-50 ._908 ~2.33 1&7 .001 2.06 .544 .091 

11 West Branch Mahoning River Portage 97.8 24. 1927-50 .950 ~2.87 51.1 .030 2.03 • 755 .273 near Newton Falls. 

12 Eagle Creek at Phalanx Statio~/ ..... Trumbull 97.0 9. 1927-33. 1.0& 14.39 35.9 .006 2.54 .876 .357 

1939-50 

13 Duck Creek at Leavittsburg ............ Trumbull 35.2 6. 1942-47 • 770 J0.45 31.2 .001 1.76 .588 .125 

14 Mosquito Creek near Cortland ......... Trumbull 97.6 3. 1927-29 1.41 l9.14 19.4 .004 4.25 l. 64 • 338 

14 Mosquito Creek below Mosquito 

Creek Dam near Cortland .. .!U Trumbull 97.6 7. 1944-50 .916 12.43 13.1 ~ 2.58 l. 57 .057 

15 Mosquito Creek at Ni1es.T ............. Trumbull 139 14. 1130-43 • 777 10.55 22.2 ~ 2.48 • 755 .129 

'15 Mosquito Creek at Nile~ .............. · Trumbull 139 7. 1944-50 .892 12.11 10.8 .001 2.06 1.43 .461 

16 Meander Creek at Ohlstown ...... 77 

Trumbull 77.2 3. 1927-29 1.30 17.65 &8.0 .012 3.17 1.06 • 347 

17 Meander Creek at Mineral Ridge.:_ ~ • Trumbull 84.9 21. 1930-50 .505 6.86 64.8 ~ 1.22 .177 .021 

17A Mill Cree~ at Youngstown ............... Mahoning 68.4 6. 1945-50 .810 0.98 89.2 .001 2.00 • 703 .192 

. ~/Complete water years through 1950. 

E~Based on complete water years through 1950. 

a/Based on records of unregulated flow and ad~usted to base period 1921-45. 

e/Does not include diversion_for municipal water supply of Alliance. DiYersion a.eraged 7.3 cfs during 1950 water year. 

f/Flow regulated by reserv01rs. . 

- Does not include diversion for municipal water supply of Warren. DiYersion aYeraged 4.1 cfs during 1935 water year. 

cfs/ cfs/ 

sqmJ sqmi 

0.025 0.001 

.12& .073 

.081 .03& 

.201 .OM 

.228 .ll5 

.3&& .272 

.155 .093 

.187 .ll9 

.344 .243 

.064 .033 

.138 .097 

.053 .028 

.023 .Oil 

.133 .089 

.190 .124 

.040 .017 

.041 .Oil 

>.01 7.01 

.017 .002 

.091 .038 

.Il8 .051 

,..01 •• 01 

.0&3 .028 

S~to ,._.of 0.5 A•erage 

cfs/sq mi ,-~;e 

(Dlillion (milli.on 

~ ft/sq.mi cu ft/ 

sq~) 

12.9 74.9 

13.5 51.& 

1&.8 72.1 

15.3 69.1 

18.& 67.4 

17.0 77.1 

10.7 72.2 

13.7 76.. 3 

17.8 &0.8 

21.3 &9.5 

~~Does not include diversion for municipal water supply of Youngstown. DiYersion approximately 30 cfs during 1950 water year. 

-:-/Low flow slightly regulated by mill several miles above station. 

!.. Does not include diversion for municipal water supply of McDonald. Youngstown. and Niles. DiYersion aYeraged 38.4 cfs duri.nC 1950 water year. 
w 

..J 

100 

50 

40 

30 

zo 

10 

~ 5.0 

w 

a:: 4.0 c( 

~ 

g 3.0 

a:: 

w 

Cl. 2.0 0 

z 

0 

u 

w 

Cl) 

~ 1.0 Cl. 

~ 

w 

w 

LL. 

~ 0.5 CD B o.4 z 

-. 0.3 w 

(.!) 

a:: 

~ 0.2 u 

(/) 

0 

0.1 

.05 

.04 

.03 

.02 

A. Eagle Creek at Phalanx Station 

Drainage area 97.0 square miles 

Period of record 1927- 33, 1939-50 

B. West Branch Mahoning River near Newton Falls 

Drainage area 97.8 square miles 

' 

Period of record 1927-50 

{ 

' \ 

\ 

\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

' \ ' \~ 

"~ ~ ----.M§.O!t __ .,.._"' _J'iiJ!.a..rt- , .... -~--

"'"' ' ~ /-A 

'"" I ....... r-... / 

' "'- / 

-"""" ""- ./ 

"' ~ 

I ~ ... ........... ............. 

I """, ............. ....... 

B_/ ....................... ~ '-

-...........____ ' ............. ........ ~ 

~ " " .. , \ 

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 

PERCENT OF TIME DISCHARGE SHOWN WAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED 

Figure 4. -Flow-duration curves, Eagle Creek at Phalanx Station and West Branch Mahoning River 

near Newton Falls. 

' \ \ 

10.0 
IU 

= 

100 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

:E 5.0 IU 

~ 4.0 ::) 

g 3.0 

a:: 

IU 

~ 2.0 

z 

0 

u 

IU 

en 

a:: 

IU 1.0 Q. 

1-

IU 

IU 

Ll. 

~ 0.5 CD 

B o.4 z 

- .. 0.3 IU 

(,!) 

a:: 

~ 0.2 u 

en 

0 

0.1 

.05 

.04 

.03 

.02 

. 

I .0 0 

A. Mahoning River near Deerfield 

Drainage area 175 square mites 

Period of record 1924-31 

B. Deer Creek at Limaville 

Drainage area 31.9 square miles 

Period of record 1942 .. 50 

' • \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

' ~ 

\'\ 

'~ 

' l\. 

I\" "" M.~QD~ ~---- .M§~Jl __ 

---- 1-.:-- " 

" """"" .. , ' " .... "'-

'· "" ~A·· 

"""" """" / ..... """" r ..... __ 

"'-L 

A ~ 

/~ " ~ 8___....... ~~ 

I~ 

~ ~'- .......... 

.......... .......... 

' ' ... r\. " " " \. 

\ 

\ 

\ 

' 

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

PERCENT OF TIME DISCHARGE StiOWN WAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED 

Figure 5, -Flow-duration curves, Mahoning River near Deerfield and Deer Creek at Limaville. 

11 
UJ 

..J 

10 

5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

i 0.5 w 

~ 0.4 

~· (/) 0.3 

a: 

LLI 

ll. 

Q 0.2 z 

0 

0 

w 

(/) 

a: 

~ 0.1 

.... 

w 

w 

u. 

0 iil .05 

a.o4 

z 

w·o3 

C) 

a: 

ct 

~ .02 

en 

;; 

.01 

.005 

.004 

.003 

.002 

1-

I 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ \ 

\ \. 

\ \ 

\ ' 

\ \ 

\ \ 

,, 

' ~ 

~ ~ ~ 

/After regulation ( 1944-50) 

__ .,..MJtQD-~ ............... ~jtgn __ - I 

--- --- _L 

' .............. L 

' ~# 

' """ ' "' ""' "' ,-..... " """' " / ~ 1\. 

I ' '\ 

I ""', \ 

LPrior to regulation ........... 

( 1931• 42) "'-, \ 

"" \ .......... \ 

""'-...\ 

1 ..... 

""" .... 

' " '\.. 

\ ' \ '\ 

\ . 

\ 

\ 

' \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

'\. 

' Mahoning River near Berlin Center ~ 

\: Drainage area 249 sQuare miles ( 1944-50) \ 

Drainage area 247 sQuare miles (1931-42} \ 

\ 

\ 

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

PERCENT 0~ TIME DISCHARGE SHOWN WAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED 

Figure 6. -Flow-duration curves, Mahoning River near Berlin Center. 

12 
1.0 

.I 

.I 

.7 

.e 

.e 

.4 w 

..J 

i 

w .3 a:: 

c 

~ 

0 

en .2 a:: 

w 

a. 

Q 

z .I 0 

17•~!_1~ .!_ 0_,!~ Cfo/OQ ml 

,..., 42mo. ....,.. 

187' .,..., 

-----L---', 

18:7 -~~ 

v~ 

6mo1 .,.,. .. / K fmo. // 

I/ 

\_Adjusted to bose period 1921•4S 

/"mo. / 

1~/ tmo. / ~/ 

1"7 

1J ymo. Deer Creek at Limaville 

Drainage area 31.9 square miles r; Period of record, 1942-50 

120 doys (,) 

w 

en 

a:: 0 

~ 1.1 

1-

w 

w 

1.1. 1.0 (,) 

iii 

~ 

(,) 

~ .9 

~ 0 

..J .8 1.1. 

Q 

w 

1-

c .7 ..J 

~ 

" w 

a:: 

.e 

.s 

.4 

.3 

. 2 

.I 

·~~···~~~- S4mo. 

_..,-

~ ,-... 

~-~ 

_..-.. ,-

48m~ ~ ,__,_-

~ 

~ 

1smo.V 

v 

// ·\' 

18mo./ / \__Adjusted to boat period 1121·4e / 

v /,. 

9mo./ / 

Omo./ / v/ 

Omo.j// 

JL . L .... Eac;~le Creek at Pholanx Station 

Drarnage area 97.0 square miles 

Period of record 1927-33. 1939-50 

10 20 30 40 50 60 10 

STORAGE REQUIRED,IN MILLION CUBIC FEET PER SQUARE MILE 

Figure 7. -Unit-storage graphs, Deer Creek at Limaville and Eagle Creek at Phalanx Station. 

13 
1.0 

•• 

•• 

.7 

.I 

.5 

.4 

11.1 

~ 

i 

.3 11.1 

1111: 

c 

::) 

0 

Cl) .2 

1111: 

11.1 

A. 

Ci .I z 

0 

u 

11.1 

Cl) 

1111: 0 

~ 1.1 

1-

11.1 

11.1 

II. 1.0 

~ 

ID 

::::1 

u .9 

! 

~ 

9 .8 1&. 

Q 

1&1 

1-

"" _, .7 

::I 

C) 

11.1 

1111: 

.6 

.5 

.4 

.3 

. 2 

.I 

- 7'z!,~!!! ~w •,~ .:.!~ ~..! ml ~ 

/ mo. _,.,.,. ,-

lim/, _,.--, 

,,--

.18~ '"/"'- ~~/' " '--Adju1ttd to ball period 1121•45 

limo. "/ 

limo .... I ~ 

6mo ./,/ 

'"i./ 

f;•emo, Mahonin; River near ·Berlin Center 

Draina;e a rea 247 s~are miles 

Period of record 1 31·42 

,4mo. 

Avtra;t flow • ~IISO ofl/aq ml -----~-___...........-~ 

78~ ~ 

66mo~ ~ 

~I mo./ 

v 

IS mo./ U~mo./ v 

.,. .. / 

L .. L ..West Branch Mahoning River near Newton Falls 

Drainage area 97.8 s~uare miles 

Period of record I 28-50 

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

STORAGE REQUIRED, IN MILLION CUBIC FEET PER SQUARE MILE 

Figure 8. -Unit-storage graphs, .Mahoning River near Berlin Center and West Branch Mahoning 

River near Newton Falls. 

14 

o. 
Another means of studying the flow characteristics 

of streams is the unit-storage or storage-required 

curve, This, in effect, is a mass-curve analysis, in 

which the maximum deficiencies in flow volumes, below specified outflow rates, are determined, The results of such detailed anaylses for four of the unregulated streams in the Mahoning River basin are shown 

in figures 7 and B. The diagrams show the additional 

net storage, disregarding evaporation and dead stor • 

age, required to maintain specific outflow rates at the 

gaging stations. Higher rates of flow could be :maintained at critical downstream points in the Mahoning 

River basin. Storage required to· maintain one-half 

second foot per square mile and mean discharge for 

the nonregulated gaging statiqns (having sufficient 

length of record) are shown in table 3. These data 

confirm the relatively high sustained flows in the upper 

part of the basin and the low. sustained flows of downstream tributaries. 

According to the Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh 

District, reservoirs in the Mahoning River basin are 

operated so that average monthly flows are at least as 

great as those shown in the following table: 

Minimum average regulated 

discharge at Youngstown 

in cubic feet per second 

November through March .......... .. 

April ...................................... . 

May, ....................................... .. 

June .••..••.•.•••.•.•.•.•....•......•..•.... 

July ..••.••••..••...•.•...... : .........•..•.. 

AUiUit ······························· .... . September , ....... , ........... , , , .. , , , .. .. 

October ................................... .. 

185 

202 

295 

413 

470 

425 

333 

_ill_ 

Average for year .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . 275 

Flows at least as great as those shown in the above 

table are required to prevent nuisance from pollution 

according to the U. S. Public Health Service or are 

required during a month of avera1e temperature to 

maintain the desired water temperature at the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. 

Obviously, in a year of average discharge, the now 

wouldbe of the order of BOO cfs rather than 275 cfs. 

Droughts 

The study of droughts and drought frequencies for 

streams in the Mahoning River basin is complicated 

by the short length of record and in many cases the 

effects of regulation and diversion. The drought of 

1930 is the worst of record. Table 4 lists the minimum daily flows for the gaging station at Youngstown 

and shows a minimum of 30 cfs for 1930. However, at 

that time Milton. Reservoir was in use and undoubtedly 

increased the drought flows. The minimum flow in 

1908 is believed to have been about half the flow available in 1930 (House Doc. 277, 73rd Congress, 2nd 

Sess., 1934). Since 1930 three more reservoirs have 

been built and the minimum flows at Youngstown cor. 

respondingly increased. 

The minimum instantaneous flows of record, in cubic 

feet per second per square mile, for all gaging stations in the basin, are listed in table 3, These records 

15 

Table 4. -Minimum daily flows,Mahoning River 

at Youngstown 

Water ;rear Cubic feet per second 

1922 64 

1923 64 

1924 78 

1925 82 

1926 79 

1927 118 

1928 88 

1929 60 

1930 30 

1931 42 

1932 67 

1933 52 

1934 40 

1935 58 

1936 56 

1937 110 

1938 66 

1939 66 

1940 79 

1941 74 

1942 92 

1943 138 

1944 138 

1945 160 

1946 206 

1947 202 

1948 182 

1949 206 

1950 129 

indicate that extremely low flows have occurred 

throughout the basin, However, in water supply pro"'-

le:ms involvinl storage, the instantaneous minimum 

flow is not as critical as the deficiencies in flowvolumes over periods of time. The unit-storage analyses show that the critical periods for a flow rate 

of .one-half cubic foot per second per square mile are 

6 to 21 months. One of the most critical periods of 

low flow for the Mahoning River at Youngstown is that 

of 1930-31. The 19-month period, May 1, .1930, to 

November 30, 1931, had an average flow of only 272 

cfs corresponding to a yield of 313, 000 acre-ft or an 

annual yield of 197, 000 acre ..ft. During this period the 

storage in Meander Reservoir increased about 16, 000 

acre-ft, but the storage in Milton Reservoir decreased 

about 13, 000 acre-ft, indicating slight effect of regulation on the average flow for the period. The minimum average flow for 12 consecutive months was 223 

cfs, or a volume of 161, 000 acre-ft. 

Drought frequency curves based on annual minimum 

flows for four stations in the upper Mahoning River 

basin are shown in figures 9 and 10. These curves 

show the recurrence interval or probable return period 

for droughts of 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 2 months, and 

6 months duration. All of the stations shown are in 

the area of high sustained flow. The data for the 

· Mahoning River at Berlin Center is for the 12 yr including the drought of the 1930's and probably gives 

results that are too low. The one-day graph for Eagle 

Creek is affected by run-of-river regulation by a small 

mill dam upstream. With these two exceptions the 
1.0 

.5 

.4 

.3 

.2 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

: 

=I 

-

= 

-

I~ 

.05 

.04 

~ .03 

::& 

~ .02 ~ 

:) 

0 

en 

a:: 

~ ,01 Q 

~ u 

~ 

en 

a:: .005 IIJ 

Q. 1.0 1-

IIJ 

IIJ 

IL 

u 

iii :) .5 u 

z .4 

w 

<!) 

a: 

4 

::E: 

u 

(/) 

0 

.3 

.2 

.I 

.05 

.04 

.03 

.02 

.... 

1-

-

~ 

~ 

~ = 

I= 

~ 

{:: 

1-

1-

t-

.... 

1-

.... 

1-

-

!-

1-

f-. 

i-

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

1-

1-

!-

i1-

1-

!-

1-

1-

f= 

~ 

~ F= 

~ 

~ 

~ i-

!-

.01 N 

0 

............ ......... ~ 

..... ...... Eo9le Creek ot Phalanx Statlon - ~ 

Dramo~e area 97.0 sQuare miles - r- ....... - r- ~ Period o record 1927· 33 .. 1939·50 

1'...,!-o 

r-...... I"'--!'--. --.... r---"- ........ r-- 1'- --r- t-- r-.... I'- r-- .... ~ ...._ ......... r-...... r--I'- ~~ -r--- rr--t-- r----.. r--. r--........ ~ r-- r--- r--.. -r- 183 9ay1 

-- 1'- r-- r--"""""" to- .... ..... ........... r--- -~ -,.._ I 

........ -..... r-""- ....._, I 

~ r-t- r-.... r--- 60 Dayt ~ r--.. ,._ r---. ---.. '- I 

~ -30 Days !--

~'I"-

............ ~ I 

r-... ...... ......... 7 Da'y•- ~ 

't--.. 

I'-

~r" 

""I'-

!"'-... 

"'~ ......... loau-1-

. ........ 

........ 

"""" ........ ~ 

....... !"-- 1'-.... 

r-.... -~ -r- r---. - ,__ ~ 

f'.. r-..... ...... r--..... 1183 Days 

~ ~ 

~ r---..... r---. r-.. r---. lo... ........ -~-..... roo- I' 

r-..... -to... ........ 60 Dovs 

I' ,..... ""I'- - 30 Days .I'-

--- --- ~ 

---!'-.... - 7 Dovs r- ~ 

r- 1--o. I Day 

Deer Creek at Limaville 

Drainage area 31.9 square miles 

Period of record, 1942-50 

I I I Ill I Ill I I I I I I til I Ill 1111 I 1111 II I l Ill _l _l _l I I f II Ill I II II 1111 I 

0 0 0 0 0 N rtl V 10 . . .. - - -- N 0 

N 10 

N 

RECURRENCE INTERVAL,IN YEARS FOR VARIOUS PERIODS OF MINIMUM CONSECUTIVE DISCHARGE 

Figure 9, -Drought-frequency graphs for Eagle Creek at Phalanx Station and Deer Creek at Limaville. 
1.0 

.15 

.4 

.3 

.2 

.I 

.05 

11.1 .04 ..J 

i 

11.1 • 03 

a:: 

C( 

::> 

a .02 C/) 

a:: 

11.1 

0..• 

Q 

z 

0 . 01 0 

11.1 

C/) 

a:: 

11.1 

0.. 

~.005 

LIJ 

LIJ 

~ 

0 

ii 

::> 

u 

! 

Aa.i 

CD 

a:: 

cC 

% 

0 

C/) 

Q 

1.0 

.5 

.4 

.3 

.2 

.I 

.05 

.04 

. 03 

.01 

~ 

1-

1-

1-

1-

........ Mohonfn; River near Berlin Center .,__ t-

"""""" ........ Droino~e area 247 s~are miles t--~ 

"~ Per od of record I 31·42 · t--t-

~ ,...."" 

!;:; """' I= ( ......... ~ 

~ 

~ ~ 

"'""' ~ 

~ ~ 1'-. ..... t'-. I- f'..... r-....1"'-- I- """- I- ""' ..... 

I- r-.. I- r-.. ' r- ... ""- .............. ' " r- r- 1"--~oo... '- "183 Ooys -~o-... r-.... 

""""' ~ 

-......... I--.. 

.. ....... r-...... ........ ~ 

~ .. ~ ~ -.... r-.... 't--..... 

!=; I= -r----:: r-.... ~ I'" ""- f': t--..... 

!== ~ 1"'--

-!'--....... ....... r-..... ..... 

~ r-... ..... ............... r-... ~600oys r- .................. r-r- ._ 30 Ooys r- ~ r- I r1- r---...... -~ r-.. r--...... I-- ~--. ...... t- ....._....7 Ooys 

r- I Day 

rr1-

tt1-

1- 1'-.. 

1- ........ 

"""" • ....... 1".. 

""' E; " I= 

~ """' I:;_ ... ~ ~ 

I= .... ~ r-........ ~ ~ ~'- t- .. ~'""---. ......... f'... r--. r-... t- 1"-- 1--. 1"-- ~ '"""r--. 1- 1"---

"""" """' t- I-- t---loo... ~--""" 1--~o.. 

1- -""'-- l"''looo~oo. ......_ lot.... 183-

t- - """"'- ,...._ ..... 

--- -~ Days1- r-- ...... ,..""' r--......... &d- t- I"" too 1--:: ~ ~ .... -~-- 1-~oo-. Da~•- I- r--. 1--- r- ~"""' - 30 l--Ito. -looo... D~Yf -'""""' ...... ---- ---- ~ 7 D~ys r--o 

~ 

I Day • 

~ West Branch Mahonfn; River near Newton Falls I= 

~ OrainaQe area 97.8 s~uore miles 

I= Per1od of record I 28 ·50 1-

t1-

I I I I IIIII I I I I I Ill I Ill I I hI I hI I I I I I I t- I I II II I 1111 I I I II II I iLl lW I 

N 

g 0 

RECURRENCE INTERVAL, IN YEARS FOR VARIOUS PERIODS OF MINIMUM CONSECUTIVE DISCHARGE 

Figure 10. -Drought-frequency graphs for Mahoning River near Berlin Center and West Branch 

· Mahoning River near Newton Falls. 

17 
groups of c#:r:ves are very similar for all stations. The 

curves cannot be used as an indication of the probable 

frequency of drought flows throughout the entire Mahoning River basin because the stations are aU in the 

area of high sustained flows. Lower tributary streams 

are affected by regulation, or records are too short 

ervoirs, though without storage reserved for flood 

control, will have some storage effect on floods. These 

facts may seem to indicate that f:l.oods are less severe 

in the Mahoning River basin than elsewhere in the same 

general region and that the control provided by the four 

reservoirs will be sufficient to reduce probable flood 

damage to insignificance. Experience elsewhere in 

this part of the cou~try shows this reasoning to be 

fallacious and dangerous. 

for analysis. The flow from the 139 sq mi area above 

Niles on Mosquito Creek reached zero during three of 

the 13 yr of record which were unaffected by storage, 

The effects of regulation on low flows of the Mahoning 

River are shown in table 5. It is impossible to convert 

r~gulated low flows as recorded to natural flows; 

The 1913 flood in Ohio was outstanding, and for many 

years was believed to be in the nature of an upper limit 

for floods in the Middle West. During recent years, 

however, larger floods have been experienced on some 

streams in the States adjacent to Ohio (U. S. Geologi· 

cal Survey Water Supply Papers). The rainfall causing 

the 1913 flood was heaviest in the Mia.mi River valley. 

The same storm, if centered over the Mahoning River 

valley, . would have caused runoff greatly exceeding the 

1913 peak. Recent hydrometeorological studies indithey might have been without regulation because storage, diversion, and evaporation complicate the problem, 

and such conversion might give misleading results. 

Low-water regulation by the reservoirs has greatly 

improved the low-flow conditions in the Mahoning 

River but does not approach the extent necessary to 

prevent possible critical water shortages. 

cate that the maximum possible precipitation that · 

Floods 

The Mahoning River valley has not had a major flood 

since March 1913. It was the largest flood known in 

the Mahoning River valley. This flood, though disastrous, was not as great on the Mahoning River as in 

other parts of Ohio. Since 1913 two flood-control reservoirs have been completed, anrl the other two resmight occur in northeastern Ohio is several times as 

great as that of the 1913 storm (U. S. Weather Bureau, 

1947). Assuming that the four reservoirs could com· 

pletely control the flood runoff from their respective 

areas (impossible even with the sacrifice of all the 

storage for low-water augmentation) a cloudburst-type 

storm over the uncontrolled area of 440 sq mi could 

cause a flood at Youngstown in excesa of the flood of 

Table 5, -Flood stages and discharges, Mahoning River at Youngstown• 

Recorded Natural Reduced 

Year Month Day gage discharge gage gage 

height (second- heig~ heighJ (feet) feet) (feet) (feet) 

1910 Mar, 2 16,3 bao.2oo 

1911 Oct, 2 14,3 b16,600 

1913 Mar, 26 26,5 b42,500 22,5 

1914 May 13 14,2 b16,400 

1915 Feb, 2 12,4 b13,200 

1916 Jan, 3 13,8 b15, 500 

1916 Mar, 27 13,3 b14, 600 

1927 Mar, 22 11.8 c12,400 

1927 Dec. 1 12.5 c13,500 

1927 Dec, 14 12.7 0 13.900 

1929 Feb. 28 12. 1 0 12, 900 

1929 Apr. 5 12.6 0 13, 700 

1936 Mar, 25 14,3 c, d16,600 11.95 

1937 Jan, 15 12.5 0 13,500 

1937 Jan. 22 13. 1 0 13,400 

1937 Jan. 25 14.9 0 16, 100 11.9 

1940 Apr, 21 12.8 c, d13, 000 

1942 Apr. 10 11. 9 0 11, 700 

1942 Dec, 30 14,0 c, d13,300 15.·8 13,0 

1946 May 28 14.2 d, ell, 400 18.5 

1947 ·June 3 10.5 e9, 660 13.3 

a/ . "bjlncludes all floods above a stage of 12 ft (flood damage begins at about 12 ft). 

c/From U. S. Weather Bureau records adjusted to present datum, 

d/Affected by Milton Reservoir storage. 

-;Affected by backwater from Mill Creek. 

f;Affecte.d by Milton, Berlin and Mpsquito Creek storage. 

- Reductlons affected by present reservoirs, or that would have been affected had existing reservoirs 

been in operation, 

18 

Reduc~on 

(feet) 

4,0 

2.35 

3.0 

2.8 

4.3 

2.8 
1&.1 

..J 

2 

1&.1 

a: 

ct 

;::) 

a 

(/) 

a: 

w 

0.. 

0 

z 

0 

0 

1&.1 

(/) 

,_. a: co 1&.1 

0.. 

.,_ 

1&.1 

1&.1 

LL 

0 

iii 

;::) 

0 

~ 

t.J" 

C) 

a: 

ct 

% 

0 

(/) 

0 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

o_ 

0 

X 

• 

6 

0 

EXPLANATION 

Mahoning River near Berlin Center, 12 yrs (1931 .. 42) 

West Branch Mahoning River near Newton Foils, 24 yrs (1927-50) 

Eagle Creek at Phalanx Station, 21 yrs ( 1927-34, 193&-50) 

Mosquito Creek at Niles, 14 yrs (1930-43) 

___./ 

rr 

v 

v 

v 

.,.._ vv 

~ ~ t:7 ~ .... 

~ ~ ~ 

~~~ l-r"' ~ ..-

~ 0 rw:- .A ~ 

,....--

l_ ~ .. ~ .... ~~ - - ~ ~ L 

~ pt-' I-- IW - _, v 

~ ~ v ~ /II- ~ 

.,._ lj ;' 

~ 

.,.. 

.,/ ... 1'llo. 

~ ~ o--

0 0 0 0 0 N If) • If) 01 .., • 10 co,... CD cno 

RECURRENCE INTERVAL, IN YEARS 

/ v 

./ ~ 

2 

~ 

0 

., 

Figure 11. -Flood frequencies_ for annual floods on selected streams in the Mahoning River basin. 

~ 0 0 10 ., 0 

0 
1.1.1 

~ = 

1.1.1 

0: 

<{ 

::J 

0 

(/) 

a: 

IJJ 

Q.. 

0 

z 

0 

u 

w 

en 

a: 

IJJ 

a.. 

t\:) .... 0 IJJ 

IJJ 

1.1.. 

0 

iii 

:::> 

u 

~ 

ui 

(!) 

0: 

<{ 

::1: 

u 

(/) 

0 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 

X 

• 

4 

0 

EXPLANATION 

Mahoning River near Berlin Center, 12 yrs (1921-32) 

West Branch Mahoning River near Newton Falls, 24yrs (1927-50) 

Eagle Creek at Phalanx Station, 21 yrs (1927-34, 1938-50) 

Mosquito Creek at Niles, 14 yrs ( 1930-43) 

___./ 

zr-

-

0 

..! 

v .......... ~ ~ ~ ~ - "" ~ 

~ ~ 

-* 

0 

N 0 0 0 

If! ~ ~ 

~/ 

ld~ ~~ ~ 

1-c~ 

j..;::>-" ~ 

N 

,_. -r-

.L 

I _,,--

/ .,r v 

v .A. __._.. v _. ~ r -- - .---f-'11-" - .L --*"' 

v 

L - ..... v 

., • liD • ~ •• o 

RECURRENCE INTERVAL, IN YEARS 

L 

v v 

0 

01 

..& 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0 

., 

Figure 12. -Flood frequencies for all floods on selected streams in the Mahoning River basin. 

0 

• 

0 0 liD • 

0 

0 
1913 (Mahoning Valley Industrial Council, 1951). 

Another flood as great as that of 1913 in the Mahoning 

River valley would be a national catastrophe, with 

much greater damage than in 1913, because of the vast 

industrial developments built on the river banks since 

thal date. 

The maximum discharges f?r the gaging stations 

listed in table 3 are not outstanding when compared 

with floods recorded elsewhere in Ohio (Ohio State 

University Engineering Experiment Station, 1947). 

Flood frequency graphs for four streams unaffected 

by storage are plotted on figures 11 and 12. Figure 

11 shows the recurrence interval for annual floods and 

figure 12 shows the recurrence interval for all floods. 

An annual flood is the highest flood during a year; 

therefore, only the greatest flood in each year was 

used in preparing figure 11 although otfier notable 

floods occurred during the year. Therefore, figure 

11 shows the recurrence interval for a flood occurring 

as the greatest during the year. Figure· f2 shows I the 

:recurrence interval for a flood! whether or not it is the 

maximum for the year. From these data it appears 

that a flood peak of about 60 cfs per sq mi on an· 

area of about 100 sq mi might occur on the average 

as often as once in 25 yr. Extrapolation beyond the 

period of record cannot be made with any degree of 

certainty, and it must be concluded that the available 

records give little indication of the maximum floods 

possible in the basin. 

Damaging floods at Youngstown have been frequent, 

as shown by table 5. The record of flood stages and 

discharges, based on the U. S. Weather Bureau record 

1908-18 and the U. S. Geological Survey record after 

1921, indicates that damaging stages occurred on the 

average every two or three years, prior to the completion of Berlin and Mosquito Creek Reservoirs, and 

that serious floods can occur with the present reservoirs. The table also shows the amount of reduction 

provided by the present reservoirs for six representative floods. With the present operation of reservoirs 

there would have been only four damaging floods in the 

past 42 yr, or about one every 10 yr. Since industry 

is centered on the Mahoning River, in order to take 

advantage of the water supply, this marked reduction 

in the frequency and severity of floods has brought 

about substantial savings in flood damages. However, 

available storage is insufficient to prevent tremendous 

loss in the event of another flood as great as that of 

1913, nor can all the lower floods be reduced to nondamage stages. 

A comprehensive plan for the development of the 

water resources of the Mahoning River valley may logically provide sufficient storage reserved for flood 

control to prevent the recurrence of the 1913 disaster, 

and reduce all1ower floods to below the damage stage. 

Sufficient storage for this and other requirements is 

not available within the Mahoning River basin, 

Chemical quality 

An investigation of the chemical and physical quality 

of the surface waters of the Mahoning River and its 

tributaries was started in May 1946. An intensive 

study of the character of the water in Mahoning River 

at Warren was made between July 1946 and September 

1948. A sampling program in the lower portion of the 

Mahoning River basin was started on October 1, 1951. 

21 

Daily samples are beinl collected at Lowellville and 

monthly samples at Younastown and Leavittsbura. In 

addition 36 samples have been collected since May 

1946 at 20 selected sites throuahout the basin (fig. 13). 

The chemical quality of water in the upper reaches 

of the Mahoning River and of its tributaries above the 

industrial area of the lower Mahoning Valley is generally good (table 6). However. there is some upstrea~ 

pollution by industrial water and municipal sewage and 

this is of concern to the City of Warren, because its 

water supply is at present obtained from the Mahoning 

River. In some places, especially during low flow, the 

quality of water in the main stream, even above Warren, or of a tributary may be critically impaired by 

pollution. For example, a sample of Meander Creek 

at Niles was distinctly acid, with a pH of 2. 90, total 

acidity as sulfuric acid of 154 ppm, and dissolved solids of 736 ppm (table 6). This occurred during aperiod of practically no flow and was due to local pollution. A sample collected the same day in the Meander 

Creek Reservoir just a few miles above Niles was alkaline and contained only 150 ppm of dissolved solids. 

The water in the reservoirs is ·generally of better 

quality and lower in dissolved solids than the other 

surface water in the basin (table 6). The better quality 

is due mainly to the fact that the reservoirs are filled 

during' periods of high flow when a large part of the 

water is flood flow and the effects of in~ustrial or municipal pollution and highly mineralized ground water 

are at a minimum. Mosquito Creek Reservoir contains 

some of the best quality surface water in the basin 

(fig. 14). Analyses made in May and September 1946 

and in November 1951 indicated dissolved solids of 

110, 123 (calculated), and 96 ppm, respectively. 

The chemical quality of the Mahoning River is improved by the good quality of the water from the three 

flood-control reservoirs. Further improvement of the 

chemical quality could be affected by additional reservoirs for the storage of flood waters to augmeiit low 

flow and with increased treatment of sewage and industrial wastes. 

Daily samples were collected during the intensive 

study at Warren. Before analysis these samples were 

composited to make three samples per month (table 

7), Most of the industrial wastes and sewage are discharged into the Mahoning River at and below Warren. 

The sampling station at Warren was above most of the 

sources of pollution, ~ndJ therefor~ the analyses are of 

the better quality upstream waters. The analytical results show that the Mahoning River water is gener~lly, 

but not always, of a good chemical quality as it enters 

the highly industrialized zone. It compares very favorably in dissolved solids with other rivers of the 

State on which daily chemical quality stations have 

been maintained. There is, however, considerable 

variation in the chemical character of the river at this 

point throughout the year and from year to year. These 

day to day variations are indicated by the results for 

specific conductance in figure 15. This figure also 

shows the relation of total hardness, dissolved solids, 

and specific conductance of the Mahoning River at Warren to streamflow at Leavittsburg, 6 miles upstream 

from Warren, during the water year October 1946 to 

September 1947. The flow at Warren and Leavittsburg 

is substantially the same except during periods of 

heavy local rains. During the period of record at War-
0 

I 10 

I I 

I 

~------- I 

1 ------· 

I 

I 

INDEX MAIJ I 

I 

I T R u L L 

-------

u M B A N A 

EXPLANATION .5 DAILY SAMPLING STATION 

el7 SPOT SAMPLING SITE 

SAMPLING POINT IDENTIFICATION FOR TABLE 6. 

Figure 13. -Map of Mahoning River basin showing .points at w.hich surface-water samples were collected 
N 

w 

Point~ 

00 Source 

map 

1 Mahoning River at Alliance 

2 Mahoning River below 

Berlin Dam, near Berlin 

Center ----------------

3 llahooing River at Prlcetown--------------

3 Mahoni.ng River at Pricetown--------------

4 Mahoning River at 

Leavittsburg -----------

5 Mahoni.ng River at Warren 

(average Oct. 1946 to Sept. 1947)-------------

6 Mahoning River at 

Youogstown ------------ 6 Mliboning River at 

Youngstown ------------

7 Mahoni.Dg River at Lowellville-------------

7 Mahoning River at Lowellville-------------

7 llahooing River at Lowellville-------------

7 llahooing River at 

Lowellville-------------

7 llahooing River at t.owellville-------------

8 Beech Creek near Bolton -

8 Beech Creek near Bolton -

Table 6. -Mineral constituents and related physical measurements for surface waters in the Mahoning River basin 

Specific 

Mean conchact- Cal- Mag- So- Po- Blear- Sul- CbloDate discharge Color pH ance Silica Iron cium ne- dium tas- bonate fate ride (second- (micro- (Si.OJ (Fe) sium sium 

feet).b/ mhos at (Ca) (Mg) (Na) (K) (HCOJ (SOJ (Cl) 

25 C.) 

May 7, 1946--- 22 10 7.4 596 4.4 .10 88 21 23 171 136 15 

Oct. 7, 1949 -- 125 5 7.5 476 .8 .08 52 15 17 3.0 80 120 28 

May 7, 1946--- 92 14 7.3 299 1.6 .04 32 10 8.9 50 82 7.9 

Sept. 25, 1946- 307 10 7.1 283 .4 .03 34 8.6 9.5 67 73 5. 8 

Oct. 6, 1951 -- -- -7 7.6 372 3.4 .02 38 13 12 2.6 79 88 14 

1946-1947----- 709 11 7:1 308 5.2 .08 36 9. 8 7.8 2.8 61 74 7. 7 

Sept. 26, 1946- 373 12 6.6 408 2.4 .09 48 10 24 35 138 23 

Oct. 6, 1951 -- -- 7 6.5 496 4.9 .08 44 14 20 I 8.9 23 181 24 

May 7, 1946 -~ 581 15 6.1 585 4.6. .02 61 12 30 17 211 21 

Sept. 26, 1946- 434 8 6.1 605 5.2 .04 60 12 34 9 207 32 

Oct. 1-10, 1951 8 7.5 625 18 .04 64 18 27 13 77 197 32 

Oct. 11-20, 1951 5 7.6 717 19 .04 73 22 33 14 98 223 42 

Oct. 21-31, 1951 5 7.3 781 9.1 . .04 77 20 35 15 69 247 45 

Sept. 25~ 1946-- .6 . 6 7.6 720 1.6 .03 86 27 32 284 121 24 

Oct. 5, 1949 --- .60 5 8.1 736 4.0 .05 94 32 27 I 4.6 Jl/312 129 17 

.IIUdlleas 

Fluo- Hi- Dis- asCaCOa 

ride trate sol Wid 

-- (F) (HOJ so1Jds Tobll earlaa-

... ~4 1.8 378 258 118 

.4 1.8 310 Ut1 1Z8 

.1 3.3 178 1Z1 • 

.3 1.3 173 1ZO 85 

.2 1.2 Z23 150 1M 

.3 13 198 130 80 

1.1 7.0 261 181 132 

1.4 2.8 31Z 188 148 

1.6 .2 £/374 201 188 

1.6 .1 381 118 192 

1.4 .2 418 ZH 1Tl 

1. 5 .2 471 Z7S 192 

1.8 .3 411 2"14 218 

.1 4.2 4ft 

- 13 

.2 1.3 471 HI 110 
, 

"' 

Point!/ 

on Soni-ce 

map 

9 D~Jer Creeklat Limaville9 Deer Creek at Limaville9 Deer Creek at Limaville9 Deer Creek at Limaville10 Mill Creek near Berlin 

Center ---------------

11 Kale Creek near 

Pricetown -------------

12 West Branch Mahoning 

River near Ravenna----

13 West Branch Mahoning 

River near Newton Falls 

13 West Branch Mahoning 

River near Newton Falls 

14 Eagle Creek at 

Garrettsville ----------

15 Eagle Creek at Phalanx 

Station----------------

15 Eagle Creek at Phalanx 

Station----------------

16 Duck Creek at 

Leavittsburg-----------

17 Mosquito Creek near 

Greene ---------------

18 Mosquito Creek below 

Mosquito Creek Dam, 

near Cortland --------- 18 Mosquito Creek below 

Mosquito Creek Dam, 

near Cortland ---------

Table 6. -Mineral constituents and related physical measurements for surface waters in the Mahoning River basin-Continued 

Specific 

Mean ·conduct- Cal- Mag- So- Po- Bicar- Sul- Cblo- FluoDate disc~rge Color pH ance Silica Iron cium ne- dium tas- bonate fate ride ride (second- (micro- (Si01) (Fe) (Ca) sium (Na) sium (HC03) (SOc) (Cl) (F) feet)!!/ mhos at (Mg) (K) 

25 C.) 

Sept. 25, 1946-- 2.4 10 8.0 584 7.6 .06 83 25 7.7 279 85 6.0 .1 

Oct. 28, 1947 -- 4.7 18 8.2 557 8.4 .07 77 29 -- y266 80 6.0 .1 

Mar. 16, 1948 - 129 14 7.2 292 4.6 .03 36 9.9 4.6 63 72 6. 5 .3 

Oct. 5, 1949 --- 3.27 5 8.1 593 5.2 .06 88 26 5.0 I 1.6 1/278 88 6.5 .2 

Sept. 25, 1946-- . 6 46 7. 9 1,140 8 '12 77 30 153 _g/410 281 1~ .8 

Sept. 25, 1946-- . 1 10 7.6 961 4.0 .02 98 44 54 321 244 18 .1 

Sept. 25, 1946-- -- 2 7.8 515 9.6 .03 74 20 7.8 249 71 4.0 .1 

May 7, 1946--·- 67 36 7.5 337 4.4 .11 42 12 5. 7 100 73 5.6 .2 

Sept. 25, 1946-- 7.4 7 8.0 621 7.6 .02 83 28 12 y259 120 7.5 .1 

Sept. 25, 1946-- .b/18 3 7.3 443 7.6 .04 60 18 5.1 202 60 3.8 .2 

June 26, 1946 -- 22 -- 7.5 322 8.0 .04 42 11 6.5 122 50 6 .2 

Sept. 25, 1946-- 15 6 7.6 411 4.0 .06 50 15 19 178 58 10 .2 

Sept. 25, 1946-- .2 12 7. 7 752 .2 .03 62 37 43 176 228 13 .1 

Sept. 26, 1946-- -- 15 7.8 437 4.0 .08 56 18 12 250 28 4.0 .2 

May 7, 1946---- 0 32 7.2 165 .8 .10 20 5.1 2.3 46 31 3.1 .2 

Sept. 26, 1946-- 38 27 6.6 184 -- -- -- -- -- 59 -- -- .2 

Hardness 

Ni- Dis- as caco. 

trate solved 

(N03) solids NonTotal carbonate 

1.0 369 310 81 

.4 354 311 93 

5.1 178 130 79 

.7 372 326 99 

.8 780 315 0 

. 5 p~~ ,.425 162 

. .2 32~i 267 63 

.1 218 . 154 72 

.2 403 322 110 

l.Z 266 224 58 

4.0 196 150 50 

1.0 244 181 36 

.8· 518 30'1 163 

.4 252 214 9 

1.2 110 71 33 

5.3 -- -- --
t<> 

(11 

Table 6. -Mineral constituents and related physical measurements (or surface waters in the Mahoning River basin-Continued 

Specific 

Pointy Mean conductdischarge ance on Source Date (second- Color pH (micro- map feet)!!/ mhos at 

25 C.) 

18 Mosquito Creek below 

Mosquito Creek Dam, 

near Cortland --------- Nov. 5, 1951 --- -- 10 6.9 142 

19.Mosquito Creek at Niles Sept. 26, 1946-- 35 22 6. 7 199 

20 Meander Creek near 

Ellsworth------------- Sept. 25, 1946-- -- 5 7.9 654 

21 Meander Creek Reservoir 

at Mineral Ridge------- May 9, 1946---- -- 13 7.4 294 

21 Meander Creek Reservoir 

at Mineral Ridge------- Sept. 27, 1946-- -- 9 7.2 244 

22 Meander Creek at Niles Sept. 27, 1946-- -- 5 2.90 1,330 

22 Meander Creek at Niles Nov. 5, 1951 --- -- 5 7.4 705 

23 Mill Creek at Youngstown May 7, 1946---- 17 8 7.6 472 

23 Mill Creek at Youngstown Sept. 26, 1946-- 1.7 9 7.4 580 

23 Mill Creek at Youngstown Nov. 3, 1951--- -- 7 7.4 636 

24 Hamilton Lake near 

Struthers ------------- Sept. 26, 1946-- -- 9 6.8 276 

--- ~ See numbered points on map {fig. 13) for location. 

JY Water discharge records for October 1949 are current meter measurements. 

or computed provisional discharge at time of sampling. 

y Includes 0. 45 part of manganese (Mn). 

~InCludes equivalent of 18 parts carbonate (COJ. 

~Includes equivalent of 7 parts carbonate (COJ. 

Silica Iron 

(Si01) (Fe) 

.4 .03 

.4 .04 

6.4 . 02 

.8 .11 

.2 .03 

14 4.1 

4.6 . 02 

2.2 . 08 

1.6 . 08 

3.6 . 02 

1.2 .04 

Cal- Mag- So- Po- Bicar- Sul- Chlo- ne- tas- cium sium dium sium bonate fate ride 

(Ca) (Mg) (Na) (K) (HC03 ) (SOJ (Cl) 

17 4.0 2.7 2.3 32 30 3.8 

24 5.4 5. 5 53 29. 4.2 

86 27 14 236 146 7.5 

31 11 7.2 51 84 5.5 

28 8. 8 6.4 58 64 3. 5 

121 13 23 0 517 7. 0 

86 29 22 111 71 310 12 

56 18 11 106 129 11 

70 24 17 147 165 12 

.75 29 15 15.8 122 223 13 

34 9.0 5. 8 55 74 5. 5 

jJ Includes equivalent of 8 parts carbonate (C03). 

g Includes equivalent of 13 parts of carbonate (C03). 

lit' Current meter measurement at time of sampling. 

Bardlless 

Fluo- Ni- Dis- asCaCOs 

ride trate solved HOD- (F) (N03) solids Total carboaate 

. 2 3.1 96 58 -33 

3. 2 7.6 136 82 39 

• 1 .2 431 326 132 

. 1 1.2 177 123 81 

. 2 .4 150 106 58 

. 3 1.8 j/736 501 501 

. 2 1.5 529 331 276 

. 3 .4 2.99 --- 214 127 

.4 . 7 382 273 15.1 

.4 1.0 442 3(M 206 

. 3 4.6 176 122 T1 

j/Includes 11 parts aluminum (Al); 1. 2 parts manganese (Mn); total acidity is 154 parts as U..SO •• 
z 

0 

-

..J 

..J 

-

~ 

0:: 

LLI N 0.. 0) 

f/) 

..... 

z 

LLI 

..J 

<( 

> 

-

:::l 

0 

LLI 

13 

I 

EXPLANATION 

DSodium and 

11 r----1 potassium 

~Chloride and . 

nitrate 

~Magnesium m Sulfate 

Calcium ~~Bicarbonate and 

--------- carbonate 

8 

7 

6 

4 

2~ 

I -

2-

3-

4-

Mahoning River below Berlin Dam, near Berlin Center, 

October 7 .. 1949 

Mahoning River below Milton Dam, at Pricetown, 

September 25 .. 1946 

Mahoning River at Warren, average October 1 .. 1946 

to September 30, 1947 

Mahoning River at Lowellville, September 26, 1946 

5- Mosquito Creek below Mosquito Creek Dam, 

Cortland, May 7, 1946 

near 

6 - Meander Creek Reservoir at Mineral Ridge, 

September 27, 1946 

7 - Mill Creek at Youngstown, May 7, 1946 

4 

Figure 14. -Composition of selected surface waters in the Mahoning River basin. 

z 

0 

..J 

..J 

-

:E 

a: 

Ill 

0. 

-

z 

(I) 

1- :E 

a: ;:) 

4 ..J 

400 

G. 0 

0 

z :E 

;:) 

c;; 

350 Ill Ill 

1- z 

4 (!) 

z 4 

0 :E ID 

300 a: IL 

4 0 

0 0. 

0 

250 :E 1-

;:) 0 0 1-

..J 

4 a 

200 0 4 

laJ 

0:: (I) 

4 

150 (I) 

(I) 

laJ 

z 

0 

100 0:: 

4 

~ 

50 

0 
.., 

""" 

Table 7. -Mineral constituents and related physical measurements for daily sampling station on Mahoning River at Warren, Ohio, during July 1946 to September 1948 

Specific 

Mean Tem- conduct- Cal- discharge Silica "Iron Mag- Sodium Potas- Bicar- DisDate pera- Color pH ance cium nesium. sium bonate SUlfate Chloride Fluoride Nitrate 

{second- ture (micro- (Si02) (Fe) (Na) (so.> (Cl) (F) (NO.) solved 

· feet) (F.) mhos at (Ca) (Mg) (K) (HC03 ) solids 

25 C.) 

July 1-10, 1946--- 363 76 7 7.1 290 4.3 0.02 34 9.9 7.2 2. 8 64 77 6.8 0.2 2.4 188 

July 11-20 ------- 352 77 6 7.2 296 4.7 .02 34 10 7.3 2. 6 65 74 7.0 .1 2.8 18'1 

July 21-31 ------- 361 75 6 7.2 296 4.4 .03 35 10 7.2 2.6 68 74 7.5 .2 2.8 189 

Aug. 1-10 ------- 350 75 13 7.3 290 3.8 .06 34 9. 5 8.4 3-0 68 72 6.8 .2 2.5 180 

Aug. 11-20 ------ 357 73 13 '1.3 292 4.4 .04 35 9.3 8.5 3.2 68 74 6.5 .3 2.4 181 

Aug. 21-31 ------ 345 71 13 7.4 292 3.5 .02 34 9.4 8.4 3.1 70 74 7.5 • 2 1.8 181 

Sept. 1-10 ------- 340 70 13 7.4 287 2.0 .02 34 9.3 7.9 3.1 68 72 7. 2 .2 1.8 1'18 

Sept. 11-20 ------ 343 70 8 7.2 289 2.0 .01 35 9. 7 7.3 2.9 72 73 6.8 .2 1.5 180 

Sept. 21-30 ------ 341 70 9 7. 4 302 8.6 .02 36 9.3 7.7 3.3 77 70 7.1 .2 3.2 188 

Bardaess 

ascaeo. 

NClllTotal carboaate 

128 73 

128 '13 

128 '13 

124 68 

128 70 

124 66 

123 6'1 

12'1 68 

128 65 
Oc 

Oc 

Oc 

N 

N 

N' 

De 

De 

De 

J 

J 

J 

F 

F, 

F 

g;M 

M 

M 

A AI 

Ap 

M 

M 

M 

J 

J 

J 

J 

J 

J 

AI 

AI 

AI 

Se 

Se 

s, 

Table 7. -Mineral constituents and related physical measurements for daily sampling station on Mahoning River at Warren. Ohio. during July 1946 to September 1948-Continued 

Specific Hardness Mean Tem- conduct- Cal- as CaC03 discharge pera- ance Silica Iron Mag- Sodium Potas- Bicar- Sulfate Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Dis- Date (second- Color pH cium aesiom slum bonate solved ture (micro- .(Si~) (Fe) (Ca) (Jig} (Na) (K) (BC0s) (SOJ (Cl) (F) (NOs} solids Nonfeet) (F.) mhos at Total carbon25 C.) ate 

t. 1-10, 1946 --- 238 63 10 7.2 321 2.0 0.01 38 10 8.5 3.1 85 73 7.8 0.3 1.4 198 136 66 t. 11-20-------- 245 61 12 7.4 366 3.4 .01 43 12 9.8 3.7 100 83 8.6 . 3 1.2 230 157 75 t. 21-31-------- 209 60 10 7.3 369 3.7 .01 44 12 9.8 3.7 96 86 9.5 .3 1.4 233 159 80 v. 1-10 -------- 199 61 10 7.4 373 3.8 .01 46 12 11 3.4 102 85 9.8 .2 1.2 230 164 80 v. 11-20 ------- 211 50 10 7.5 395 3.6 .01 48 13 13 2.9 109 89 10 .3 1.4 245 173 84 v. 21-30 ------- 265 46 9 7.3 403 2.8 .03 48 14 13 3.5 103 96 11 .3 3.8 254 177 93 

c. 1-10 -------- 194 43 4 7.3 423 3.5 .02 49 14 12 3.6 98 102 12 .3 6.7 263 180 100 c. 11-20 ------- 469 40 10 7.2 369 7.1 .05 42 12 9.7 3.7 69 95 10 .2 7.6 234 154 98 c. 21-31 ------- 241 39 6 7. 2 445 6.5 .03 50 15 13 3.4 92 104 14 .3 12 281 186 111 l. 1-10, 1947--- 533 36 8 7. 2 317 6.7 .04 36 10 8.2 3.1 56 83 9.0 • 2 7.4 200 131 85 l. 11-20-------- 810 37 8 7.1 320 6.6 .05 36 11 7.2 2.6 54 84 9.0 .2 8.2 202 135 91 l. 21-31-------- 1, 596 37 8 7.0 269 7.8 .07 32 9.4 6.1 3.0 42 75 7.1 .2 9.4 184 118 64 

b. 1-10 -------- 1, 276 37 5 7.1 345 8.8\ .O'l 40 11 8.9 3.0 59 94 9.1 .1 10 231 145 97 

b. 11-20 ------- 377 36 8 6.8 367 5.6 .04 41 12 11 3.4 51 93 10 • 2 22 236 152 110 

b. 21-28 ------- 298 36 8 6.9 357 5.6 .02 41 12 10 3.6 56 92 10 .1 19 232 152 106 Ll". 1-10 -------- 300 35 6 6. 7 389 8.0 .O'l 41 11 9.3 3.1 44 88 10 -3 45 241 148 112 Ll". 11-20 ------- 460 37 8 7.0 321 7.7 .26 35 9.5 8.6 1.5 48 77 8.9 . 2 25 202 126 87 Ll". 21-31------- 996 38 8 6.8 256 7.3 .12 29 7.3 5.8 2.4 32 65 7.4 . 2 14 166 102 76 

r. 1-10 -------- 1,687 48 20 6.8 185 6.2 .22 22 5.4 3.8 2.6 26 48 4.9 .4 10 122 77 56 r. 11-20 ------- 496 53 15 6.9 275 5.5 .O'l 31 8.8 6.5 2.6 50 67 7.4 .2 13 178 114 73 r. 21-30 ------- 1,356 51 27 6. 7 210 5. 5 .13 24 6.2 4.7 2.2 38 55 4.6 .2 8.4 139 85 54 

cy 1-10 ------'--- 660 56 12 7.1 256 5.0 .04 29 7.9 6.1 2.3 48 61 5. 5 .1 9.0 165 105 60 

'Y 11-20-------- 569 60 16 7.1 280 4.7 .05 32 9.0 6.7 2.4 51 66 5.8 .1 14 180 117 75 

'Y 21-31 -------- 2,434 64 18 7.0 207 5.1 .O'l 24 6.8 4.5 2.1 44 53 4.4 . 5 6.1 137 88 52 

1e 1-10 -------- 3,401 67 27 7.1 209 5. 7 .13 25 6.5 4.2 2.2 43 54 4.4 . 5 5.3 137 89 54 1e 11-20 ------- 1,386 70 17 7.1 255 5.9 .07 30 8.0 3.2 2.3 54 61 5.4 . 5 12 166 108 64 1e 21-30 ------- 475 73 12 7.·2 281 6.9 .04 34 9.1 5.7 2.4 55 68 5.6 .4 24 185 122 77 IY 1-10 --------- 442 74 7 7. 3 286 4.4 .04 33 8.8 6.5 2.2 56 67 6.4 .5 18 184 119 73 .y 11-20 -------- 397 75 10 7.2 309 4.5 .04 36 9.6 7.3 2.2 56 68 7.4 .3 28 202 129 83 .y 21-31-------- 381 73 18 7.1 290 3.6 .05 35 8.9 7.9 2.4 58 69 7.2 .2 15 186 124 76 

g. 1-10 -------- 319 77 7 7. 5 288 5.1 .02 35 9.1 6.8 2.5 60 67 5.9 .3 13 185 125 81 g. 11-20 ------- 474 79 10 7.3 277 5.4 .03 32 8.9 6.8 2.9 58 66 5.9 .4 14 176 116 69 g. 21-31 ------- 554 77 7 7.1 264 5.1 .04 32 8.1 5.9 2.7 50 60 5.6 .4 23 168 113 72 )t. 1-10 -------- 494 76 8 7.1 269 4.1 .02 32 8.8 5.7 2.6 49 58 5.8 .4 24 166 116 76 

n. 11-2o ------- 448 76 3 7. 2 267 3.1 .02 31 8.4 5.8 2.9 48 60 5.8 .2 21 166 112 73 

)t. 21-30 ------- 417 66 7 7.0 280 2.4 .01 33 8:7 6.0 3.0 52 62 6.4 . 2 22 169 118 76 

Average ------ 709 56 11 -- 308 5.2 .06 36 9.8 7.8 2.8 61 74 7.7 .3 13 Ul6 130 80 -

-
N 

(0 

Table 7. -Mineral constituents and related physical measurements for daily sampling station on Maboning River at Warren. Obio. during July 1946 to September 194 8-Continued 

-------

Specific llardaess 

Mean Tem- conduct- Cal- ascaco. discharge pera- ance Silica Iron Mag- Sodium Potas- Blear- 9u1fate Chloride Fluoride Nitrate DisDate (second- ture Color pH (micro- (8101) (Fe) cium neslum- (Ha) slum boaate (SOJ (Cl) (F) (NO,) solYed Nonfeet) (F.) mhos at (Ca) (llg) (K.) (liCOJ solids Total carbon25 C.) ate 

Oct. 1-10, 1947 -- 312 62 20 6.8 286 2. 6 0.06 33 9.2 4.2 42 66 6.0 0.3 21 194 120 86 

Oct. 11-20------- 277 63 20 6. 8 292 -- -- -- -- -- 43 6'1 7.2 -- -- -- -- -- Oct. 21-31 ------- 278 61 25 6. 9 307 -- -- -- -- -- 51 '12 8.0 -- -- -- -- -- Nov. 1-10-------- 288 54 25 7.0 357 -- -- -- -- -- 60 '19 9.0 -- -- -- -- -- Nov. 11-20------- 251 45 30 7.0 357 -- -- -- -- -- 56 81 10 -- -- -- -- -- Nov. 21-30------- 232 39 30 7,0 397 -- -- -- -- -- 60 84 11 -- -- -- -- -- Dec. 1-10-------- 231 39 5 6.6 442 -- -- -- -- -- 58 93 13 -- 66 -- -- -- Dec. 11-20------- 233 37 7 6. 7 473 -- -- -- -- -- 59 102 i3 -- 92 -- -- -- Dec. 21-31------- 178 39 8 6. 6 497 -- -- -- -- -- 55 112 18 -- 68 -- -- -- Jan. 1-10, 1948 -- 418 37 13 6. 7 429 4.6 .08 45 15 10 38 105 15 .2 43 2'10 1'14 143 

Jan. 11-20 -----1..- 207 37 7 6. 6 508 -- -- -- -- -- 56 121 18 -- 61 -- -- -- Jan. 21-31 ------- 169 40 9 6. 5 575 -- -- -- -- -- 54 125 20 -- 111 -- -- -- Feb. 1-10-------- 160 40 17 6.8 598 -- -- -- -- -- 84 124 22 -- 100 -- -- -- Feb. 11-13------- 180 41 9 6. 7 632 -- -- -- -- -- 60 117 23 -- 7'1 -- -- -- Feb. 14-20------- 1, 209 36 18 6.8 249 -- -- -- -- -- 25 61 9 -- 22 -- -- -- Feb. 21-29------- 386 38 17 6. 5 336 -- -- -- -- -- 23 78 11 -- 39 -- -- -- Mar. 1-10 ------- 364 36 13 6.8 333 -- -- -- -- -- 28 87 12 -- 28 -- -- -- Mar. 11-20 ------ 818 40 17 6.5 355 -- -- -- -- -- 34 87 12 .2 34 -- -- -- Mar. 21-31 ------ 615 48 28 6. 8 283 -- -- -- -- -- 32 74 8 .2 20 -- -- -- Apr. 1-10-------- 248 55 7 6. 8 356 4.0 .06 40 12 8.2 50 84 11 .1 30 227" 149 108 

Apr. 11-20------- 975 53 21 6.8 260 -- -- -- -- -- 38 69 6 -- 11 -- -- -- Apr. 21-30------- 562 59 13 7.1 306 -- -- -~ -- -- 55 72 8 -- 12 -- -- -- May 1-10 -------- 1,670 57 24 7.1 232 -- -- -- -- -- 40 59 6 -- 6.3 -- -- -- May 11-20 ------- 1, 251 61 20 7.2 262 -- -- -- -- -- 44 64 8 -- 9.9 -- -- -- May 21-31 ------- 391 62 8 7.0 313 -- -- -- -- -- 54 81 10 -- 14 -- -- -- June 1-10 -------- 362 65 9 7.3 334 -- -- -- -- -- 51 85 12 -- 19 -- -- -- June 11-20 ------- 419 69 8 7.1 343 -- -- -- -- -- 58· 86 10 -- 17 -- -- -- June 21-30 ------- 377 74 7 7. 2 334 -- -- -- -- -- 58 81 10 -- 14 -- -- -- July 1-10 -------- 343 73 7 7.1 341 4.4 .06 38 11 7.1 53 82 10 .2 15 206 140 97 

July 11-20 ------- 322 75 6 7.3 339 -- -- -- -- -- 57 84 9 -- 15 -- -- -- July 21-31 ------- 368 74 7 7.1 351 -- -- -- -- -- 57 84 12 -- 18 -- -- --

Aug. 1-10-------- 328 71 4 7.3 353 -- -- -- -- -- 62 76 10 -- 10 -- -- -- Aug. U-20------- 418 71 6 7.1 350 -- -- -- -- -- 60 69 10 -- 21 -- -- -- Aug. 21-31------- 338 75 6 7.3 344 -- -- -- -- -- 68 75 10 -- 9.5 -- -- -- Sept. 1-10 ------- 331 71 7 7.1 359 -- -- -- -- -- 63 90 13 -- 13 -- -- -- Sept. 11-20 ------ 340 70 8 7.2 359 -- -- -- -- -- 66 92 14 -- . 9.2 

Sept. 21-30 ------ 349 65 6 7.2 373 -- -- -- -- -- 68 89 13 -- 14 -- -- -- Average------ 436 55 13 -- 368 -- -- -- -- -- 52 85 12 -- 32 -- -- --
Q 

~SCIOO~------~-----+------~------~----~~-----+------~-------H------t-------~-----1------~ 

fd 

(/) 

a: 

~5,000~-----+------~------~-----4------+-----~-------r------+t-----i-------r------1------, 

ti 

LIJ 

u. 

~~000~-----+------~------~----~------+-----~+------r------~-----i-------r------~-----­ IX) 

::J 

0 

~3,000~------~-------+------~~--~r-~------+--------ij~--~~-------H~il----,_-------t--------r-------, LIJ 

" a: 

< ::1: 

~~-()0(1~------~------~------~--~~~~----~------~~---.~----~ 

0 

(j 

~ 

!ci 

(/) 

~ 

~ a: 

0 

i 

~ 

LIJ~ 

0 

z 

~ 0 

::J 

0 

z 

0 

0 

0 

ii: 

(3 

LIJ 

a_ 

(/) 

~ 

c.: 

a.: 

~ 

(/)~ 

0 

:::i 

0 

(/) 

0 

LIJ 

::i 

0 

(/) 

(/) 

0 

0 

z 

<( 

(/) 

(/) 

LIJ 

z 

0 

ct: 

<( 

::r: 

....J 

~ 0 

IFigure 15. -Relation of total hardness, dissolved solids, and specific conductance to streamflow, 

Mahoning River at Warren, Ohio, water year Oct. 1946 to Sept. 1947. 

30 
ren the daily specific conductance of the water varied 

from 119 to 680 micromhos. The specific conductance 

of water is a measure of the extent of ionized chemi· 

cals dissolved in the water. From the specific con-

. ductance it can be estimated that the dissolved solids 

at· Warren varied during the 2114 yr period from about 

75 to about 430 ppm. This great variation is due to a 

combination of pollution and many natural factors, such 

as climatic conditions, which affect the chemical character of a stream, a11-d which could be expected to be 

even greater if it were not for the diluting effect .of water from Berlin and Milton Reservoirs. 

During the water year October 1947 to September 

194R pollution of the Mahoning River with nitrate 

wastes was particularly noticeable at Warren and the 

maximum mean concentration for a ·10-day period 

reached 111 ppm (table 7). High-nitrate waters are of 

critical significance because of the probable relationship between the presence of appreciable concentration 

of nitrate in drinking water and the incidence of methemoglobinemia-the condition causing "blue babies." 

This high-nitrate content was due to industrial pollution 

and alleviation of this condition is now reported by the 

Ohio State Department of Health. Recent analyses of 

the Mahoning River at Leavittsburg, Youngstown, and 

Lowellville show that the nitrate is low (table 6). 

Information on the suspended sediment was obtained 

from the composite samples taken from the Mahoning 

River at Warren. The samples were collected primarily to represent the dissolved constituents in the river 

water; therefore, the results for suspended sediment 

do not give a reliable indication of the sediment concentration, size, or type of material. They do, however, give a rough measure of sediment carried and 

the three-per-month composites during the period of 

record showed a range of concentration of suspended 

sediment from about 7 to about 99 ppm. Some reduction in sediment concentration is to be expected by the 

fiood storage reservoire. 

A comparison between the October 6, 1951,analysis 

at Youngstown and the October 1-10, 1951,composite 

analysis at Lowellville (see table 6) indicates an increase of about 100 ppm in the dissolved solids at 

Lowellville. The increase is mainly in the calcium, 

bicarbonate, sulfate, and chloride. Most of this increase is from industrial and municipal pollution be-

. tween Youngstown and Lowellville. The average dissolved solids at Lowellville during October 1951 was 

more than' twice as much as the average at Warren 

during the water year 1946-47. Samples collected at 

Lowellville about every 2 weeks during October and 

November 1951 showed a range of 0. 044 to 0, 557 ppm 

of phenols; cyanide ranged from 0, 1 to 0. 5 ppm: dissolved oxygen ranged from 1. 8 to 5. 1 ppm. The station at Lowellville has not been in opex:ation long 

enough to include the warm months or the lowest 

streamflow periods; therefore, the results do not show 

the worst conditions. For example, dissolved oxygen 

has at times been reported as low as zero at various 

points in the river between Lowellville and Warren. 

Copper .and chromium were determined as zero in the 

compos-ite samples for October. The water temperature during October was rather high, ranging from 85 

F to 104 F. In November the water temperatures 

ranged from 48 F to 9 3 F. 

Table 8 shows the range in concentratioR of chemical constituents and in related physical measurements 

of the surface waters throughout the basin. It is based 

on a total of 123 analyses of spot samples and composites of daily samples. A more complete coverage 

might indicate even a greater range in the chemical 

quality. To illustrate the different qualities of waters 

found in the Mahoning River basin, the main dissolved 

constituents found in selected water samples are shown 

graphically in figure 14. The heights of the sections 

on the left side of each double column are proportional 

to the equivalents per million of the principal cations 

(positive ions), calcium, magnesium, and sodium plus 

potassiuiiJ.. The heights of the sections on the right 

side of each double column are proportional to the equivalents per million of the principal anions (negative 

ions), bicarbonate plus carbonate, sulfate, and chloride plus nitrate. Total hardness may be measured on 

these diagrams, in parts per million of calcium carbonate, to the top of the magnesium column using the 

scale on the right side of the figure. 

The analyses in figures 14 and 22 are expressed in 

equivalents per million instead of parts per million. 

The equivalents per million for each constituent is calculated by dividing its concentration in parts per million by its chemical co~bining weight. Equivalents per 

million are more useful than parts per million when 

hypothetical combinations are being made of positive 

and negative ions. For example, 1 equivalent per million of sodium would combine with 1 equivalent per 

million of chloride or with 1 eq~ivalent per million of 

sulfate. However, 23 ppm of sodium would combine 

with 35. 46 ppm of chloride or with 48. 03 ppm of 

sulfate. 

Table 8. -Range in concentration of chemical constituents and in related physical measurements of surface waters 

in the Mahoning River basin, based on 123 analyses 

[Chemical results in parts per million} 

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum 

pH ........................................... 2,90 8.2 Bicarbonate (HC03) ...... 0 410 

Specific conductance Sulfate (S04) ............... 28 517 

micromhos at 2.5 c .. 142 1,330 Chloride (Cl) ............... 3. 1 32 

Silica (Si02) .............................. . 2 18 Fluoride (F) ................ • 1 3.2 

Iron (.F'e) ................................... .01 4. 1 Nitrate (N03) .............. • 1 111 

Calcium (Ca) ............................. 17 121 Dissolved solids .......... 96 780 

Magnesium (Mg) ......................... 4,0 44 Hardness as CaC03 ...... 58 501 

Sodium + Potassium (Na+ K) .......... 2.3 153 

31 
Temperature 

The excessively high temperatures of Mahoning 

River water constitute one of the serious water problems facing the Youngstown area. A series of low 

dams in the heavily industrialized reach of the river 

from Warren to Lowellville form pools from which water is pumped into power plants, steel mills and other 

industries. About 9~ percent of the pumped water is 

used for cooling purposes and is returned to the river 

unchanged in quaiity except for higher temperature. 

The total industrial pumpage from the river in 1949 

averaged about 1, 200 mgd, or 1, 800 cfs. This pumpage ia more than twice the average annual flow, and· 

about 14 timea the minimum daily now that haa occurred aince the laat of the four reaervoira waa placed 

in operation. Recent expansion, including the addition 

of the power plant at Niles, has increased the industrial use of Mahoning River water to more than 1, 500 

mgd (Mahoning Valley Industrial Council, 1951). 

Several of the industrial plants using Mahoning Riv· 

er water observe water temperatures at their intake 

structures. River temperatures have been measured 

continuously since 1935 at the no. 5 power house intake of the Campbell plant of the Youngstown Sheet and 

Tube Company, and intermittently prior to that date. 

The maximum daily and the mean monthly temperatures from .June 1943 to date, at this location, are 

shown in table 9. Recently, the U. S. Geological Survey has installed recording thermometers at Niles and 

Lowellville, and a nonrecording thermometer at Leavittsburg. The maximum daily and mean monthly temperatures for the year ending September 30, 1950, at 

these locations are shown graphically on figure 16. 

River temperatures on streams unaffected by industrial use approximate the mean monthly air temperatures. The difference between mean air temperatures 

and mean river temperatures is therefore a measure 

of the effect of industrial use on river temperatures. 

The increase in temperature is affected by the flow of 

the river, the total water circulated through industrial 

plants, and the heat added to this water. The river 

temperatures therefore vary with air temperatures, 

streamflow, pumpage and plant operation. In the 

Youngstown area production has been maintained at a 

high rate during and since World War II, except during 

a strike in October-November 1949; and pumpage is at 

a remarkably uniform but increasing rate. Generally 

the river temperature depends on air temperature and 

streamflow. 

The highest daily mean water temperature recorded 

at the Campbell plant was 117 F in July 1941, with a 

monthly mean temperature of 107.8 F. Since 1944, 

when the last of the four reservoirs went into operation 

flows have been such that maximum daily temperatures 

have been· only occasionally above 100 F, and monthly 

mean temperatures have been below 98 F. Thus the 

increased low water flows from the operation of Berlin 

32 

and Mosquito Creek Reservoirs have had a beneficial 

effect on river temperatures. However, the temperatures are still extremely high with adverse effect on 

plant operation and economy of production. 

Barnes, in a report on the proposed Lowellville 

Dam aqd Pool (Barnes, 1941), reached the concluaion 

that the cooling effect in the pools in the Mahoning River could not be substantially increased becauae of lack 

of space in the valley. As shown on figure 17 incr.eased 

strearnflow reduces the difference between stream 

temperatures and air temperatures. However, aa 

pointed out by Barnes, the reduction il len than might 

be expected because of reduced time of travel through 

the pools, and len thorough mixing, During freezing 

weather there apparently 11 len mixing than uaualao 

that increuea in river temperature• are abnormally 

high, but this is not critical because of the low air and 

river temperatures. Some of the scattering of the data 

of figure 17 is caused by this effect, and some by variations in pumpage and production. This diagram 

would indicate that increasing low flows to 400 cfs 

would markedly reduce river temperature~; increasing 

flows from 400 to 800 cfs would further reduce. river 

temperatures, but less markedly; increasing flows 

beyond 800 cfs would only slightly improve temperature conditions. The Corps of Engineers has prepared 

curves similar to figure 17 for each year since completion of Berlin and Mosquito Creek Reservoirs. 

These curves vary from year to year, apparently in 

proportion to steel production. 

High river temperatures may be considered as 

pollution - in fact, it is difficult to separate the deleterious effects of high temperatures, raw sewage, and 

heavy concentrations of industrial wastes. In addition 

to condenser cooling, water is used in large quantity 

for cooling bearings, oil, air compressors, rolls in 

the steel mills, and other machinery; for spray cleaning of steel and other products; for pickling; for sanitary uses and other miscellaneous purposes. High 

temperatures of cooling water decrease the efficiency 

of machinery and therefore increase cost of pumping 

and decrease total production. When the cooling fluid 

is a mixture of river water, raw sewage and concentrated industrial wastes as in the Youngstown area, 

the high temperatures not only cause obnoxious odors 

and unsanitary conditions but also hasten the deterioration of equipment, thereby greatly increasing replacement and maintenance costs. High temperatures 

also diminish the effectiveness of natural processes 

in streams that reduce organic pollution, by inhibiting 

bacteria and by decreasing the dissolved oxygen content essential for such processes. Fish and other aquatic life likewise are adversely affected by high water temperatures. 

Increasing low water streamflow would aid materially in solving the pollution problem, both in reducing 

the temperatures and in diluting the sewage and waste 

pollution. 
EXPLANATION 

---- MAXIMUM WATER TEMPERATURE AT LOWELLVILLE 

-

AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE ~ AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE 

AT LOWELLVILLE ~ AT LEAVITTSBURG · 

-

AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE ~:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:;;.~AVERAGE AIR TEMPERATURE 

AT NILES ~·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·;·:j AT YOUNGSTOWN 

Q 2.~00;-----~------~------~----- § 

en 

a:: 

~ 2.CIOOH-----~~----~------r-----­

l-

~ 

~ 

Ll.. 

(.) 

iii 

:::::> 

(.) 

~ 

~ 

(!) 

a:: 

<( 

:r: 

(.) 

en 

0 

~ :r: 

1-

z 

0 

:I 

Figure 16. -Water temperature-s, air temperatures, and flow of Mahoning River for year ending September 30, 1950. 

33 
CJ,) 

~ 

Table 9. -Maximum daily and monthly mean temperature of Mahoning River water at the No. 5 power house intake of the Campbell Plant of the 

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. 

[Maximum average daily temperatures and mean temperatures. by months. in degrees F) 

October November December January February March 

Water year 

Maximum Monthly Maximum Monthly Maximum MoRthly Maximum Monthly Maximum Monthly Maximum Monthly 

daily mean daily mean daily mean daily mean daily mean daily mean 

1940 

1941 106 99.5 

1942 111 100.5 98 86.4 

1943 

1944 99.0 90.6 90.0 81.6 90.0 79.9 92.0 80.3 88.5 74.4 76.5 62.1 

1945 101. 5 94.2 96.5 87.7 90.0 79.5 79.0 72.2 85.0 63.0 75.0 58.8 

1946 85.5 70. 1 77.0 64.2 61.0 55.0 56.0 48.5 58.0 45.8 76.5 57.8 

1947 96.0 89.7 95.5 82.7 77.0 64.8 74.0 54.0 65.0 53.6 72.0 60.0 

1948 96.5 93.0 92.0 82.0 83.0 75.5 81.0 70.1 84.0 65.9 77.0 63.9 

1949 98.5 91.6 96.0 86.4 87.0 70. 1 73.5 57.5 68.0 54.0 73.0 59.6 

1950 *70. 5 *60.8 87.0 68.0 85.0 79.2 84.0 53.5 52.0 42.8 55.0 47.6 

1951 100.0 94.7 97.0 79.0 67.0 52.8 71.0 53.1 53.0 47.5 56.0 50.4 

April May June July August September 

Water year 

Maximum Monthly Maximum Monthly Maximum Monthly Maximum Monthly Maximum Monthly Maximum Monthly 

daily mean daily mean daily mean daily mean daily mean daily mean 

1940 110 104.2 

1941 110 102.9 116 103. 1 117 107.8 115 105.5 115 109.8 

1942 102 73. 1 104 87.5 110 99.7 115 108.2 

1943 110.0 97.7 108.5 103.1 110.5 102.7 102.5 94.4 

1944 85.0 70.9 104.5 93.0 108.5 100.9 104.0 100.6 107.0 101.0 104.0 96.0 

1945 84.5 74.2 88.0 78.3 101.0 90.7 101.0 96.3 100.5 92.7 100.0 91.1 

1946 86.5 79.5 89.0 69.6 95.5 80.0 9~.5 93.5 97.0 92.1 99.0 94.3 

1947 73.0 58.3 75.0 67.2 86.0 74.3 95.0 86.3 97.5 93.2 98.0 90.9 

1948 79.0 67.8 92.0 72.3 98.0 92.0 99.0 94.8 99.0 93.7 99.0 95.2 

1949 81.5 69.3 100.5 89.9 100.0 95.8 98.5 92.4 97.0 92.6 96.0 89.6 

1950 77.0 61.5 95.5 78.3 97.5 88. 1 98.5 93.8 102.0 97.3 98.0 95.1 

1951 _ _____!5. 0 59.8 96.0 84. 1 104.0 95.6 101.0 96.2 100.0 96.7 100.0 95.2 ~- - ------

*Affected by strike. 
~ IC 

s &0~--~~~~~--~-----4-----+-----+-----+-----+----~----~----~ w 

~ffi co: • 

. . 5!1 ·: . .... ~~40~----~------+---~~~----~------~-----+------~----~------~------~----~ 

~i C/)w 

zO: .. .. e # I 

, ~~ 

li)O: 0430~------~----r-~~----~r-------~~~---r------~r-------+-------~------~--------r-------~ 

(!)~ z~ 

=>L&J I 

. . .. .. . ... ~~ 

~~20~------~--------~------~------~~------~------~r-------~------~--------~~-----;------~ 

L&JCI) 

0:::> 

~i 0: 

~ I Or--------r--------~------~------~~------~--------~------~------~--~----;--------;--~-·-"~ ~ 

w 

~ 

ffi 

> 

~ o~----~.2~o~o~--~4~o~o-----6~00~----~e~o~o~--~,o~o~o----~,~2~o~o----~,4~o~o~--~,6~o~o~---,~e~o~o----~2~oo~o----~2~2oo 

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, MAHONING RIVER AT YOUNGSTOWN 

Figure 17. -Temperature-discharge relations, Mahoning River at Youngstown. 

Pollution 

The water in the upper reaches of the Mahoning River and its tributaries is satisfactory for most purposes 

but increasing pollution is prevalent downstream to 

such an extent that below Warren the river has become 

U:ru;uita.ble for public water supply. Very few municipalities in this basin have sewage treatment plants at 

present though many are planning to construct sewage 

treatment facilities in the near future. The Ohio Department of Health reports that in the Mahoning River 

basin the reduction in municipal sewage pollution loads 

by treatment, as of October 1951, amounts to only 9. 6 

percent. This reduces the pollution load from municipal sources to 336, 528 population equivalents of organic or oxygen-demanding products. More than 80 percent of the sewage enters the river in the 25-mile 

stretch between Warren and Lowellville. 

The following summary furnished by the Ohio Department of Health shows the extent, as of October 1951, 

of the municipal and industrial pollution (organic) loads 

discharged into the Mahoning River basin expressed as 

population equivalents: 

Municipal 

(pop. 

equiv,) 

372,891. 

Pollution loads prior to treatment 

Industrial 

(pop, 

equiv.) 

265,630 

Total 

(pop. 

equiv.) 

638, 521 

Municipal load 

as part of total 

(percent) 

58.5 

35 

Percent reduction in loads effected by treatment 

Municipal Industrial Total 

9.6 51:7 27.4 

Pollution loads as discharged after treatment 

Municipal 

(pop. 

equiv.) 

336, 528 

Industrial 

(pop. 

equiv.) 

128', 160 

Total 

(pop. 

equiv.) 

464,688 

Municipal load 

as part of total 

(percent) 

72.4 

In the above summary, industrial loads are estimates based upon information obtained from industrial 

managements on preliminary evaluation (fact finding) 

surveys; Industrial loads take account of oxygendemanding properties of liquid wastes from two tarrefining plants and four byproduct coke plants. Approximately 15, 000 tons of coal are carbonized (coked) 

daily in the Warren-Youngstown area. 

Phenol characteristics of these industrial wastes 

present a pollution problem (taste and odor) which has 

particular significance in the use of the Beaver River 

for municipal water supply. Recent periodic determinations of phenols in the Mahoning River at Lowellville by the Ohio Department of Health indicated a maximum at that point of 1. 2 ppm. At several points upstream from Lowellville the phenol was sometimes 

higher. 
In addition to the organic loads, forty-two major illdustrial establishments in the Mahoning River basin 

produce liquid wastes containing toxic metals, acidiron wastes, and/ or other mineral matter that are 

pollutants but which cannot be expressed satisfactorily 

in population equivalents. These are: seven blast furnace plants, seventeen steel mills, twelve steel and 

metal fabrication plants, and six electroplating 

establishments. 

The Ohio Department of Health is working with the 

industries and municipalities in an effort to decrease 

further t.he amount of pollution load in the Mahoning 

River. The efficiency of phenol- removal measures 

has been greatly increased and other reductions in 

pollution loads have already been accomplished as a 

result of this cooperation. 

Ground Water 

Sources of ground water 

The fresh ground-water resources of the Mahoning 

River basin are derived from precipitation that falls 

in the basin as rain and snow. Part of the precipitation infiltrates into the ground, and the part that is not 

retained in the soil moves downward to the zone in 

which all openings in the rock are filled with water. 

The number, size, and interconnection of the waterbearing openings in the different water-bearing formations vary greatly, so that wide variations in groundwater conditions are found from place to place. 

The water-yielding formations, or aquifers, in Ohio 

are the glacial deposits and the bedrock formations. 

Glacial deposits. -The continental glaciers of the 

Pleistocene-.:epoch (popularly called the "ice age") deposited two basic types of material as "glacial drift". 

One of these~il> till, a generally impermeable mixture 

of clay: ~lfd.eitones, usually compacted into a hard matrix called "hardpan" by well drillers. Till, in the 

form of a widespread deposit called ground moraine, 

upderlies almost all the surface of the Mahoning River 

basin to a depth averaging about 25 ft. It is absent in 

some fairly large areas where the bedrocks are exposed, but the till is 100 ft or more thick where it 

covers preglacial valleys or other depressions in the 

surface of the bedrocks, or where it has been deposited as end-moraine ridges. Till generally yields water to wells in only small quantities, which in places 

are sufficient for domestic or farm use. 

The other basic type of material deposited by the 

glaciers is called outwash, and consists of sand and 

gravel in several topographic forms. Most large 

ground-water supplies in Ohio are obtained from glacial outwash gravels, called valley train, deposited in 

stream valleys. Where these deposits are permeable, 

and receive recharge from streamflow under pumping 

conditions, very large industrial and municipal supplies have been developed. 

In the Dayton area, for example, ground-water 

pumpage from valley-train gravels in the Miami and 

Mad River valleys exceeds an average of 100,000, 000 

gpd. In the Canton area, a few miles from the Mahon36 

ing River basin, the valley-train deposits along the 

Middle and West Branche~ of Nimishillen Creek yield 

an average of more than 41, 000, 000 IPd. 

In the Mahoning River basin in the glacial outwash 

deposits are not &I extensive as in many other parts 

of the State, nor are the deposits very permeable. 

Conditions for large amounts of recharge are not fa• 

vorable. For theBe reasons, and because the best de· 

posits in the Mahoning River basin are not found in the 

heavily industrialized areas, no large ground-water 

supplies have been developed so far. The total1round· 

water pumpage from the 11acial depolits in the Maho• 

ning River basin averages less than 1, 000, 000 1pd, 

Fisure 18 shows the distribution of the 11acial deposits in the Mahoning River basin. Outwash 1ravels 

within the basin are chiefiy in the form of kames, 

which are hummocky mounds rising above the 1eneral · 

level of the 1round surface, or as kame terraces alon1 

the valley walls. Kames and kame terraces 1enerally 

lie above the level of the major streams. 

Valley-train deposits are present in the Mahoning 

River valley at Youngstown and in a number of small 

areas between Newton Falls and Ravenna. The deposits are thin and not permeable enough for development 

of large ground-water supplies. 

Outwash deposits covered by till are presen. in parts 

of the upper Mill Creek valley and at the Milton Reservoir in Mahoning County. These buried outwash deposits consist of sand, silt, and scattered layers of gravel. Buried outwash gravel as much as 100 ft thick is 

reported to underlie the Mahoning River valley in the 

southwestern part of the basin. These deposits consist 

of relatively coarse gravels in the Alliance area where 

they have been explored. 

Bedrocks. -The bedrocks of the Mahoning River 

basin are of sedimentary origin and consist mostly of 

shale, lesser amounts of sandstone, and minor beds 

of limestone. The rocks originated as sediment and 

organic debris which accumulated over the bottom of 

the large inland sea that from time to time in the geologic past covered Ohio and the surrounding States. 

The sediments in the course of time became compacted 

and cemented and were raised by slow and extensive 

earth movements from the waters of the sea and became part of the land mass. The principal bedrock 

units in the Mahoning River basin above the Berea 

sandstone are shown in table 10. The water-bearing 

properties of the principal units are also shown. 

The Cuyahoga formation of Mississippian age, and 

the Pottsville and Allegheny formations of Pennsylvania age, have been divided into more than 40 members. 

Not all the members may be present at any given place, 

for many of them are discontinuous. Figure 19 shows 

the bedrocks of the Mahoning River basin as they underlie the glacial drift or are exposed at the surface. The 

regional dip of the bedrock strata within the basin is to 

the south or southeast, the older rocks being exposed 

to the north. 

Of the bedrocks in the Mahoning River basin, only 

the sandstones are important sources of ground water. 

Total pumpage from these aquifers averages slightly 
9 iiitu 

10 

I I 

I 

C' ~-I 

I 

I 

____ , I 

INDIX MA' I 

I 

I T R u L L ----

------

I ,c u M B A N A 

I 

EXPLANATION: 

OUTWASH MOSTLY KAMES AND KAME TERRACES, BUT INCLUDING SMALL AREAS OF VALLEY 

TRAIN AND OUTWASH PLAIN. (GOOD SOURCE OF GROUND WATER IN SOME PLACES.) 

END MORAINE HUMMOCKY TO UNDULATING TOPOGRAPHY. COMPACT, SANDY TO SILTY TILL, 

EXCEPT IN TRUMBULL AND PORTAGE COUNTIES, WHERE THE TILL IS VERY 

CLAYEY AND COMPACT. (NOT GENERALLY A SOURCE OF GROUND WATER.) 

GROUND MORAINE UNDULATING TO LEVEL TOPOGRAPHY. COMPACT, SILTY TO VERY COMPACT, 

CLAYEY TILL. INCLUDES SOME AREAS OF LACUSTRINE CLAY. 

(NOT GENERALLY A SOURCE OF GROUND WATER.) 

Geology by G. W. White 

Figure 18. -Map of Mahoning River basin showing the distribution and water-bearing characteristics of the glacial 

deposits (Geology by G. W. White). 
w 

CX) 

Sys-1 Serie.s 

tem 

1:11 

·a 

1:11 

~ » 

(/) 

c 

c 

C1l 

ll. (/) 

:s 

0 

I-< 

~ 

·a 

0 

..c 

I-< 

1:11 

u 

I c 

1:11 ·s. 

0.. 

•VJ 

(/) .iil 

(/) 

:i 

Table 10. -Water-bearing properties of th~ principal bedrock formations in the Mahoning River basin 

Formation 

Allegheny 

formation 

Pottsville 

formation 

Cuyahoga 

formation 

Sunbury shale 

Berea sandstone 

Average 

thickness 

(feet) 

100 

150 

175 

35 

30 

Character of material 

Variable sequence of sandstone, shale, clay, coal, 

and limestone. The sandstones are generally thinbedded or shaly and of 

limited lateral extent, 

Variable sequence of sandstone, shale, clay, coal, 

and limestone, The sandstones are locally expanded 

into very massive beds. 

Shales are predominantly 

sandy, 

Alternating beds of shale and 

sandstone. Sandstones 

thicker and more massive 

in the upper part and 

locally expanded into considerable thicknesses, 

Thin-bedded nonporous red, 

brown. or bl-ack shale. 

Gray to white sandstone, 

massive, porous, 

permeable. 

Principal aquifers 

(members) 

Butler sandstone member. Freeport sandstone member. Kitanning sandstone member. Clarion sandstone 

Homewood sandstone 

member. Connoquenessing sandstone 

member. Sharon sandstone member. 

Sharpsville sandstone 

member (locally 

called Injun or Squaw 

by drillers). 

Water-bearing 

propertjes 

No really good supplies. 

Sandstone strata locally 

yield domestic supplies. 

Sharon and Connoquenes- . 

sing sandsione member 

locally yield excellent 

supplies for domestic 

and small industrial 

demand • 

Good domestic supplies 

from the sandstone 

beds. 

Contains very little water. 

Generally yields brine or 

brackish water. on. 

gas, and fresh water 

reported locally. 
S T 

'P 

I 

~- . I 

I 

I 

I 

T R u 

U M B A 

L 

N 

____ I , 

L 

A 

I 

I 

z -Z 

%1.&1 

A. 

------

~..:{ EXP •• ON lUJ ~ -~ Pottsvill-e and Ad~gheny formations B ~ § Small industrial or municipal water supplies generally fro.m Sharon and Connoquenessing It 

Q... 0) I sandstone members of thE> Pottsville formation. Water supplies obtained locally from 11.1 

).... other sandstones of both formations ~ 

~ ..:J f::::::::::::::::::::::::::::j . ~ 

~~ ·~ Berea sandstone, Sunbur·;::~·~:~·;·:and Cuyahoga formation • 5 ~ .~ .l Small industrial or munici}'lal water supplies from sandstone of the Cuyahoga formation, 

1

0 fll and, in places, from the Berea sandstone. Sunbury shale not a source of ground water . z • • • • <( • • • ·z: 

Olentang•y :n~ ~hio shales g Not a source of ground water Ill 

0 

Figure 19, -Map of Mahoning River basin showing the distribution and water-bearing characteristics of the 

L:d rocks. 
more than 7, 000, 000 gpd. Yields of wells vary from 

place to place because of the wide range in thickness 

and permeability of these aquifers. The aquifers of 

greatest areal extent are the Berea sandstone, the 

sandstones of the Cuyahoga formation, and the Sharon 

and Connoquenessing sandstone members of the Potts• 

ville formation. The Sharon and Connoquenessing 

members are present only in the southern part of the 

basin, having been removed by erosion in the northern 

part. In some localities the Connoquenessing and 

Homewood sandstone members of the Pottsville for· 

mation, and the Clarion, Kittanning, and Freeport 

sandstone members of the Allegheny formation also 

are important aquifers. 

The Berea sandstone underlies nearly the entire 

Mahoning River basin and crops out north of Warren 

in Trumbull County. In Mahoning County it lies at 

depths ranging from less than 300 ft in the north· 

eastern part to more than 800 ft in the southern part. 

The Berea sandstones generally yield brine and in 

places may yield oil and gas. It marks the lower limit of the fresh-water reservoir, no fresh water having 

been reported below it within the basin. The Berea 

sandstone is massive and firmly cemented. It ranges 

generally from 30 to 40 ft in thickness in the southern 

parts of the basin, and is as much as 60 ft thick in 

southern Trumbull County. 

The water-bearfng sandstones in the upper part of 

the Cuyahoga formation are lenticular and are not 

present everywhere in the area. The most prominent 

beds are called the Injun and Squaw sands by some 

drillers. These sandstones generally contain layers 

of shale and are less than 50 ft thick. 

The Sharon sandstone, member of the Pottsville formation, one of the most important of the bedrock aquifers, overlies the Cuyahoga formation in the southern 

part of the basin. The interval between the Sharon 

sandstone member and the-Berea sandstone ranges 

from 120 to 350ft and averages about 200 ft. 

The Sharon sandstone member at its type locality at 

Sharon, Pa., consists of two units, the lower being a 

loosely cemented mass of white quartz pebbles, held 

together by silica and occasional bands of iron minerals, the upper being a white friable fine-grained 

sandstone. In the Mahoning River basin the Sharon 

sandstone member does not generally conform to its 

character at its type locality, and individual exposures 

may resemble in their entirety either of the two lithologic units described above, depending on the locality. 

The Sharon was deposited on a former erosion surface 

and for this reason it is very irregular in thickness. 

It may be absent at places within its normal distribution area, and it is commonly less than 50 ft thick. 

Near Windham, Portage County, it is reported to be 

175 ft thick. 

Another important sandstone aquifer in the southern 

part of the Mahoning River basin is the Connoquenessing sandstone member of the Pottsville formation, 

which overlies the Sharon sandstone member. The 

Connoquenessing ranges generally from 20 to 80 ft in 

thickness, except where it is contiguous with the lower 

part of the member, which in places increases the total thickness of the sandstone to more than 100 ft. 

Near the southern part of Youngstowp_, for example, 

140 ft of sandstone is reported, and in Mill Creek 

40 

Park in Youngstown 81 ft of sandstone is exposed. The 

Connoquenessing sandstone ranges from massive and 

cross-bedded to shaly and thin-bedded. 

General principles of occurrence 

Ground water in sand and gravel occurs in the inter• 

stices or "pore spaces" between the individual parti• 

cles. The size, shape, and arrangement of the parti· 

cles determine the amount of water that can be stored 

in the deposit and the rate at which it can be trans• 

mitted to wells or other points of discharge, Water in 

sandstones or other rocks that are well cemented and 

firmly compacted is carried mostly in joint cracks 

and along bedding planes. Many sandstones, however, 

are sufficiently porous, or so poorly compacted, that 

water occurs mainly in the pore spaces between the 

individual particles. 

Water-table and artesian conditions 

The water in rock openings may occur under either 

water-table or artesian conditions. The important 

distinction between these two conditions has been given 

by McGuinness (1951, pp. 12-15): " .... Under watertable conditions the top of the zone of saturation is a 

"free" water surface at atmospheric pressure, and the 

ground water behaves much like water in a surface 

reservoir, except that friction makes it move much 

more slowly. The zone of saturation extends downward to impermeable rocks that prevent the water 

from descending further toward the center of the earth. 

This depth varies from place to place but is generally 

many hundreds of feet; however, in many regions only 

the upper few hundred feet is of importance. 

"Under artesian conditions water becomes confined 

under pressure between two bodies of impermeable 

rock. It does so by entering the ground, reaching the 

water table, and then flowing down with the slope of 

the water table to a point where the zone of saturation 

is interrupted by an impermeable bed. Part of the water may pass above the bed and continue to flow under 

water-table conditions, and part of it flows beneath the 

bed. Now it is confined, _pressing upward against the 

impermeable bed with a _head equivalent to the difference in elevation between that point and the elevation 

of the water table in the area of recharge, less the 

loss in head resulting from friction in movement. This 

is confined or artesian water; it will rise in a tightly 

cased well to a height above the bottom of the confining 

bed equivalent to the pressure head at that point. If 

the head happens to be above the land surface, as it 

commonly is in the valleys or along the coast in areas 

characterized by artesian formations, the well will 

flow ... Artesian aquifers are comparable to systems 

of piping; they are full of water at all times, receiving 

water at the upper end of the system and discharging 

it at the lower .... " 

Throughout most of the Mahoning River basin shallow 

ground water is believed to occur under water-table 

conditions. In some areas the till probably acts as a 

confining layer, causing local semiartesian conditions. 

In general, local infiltration is effective, so that most 

wells reflect recharge from rain and snow within a 

period of a few days or weeks. 

Typical artesian conditions have not been found to 

exist in the fresh-water shallow aquifers over any 
larae area within the Mahonina River basin. Thus, 

there ia no appreciable movement of fresh around water into or out of the basin. 

Water-level fluctuations 

Ground-water levels are seldom stationary but rise 

and decline in response to chanaes in rainfall, changes 

in the staaes of surface streams, pumping from wells, 

and other factors. In humid areas such as Ohio, there 

are natural variations having seasonal trends, water 

levels being highest in the spring and lowest in the late 

summer or fall. The amount of change in water levels 

is important in estimating allowable drawdowns in 

pumping wells. In the Mahoning River basin groundwater levels fluctuate several feet a year owing to natural causes. Depending on topography, and on whether 

there is heavy pumping in an area, water levels range 

from less than 10 to more than 100 ft below the land 

surface. Because the aquifers in the basin are not 

highly permeable, draw downs in pumping wells are 

generally large. 

The graphs in figures 20 and 21 show the fluctuations 

in water levels measured in four wells in the Mahoning 

River basin. These wells are maintained as permanent 

observation wells by the U. S. Geological Survey and 

the Ohio Division of Water. Water-level records for 

the wells are published annually in bulletins of the Ohio 

Division of Water and by the U. S. Geological Survey 

in a series of water-supply papers entitled "Water levels and artesian pressures in observation wells in the 

United States. " 

Well Ma-l is at Canfield in the waterworks well field 

near the race track. The well was 278 ft deep originally but was plugged to 205 ft. The principal waterbearing formation is probably sandstone reported in 

the well log between depths of 140 and 152 ft, although 

water is also contributed from other beds. The hydrograph shows the water level to have been more than 100 

ft below the surface most of the time during the years 

1946-47. During that period the water level was affected by pumping from nearby wells for the village supply. In 1947 the village abandoned 1ts well field and 

bought water from the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District. The water level in well Ma-l rose to about 31 ft 

below the ground surface when pumping stopped. Since 

that time seasonal .fluctuations have amounted to about 

4 to 5 ft each year. 

Well Ma-3 is in the basement of the Tod Hotel in the 

center of Youngstown. The well is 400 ft deep and taps 

several water-bearing formations~ chief among which 

are the Sharon sandstone member of the Pottsville formation and the sandstones of the Cuyahoga formation. 

The hydrograph reflects mostly the normal effects of 

seasonal variations in precipitation. The range of 

fluctuation has amounted to less than 3 ft, and the water level followed a slightly rising trend in the period 

1948-51. This trend probably reflects reductions in 

pumping in the area and more favorable precipitation 

in the past few years. 

Observation well T-2 is 3 miles north of Warren on 

the property of the Copperweld Steel Co. The well is 

124 ft deep and taps the Berea sandstone. The hydrograph shows that the water level in well T-2 is affected 

by pumping from nearby wells, from which a supply of 

more than 1, 000, ooo· gpd is obtained. The effects of 

41 

the pumping are not sufficient, however, to obscure 

the normal seasonal fluctuation of as much as 10 ft 

between hiah and low periods. The hydrograp~ shows 

a net decline durin& the past 2 yr, which may mark the 

beginning of a trend and .indicate that the aquifer is 

being overpumped. 

Well Po-l is situated at Windham in Portage County. 

It is 55 ft deep and taps an aquifer of the Pottsville 

formation, probably the Sharon sandstone member. 

The hydrograph shows a normal range of fluctuation 

of the water level between depths of 14 and 22 ft, varying in accordance with seasonal factors, which produced generally lower levels in 1948 and 1949. In 1948 

low water levels were recorded in wells throughout 

the State. 

Although a long or comprehensive record of waterlevel fluctuations in the basin is not available, there 

is no present indication that water levels in general 

are following either an upward or a downward trend. 

Thus the quantity of ground water stored in the Mahoning River basin is not changing appreciably, except 

for seasonal fluctuations and local variations resulting 

from pumping. 

Yield of wells 

When wells tap a water-bearing formation a new factor is introduced into the natural hydraulic system of 

the aquifer. When pumping begins, most of the water 

is taken from storage in the immediate vicinity of the 

pumped well. As pumping continues, more water flows 

to the pumped well from greater and greater distances 

and less is removed from storage in the immediate vicinity of the well. Thus hydraulic gradients are 

created around the pumped well that form a "cone of 

depression. " The shape of the cone, and its rate and 

extent of growth, are related to the storage properties 

of the aquifer, and to its transmissibility or capacity 

to transmit water, and to the distance of the pumped 

well from the areas in which recharge and natural discharge of the aquifer occur. 

Perennial yields of wells depend ultimately on the 

amount of recharge the aquifer receives. Recharge 

may be induced from a surface stream by lowering water levels in the aquifer by pumping, or it may be derived from the infiltration of rainfall, or both. To 

make an accurate evaluation of a specific supply, or 

of the water-bearing properties of an aquifer at a 

specified location usually requires test drilling and an 

analysis based on a controlled pumping test, or longterm pumping and water-level records. 

Of the total quantity of ground water pumped in the 

Mahoning River basin each day, more than 90 percent 

is taken from the bedrocks, the remainder from the 

glacial depqsits. The average depth of 133 wells studied is 188 ft. They are nearly all drilled wells and 

range in diameter from 4 to about 10 in. 

Wells drilled into the glacial till of the Mahoning 

River basin generally yield less than 5 gpm. Throughout much of the area the till is thin and of low permeability, so that few wells yield more than domestic 

requirements. 

The more favorable areas underlain by outwash materials have not been tested sufficiently to permit an 

evaluation of well yields from those sources. How-
0 

20 

/~ ~ ~ ~ 

r 40 

:E 

:;) 60 ~ 

<t 

0 

UJ 

(,) 

~ 80 

a: 

WELL Ma-l :::l C/) 

0 (Canfield, M ~honing Co.) 

z 

~ I vv.._--. 

\.I-

<t 100 ..J 

3t 

0 

..J 

UJ 

m 120 ~ 

UJ 

UJ 

L&.. 

~ 24 

.. a:: 

UJ 

~ ~ 25 

0 

~ 

J: 

t-

{Youngstown, 

a. 26 UJ 

0 

27 

28r---------~----------~----------4-----------~---------+--------~~ 

29r----------+----------+---------~----------~--------~~--------~ 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 

Figure 20. -Graphs showing fluctuations in water levels in wells at Canfield and Youngstown. 

42 
25~--------~--------~--------~----------~--------~---------, 

30~--------~---------+--------~~--~----+---------~---------~ 

:e 

:::> 40 ~ 

<X 

0 

1.1.1 

0 

~ 45 a: 

:::> 

(/) WELL T-2 

0 (Warren, Tr mbull Co.) z 

<X 50 ..J 

~· 

0 

..J 

1.1.1 

m 55 ~ 

1.1.1 

1.1.1 

~ 

z 12 

~ 1.1.1 

~ ~ 14 

0 

~ WELL Po-l 

:z: (Windham, ortaQe Co.) .... 

Q. 16 1.1.1 

0 

22~--------~--------~~--------~--------~----------+---------~ 

1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 

Figure 21. -Graphs showing fluctuations in water levels in wells at Warren and Windham. 

43 
ever, wells tapping such deposits can be expected to 

yield substantially larger quantities than wells in the 

glacial till. Yields exceeding 1, 000 gpm have been 

obtained from wells in outwash deposits in other areas 

in Ohio, giving some idea of the difference in waterbearing properties between till and outwash deposits. 

The potential yields of wells in the outwash deposits 

in the Mahoning River basin are no doubt below the av 

erage for the State but may be substantial in the most 

favorable areas. 

Wells drilled into the bedrock aquifers that yield 

fresh water in the Mahoning River basin generally av erage about 25 JPm when pumped continuously, and 

yields vary widely from place to place, Gener"ally 

speaking, yields are greatest near the area of outcrop 

of the formation or where the water-bearing form&':" 

tions have their greatest thickness. 

Wells tapping the Berea sandstone generally yield 

brine in amounts as high as 250 gpm, Wells in the 

Sharon sandstone member of the Pottsville formation 

may yield as much as 100 gpm but yields .of about 20 

gpm are most common. Wells in the Cuyahoga formation generally do ~o.t yield more than 30 gpm. 

The Connoquenessing sandstone member of the 

Pottsville formation has yielded more than 500 gpm to 

some wells. One such well was a municipal well at 

Canfield, in Mahoning County, where the initial yield 

from the Connoquenessing sandstone member was reported to be 600 gpm with 100 ft of drawdown. In 1947 

the yield of the same well was 45 gpm with 70 ft of 

drawdown. Another well, at Craig Beach, Mahoning 

County, under test produced 20 gpm from the Massillon sandstone, with 50 ft of drawdown. 

Yields from wells in the other bedrock aquifers in 

the Mahoning River basin-namely, the lower parts of 

the Connoquenessing and Homewood sandstone members of the Pottsville formation, and the Clarion, Kittanning, and Freeport sandstone members of the Allegheny form~t'ion-generally do not exceed 20 gpm; locally, however, where these beds attain their maximum thicknesses, the yields may be appreciably larger. This is the case at Lowellville where the municipal supply is obtained from wells tapping the Clarion 

sandstone member.. The Freeport sandstone member 

is important only for farm or home supplies and in 

some places is insufficient for these moderate needs. 

In the Mahoning River basin the transmissibilities 

of the bedrock aquifers are relatively low, storage 

capacities are small, and the amount of water a well 

yields is generally small unless the steepness of the 

cone ot depression and the drawdown in the well are considered. An example of the hydraulic characteristics 

of a better-than-average sandstone aquifer in the Mahoning River basin is afforded by the test of a well at 

Lowellville in Mahoning County as reported by 

Cummins (in preparation). 

" .... Two wells (designated as wells 1 and 2 by the 

Lowellville Water Department) are in a pump house 

along the south side of Newcastl~ Road about a mile 

north of Lowellville. Well 2 is pumped intermittently 

as needed and well 1 (located 17 ft east-northeast pf 

well 2) is pumped only in emergencies. Well 3, located about a half-mile north of wells 1 and 2 is pumped 

intermittently. Each of these wells yields about 

44 

120 gpm under present intermittent operation. All 

three wells produce from the Clarion sandstone (member of the Allegheny formation). 

A pumping test of well 2 was conducted on May 4, 

1949, to determine drawdowns produced at various distances from the pumping well and to learn as much as 

possible about the hydraulic properties of the aquifer. 

Well 2 was pumped for 7 hours and 15 minutes at a constant rate of 100 gpm. Water levels in the pumping 

well and in nearby observation wells were measured at 

frequent intervals during the period of the test .... " 

Analyses of the test data show that the aquifer is locally artesian and that the permeability changes in dif· 

ferent directions from the well, indicating the presence 

of geologic boundaries which, at various distances, 

impede or stop the flow of water from those directions. 

According to Cummins (in preparation), "The findings of the above test emphasize that relatively high 

initial yields of wells as shown by pumping tests of· 

short duration may be misleading with respect to ultimate yields to be expected from wells tapping these 

aquifers. In development of important municipal and 

industrial water supplies from aquifers of the type described, controlled pumping tests should be conducted 

and carefully analyzed to determine proper pump capacities and optimum spacing of wells .... " 

Chemical quality 

There appears to be no consistent correlation between the water-bearing formations and the chemical 

quality of the ground water in the Mahoning River basin, except that in general fresh water is not found in 

the bedrocks below the Berea sandstone. Highly mineralized water may also be found in the rocks above 

the Berea sandstone at some places in the basin. Water from the Berea sandstone is suitable for drinking 

purposes in the northern part of the basin but, because 

of its high chloride content, is not suitable in the 

southern part. 

The Cuyahoga formation generally yields water of 

good quality in the northern part of the basin where it 

directly underlies the glacial drift, but it is likely to 

yield brackish water in the southern part of the basin 

where the rocks are more deeply buried. The Connoquenessing sandstone member of the Pottsville formation also yields fresh water generally but it has similarly been reported to yield salt water in some places. 

Water from the Sharon sandstone of the Pottsville 

member is fairly soft generally, but in some places it 

is high in iron and may also contain hydrogen sulfide, 

Water from the other bedrock aquifers is generally 

of reasonably good quality but may vary considerably 

from place to place. The glacial deposits generally 

yield water of·a quality satisfactory for most uses in 

the basin, except that it is hard. Supplies·from the 

outwash are generally of better quality than supplies 

from the till. 

Analyses of fresh ground water from wells ranging 

in depth from 40 to 431 ft. show considerable variation 

in the amount and character of the dissolved constituents in the waters from the different wells. The water 

ranges from soft to hard in quality and from low to 

high in mineral content. Because there is such a wide 
z 

0 

-

2 

I -.Drilled well, 431 feet deep, Youngstown Airport, near Vienna, May 29, 1951 

2- Dug well, 40 feet deep, Hickory School, Goshen Twp., Mahoning County, 

September 30, 1947 3- Artesian well into Connoquenessing sandstone, Mill ~reek Park in 

Youngstown, September 30, 1947 

4- Drilled well, 141 feet deep, R. W. Shrader garage, North Jo~kson, 

September 30, 1947 

5- Drilled well, 176 feet deep, United Tool Company, Solem, October 9, 1947 

6- Drilled well, 214 feet deep, John. Schaefer, Jr., Berlin Center, Octobe~ 9, 1947 

13r--,----------------------------------~-------------------------; 

II 

EX PLANATION 

D Sodium and 

potassium 

~Magnesium 

Calcium 

a: 71-------------------------------~ 1&1 

a. 

~ 6r----------~--------------------~--~~~, z 

1&1 

_. 

c 

~ 51---------------------------------¥ 

::» 

0 

1&1 

41---------------------~ 

Figure 22. -Composition of selected ground waters in the Mahoning River basin. 

45 

650 

600 

550 z 

0 

..J 

..J 

500 s 

a: 

w 

a. 

.z -.... Jl 

a: ::) 

-J 

~ 0 u 

z Jl 

::» 

iii 

·350 1&1 1&1 

.... z 

C CD 

z c 

OJE 

CD 

300 a: Lt. c 0 

u a. 

~ ~ 

250 ::» 

u e 

..J Q c 

u c 

200 w 

(1)!: 

c 

(I) 

150 (I) 

1&1 

z 

Q 

a: 

c 

100 % 

50 

0 
Table 11. -Range in concentration of chemical constituents and in related physical measurements of fresh 

ground waters in the Mahoning River basin, based on 14 analyses 

[Chemical results in parts per million] 

Minimum Maximum 

pH ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5.8 8.5 

Specific conductance 

micromhos at 25 c •• 76.1 2,210 

Silica (Si02) ..................... : •••• 2.0 19 

Iron (Fe) ••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••• .05 6.2 

Calcium (Ca) •••••••.•••.••••••••••••• 3.6 220 

Magnesium (Mg) ••••••.•••.••.••••••• 1.4 59 

Sodium+ Potassium (Na+-K) •••••• 5.6 254 

variation in the chemical quality· of ground water in the 

basin it is not possible to select any particular analysis as typical. The range in concentration of various 

chemical constituents and in related physical measurements of 14 samples of ground water are given in 

table 11. 

The chemical analyses of six selected ground-water 

samples are shown graphically in figure 22. These 

analyses may be considered fairly representative of 

the range and character of the fresh underground waters. Samples 5 and 6 show that, although the water 

from two wells may have about an equal amount of 

dissolved solids, the character of the dissolved constituents. may vary considerably. 

Most of the ground waters analyzed may be classed 

as hard, only five samples had a total hardness of less 

than 17 5 ppm. Three of the samples were soft and of 

very good quality except that the iron content was high. 

The iron content of most of the samples was high 

enough to require treatment to make the water suitable 

for general use in homes or industries. 

There is a possibility that brine from the deeper 

wells could be used to recharge zeolite softeners for 

fresh ground water or surface water. An analysis, 

made in 1930 by the Ohio Geological Survey, of brine 

from a well 620 ft deep in Beaver Township, Mahoning 

County, is given as follows: 

Dissolved solids 108,600 ppm 

Specific gravity at 15 C, 1. 064 

Composition of saline matter 

Percent Percent 

Silica(Si02) ......... o. 03 Bicarbonate (HC03) ..... 0. 065 

Calcium (Ca) ........ 7. 83 Sulfate (S04) ................ 055 

Magnesium (Mg) ... 2. 30 Chloride (Cl ) ............ 62. 07 

Sodium (Na) ........ 26. 80 Bromide (Br) ............... 41 

Potassium (K) ........ 025 Ferric oxide (Fe203)... . 37 

Aluminum oxide (Al203) . 045 

46 

Minimum Maximum 

Bicarbonate (HCOa) ••••• 28 585 

Sulfate (S04) .............. 1.4 189 

Chloride (Cl) .............. 2.8 570 

Fluoride (F) ............... .o 1. 0 

Nitrate (N03) ............. ·~ 0 43 

Dissolved solids ......... 51 1, 410 

Hardness 

as Caco3 .••.••••••••••• 15 792 

Temperature 

The temperature of the ground water from any particular source in the Mahoning River basin remains 

essentially constant throughout the year. If it is obtained at shallow depths, the temperature is approximately equal to the mean annual air temperature of 

about 51 F. In general, the temperature of well water increases 1 F for each 60 to 100 ft of increase in · 

depth from the land surface. Therefore, fresh water 

supplies in the basin that ~re obtained frpm wells not 

affected by river recharge may be expected to range 

from 51 to 54 F throughout the year. 

In the Youngstown area any wells that may be developed in the valley-train deposits, and which induce infiltration from the Mahoning River, may be expected 

to yield water of considerably higher temperature than 

the average. 

PRESENT WATER USE 

Public Supplies 

A population of about 320, 000 is served by public water supply systems from surface-water sources in the 

Mahoning River basin. In addition eight cities and villages supply a total of about 24, 000 people from 

ground-water sources. The average pumpage from 

surface water in 1950 was 62. 4 mgd, and from ground 

water about 1; 5 mgd. The use of surface water from 

public supplies has more than doubled in the past 

20 years; additional development is required and is now 

being planned and constructed. Development of ground 

water for public supplies is limited by the general lack 

of ground water in considerable quantity, and is confined to villages of small population. 

The spectacular increase in use of surface water for 

public supply is shown in table 12 which lists the average pumpage for the years 1930-50, for each of the 

municipalities. The increase in population served is 

not great, the estimated population {based in part on 

census tabulations) being 283,000 in 1930, 288, 000 in 

1940, and 317,000 in 1950. The increase in average 

pumpage is caused almost entirely by increased industrial use of public water supplies. An analysis of the 

records indicate that the strictly domestic use of water has beel1 practically static, and has never exceeded 

about 40 gal per capita per day. Table 13 shows the 
Table 12. -Average use of surface water in the Mahoning River basin for public supplies (1930-50) 

[Million gallons per day] 

Newton Struthers 

Year Alliance Campbell McDonald· Falls Niles Sebring & Poland Warren 

(a, g) (b) (c) (d) (a) 

1930 4.05 (e) 2.52 0.45 0.47 3.34 

1931 3.38 (e) 1. 72 • 42 ,39 3.02 

1932 2.88 5.7 1. 22 • 34 ,39 2.40 

1933 3,06 7.84 1, 18 • 34 ,43 2,65 

1934 3.30 7,85 1. 37 • 42 ,46 2. 78 

1935 3,22 7, 1 1. 40 ,43 • 51 2,74 

1936 3,97 10,66 2. 11 ,47 .55 3,85 

1937 3,89 12,88 2.45 ,48 • 62 3,85 

1938 3,34 9.8 2,06 .47 . 62 3,40 

19.39 3,52 12.85 2.57 • 50 • 64 3,85 

1940 3,72 16.6 2.70 ,47 . 66 4.04 

1941 4,44 19. 1 3, 09 ,49 .68 5.35 

1942 4.36 19.3 3.11 .51 .69 5,39 

1943 4,92 21.2 3,78 • 52 • 72 6,67 

1944 5,05 17,5 0,42 0. 26 4,34 ,63 • 62 7,30 

1945 5.28 17.9 ,41 ,35 4,60 ,63 .69 7.07 

1946 5.41 18.0 .39 .44 4,81 .65 . 70 6, 92 

1947 5.86 20.4 .47 • 61 6.03 (e) • 75 7.67 

1948 5. 89 22.0 • 50 • 64 6.31 (e) • 78 7,21 

1949 5.11 19.7 .55 .81 5.58 (e) .86 7.07 

1950 4,81 20,9 . 70 .87 6.50 .82 • 96 7.56 

a/ Supplied by Ohio Water Service Co. from small lakes on Yellow Creek and elsewhere. 

b/ Ground-water sources prior to August 1, 1944, Mahoning Valley Sanitary District thereafter. 

c/ Ground-water sources prior to 1944. 

d/ Supplied by Mahoning Valley Sanitary District after July 11, 1932. 

ef No records available. 

f/ Partly estimated. 

Youngstown 

(d) 

13.28 

11.85 

9.80 

9,26 

10,23 

10.47 

11. 55 

11. 14 

10.66 

10,73 

11. 39 

13. 18 

13,29 

13.92 

15.21 

15.05 

15.97 

17.99 

19.58 

18.78 

19.33 

i/ Includes industrial use supplied by Ohio Water Service Co. throughout the Mahoning Valley other than 

by Struthers Plant. 

47 

Total 

f29 

f26 

22,7 

24,8 

26,4 

25,9 

33,2 

35,3 

30,4 

34,7 

39,6 

46,3 

46,6 

51.7 

51.3 

52,0 

53.3 

f5o 

f64 

r59 

62,4 
,j:>.. 

cc 

Table 13. -Use of water in the Mahoning River basin from public supplies having surface sources, 1950 

Public supply Alliance Campbell* McDonald Newton Niles Sebring 

Falls 

Average pumpage 

(mgd) 4,81 20.9 0.70 0.87 6.50 0.82 

Population 

supplied 28,500 12,882 1, 520 4,550 18,400 ~/4,045 Number of 

consumers 7, 101 (c) 478 1, 350 4,802 (c) 

Domestic and 

commercial 7, 067 (c) 477 1,344 4, 739 (c) 

Industrial 34 (c) 1 6 63 (c) 

Consumption 

in percent 

of total 

Domestic and 

commercial 26.5 4.2 12 18.5 8.6 (c) 

Industrial 42.7 89.7 73 70.0 77.4 (c) 

City use 30.8 6. 1 15 11.5 14.0 (c) -- - -----

*/Includes industrial use supplied by Ohio Water Service Co. other than by the Struthers Plant. 

E/Does not include commercial. 

- Includes commercial. 

Struthers Warren Youngsand Poland town 

0.96 7.56 19.33 

15,805 51, 954 183,000 

4,047 13,444 41,195 

(c) ~/ 13 118 (c) 

(c} ~7302 (c) 

62 ~~23.3 ~/37. 3 

6 - 53.0 !!138.8 

32 23.7 23.9 

~{Information not available. 

::I From census. -

Table 14. -Industrial use of water in the Mahoning River basin from public supplies using surface &<mrcea, 1950 

[Use by industry in percent of total industrial use) 

Public supply 

Industry 

Alliance Ohio Water McDonald Newton Niles Wa-rren YoungsService Co. Falls town 

Steel and allied industry . 71.5 87.5 100 90 77.8 tH.7 73.2 

Railroads 9, 7 9,34 &.6 2.8 

Oil refi•ing .5 

Clay ind~5tries 10.7 . l 

Chemica ·industry .025 1. 5 

Ice and fuel .1 .9 

Power .8 5.1 

Laundry and cleaning 4.7 

Meat and canning • 6 1.0 

Dairy products 2.7 2.9 6.0 

Leather products 3. 1 

Accounting machines 1.3 

Irrigation (hot house) 10 

Electrical products 12.8 25.3 1.3 

Miscellaneous 2.7 ,035 1.6 8.4 7.7 ----

Total 

62.4 

320,656 
use of water from public supplies, having surface water sources and indicates the relatively large share 

taken by industry. In 1950 about 38 mgd, or 63 percent 

of the public supply was used by industry. About half 

of this industrial supply is treated w•ter. All the public supplies shown in table 12 are treated except that 

for Campbell. The Campbell public supply, purchased 

from the Ohio Water Service Co. , is treated by the 

city, but the industrial supply included in this column 

is r~w water from surface reservoirs sold through the 

distribution system of this private water company. 

Because this water is of such relatively good quality 

compared to the raw water pumped directly from the 

Mahoning River, and because the distribution in many 

aspects is similar to the public systems, the figures 

for the Ohio Water Service Company ar~ included in 

the tables of public supply. 

Table 14 shows the large share of the total quantity 

of industrial water taken from public supplies that is 

used by the steel and allied industries. In 1950 about 

half the total surface supplies pumped by municipalities and the supply furnished by one private water 

company were used by the steel industry. The expansion of the steel industry has affected· the entire econ-

~ 

a 

I 

70r---------.---------~--------~r--------~ 

~ 40r---------+---------~--------~--------~ .. 

CD 

~ i 

~ YEAR 

Figure 23. -Municipal use of surface water in the 

Mahoning River basin,· 1930-50, 

49 

omy in the Mahoning River valley, particularly with 

reference to water supplies. The diagram of pumpage 

shown in figure 23 for all municipalities in the Mahoning River basin and for the Mahoning Valley Sanitary 

District reveal the large increase in use of water from 

surface sources for public supplies in the past 20 

years. They are similar to charts of steel production. 

In addition to the public supplies from surface-water 

sources there are eight. municipalities supplied from 

ground-water sources (see table 15). These groundwater supplies are for domestic and commercial use, 

and a small amount is used by industries. Girard, the 

largest of these municipalities is supplied from an 

abandoned coal mine. The location and magnitude of 

the public supplies using ground water are shown on 

figure 24. 

Table 15. -Use of ground water for public supplies in · 

the Mahoning River basin 

Municipality Population Average daily Year 

in 1950 pumpage (mgd) compiled 

Columbiana 3, 363 .225 1951 

Cortland 1, 258 .200 1950 

Craig Beach 562 .015 1947 

Garrettsville 1, 504 .090 1944 

Girard 10,068 • 700 1948 

Hiram 979 ,045 1950 

Lowellville 2,246 ,140 1949 

Windham 3, 947 •• 135 1950 

Total 23,927 1.550 

Private Industrial Supplies 

The locations and magnitude of industrial groundwater supplies are also shown on figure- 24. The total 

ground-water pumpage for industry is nearly 7 mgd, 

about half of which is for steel and allied metal manu .. 

facturing. Table 16 shows the quantity of ground water used in the Mahoning River basin by various 

industries. 

Table 16, -Industrial use of ground water in the 

Mahoning River basin, about 1946 

Industry Quantity used 

(gallons per day) 

Air conditioning. •• ,.,, ••...•. , .•.••.••• , ••...•. ,. 

Breweries and bottlers ........................ . 

Ceramic products, ... ,,.,, •• , •• ,, .. , •• , •• ,, .... , 

Dairy products.,,., .. ,, •• , ...... ,,.,, ••. , •• ,.,.,. 

Explosives ....................................... . 

Food processing ................................ . 

Ice .................................................. . 

Institutions., ................. , ..... , ............. . 

Irrigation ......................................... . 

Meat packing, ................................... . 

Metal products ........... , ...................... . 

Rubber ........................................... .. 

Steel ............................................... . 

Miscellaneous ......... , .................... , ..•.• 

123, 030 

3, 900 

92,600 

246,800 

2,000,000 

160,800 

54, 100 

19, 200 

7, 200 

30,600 

1,248,520 

272, 786 

2, 272,500. 

303,241 

Total................. 6, 835,277 
0 10 

MILES 

IND!X MA, 

EXPLANATION: 

MUNICIPAL PUMPAGE 

INDUSTRIAL PUMPAGE 

I 

I 

l.--

I 

I 

I 

l 

I 

.\ T 

0 

R u 

u M 

LESS THAN 50,000 

GALLONS PER DAY 

0 50,000 TO 200,000 

GALLONS PER DAY 

B 

____ , I 

L 

A N 

0 

0 

L 

A 

z -Z 

XI.IJ A. 

200,000 TO 1,000,000 

GALLONS PER DAY 

1,000,000 TO 2,_000,000 

GALLONS PER DAY 

Figure 24. -Map of Mahonin · River basin showit. l areas of .:rinc~ .. ;al -round-water .. un. Ja re 
Table 17. -Industrial use of raw river water in the Mahoning River basin 

(From Mahoning Valley Industrial Council, 1951] 

Oct. 17, 1949 

Industry 

(gallons per day) 

Estimated 

additional use 

under all out 

· war production 

Jan. 22, 1951 

(gallons per day) 

Standard Steel Spring Co. (Newton Falls) ............................ .. 1,000,000 

1, 000,000 

14,400,000 

8,000,000 

160, 000, 000 

100,000,000 

56,000,000 

2,5ou,oou 

500,000 

55,600,000 

Thomas Steel Co. (above Warren) ...................................... . 

Copperweld Steel Co ........................................................ . 

City of Warren ................................................................ . 

Ohio Public Service Co. . ................................................. . 

Republic Steel Corp. (Warren) ........................................... . 15, 600, 000 

Recirculated .................................. ; .• 

Ohio Edison (new Niles plant) ...................... v; .................. .. 200,000,000 

United States Steel Co. (McDonald plant).. ................ ............. 55, 000, 000 

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. (District)............................. 260,000,000 40,000,000 

United States Steel Co. (Youngs.town plant)............................. 135, 000, 000 

Recirculated.................................... 80, 000, 000 

Republic Steel Corp. (Youngstown) ................. :.................... 237, 315, 000 

Coke plant recirculate....................... 5, 520, 000 

Struthers Iron and Steel Co................................................ 20, 000,000 

Sharon Steel Corp. ................ .......................................... 30,000,000 3,000,000 

Ohio Edison Co. (Lowellville) ............................................. J--_.:;5..;.7!.., .;..oo.;..o;;..:,:...o;..;o;..;o;___+--------------

Total.......................... 1, 220, 235, 000 317,200,000 

The largest use is at the Ravenna Ordnance Plant, 

in ~ortage County, where 17 wells are reported to 

yield about 2 mgd, mostly from the Sharon sandstone 

member of the Pottsville formation. Other large supplies include that of the Copperweld Steel Co. at War.-

ren where slightly more than 1 mgd, is pumped from 

sandstones in the upper part of the Cuyahoga 

formation. 

Industry uses tremendous quantities of the polluted 

Mahoning River water daily principally for cooling 

purposes in the steel plants in addition to the 38 mgd 

of good quality surface water and the 7 mgd of ground 

water. A complete analysis of the total use of river 

water is not possible because of the many intakes and 

the repeated recirculation of water. The quantity of 

water used from the Mahoning River on October 17, 

1949, and the estimated additional use under all out 

war-production conditions by the principal industrial 

water users are shown in table 17. Use by many of 

the ·smaller industrial plants is not included but considerable recirculation within a plant system without 

· return to the river is included. The total use of 1, 220 

mgd is more than 10 times the flow of the Mahoning 

River at Youngstown on the date of the inventory 

(120, 000, 000 gal) indicating the repeated use of river 

water throughout the industrial reach from Newton 

Falls to Lowellville. During periods of low fiow the 

water may be used more than 15 times. 

The "cost" of steel in terms of water consumption 

is amazingly high. It has been estimated ~hat 65, 000 

gal of water are used in producing a ton of finished 

steel. Water consumption data in the Youngstown area 

are of limited applicability because of the compli51 

cations of repeated recirculation, high water temperatures, and the transfer of iron and steel from plant to 

plant and to and from plants outside the Youngstown 

area during processing. However, the records of pro-' 

duction and water pumpage for the three plants of the 

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. for 1949 are worthy 

of study. The total production of steel ingots for the 

three plants that year was 2, 222, 327 tons. The grand 

total of water pumped for the 324 days of production 

was 356 mgd. Of this total, 13 was pumped directly 

from the river to condensers for cooling pumping 

equipment, 241 was pumped directly from the river for 

use in the plants,· and 102 was recirculation pumping 

within the plants. These figures for total water pumped 

amount to 51,932 gal per ton of ingots or 216 tonfll of 

water per ton of ingots produced. Considering direct 

pumpage from the river, and omitting recirculation 

and cooling of pumping equipment, the use is 35, 118 

gal of water per ton of ingots or 146 tons of water per 

ton of ingots. Water used in finishing steel a.nd in 

production of power for the use of steel plates is not 

included. How much the enormous quantities of water 

used might be reduced by lower river temperatures is 

conjectural. The critical relation of water supply to 

steel production is obvious. 

WATER REQUIREMENTS 

It would be ideal if every area had an ample supply 

of cool, pure water for all purposes. Such a condition 

is not economically feasible in the Mahoning River basin. After minimum standards for the protection of 

public health have been obtained the benefits of additional water must be carefully weighed against costs, 
and the moat economical solution decided upon. The 

first step in the aolution of the Younaatown area wa· 

ter problem ia1 therefore1 the determination of mini· 

mum atandarda to prevent further endanaerina of pub· 

lic health by atream pollution. 

Complete control of pollution by treatment only re· 

quire• methode beyond known practice• and prohibi· 

tive coata. The only practicable aupplement to the 

treatment of aewaae and ~du1trial waatea 11 dilution 

by low-now reaula.tion. Band on a di11olved oxygen 

content of 3, 0 ppm (the minimum 1tandard adopted by 

the U, S, Public Health Ser.,vice to prevent nuiaance 

conditions in a atream, with only primary treatment 

of all' aewaae and with an allowance of 20 percent for 

future inc-reases in population and water consumption) 

the averaae monthly flows required at Younastown are 

as follows· (Pittsburah District, Corps of'Engineel;'s, 

1960): 

Month Flow required Month Flow required 

(cfs) (cfs) 

January 290 July 756 

.February 296 August 730 

March 335 September 630 

April 450 October 490 

May 575 November 380 

June 696 December 310 

Average for the yeai 495 

These flows are the minimum required to prevent nuisance conditions in the Mahoning River, with a minimum of sewage treatment. A flow regime lower than 

this would call for secondary treatment of sewage and 

more complete treatment of industrial wastes. A 

careful cost analysis probably will reveal that additional water (by storaae) it le11 coetly than additional 

treatment. Even thit program will not completely re• 

etore natural etream conditiona, but hat the limited 

objective of prevention of nui1ance condition•, Main• 

tenance of theee diecharae• would provide aubatantial 

temperature reduction• a1 well aa improved chemice,l 

quality. For example, the improvement in tempera· 

ture would averaae about 10 F for a year-lona drouaht. 

For the year 1949 temperature• would have been im• 

proved an averaae of about S F durina 7 monthe. Max· 

imum water temperature• would be reduced about 10 

F. The aavin11 in fuel due to increaeed efficiency 

would be aubstantial. It nema probable~ in view of 

the co1t1 involved, that thit minimum eolution i1 a1 

much aa can be achieved. 

A preliminary eetimate of the approximate additional 

etorage capacity required to maintain the minimum 

standards of flow may be made by subtracting from the 

average annual requirement (496 cfs) the average min· 

imum maintained by present operation (276 cfs) to ob• 

tain 220 cfs or 160, 000 acre-ft. An 18-month drouaht 

with insufficient water to replenish storage would thus 

call for 240, 000 acre-ft of storage. This is consider• 

ably more than would be made available by the proposed Eagle Creek and West Branch reservoirs 

combined, 

Another rough estimate of the total storage required 

may be made from the 1930-31 drought. During the. 

19-month period1 May l, 1930,to November 30, 19311 the 

total accumulated deficiency, compared with the 495 

cfs per year standard, amounts to 304, 000 acre-ft. 

The following table gives the storage reserved for 

low-flow regulation as now planned for existing reservoirs and proposed reservoirs (Pittsburgh District, 

Corps of Engineers, 1950): 

Storage reserved for low-flow regulation 

Reservoir 

Berlin plus Milton ........................................................ . 

Mosquito Creek ........................................................... . 

Total now available .................. . 

Eagle Creek ................................................................ . 

West Branch ............................................................... . 

Total proposed ...................... .. 

Total available and proposed ....... 

If another drought as severe as that of 19 30 occurs, 

minimum-flow requirements can nwt be met by the existing and the proposed reservoirs without a dangerous 

reduction in the capacity reserved for flood-control 

storage. 

52 

Drainage area 

(sq mi) 

275 

97 

372 

95 

81 

176 

548 

Summer 

(acre-ft) 

58, 000 

74,400 

133,200 

54, 500 

50,000 

104,500 

237, 700 

Winter 

(acre-ft) 

35,800 

63,100 

98,900 

41,500 

39,200 

80,700 

179, 600 

It is evident that a decision on the minimum storage 

capacity to be reserved for flood control is necessary 

to the overall problem of water control. The flood 

·storage as designed for the existing and proposed reservoirs is given in the following table (Pittsburgh 

District, Corps of Engineers, 1950): 
Storage capacity reserved for flood control 

Storage 

Reservoir· (acre-ft) 

Winter Summer 

Be run plus Milton ••••••••••••••••••• ,. 61, 300 38,300 

Mosquito Creek ........................ , 33,000 21,700 

Total now available .............. 94,300 60,000 

Eagle Creek ............................. 38,500 25, 500 

West Branch ............................. 32,800 22,000 

Total proposed, •••••••••••.•••••.. 71,300 47,500 

Total available and proposed 165,600 107, 500 

Some additional water would be stored in Meander 

Creek Reservoir, which has no storage reserved for 

fiood control but would store considerable water during a major fiood. With the two proposed reservoirs, 

plus Meander Creek Reservoir, only 265 sq mi of uncontrolled area would remain above Youngstown. 

There will be additional storage above the spillways of 

the dams in the event of a major fiood, so that the fiood 

runoff in inches stored above Youngstown would exceed 

the total shown in the table. 

Despite the above considerations, the total available 

storage (existing and proposed) seems insufficient to 

protect Youngstown against major floods. Experienc.e 

elsewhere in Ohio tends to confirm this. For example, 

the total reservoir capacity above Dayton, with 2, 500 

sq mi drainage area is 5. 5 in,1 and the total above 

Hamilton, with 3, 500 sq mi drainage area, is 4. 5 in. 

These cities are better protected than other Ohio 

cities, but there is no evidence from the record of 

operation of the Miami Conservancy District that the 

project is overdesigned. There is no reason to believe 

that other parts of Ohio are less likely to have great 

floods than has the Dayton region, and because of the 

smaller drainage area above Youngstown, area-wide 

storms might be more intense, so that more flood 

storage in inches is required above Youngstown than 

above Dayton to obtain the same degree of protection 

given Dayton by the Miami Conservancy District dams. 

The 1913 storm, if transposed from the Miami River 

valley to the Mahoning River basin would have resulted 

in about 9. 4 in, of rainfall over the basin in a 4-day 

period. As noted previously, experience in states adjacent to Ohio in recent years would indicate that the 

lack of outstanding floods in Ohio since 1913 is a 

chance occurrence rather than any .indication of lower 

flood-producing characteristics in the State. The total storage capacity available in the Mahoning River 

basin, without prohibitive costs, is insufficient to give 

adequate flood protection and the desired low-water 

flows. 

Although some ground-water sources are available, 

the total ground-water supply in the entire basin is insignificant compared to the large requirements of water for industry. For this reason ground water is not 

considered as pertinent to the major water problems 

which can only be solved by substantial increases in 

storage. 

53 

Equivalent runoff Equivalent runoff 

above reservoir at Youngstown 

(in.) (in.) 

Winter Summer Winter Summer 

4.2 2,6 1.3 o.--s6.4 4,2 • 7 .5 

2.0 1.2 

7,6 5.0 .8 • 5 

7,6 5.1 • 7 .5 

1.5 1.0 

3.5 2.2 

POSSIBILITIES OF EXPANDING WATER SUPPLY 

Surface Water SupPlY 

The storage possibilities of two proposed reservoir 

sites on Eagle Creek and West Branch Mahoning 

River, have been discussed under Wate'r Requirements 

to illustrate the difficulty, if not impossibility, of satisfying water demands from within the Mahoning River 

basin. The Eagle Creek Reservoir project has been 

authorized, and the West Branch Reservoir is listed by 

the U. S. Engineers as a po~sible alternative for Eagle 

Creek Reservoir. The Eagle Creek dam site is 5t 

miles above the mouth of Eagle Creek, has a drainage 

area of 95 sq mi, and a usable reservoir capacity of 

80, 000 acre-ft. The West Branch dam site is 10 miles 

above the mouth, has a drainage area of 81 sq mi and 

a usable reservoir capacity of 72, 000 acre-ft (Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers, 1950). · 

Several proposals have been made for augmenting 

the low-water flow of the Mahoning River from outside 

the basin, or diverting the flood flow to another river 

basin. Some of these proposals, such as pumping water from Lake Erie or the Ohio River are of questionable economic and physical feasibility. Several plans 

of diversion from or flood storage in the Grand River 

basin have been given consideration. The proposal 

that seems to be most feasible is the plan for diverting 

flood discharges from the Mahoning River into a large 

capacity reservoir on the Grand River for flood control 

and returning it to the Mahoning River basin by pumping for low-flow regulation. In this plan a diversion 

dam on the Mahoning River just above Warren would 

divert flood flows through a dug channel into the Grand 

River. A dam and reservoir on the Grand River near 

Orwell would provide a gross storage of 640, 000 acreft. A pump station at the diversion dam~ with a capacity of 150,000 gpm or 334 cfs, would provide·for the 

return of water into the Mahoning River as required 

for low-flow regulation. This reservoir and the pres 

ent reservoirs operated as a comprehensive coordinated system, would provide the 495 cfs average flow 

required for sanitary purposes in the Mahoning River. 

Temperature conditions would be improved and the effect on floods would be substantial. According to studies by the Corps of Engineers, all floods of record, 

except the super flood of 1913, would have been re -

duced to below damage stage at Youngstown if these re-
servoirs had been in operation. The 1913 flood would 

have been 0, 3 ft above damage stage. Flood reductions 

would be effected along the Mahoning River, Beaver 

River, and with progressively lesser reduction downst~eam along the Ohio River. Substantial flood control 

and low-water regulation would be given the Grand 

River below the reservoir dam. The Grand River 

during the 19 34 drought had no flow at the gaging station near Madison, where the drainage area is 587 sq 

mi. It drains the largest area of any stream in Ohio 

havina a record of no flow. The proposed minimumflow regulation of 50 cfs durinl the summer would 

greatly improve low-water flow conditions and benefit 

developments in the Grand River basin, and probably 

would result in industrial expansion. 

Other benefits to be derived from the Grand River 

diversion and storage would include recreational use 

of the reservoir, pollution abatement in the Grand 

River and improved sanitary conditions and hardness 

reduction below Youngstown in the Mahoning, Beaver, 

and Ohio Rivers. 

The Grand River diversion plan appears to be a technically practicable solution to a difficult problem. However, the estimated costs are large and opposition has 

been expressed in hearings held by the Corps of Engineers. The estimated first cost was $54, 664,000, with 

an annual maintenance and operation cost of $281,000. 

Of these costs, local interests would have to assume 

approximately one-third or $18, 531, 000 first cos-t, and 

$95, 300 annual charge (Pittsburgh District, Corps of 

Engineers, 1950), The project has been under regular 

process of survey and review by the Corps of Engineers 

during the last two years. 

Ground Water Supply 

The area within the Mahoning River basin which 

seems to offer the best possibilities for the development of large ground-water supplies is the Mahoning 

River valley in the extreme southwestern part. The 

valley in that area is underlain by coarse and permeable outwash gravels similar to some of the better aquifers in the State. In 1949 the deposits were investigated by the Ranney Methods Water Supply Co. , Columbus, Ohio, to determine whether a ground-water supply 

of 6 mgd could be developed for the city of Alliance. 

The areas explored were the lower valley of Beech 

Creek and the valley of the Mahoning River above the 

mouth of Beech Creek. 

It was concluded that of those areas studied the area 

above the mouth of Beech Creek was the most favorable 

for the development of a supply of this magnitude. The 

desired supply could be obtained if the aquifer were recharged with river water by means of a recharge collector. The Ranney Co. also stated that a supply of 

considerable magnitude could be obtained without the 

use of a recharge collector, although it would be less 

than the desired 6 mgd. 

Another potential ground-water area in the Mahoning 

River basin is probably the lower Mill Creek valley in 

the Youngstown area, where geologic conditions are 

similar to those in the Alliance area, because the valley is underlain by glacial outwash gravels of considerable thickness. In the lower Mill Creek valley, however, the use of a large area for metropolitan park 

54 

purposes may preclude the development of groundwater supplies. This geologically favorable area may 

never be adequately tested or exploited. The area 

shoulp be kept in mind as an emergency source of sup• 

ply for civil-defense purposes. 

The kame deposits near Garrettsville, which are 

most prominent near Mantua, just outside the Mahoninl 

River basin, consist mostly of coarse sand and 

medium-fine gravel and should be a aood source of 

ground water for small 'industrial or commercial en• 

terprises. A test well near Mantua was drilled throuah 

73 ft of aravel and coarse sand without encounterinl 

bedrock. This is a considerable thickness of perme· 

able material and it certainly bears investiptinl with 

respect to the potential development of around-water 

supplies. The outwash material serves as an important ground-water reservoir, for the area contributes 

substantially to streamflow in dry weather periods. 

About 5 miles west of Garrettsville, the deposits 

are a source of springs caused by interbedded till 

layers which deflect ground water to the surface. 

Kame deposits in the North Georgetown area in the 

southern part of the basin also consist largely of coarse 

gravels, which: are a source of small supply. 

In the remainder of the Mahoning River basin, the 

glacial drift, where it is as much as about 50 ft or 

more in thickness, can be expected to provide small 

water supp~ies, generally sufficient for farm or domestic use. In those areas supp~ies adequate for small 

industrial or commercial needs can generally be obtained from the bedrock aquifers; and in some places 

the bedrocks yield fairly large supplies. 

In the southern part of the Mahoning River basin the 

bedrock aquifers of greatest importance are the Sharon 

and Connoquenessing sandstone members of the Pottsville formation. Sandstones of the upper part of the 

Cuyahoga formation are important aquifers in the 

northern part of the basin, and the Kittanning and 

Clarion sandstone members of the Allegheny formation 

are the principal aquifers in portions of southwestern 

and eastern Mahoning County, and in southwestern 

Trumbull County. 

The specific areas where the consolidated rock aquifers may be expected to yield the ~argest supplies cannot be predicted with certainty, except that, generally 

speaking, yields are greatest where the aquifers are 

thic~est. It is important to provide sufficient spacing 

of wells to reduce interference effects as much as possible, which, as shown by the Lowellville pumping test, 

described in a preceding section, extend over large 

areas in these aquifers. In some places, such as the 

Ravenna ordnance plant, acidizing of wells has been 

very successful in increasing yields. 

Another potential source of water in the Mahoning 

River basin, is the abandoned and flooded coal mines 

which afford large reservoir capacity (Fuller, 1942), 

Fuller states that the combined capacity of 38 mines, of 

a total of more than 100 which are known to exist, is 

sufficient to hold 6 30 million gallons of water, Most 

of the abandoned mines are in the Sharon coal area. 

The village of Girard obtains its supply from this 

source. Another mine, located east of Canfield in 

Mahoning County, reportedly yielded 3, 000,000 gpd 

for a brief period. 
WATER LAWS 

Ohio water laws are baaed primarily on common law 

and with a few important exceptions, there are no legislative acta governing water ownership, The doctrine 

of riparian rights applies to surface water and "definite underground streams", The common law doctrine 

of reasonable use, or the "American rule", applies to 

"percolating waters", Ground water is assumed to be 

percolating unless shown otherwise. 

Following the catastrophic 1913 fiood the Ohio legislature paued the Conservancy District Act as a 

measure to prevent the recurrence of such disasters, 

This outstanding legislation was a pioneering effort in 

water conservation law and has served as a model for 

other states to follow, It has withstood the test of time 

and changing conditions, and with minor changes is 

still in effect. The act authorizes counties or groups 

of counties by themselves or in cooperation with the 

State or Federal Government to establish complete sys- · 

terns of water conservation and fiood control: td prevent floods, regulate stream channels, reclaim wet 

and overfiowed lands, provide for irrigation where 

needed, regulate streamfiow and conserve the water, 

divert or eliminate watercourses, provide water for 

domestic, industrial, or public use, collect and dispose of sewage or other liquid wastes, and arrest erosion along the Lake Erie shore line. Water rights existing before formation of a district are recognized; 

additional waters made available through activities of 

' the district belong to the district and z:ights to them 

can be leased, sold, or assigned in return for reasonable compensation, those who have been assessed a 

part of the cost of construction of facilities having the 

first right to purchase such waters. The district may 

claim riparian rights also where it is a riparian landowner. In granting rights to use of waters of the district, preference is given (1) to domestic and municipal use, (2) to industrial use, steam-power production, 

and cooling uses, and (3) to irrigation, hydropower 

production, recreation, fisheries, and other uses. 

The conservancy law has been construed not to allow. 

recovery of damages for loss of "percolating waters" 

as a result of construction of a conservancy project. 

The Ohio Water Supply Board was formed in 1941, 

was succeeded in 1945 by the Ohio Water Resources 

Board, and is now known as the Division of Water of 

the Department" of Natural Resources. The duties of 

this Division are to study the water resources of the 

State. It has authority to regulate the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of water wells 

mainly to prevent contamination of the ground wate;s 

of the State. Waste of water from flowing wells is prohibited, as is use of wells for disposal of sewage or 

other contaminating waste. A 1945 regulation requires 

filing of logs of water wells, except farm and domestic wells. In 19.47 the provision was broadened to include all wells. 

The Chief of the Division of Water has authority to 

plan and construct projects to conserve the waters of 

the State in order to insure and promote the public 

health, welfare and safety. Subject to the written approval of the Director of Natural Resources and the 

Governor of the State, he may acquire necessary lands, 

55 

waters and riparian rights by purchase or condemnation, There has been some agitation for control of diversion of ground water in certain heavily pumped 

areas, but there has also been some opposition, State 

officials believe that regulation will be achieved 

through the action of local interests and will be at the 

local level. 

Pollution of streams and watercourses has been the 

subject of legislation for many years, but until recently 

provisions for the enforcement of the control of pollution have not been strict. Ohio ratified the Ohio River 

Compact in 1939, providing for control of pollution in 

the Ohio River and tributariei, but all of the affected 

states did not agree to the compact until 1948, at which 

time the Compact Commission was formed •. The control of pollution in the Ohio River basin is a tremen· 

dous undertaking, and work of the commission thus far 

has been largely in planning. The Ohio Water Pollution 

Control Act of 1951 sets up a water control board for 

the State, and provides penalties for noncompliance' 

with the act and decisions of the Board, Programs of 

the Ohio River Compact Commission and the Water 

Control Board represent great advances toward eventual control of pollution in Ohio streams. Practical 

solutions to the immense and complex problems of 

pollution control, though extremely costly, may be 

reached in the not too distant future. 

There appears to be a real need for the codification 

of water laws for Ohio, to clarify some of the perplexing legal questions concerning water resources. A 

survey of the laws affecting water resources in Ohio 

is underway by the Ohio Division of Water and the College of Law, Ohio State University. 

SUMMARY 

Earlier reports have covered various phases of the 

water resources of the area in a rather comprehensive 

manner. However, there appears to have been no previous attempt to summarize and document the more essential information for convenient reference. Consequently, one of the primary purposes of this report is 

to fulfill the need for a general summary, not allinclusive in detail, but to assist with a technical perspective for consider_ation of the water resources, particularly their surface and underground quantity, quality, and availability for water supplies in the area. 

The U. S. Geological Survey and its cooperating agencies are continually collecting hydrologic data which 

will further assist with the evaluation of water conditions within the area, and topographic mapping is being 

brought up to date in cooperation with the county engineer of Mahoning County. With respect to the water 

situation, at the present time, the following itemization will outline salient factors: 

1. No significant trends have been detected in mean 

annual runoff but there is a great variability in 

seasonal and annual runoff in the area. The average yield in the basin is about 0. 9 cfs per sq 

mi. 

2. Industrial use of water has grown at tremendous 

rates with expanding productive capacity. 
3, Mahoninl River water ie 1enerally of moderately 

100d chemical quality as it enters the hilhlY indus· 

trialized zone, The water in the reservoirs is u· 

1ually of better quality and lower in dissolved sol· 

id1 than the other aurface water in the baain, 

Ran1e of chemical quality of surface and 1round 

water is indicated in tables 8 and 11 and fitures 

14 and 22, 

4. Excessively hilh water temperature durin11ow 

now in the Mahoninl River combined with 1ross 

pollution caueea a critical water problem at time•, 

&. Low-water retulation by exi1t1n1 reaervolrs hal 

areatly improved now condition• but additional 

atora1e i1 required to prevent po11ible critical 

water shorta1••· 

8, Geolo1ical conditions are not favorable for large 

around-water yields in the Mahoning River basin, 

Such aources are meager and incapable of sus· 

taininl even a small fraction of the present water 

use requirements. 

7. A comprehensive plan for development of the water resource• of the Mahoning River valley should 

provide adequate storage reserve for nood con· 

trol to prevent possible flood disaster, Undevel· 

oped sites to provide sufficient storage for this 

and other indicated requirements do not appear to 

be available within the ~ahoning River basin but 

a diversion project in the Grand River basin has 

been studied by the Corps of Engineers. 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Barnes, George E., 1941, Studies on Mahoning River 

for the Mahoning Valley Water Defense Committee, 

Warren, Ohio: Wilbur Watson and Associates Architects and Engineers, ·' 

--, 1942, Study of Lowellville dam and pool for 

the Mahoning Valley Industrial Council, Youngstown, Ohio, Consulting Engineer, Cleveland, Ohio, 

Congressional documents, 69th Cong., 1st sess., 

H. Doc. 308, U. S. Army, Chief of Engineers, 

Pittsburgh district, July 1, 1939, Report upon 

Beaver. River system, Pennsylvania and Ohio. 

--, 73d Cong., 2d sess., H. Doc. 277, U. S. 

Army, Chief of Engineers, 1934, Preliminary examination and survey, Beaver, Shenango, and 

Mahoning Rivers, Pennsylvania and Ohio. 

--, 74th Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. 306, U. S, 

Army, Chief of Engineers, 1936, A general plan 

for the improvement of the Ohio River. 

--, 75th Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. 1, April 1937, 

Report upon comprehensive flood control plan for 

Ohio and lower Mississippi Rivers; Committee on 

Flood Control. 

--, 75th Cong., 3d sess., H. Rept. 2353, May 

1938, Report upon comprehensive flood control 

plans and works for reservoirs, levees, and flood 

walls. 

--, 76th Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. 178, U. s. 

Army, Chief of Engineers, 1939, Report on survey 

for Lake Erie and Ohio River canal. 

--, 78th Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. 266, U. s. 

Army, Chief of Engineers and U. S. Public Health 

Service, 1944, Ohio River pollution control, in 2 

. 56 

parts (3 volumes), Part 1 (vol, 1) 11 a report of 

the Ohio River Committee, Part 2 (vola, 2 and 3) 

is a report by the U, S. Public Health Service, 

--, 78th Cong,, 2d sess,, H. Rept, 3981, 1944, 

Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee 

on Commerce, U. s. Senate, Rivers &l1d Barborl 

Omnibus Bill, Beaver and Mahoninl Rivers Project, 

part 2, May 1 and 2, 1944, 

Croll, W, P., 1948, Floods in Ohio; ma1n:Ltude and 

frequency: Ohio Dept, of Nat, Resources, Div, of 

Wat·er Bull, 7, 

Crou, W, P,, and Bernhagen, R. J,, 1949, Ohio 

streamflow characteristics, part 1, Slow duration: 

Ohio Dept, of Nat, Resources, Div, of Water 

Bull, 10, 

Cross, W, P., and Webber, E, E., 1950, Ohio 

streamflow characteriatics, part 2, Water supply 

and storage requirements: Ohio Dept, of Nat, Resources, Div, of Water Bull, 13, 

Cummins, J, W,, 1952 ? , The ground-water resources of Mahoning County, Ohio: Ohio Dept, of 

Nat, Resources, Div, of Water Bull, (in 

preparation), 

Dittoe, W, H., Dec, 1928, Report of the chief engi· 

neer upon sources of water supply, Mahoning Valley 

Sanitary District, 

Fuller, J, 0,, June 1942, Alleviation of the Mahonln1 

Valley water shortage, Ohio State University Enlineering Experiment Station News, 

Knappen Tippets Abbett Engineering Co,, New York, 

Nov, 17, 1948, Engineering and economic report on 

Lake Erie-Ohio River waterway, a report for the 

Ohio Valley Improvement Association, for presentation to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and 

Harbors at a hearing in Pittsburg, Pa. 

-, New York, January 1949, Preliminary report 

on Mahoning and Grand River floodway, a report 

for the Mahoning Valley Industrial Council, investigating a modified floodway and flood-control project. 

Lamar, W, L,, and Schroeder, M, E,, .1951, Chemical character of surface waters of Ohio 1946-50: 

Ohio Dept. of Nat. Resources, Div, of Water Bull, 

23. 

Mahoning Valley Industrial Council, February 27, 1943, 

Justification for immediate construction of a low 

rolled fill earth dam for flood control and low flow 

regulation on Mosquito Creek, Trumbull County, 

Ohio, to the War Production Board. 

--, January 22, 1951, Justification for immediate 

construction of a flood diversion wasteway north of 

Warren, Ohio, and a low rolled fill earth dam near 

Orwell, Ohio, for flood control and low flow regulation, to protect and supply the Mahoning Valley production area. 

Mahoning Valley Sanitary District, March 13, 1948, 

Water supply application for obtaining raw water 

from Berlin Reservoir. 

McGuinness, C. L., 1951, Water situation in the 

United States, with special reference to ground 

water: U. S. Geol. Survey, Circ. 114, pp. 12-15. 

Ohio State Planning Board, Columbus, Ohio, June 19, 

1936, A tentative plan for the control and utilization 

of water resources in the Mahoning watershed. 

Ohio Valley Improvement Assoc., Inc., Cincinnati, 

Ohio, 1947, Abstract of review of reports on Lake 

Erie and Ohio River canal. 

Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Hogan, and MacDonald, May 

1949, Plan for an auxiliary water supply from Berlin Reservoir and improvement of the Meander 
Creek plant, eport to the Board of Directors, the 

Mahoning Vall y Sanitary District, 

Potter, Alexande , November 1, 1920, Report on the 

development of the water resources of the Mahoning 

River, includi g stream control for sanitary purposes and for ater supply, to the City of Warren, 

Ohio, Consulti g Engineer, New York, N, Y. 

Pre1ident's Wate Resources Policy Commission, 

1 ~50, Ten rive s in Ameriea's future. Includes 

section on the hio River. Vol. 2 of the report of 

the President' Water Resources Policy Commission. 

Prosser, C. S,, 1912, The Devonian and Mississippian formation of Northeastern Ohio: Ollio Geol. 

Survey, 4th se , , Bull. 15. 

Sanderson, E. Ei, 1950, The climatic factors of 

Ohio's water r'sources: Ohio Dept, of Nat. Resources, Div, pf Water Bull. 15. 

Secretary of Waf(Acting), 1944, Letter on Ohio River 

pollution contr 1, Congressional documents: 78th 

Cong,, 1st ses • , H. Doc. 266, 

Stout, Wilber, 1 39, Generalized section of the coalbearing rocks f Ohio: Ohio Geol. Survey, 4th ser., 

Information Ci c. 2. 

Stout, Wilber, a~d Schaaf, Downs, 1932, Brines of 

Ohio: Ohio Geql. Survey, 4th ser., Bull. 37. 

Stout, Wilber, V~r Steeg, Karl, and Lamb, G. F., 

1943, Geology pf Water ift Ohio: Ohio Geol. Survey, 

4th ser., Bull.l 44. 

Sturgeon, M, T. J 1943, Contributions to the stratigraphy of the Altegheny series in Columbiana and 

Mahoning Coun ies, Ohio: Ohio Jour. Sci., vol, 43. 

U, S. Army, Chi: f of EngineC!rS, Pittsburgh District, 

Juiy 1, 1939, Jl.eport upon Beaver River system, 

Pennsylvania apd Ohio, in accordance with Congressional. docume~t, 89th Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. 

·308. . ~. May 31, j943, Definite project report, Mosquito Creek R servoir near Warren, Ohio. 

U. S. Army, Co*ps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District, ! 

0 

57 

March 1944, Interim report on the Mahoning-Grand 

River flood wasteway, an interim report upon review of reports on the Mahoning and Grand River 

basins, Ohio, prepared in accordance with resolution of June 17, 1942, by the Committee on Commerce of the u. s. Senate. 

--, August 1947, Review of reports on Lake Erie 

and Ohio River canal, Pittsburgh-Ashtabula route. 

--. January 1950, Review of reports upon Maho-· 

ning and Grand River basins, Ohio. 

U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1941, Climate and man: 

Yearbook of agriculture. 

U. S. Geological Survey, Surface water supply of the 

United States, part 3, Ohio River basin, issued 

annually as Water Supply Papers. 

U. S. House of Representatives, May 1941, Hearings 

before the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House 

of Representatives, 77th Cong., 1st sess., on the 

Improvement of the Beaver and Mahoning Rivers, 

Pennsylvania and Ohio, September 30, October 1, 

2, 3, and 6, 1941. 

U. S. Weather Bureau, June 1947, Generalized estimates of maximum possible precipitation over the 

United States, Hydrometeorological Rept. 23, U. S. 

Weather Bureau and U. S. Army, Corps of 

Engineers. 

Woodward and Co., August 1941, Industrial survey of 

Youngstown, Ohio, prepared for the Mahoning Valley 

Resources Committee, Leetonia, Ohio. 

Woodward, R. L., and LeBosquet, M., May 1949, 

Effects of reservoir operation on stream water 

quality (mimeographed), Environmental Health 

Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Youngquist, C. V., 1947, Ohio streamflow, part 2, 

Summary of streamflow re.cords in Ohio, 1898-

1944: Ohio State Univ. Eng. Exper. Sta., Bull. 127. 

Youngstown Vindicator, 1945, Youngstown's case for 

the Beaver-Mahoning Waterway, published by the 

Youngstown Vindicator, · 

INT.-DUP. SEC., IIASH., D.C.11:JlS