U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

IN COOPERATION WITH THE

HARRIS-GALVESTON SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT

SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS MAP 3097

SHEET 1 OF 2

Kasmarek, M.C., Gabrysch, R.K., and Johnson, M.R., 2009, Estimated Land-Surface

 Subsidence in Harris County, Texas, 1915–17 to 2001

Introduction

Land-surface subsidence, or land subsidence, in Harris County, Texas, which encompasses 

much of the Houston area (fig. 1), has been occurring for decades. Land subsidence has increased the 

frequency and extent of flooding, damaged buildings and transportation infrastructure, and caused 

adverse environmental effects. The primary cause of land subsidence in the Houston area is withdrawal 

of groundwater, although extraction of oil and gas also has contributed (Pratt and Johnson, 1926). 

Throughout most of the 20th century, groundwater was the primary source of municipal, agricultural, 

and industrial water supply for Harris County. Currently (2009) a transition to surface water as the 

primary source of supply, guided by a groundwater regulatory plan developed by the Harris-Galveston 

Subsidence District (HGSD) (2001), is in effect. The aquifers in Harris County contain an abundant 

amount of potable groundwater, but they also contain layers of clay. Groundwater withdrawals caused 

compaction of the clay layers, which in turn resulted in the widespread, substantial land-surface 

subsidence that has occurred in the Houston area.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the HGSD, prepared a map to show 

the estimated (approximate amount and extent of) land subsidence that has occurred in Harris County 

since the early 1900s. This report presents the map, which documents subsidence in Harris County from 

1915–17 to 2001, briefly describes the regional hydrogeology and the mechanisms of subsidence, and 

describes data and methods used to construct the map. The map was constructed using geographic 

information system (GIS) techniques that involved subtraction of 1915–17 land-surface (topographic 

map) elevations from 2001 land-surface elevations derived from Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) 

data. For comparison, contours of measured subsidence from 1906 to 2000 (Gabrysch and Neighbors, 

2005, fig. 6) are overlain on the map. Subsidence as indicated on the map also is compared to cumulative clay compaction at sites of 12 extensometers in the county maintained by the USGS in cooperation with the HGSD. Although substantial subsidence also has occurred in adjacent counties, particularly Galveston County, this report is restricted to Harris County because the 2001 land-surface 

dataset contained data only for Harris County. The amount of subsidence shown at any specific location 

is considered a regional-scale estimate and is not intended for use in engineering or other design 

applications.

The authors thank the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for providing 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps for 1915–17 in GIS digital format and the Tropical Storm Allison Recovery 

Project for providing the 2001 land-surface elevation data in GIS digital format. 

Hydrogeology

The Chicot aquifer, Evangeline aquifer, and Jasper aquifer are the primary aquifers in the Gulf 

Coast aquifer system that underlies Harris County (fig. 2). Most of the groundwater withdrawn in Harris 

County is from the Evangeline aquifer. The Evangeline and other aquifers comprise laterally discontinuous deposits (layers) of gravel, sand, silt, and clay that dip and thicken from northwest to southeast. 

The aquifers thus crop out in bands inland from and approximately parallel to the coast and become 

progressively more deeply buried and confined toward the coast. Most recharge of water to the aquifers 

is through the outcrops of the aquifers. The Chicot aquifer outcrop consists of the youngest sediments 

and the outcrops at the coast, followed farther inland by the Evangeline aquifer outcrop, and then 

farthest inland by the Jasper aquifer outcrop. In the natural flow system, water is recharged in the 

unconfined outcrop areas, moves downward through the aquifer toward the coast, and discharges as 

diffuse-upward leakage in the confined downdip areas (Kasmarek and Robinson, 2004).

Historical Groundwater Withdrawals and Land-Surface 

Subsidence 

In the 1940s, groundwater withdrawals in the Houston area began to increase steadily, and in the 

1950s, the steady increase became a sharp increase that continued, although at a lesser rate, through the 

1960s and into the early 1970s (fig. 3). In the 1950s and 1960s, the severity and frequency of flooding 

in low-lying areas also increased. As scientists determined that subsidence was related to groundwater 

withdrawals, community leaders realized that the increased frequency and severity of flooding was 

because of subsidence (Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, 2009).

Although the use of surface water for municipal supply to offset the need for groundwater began 

as early as the 1950s, surface-water use was small relative to groundwater use, and groundwater withdrawals remained unregulated until the 1970s. In 1975, the HGSD was created by the Texas Legislature 

“to provide for the regulation of groundwater withdrawal throughout Harris and Galveston Counties for 

the purpose of preventing land subsidence, which leads to increased flooding” (Harris-Galveston 

Subsidence District, 2009).

After 1975, the HGSD directed a transition from groundwater to surface water and efforts to 

conserve water that reversed the long-term trend in groundwater withdrawals in Harris County despite 

continued population increases (fig. 3). By 2001, groundwater withdrawals in Harris County had 

decreased to about 290 million gallons per day, a 29-percent reduction from the peak withdrawal rate 

of 410 million gallons per day in 1976. The groundwater regulatory plan of the HGSD mandates that 

groundwater will account for a maximum of 20 percent of the water supply in Harris and Galveston 

Counties by 2030 (Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, 2001).

Subsidence trends in Harris County reflect the pattern of groundwater withdrawals. Before the 

1940s, subsidence was localized and associated with oil and gas extraction primarily in the Baytown 

area. By the early 1940s, groundwater withdrawals for industrial and municipal use had caused measurable subsidence centered in the area of the Houston Ship Channel (Baytown-Pasadena area). By the 

mid-1970s, 6 feet or more of subsidence had occurred in the Baytown-Pasadena area, and by 1979 

almost 3,200 square miles of the greater Houston area (in Harris County and adjacent counties) had 

subsided more than 1 foot (Coplin and Galloway, 1999, p. 40). Since the early 1990s, subsidence in the 

Baytown-Pasadena area as indicated by measured compaction data (Kasmarek and others, 2009, fig. 16) 

has essentially ceased because of major reductions in groundwater withdrawals in the area; but in the 

western Houston area (Addicks), subsidence as indicated by measured compaction data from the 1970s 

through 2001 was about 0.12 foot per year because of continued groundwater withdrawals in the area.

Mechanisms of Land-Surface Subsidence

The weight of aquifer material (overburden) overlying stored groundwater is supported by a 

combination of hydraulic pressure exerted by the water and pressure exerted by the sediment material, 

or “skeletal matrix,” of an aquifer. When water is withdrawn, water levels in an aquifer decline and the 

hydraulic pressure in the aquifer decreases, which results in a corresponding increase in pressure that 

the skeleton must exert to support the weight of the overburden. In aquifers composed of sand and clay 

layers, the increase in skeletal pressure causes compaction of the clay layers (sand compacts also, but 

negligibly compared to clay), which in turn results in subsidence of the land surface (fig. 4). When 

Pasadena

Baytown

Houston

GALVESTON

COUNTY

BRAZORIA

COUNTY

FORT BENDCOUNTY

WALLER COUNTY

LIBERTY

 COUNTY

MONTGOMERY

COUNTY

HARRIS COUNTY

SHELDON

RESERVOIR

TRINITY BA

LAKE

HOUSTON

GALVESTON BAY

Houston Ship Channel

CHAMBERS

 COUNTY

95o00' 95o 95 15' o 95 30' o

45'

29o

45'

30o

00'

29o

30'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

Digital data, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

TEXAS

Harris County

0 8 16 24 MILES

Figure 1. Location of Harris County and Houston, Texas.

A A'

A 1

2

3 4 5

6

7

8 9

10

11

A'

Location map

V V V V

HUMBLE

No. 1 Sealy

EXETER

No. 1 Bradley

KURDICK

No. 1 Stoneham

LONE STAR

No. 1 Goforth

SUPERIOR

No. B-1 McWhorter

NEWMAN & GEOTEK

No. 1 Ziegenhain

SPARTA

No. 1 Suttles et. al.

TENNESSEE GAS

No. 1 Martin UnitHUGHES

No. 1 Goar Est.

PHILLIPS

No. 5 Guaranty

SOHIO

No. 1 Kopperl

Well number on location map

Fleming Quaternary outcrop

outcrop

Catahoula

outcrop

WALLER

COUNTY

GRIMES COUNTY

GALVESTON

 COUNTY

HARRIS COUNTY

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Grimes County Montgomery County Harris County Galveston County 400

-400

-800

-1,200

-1,600

-2,000

-4,400

-4,800

-4,000

-3,600

-3,200

-2,800

-2,400

-5,200

-7,600

-7,200

-6,800

-6,400

-6,000

-5,600

NGVD 29

FEET FEET

NGVD 29

400

-400

-800

-1,200

-1,600

-2,000

-4,400

-4,800

-4,000

-3,600

-3,200

-2,800

-2,400

-5,200

-7,600

-7,200

-6,800

-6,400

-6,000

-5,600

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST

0 4 8 12 16 MILES

Vertical scale greatly exaggerated

Undifferentiated Pre-Miocene deposits

Anahuac

Formation

Formation

"Frio"

Upper part of 

Catahoula

Sandstone

Base of 

Catahoula 

Sandstone 

Catahoula 

confining 

system (restricted) 

Jasper

aquifer

Base of 

Fleming 

Formation

Chicot

Evangeline

Burkeville

confining

unit

aquifer

aquifer

Approximate land surface

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes 

only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

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

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

For product and ordering information:

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

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the 

Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment:

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

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Figure 2. Hydrogeologic section of the Gulf Coast aquifer system in Harris County and adjacent counties, Texas (modified from Baker, 1979, fig. 4).

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS, IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

0

100

200

300

400

POPULATION, IN MILLIONS

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

500

Groundwater withdrawal

Population

Sources: Population (1900–90)—U.S. Census Bureau (1995),

Population (2000)—U.S. Census Bureau (2008),

Withdrawals (1900–70)—Kasmarek and Robinson (2004, appendix),

Withdrawals (1980–2000)—Harris-Galveston Subsidence District (written commun., 2008)

Figure 3. Trends in groundwater withdrawals and population in 

Harris County, Texas, 1900–2000.

Permanent land subsidence caused by

irreversible inelastic deformation 

Compaction of the aquifer system is

concentrated in the clay and silt layers. 

When long-term withdrawals

lower groundwater levels

and increase stress on the

clay and silt beyond a threshold

amount, the clay and silt

compact and the land surface

subsides permanently.

Depth

to water

Long-term decline in water level

modulated by the seasonal cycles

of groundwater withdrawals

Clay and silt

Sand and gravel

Land surface

Land surface

Time Granular clay and silt

skeleton defining fluidfilled pore spaces

storing groundwater 

Rearranged, compacted granular clay and

silt skeleton with

reduced groundwater

storage capacity

Figure 4. Diagram showing the mechanisms of subsidence in an aquifer composed of sand 

and clay (modified from Galloway and others, 1999, p. 9).

recharge replenishes the aquifer and water levels and hydraulic pressure recover, a relatively small 

amount of uplift (rebound) of the land surface can occur; but in areas such as Harris County, where 

withdrawals over many years have caused substantial cones of depression in water levels of the Chicot 

and Evangeline aquifers (figs. 5A and 5B, respectively), most of the compaction of clay layers is 

inelastic and irreversible. The compaction, and thus subsidence, is essentially permanent because the 

skeletal matrix of the aquifer has deformed, and the individual grains within the clay layer have been 

reoriented or realigned (Galloway and others, 1999).

Historical 1915–17 Topographic Maps

Thirty-eight historical 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps that together encompass Harris 

County, constructed from topographic surveys done by the USGS during 1915–17, were obtained from 

the USGS Library in Denver, Colo. Land-surface elevation relative to mean sea level datum is indicated 

on the maps by contour lines at 1-foot intervals. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department digitized 

these maps, creating 38 vector (x, y, z coordinate-based) datasets, each in the Lambert conformal conic 

projection. The USGS obtained these datasets, with metadata (Kim Ludeke, Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department, written commun., 2008), reprojected them into the State Plane projection, and converted 

them into 38 raster (grid of cells) datasets. In other words, for each dataset a digital surface represented 

by contour lines connecting points of equal elevation was converted to a digital surface represented by a 

grid of cells, each cell with a value of elevation. This type of dataset is also known as a digital elevation 

model (DEM). A DEM is a digital file (GIS layer) of land-surface elevations at regularly spaced 

intervals. The 38 datasets were then edge matched by interpolating between adjacent edge values to 

create a combined, single DEM with a cell size of 15 feet square using GIS techniques (Hutchinson, 

1988).

Examination of 1915–17 Contours

The dataset of elevation contours extracted from the quadrangles was checked for line placement accuracy, elevation accuracy, and quality of edge matching across the paper map sheets. Overall, 

the elevation lines and associated values match the raster map images. Where the original quadrangle 

sheet borders another quadrangle, shifts in the contour placement and discrepancies in elevation values 

occurred. The error types in the dataset were characterized as edge-matching errors, human errors, and 

mislabeled contours. The edge-matching errors exist in areas where individual quadrangles converge 

and the respective contours are misaligned or are offset compared to the adjacent quadrangle. Errors 

introduced during the digital conversion from quadrangles to GIS contours are classified as human 

errors and include the combining of the quadrangle boundary with the topographic contours. Mislabeled 

contours were a result of erroneously classifying a topographic depression as an area of rise and labeling 

the contours accordingly.

A subset of thirty 1-square-mile areas was randomly selected and examined for the effects of 

edge-matching errors, human errors, and mislabeled contours. The absolute value of the maximum error, 

or difference in elevation, and the percentage of the area in the cell that was affected were noted. The 

resultant values were then used to compute an area-weighted average absolute error of 0.01 foot. The 

elevation accuracy associated with the contours on a quadrangle is plus or minus one-half the contour 

interval, or 0.5 foot. A comprehensive data evaluation and data modification to correct all errors in the 

dataset were beyond the scope of this report. 

Vertical Datum Conversion

The North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) currently (2009) is the official vertical 

datum for the United States (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2007) and the datum of 

choice for USGS data. Because the datum of the historical quadrangle maps is mean sea level, conversion to NAVD 88 was necessary. The mean sea level vertical datum was determined to be the Fourth 

General Adjustment of 1912. Through time, vertical datums related to sea level have undergone numerous adjustments as additional benchmarks were established, historical benchmarks were reoccupied, 

leveling techniques improved, and technology evolved. The Sea Level Datum of 1929 was based on 26 

tidal stations and in 1973 was renamed National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) because 

the vertical datum used did not reflect mean sea level.

The 1915–17 USGS quadrangles were produced from leveling surveys done by the USGS in 

cooperation with Harris County on the basis of benchmark locations and elevations in accordance with 

the Fourth General Adjustment of 1912 (Bowie and Avers, 1914; Marshall, 1916a, b). The current 

(2009) National Geodetic Survey (NGS) benchmark database was queried for these benchmarks. Many 

of these benchmarks had been reoccupied in subsequent survey leveling studies.

A set of 62 benchmarks from the historical leveling surveys was obtained for Harris County and 

the surrounding area from the NGS (National Geodetic Survey, 2009a). Of these, seven were selected 

to estimate the adjustment from 1912 to NGVD 29. Most of the 62 benchmarks were not used because 

they were located in areas of historical subsidence; the seven selected were not. The mean difference 

between the Fourth General Adjustment of 1912 and NGVD 29 was used to adjust the 1915–17 raster 

elevations from the elevations relative to mean sea level from the 1915–17 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. An adjustment factor of 0.105 foot was calculated and subtracted from each DEM grid-cell 

value to compensate for the difference in vertical datums between the Fourth General Adjustment of 

1912 and NGVD 29.

The change in elevation corresponding to the change in vertical datum for Harris County 

from NGVD 29 to NAVD 88 was determined using Corpscon version 6 software. The Corpscon 

software uses the NGS software “Vertcon” to convert between NGVD 29 and NAVD 88 (National 

Geodetic Survey, 2009b; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009). The changes in elevations resulting 

from the change in vertical datum ranged from -0.04 foot in eastern Harris County to 0.18 foot in 

western Harris County.

2001 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) Data

LiDAR is a laser-based scanning technology that is used to obtain three-dimensional topography. 

The technology is particularly useful when it is important to obtain a large amount of high-resolution 

land-surface elevation data in a relatively short time over a large geographic area. LiDAR has been used 

in areas of glacial advance and retreat or river sandbar accretion and erosion (Collins and Kayen, 2006); 

and in coastal areas for shoreline mapping and change analysis, storm-surge modeling, and sea-levelrise scenarios (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center, 2009). 

Instrumented aircraft transmit laser pulses to land surface and record the time it takes for the pulses to 

return to a receiver sensor. Millions of data points are recorded as the pulses are reflected back from 

points at various distances from the sensor. The sensor is integrated with a global positioning system 

(GPS) and an inertial navigation system to obtain exact locations of the point measurements. After 

post-processing the data to relate recorded laser pulse times to distances, the multitude of pointmeasurement data collectively defines a detailed DEM of land-surface topography.

Tropical Storm Allison produced record amounts of rain in southeastern Texas in June 2001. 

Nearly 37 inches of rain fell in Houston (National Weather Service Hydrometeorological Prediction 

Center, 2009), causing widespread flooding that resulted in 22 deaths and more than $5 billion of 

damages (Harris County Flood Control District Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project, 2009). 

In October 2001, LiDAR technology was applied in Harris County by the Tropical Storm Allison 

Recovery Project (TSARP) to obtain detailed land-surface elevation data for use in studies to identify 

areas of high flood risk in Harris County. The 2001 LiDAR dataset was collected using stringent 

quality-assurance protocols (Peggy Cobb, Terrapoint USA, Inc., written commun., 2009). The result 

of the LiDAR mapping, provided to the USGS by the TSARP, was a series of 157 DEMs (vertical 

datum NAVD 88), with metadata, covering Harris County (Harris County Flood Control District 

Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project, 2002). The DEM cell size is 30 centimeters (about 1 foot) 

by 30 centimeters. The surface elevation accuracy is about 15 centimeters (about 0.5 foot). Thus, 

the DEMs provided detailed representations of land-surface elevation, including the effect on elevation 

of essentially all natural and anthropogenic features. Positive relief features in the DEMs, such as 

buildings, cars, tree canopy, highway overpasses, and so forth, were removed from the DEMs through 

post-processing filtering techniques to yield “bare-earth” representations of land surface. Nevertheless, 

it is unlikely that every positive relief feature that could result in erroneous bare-earth elevations 

was eliminated. Subsequently, using standard GIS techniques (see “Downloads Directory” at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3097/), the USGS combined the separate DEMs into a single DEM for all 

of Harris County. 

Map Showing Estimated Land-Surface Subsidence in Harris 

County, 1915–17 to 2001

The map (DEM) showing estimated subsidence from 1915–17 to 2001 in Harris County (fig. 6) 

was created by subtracting the 1915–17 DEM from the 2001 DEM using GIS techniques. The metadata 

for the subsidence map contain a detailed description of the GIS techniques involved (see “Downloads 

Directory”). Although each of the two DEMs is accurate on a regional scale, each has potential inherent 

inaccuracies on a local or site-specific scale. As noted in the “Examination of 1915–17 Contours” 

section, for the thirty-eight 1915–17 topographic quadrangle datasets, a random sampling of thirty 

1-square-mile areas yielded an area-weighted average absolute error of 0.01 foot relative to the original 

quadrangle elevations; and the elevation accuracy associated with the contours on a quadrangle is 0.5 

foot. As noted in the “2001 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) Data” section, the metadata-reported 

accuracy for the LiDAR data was about 15 centimeters or about 0.5 foot. The accuracy of the values in 

the 1915–17 to 2001 subsidence dataset, and thus the subsidence map, is a combination of the accuracies of the two source datasets. 

The dataset contains subsidence values ranging from 0 to -20 feet. However, estimated maximum subsidence (fig. 6) is in the 

range of 12–13 feet. Areas visible on the map in the ranges from 13 to 20 feet likely are the result of subsidence combined with 

erosion associated with flooding, or the result of subsidence combined with other anthropogenic activity. Isolated, local areas of actu

subsidence in the ranges from 13 to 20 feet are contained in the dataset but are too small to be visible at the scale of the map.

Null values—white areas on the subsidence map (fig. 6)—primarily indicate areas where the land-surface elevation in 2001 

was greater than the elevation in 1915–17, areas covered by water bodies, or areas where subsidence exceeded 20 feet. Elevation 

differences in areas where 2001 elevations were greater than 1915–17 elevations generally were small, ranging from 1 to 2 feet and 

likely are attributable to inaccuracies in the source data. Numerous null-value areas are in the northeastern and northwestern parts of 

Harris County where development is relatively less and densely wooded areas could have attenuated the LiDAR signal, which would

cause a misrepresentation of the bare-earth elevation. In the northeastern part of the county, Lake Houston is an example of a null are

caused by a water body. The many rivers, creeks, canals, and bayous in Harris County also are null areas. Some other null areas resul

from anthropogenic influences involving landscape modification, such as water-detention structures for flood control. Addicks and 

Barker Reservoirs flood-detention basins in the southwestern part of the county are null because the fill for the earthen dams was 

excavated from within the basin areas. 

Subsidence Map Compared with Contours of Measured Subsidence, 1906–2000

The GIS-developed 1915–17 to 2001 subsidence map shows broad agreement with overlain contours of measured subsidence

from 1906 to 2000 (Gabrysch and Neighbors, 2005, fig. 2). In the part of the county where the most historical subsidence has 

occurred, the Baytown-Pasadena area, the map shows estimated subsidence mostly in the ranges from 6 to 10 feet with localized 

subsidence as much as 13 feet. The 1906–2000 contours indicate measured subsidence in that area mostly in the ranges from 7 to 10 

feet. In much of the central and southern parts of the county, estimated mapped subsidence in the ranges from 3 to 6 feet is most 

prevalent, with numerous small areas in the ranges from 6 to 10 feet in the central part of the county. Much of the same central part o

the county and some of the southern part are enclosed between the 5- and 7-foot 1906–2000 contours of measured subsidence. The 

rest of the county, the northwestern and northeastern parts, shows estimated historical subsidence of 0 to 3 feet. Measured 1906–200

subsidence in the northwestern and northeastern parts of the county ranges from less than 1 to 5 feet, as indicated by the overlain 

contours, with subsidence lessening with distance away from the Baytown-Pasadena area of greatest subsidence. 

Subsidence Map Compared with Measured Cumulative Clay Compaction at 10 

Extensometer Sites

The USGS measures cumulative clay compaction continuously at 10 sites in Harris County (fig. 6) using borehole extensometers (Kasmarek and others, 2009). Two extensometers, one relatively shallow and one relatively deep, are at each of two 

sites, making a total of 12 in the county (table 1). The extensometers were installed during July 1973–July 1980. As noted in the 

“Historical Groundwater Withdrawals and Land-Surface Subsidence” section, regulation of groundwater withdrawals by the HGSD 

starting in the 1970s substantially reduced withdrawals throughout much of the county. Installation of the extensometers generally 

coincided with the start of regulation that reduced withdrawals. Data in table 1 are evidence that reducing withdrawals reduces 

subsidence. Assuming extensometer installation and the start of groundwater regulation occurred at the same time, on average at the 

extensometer sites, 77 percent of the 1915–17 to 2001 subsidence occurred before regulation (during the first 69 percent of the 

historical period of record). The average annual rate of subsidence at the sites before regulation was 0.08 foot per year; after regulation, it was 0.05 foot per year. At the Pasadena and Baytown sites, in the area of maximum subsidence, 97 and 92 percent (Baytown 

shallow), respectively, of the subsidence occurred before regulation. The only site where a greater percentage of total subsidence 

occurred after regulation, and the annual rate of subsidence between the mid-1970s and 2001was substantially greater after regulatio

was Addicks in the western Houston area, where appreciable groundwater withdrawals continued after the mid-1970s (HarrisGalveston Subsidence District, 2009).

Summary

Withdrawal of groundwater has caused compaction of clay layers in the aquifers underlying Harris County, Texas, which in 

turn has resulted in widespread, substantial land-surface (land) subsidence. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation 

with the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District (HGSD), prepared a map to show the estimated land subsidence that has occurred 

in Harris County since the early 1900s. The map was constructed using geographic information system (GIS) techniques that 

involved subtraction of 1915–17 land-surface (topographic map) elevations from 2001 land-surface elevations derived from Light 

Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data. 

Groundwater withdrawals in the Houston area increased from the 1940s into the early 1970s, accompanied by increased 

frequency and severity of flooding. Created by the Texas Legislature in 1975, the HGSD directed a transition from groundwater to 

surface water and efforts to conserve water that reversed the long-term trend in groundwater withdrawals in Harris County despite 

continued population increases. 

Subsidence trends in Harris County reflect the pattern of groundwater withdrawals. By the mid-1970s, 6 feet or more of 

subsidence had occurred throughout the area of the Houston Ship Channel (Baytown-Pasadena area), and by 1979 hundreds of 

square miles of the greater Houston area had subsided more than 1 foot. Since the early 1990s, subsidence in the BaytownPasadena area has essentially ceased because of major reductions in groundwater withdrawals in the area; but in the western 

Houston area (Addicks), subsidence continued because of continued groundwater withdrawals in the area.

The USGS obtained 38 historical 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps (contour lines at 1-foot interval) that together 

encompass Harris County; the maps were constructed from topographic surveys done by the USGS during 1915–17. The Texas 

Parks and Wildlife Department digitized these maps, creating 38 vector datasets. The USGS converted the vector datasets into 

raster datasets (digital elevation models [DEMs]) and combined them into a single DEM using GIS techniques. Because the datum 

of the historical quadrangle maps is mean sea level (Fourth General Adjustment of 1912), elevation adjustments were applied to 

convert the vertical datum of the DEM to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), the current (2009) datum of choice 

for USGS data.

After Tropical Storm Allison in June 2001, LiDAR technology was applied in Harris County by the Tropical Storm Allison 

Recovery Project (TSARP) to obtain detailed land-surface elevation data. The TSARP provided the USGS a series of 157 

LiDAR-based “bare-earth” DEMs. The USGS combined the separate DEMs into a single DEM (vertical datum NAVD 88) for all 

of Harris County using GIS techniques.

The map (DEM) showing estimated subsidence from 1915–17 to 2001 in Harris County was created by subtracting the 

1915–17 DEM from the 2001 DEM using GIS techniques. The GIS-developed 1915–17 to 2001 subsidence map shows broad 

agreement with overlain contours of measured subsidence from 1906 to 2000. In the part of the county where the most historical 

subsidence has occurred, the Baytown-Pasadena area, the map shows subsidence mostly in the ranges from 6 to 10 feet with 

localized subsidence as much as 13 feet. In much of the central and southern parts of the county, mapped subsidence in the ranges 

from 3 to 6 feet is most prevalent. The rest of the county, the northwestern and northeastern parts, shows historical subsidence of 0 

to 3 feet.

The USGS measures cumulative clay compaction continuously at 10 sites in Harris County using 12 borehole extensometers (two at each of two sites). Extensometer installation and the start of groundwater regulation occurred at about the 

same time (mid-1970s). On average at the extensometer sites, 77 percent of the 1915–17 to 2001 subsidence occurred before 

regulation (during the first 69 percent of the historical period of record). The average annual rate of subsidence at the sites before 

regulation was 0.08 foot per year; after regulation, it was 0.05 foot per year. The only site where a greater percentage of total 

subsidence occurred after regulation, and the annual rate of subsidence between the mid-1970s and 2001was substantially greater 

after regulation, was Addicks in the western Houston area, where appreciable groundwater withdrawals continued after the 

mid-1970s. 

al 

a 

t 

f 

0 

n, 

Estimated Land-Surface Subsidence in Harris County, Texas, 1915–17 to 2001

By 

Mark C. Kasmarek, Robert K. Gabrysch1

, and Michaela R. Johnson 1 U.S. Geological Survey, retired.

2009

A B

Pasadena

Baytown

Houston

SHELDON

RESERVOIR

LAKE

HOUSTON

GALVESTON BAY

Houston Ship Channel

GALVESTON

COUNTY

BRAZORIA

COUNTY

FORT BEND

COUNTY

WALLER COUNTY

LIBERTY COUNTY

MONTGOMERY

COUNTY

CHAMBERS COUNTY

HARRIS COUNTY

95o00'

95o 95 15' o 95 30' o

45'

29o

45'

30o

00'

29o

30'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

Digital data, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

0 8 16 24 MILES

Water-level contour—Shows altitude at which water

would have stood in tightly cased well. Interval 50

feet. Datum is NGVD 29

Data point—Well in which water-level measurement 

was made. One point can represent more than one well

EXPLANATION

-50

200

150

100

50

0

-50

-100

-150

-200

-200

-150

-100

-50

-250

-300

-150

-100

Pasadena

Baytown

Houston

GALVESTON

COUNTY

BRAZORIA

COUNTY

FORT BEND

COUNTY

WALLER COUNTY

MONTGOMERY

COUNTY

HARRIS COUNTY

SHELDON

RESERVOIR

LAKE

HOUSTON

GALVESTON BAY

Houston Ship Channel

LIBERTY COUNTY

CHAMBERS COUNTY

Water-level contour—Shows altitude at which water

would have stood in tightly cased well. Interval 50

feet. Datum is NGVD 29

Data point—Well in which water-level measurement 

was made. One point can represent more than one well

EXPLANATION

-50

95o00'

95o 95 15' o 95 30' o

45'

29o

45'

30o

00'

29o

30'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

Digital data, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

0 8 16 24 MILES

100

50

0

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

-350

-350

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

GRIMES COUNTY

WALKER COUNTY

SAN JACINTO COUNTY

Y

EAST BAY

WEST BAY

GULF OF MEXICO

GRIMES COUNTY

SAN JACINTO 

WALKER COUNTY

TRINITY BAY

LAKE

CONROE

EAST BAY

WEST BAY

GULF OF MEXICO

GRIMES COUNTY

SAN JACINTO 

WALKER COUNTY

COUNTY

TRINITY BAY

LAKE

CONROE

EAST BAY

WEST BAY

GULF OF MEXICO

Publishing support provided by

Lafayette Publishing Service Center

Information regarding water 

resources in Texas is available at 

http://tx.usgs.gov/

Figure 5. Water-level elevations for 1977 in Harris County and surrounding counties, Texas, in the (A) Chicot aquifer (modified from Gabrysch, 1979, sheet 1) and (B) Evangeline aquifer (modified from Gabrysch, 1979, sheet 2).