H* :,J! IB

CHARLES N. DURFOR and EDITH BECKER

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1812
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Thomas B. Nolan, Director

The U.S. Geological Survey Library has cataloged this publication as follows :

Durfor, Charles Norman, 1923-

Public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in the United 

States, 1962, by Charles N. Durfor and Edith Becker. 

[Washington, U.S. Govt, Print. Off., 1964]

ix, 364 p., illus., maps, diagrs., tables. 24 cm. ([U.S.] Geological 

Survey. Water-Supply Paper 1812) 

Bibliography: p. 81-83.

1. Water-supply U.S. 2. Water, Underground U.S. I. Becker, 

Edith, 1930 , joint author. II. Title. (Series)

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

Washington, B.C., 20402 - Price $2.00 (paper cover)
CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Use of water in large cities .................... 4

Sources of water supplies ..................... 8

Ground-water supplies .................... 8

Surface-water supplies..................... H

Factors affecting streamflow ................ 11

Mineral content of streams ................ 11

Impoundment of streams ................. 12

The Great Lakes ..................... 13

Constituents and properties of water ................ 14

Major chemical constituents .................. 14

Major properties ....................... 23

Hardness ........................ 23

Specific conductance ................... 27

pH ........................... 29

Color .......................... 31

Turbidity ........................ 31

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

Minor chemical constituents .................. 32

Analyses of water......................... 37

Chemical analyses ...................... 38

Spectrographic analyses .................... 41

Radiochemical analyses .................... 44

Water treatment ......................... 45

Screening .......................... 48

Prechlorination ........................ 48

Sedimentation ........................ 48

Chemical treatment...................... 49

Coagulation ....................... 49

Softening ........................ 53

Removal of tastes and odors ................ 54

Clarification ......................... 55

Filtration .......................... 56

Removal of iron and manganese ................ 57

Postchemical treatment .................... 58

Postchlorination ....................... 58

Effect of water treatment upon water quality .......... 59

Quality of the water served to the consumer ............. 61

Cost of chemicals used in water treatment .......... 68

Industrial water use ..................- 70

Summary ............................ 72

For further information ...................... 79

References cited ......................... 81

m
INVENTORY OF MUNICIPAL SUPPLIES

	Page

Alabama ............................ 87

Birmingham ......................... 87

Mobile ........................... 90

Montgomery ......................... 92

Arizona ............................. 95

Phoenix ........................... 95

Tucson ........................... 97

California ............................ 99

Fresno ........................... 99

Long Beach ......................... 101

Los Angeles ......................... 105

Oakland ........................... 108

Sacramento ......................... Ill

San Diego .......................... 113

San Francisco ........................ 115

San Jose ........................... 117

Colorado ............................ 119

Denver ........................... 119

Connecticut ........................... 123

Bridgeport .......................... 123

Hartford .......................... 126

New Haven ......................... 129

District of Columbia ....................... 133

Washington ......................... 133

Florida .................... ........ 137

Jacksonville ......................... 137

Miami ........................... 139

St. Petersburg ........................ 142

Tampa ........................... 144

Georgia ............................. 147

Atlanta ........................... 147

Savannah .......................... 150

Hawaii ............................. 153

Honolulu .......................... 153

Illinois ............................. 157

Chicago ........................... 157

Rockford .......................... 161

Indiana ............................. 163

Evansville .......................... 163

Fort Wayne ......................... 165

Gary ............................ 167

Indianapolis ......................... 169

South Bend ......................... .172

Iowa .............................. 175

Des Moines ......................... 175

IV
INVENTORY OF MUNICIPAL SUPPLIES V

	Page

Kansas ............................. 179

Kansas City ......................... 179

Topeka ........................... 182

Wichita ........................... 185

Kentucky ............................ 189

Louisville .......................... 189

Louisiana ............................ 191

Baton Rouge......................... 191

New Orleans ........................ 193

Shreveport.......................... 195

Maryland ............................ 197

Baltimore .......................... 197

Massachusetts ....................... . 201

Boston ........................... 201

Springfield .......................... 205

Worcester .......................... 208

Michigan ............................ 211

Detroit ........................... 211

Flint ............................ 213

Grand Rapids ........................ 215

Minnesota ............................ 217

Minneapolis ......................... 217

St. Paul ........................... 220

Mississippi ........................... 223

Jackson ........................... 223

Missouri ............................ 225

Kansas City ......................... 225

St. Louis .......................... 227

Nebraska ............................ 231

Lincoln ........................... 231

Omaha ........................... 234

New Jersey ........................... 237

Jersey City ......................... 237

Newark ........................... 240

Paterson .......................... 242

New Mexico ........................... 245

Albuquerque ........................ 245

New York ............................ 247

Albany ........................... 247

Buffalo ........................... 249

New York City ....................... 251

Rochester .......................... 255

Syracuse .......................... 257

Yonkers .......................... 259

North Carolina .......................... 263

Charlotte ........................... 263

Greensboro. ......................... 266

Ohio .............................. 269

Akron............................ 269

Cincinnati .......................... 272

Cleveland .......................... 275

Columbus .......................... 278
VI INVENTORY OF MUNICIPAL SUPPLIES

Ohio Continued Page

Dayton ........................... 281

Toledo ........................... 283

Youngstown ......................... 286

Oklahoma ............................ 289

Oklahoma City ........................ 289

Tulsa ............................ 291

Oregon ............................. 293

Portland .......................... 293

Pennsylvania .......................... 295

Erie ............................ 295

Philadelphia ......................... 297

Pittsburgh .......................... 300

Rhode Island .......................... 303

Providence .......................... 303

Tennessee ............................ 307

Chattanooga ......................... 307

Memphis. .......................... 309

Nashville ........................... 312

Texas .............................. 315

Amarillo........................... 315

Austin ........................... 318

Corpus Christi ........................ 320

Dallas. ........................... 323

El Paso ........................... 327

Fort Worth ......................... 330

Houston .......................... 333

Lubbock .......................... 337

San Antonio ......................... 339

Utah .................... ........ 343

Salt Lake City ........................ 343

Virginia ............................. 347

Norfolk ........................... 347

Richmond .......................... 350

Washington ........................... 353

Seattle ........................... 35&

Spokane ........................... 356

Tacoma ........... '. ............... 358

Wisconsin ............................ 361

Madison........................... 361

Milwaukee. ......................... 363
FIGURES

Page

1. Use of water in an average home in Akron, Ohio ......... 5

2. Increase in water use and population in Los Angeles, Calif., and N<JW

York City, N.Y., 1940-60 .................. 7

3. Sources of water for public water supplies ............ 9

4. Solution cavity in limestone. .................. 20

5. Dissolved solids in untreated public water supplies ........ 22

6. Hardness of untreated public water supplies ........... 28

7. pH of untreated public water supplies .............. 30

8. Stream temperatures during summer months ........... 32

9. Tests commonly made in water analyses ............. 39

10. Methods of chemical, spectrographic, and radiochemical analyses of

water ........................... 42

11. Flowsheet and pictures illustrating the treatment of a hypothetical

"very hard" public water supply ............... 50

12. Effect of water softening upon the chemical composition of wrter

being treated ........................ 60

13. Hardness of treated public water supplies ............ 62

14. pH of treated public water supplies ............... 64

15. Dissolved solids in treated public water supplies ......... 65

16. Beta activity of dissolved solids in untreated and treated public wf ter

supplies .......................... 66

Maps of water supplies and areas served:

17. Birmingham, Ala., water system . ................ 89

18. Long Beach, Calif., water system ................ 103

19. Long Beach, Los Angeles, and San Diego, Calif., water systems ... 107

20. Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Jose, Calif., wfter

systems .......................... 109

21. Denver, Colo., water system .................. 121

22. Bridgeport, Conn., Hydraulic Co ................ 125

23. Metropolitan District of Hartford County, Conn., water system ... 127

24. New Haven, Conn., Water Co ...............*. 131

25. District of Columbia water system ............... 135

26. Miami, Fla., water system ................... 141

27. Atlanta, Ga., water system ................... 149

28. Honolulu, Hawaii, water system ................. 155

29. Chicago, 111., water system ................... 159

30. Indianapolis, Ind., Water Co .................. 171

31. Des Moines, Iowa, water system . ................ 177

32. Kansas City, Kans., and Kansas City, Mo., water department . . . 181

33. Topeka, Kans., water system .................. 183

34. Wichita, Kans., water system .................. 187

35. Baltimore, Md., water system .................. 199

VII
VIII FIGURES

	Page

36. Metropolitan (Boston, Mass.) District Commission water system . . 203

37. Springfield, Mass., water system ................ 207

38. Worcester, Mass., water system ................. 209

39. Minneapolis, Minn., water system ................ 219

40. St. Paul, Minn., water system .................. 221

41. St. Louis, Mo., area major water-supply systems . ......... 229

42. Lincoln, Nebr., water system .................. 233

43. Omaha, Nebr., water system .................. 235

44. Northern New Jersey water systems ............... 239

45. New York City Bureau of Water Supply ............. 253

46. Yonkers, N.Y., water system .................. 261

47. Charlotte, N.C., water system ................. 265

48. Greensboro, N.C., water system ................. 267

49. Akron, Ohio, water system ................... 271

50. Cincinnati, Ohio, water system ................. 273

51. Cleveland, Ohio, water system ................. 277

52. Columbus, Ohio, water system ................. 279

53. Toledo, Ohio, water system ................... 285

54. Mahoning Valley Sanitary District, Youngstown, Ohio ....... 287

55. Philadelphia, Pa., Water Department .............. 299

56. Providence, R.I., water system ................. 305

57. Memphis, Tenn., water system ................. 311

58. Corpus Christi, Tex., water system ............... 321

59. Dallas, Tex., water system ................... 325

60. El Paso, Tex., water system .................. 329

61. Fort Worth, Tex., water system ................ 331

62. Houston, Tex., water system .................. 336

63. San Antonio, Tex., water system ................ 341

64. Salt Lake City, Utah, water system ............... 345

65. Norfolk, Va., water system ................... 349

66. Richmond, Va., water system .................. 351

67. Seattle, Wash., water system .................. 355
TABLES

Page

1. The 100 largest cities in the United States ......... Facing page 1

2. Major chemical constituents in water their sources, concentrations,

and effects upon usability .................. 16

3. Properties of water their description, concentrations, and effects upon

usability .......................... '24

4. Minor constituents in water their common sources, concentrations

found, and recommended maximum concentration in drinking water. 34

5. Spectrographic detection limits for elements ........... 41

6. Characteristics of water of ideal quality, as suggested by the American

Water Works Association .................. 46

7. Sources and treatments of public water supplies of the 100 largest cities

in the United States, 1962 .................. 47

8. Summary of chemical, spectrographic, and radiochemical analyser of 

treated water supplies of the 100 largest cities in the United States, 

1962. ........................... 68

9. Water-quality tolerances of cooling water suggested by American

Water Works Association .................. 70

10. Water-quality tolerances of boiler water ............. 71

11. Summary of data on public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in

the United States, 1962 ................... 74

12. Maximum, median, and minimum values of constituents and properties 

of finished water in public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in 

the United States, 1962 ................... 78

13. Summary of quality of public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in

the United States, 1962 ................... 79

IX
Table 1. The 100 largest cities in the United States 

[Identification number used on figures 3, 5-7, 13-15]

Alabama: 

Birmingham _

Mobile _ ____ _

Arizona:

Tucson_ ____

California: 

Fresno ____ _ _

Oakland------ _

Sacramento

Colorado:

Connecticut:

Hartford _ _ _

New Haven_

District of Columbia:

Florida: 

JacksonvilleMiami ___

St. Petersburg. __

Atlanta.

Savannah. . _

Hawaii:

Honolulu _ _

Illinois : 

Chicago

Rockford

Indiana:

Fort Wayne.____

Gary

Indianapolis. __ _

South Bend

Iowa:

Des Moines _ _

1

?

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1?

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

?.?.

23

94

25

26

97

OQ

29

30

31

32

33

Kansas : 

Kansas City____

Topeka_ _ Wichita __ _____

Kentucky:

Louisiana:

Baton Rouge. 

New Orleans

Massachusetts :

Boston- - -

Michigan : 

Detroit .

Grand Rapids . .

Minnesota:

Minneapolis __

St. Paul.--_---_

Mississippi:

Missouri: 

Kansas City __

Nebraska:

New Jersey:

Jersey City

Newark _ ____

New Mexico: 

Albuquerque - _

New York:

Albany.

Buffalo__ ____ -

New York City__ 

Rochester..... _

"Von ITPT*Q

Greensboro, _ __

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

58

59

60

64

65

66

Ohio:

Akron_______-._ 67

Cincinnati--____ 68

Cleveland. ..-- 69 

Columbus__-__ 70 

Dayton_______ 71

Toledo__.____-_ 72

Youngstown___ 73

Oklahoma:

Oklahoma City-. 74 

Tulsa_____ _._--- 75

Oregon:

Portland_.__-___ 76

Pennsylvania:

Erie_--___----_- 77 

Philadelphia- . 78 

Pittsburgh------ 79

Rhode Islard:

Providence.-._ _ _ 80

Tennessee:

Chattanooga. _ _ - 81 

Memphis ___-__. 82 

Nashville.---.-- 83

Texas:

Amarillo. _______ 84

Austin______-___ 85

Corpus Christi__ 86 

Dallas__-----__- 87

El Paso ------ 88

Fort Worth. _-__ 89 

Houston. -__-__- 90 

Lubbock_.-_____ 91

San Antonio. _ _ 92

Utah:

Salt Lake City. _ 93

Virginia:

Norfolk_______ 94

Richmond ______ 95

Washington: 

Seattle..------- 96

Spokane. _.--_--_ 97 

Tacoma__------ 98

Wisconsin:

Madison. _______ 99

Milwaukee....-- 100
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES OF THE

100 LARGEST CITIES IN THl!

UNITED STATES, 1962

By CHARLES N. DURFOR and EDITH BECKER

ABSTRACT

The public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in the United States (1960 

U.S. Census) serve 9,650 million gallons of water per day (mgd) to 60 million 

people, which is 34 percent of the Nation's total population and 48 percent of the 

Nation's urban population. The amount of water used to satisfy the domestic 

needs as well as the needs of commerce and industry ranges from 13 m-jd, which 

serves a population of 124,000, to 1,200 mgd, which serves a city of 8 million 

people.

The water for the public supplies of these largest cities comes fro^n ground 

water wells and infiltration galleries and from surface water streams, reservoirs, and lakes. Twenty of the cities use ground water exclusively for public 

supplies, and 14 use a combination of ground and surface waters. Sixty-six 

cities use surface water solely; of these cities 37 depend solely upon reservoir water, 

and 20 depend solely upon natural streamflow. Water from the Great Lakes 

furnishes part or all of the water supply for 10 of these largest cities.

Hardness of water, measured in parts per million (ppm), is an important factor 

in the usability of water supplies. Twenty-seven cities, serving a population of 

8 million, have a raw-water hardness exceeding 180 ppm ("very hard"), but only 

13 cities, serving a population of 3.7 million, have a "very hard" treated-water 

supply; and although 22 cities, serving about 10 million people, have a raw-water 

hardness ranging from 121 to 180 ppm ("hard"), only 16 cities, serving a population of 11 million, have a "hard" treated-water supply. Only 16 cities, serving 

a population of 16 million people, have a raw-water hardness ranging from 61 to 

120 ppm ("moderately hard"), whereas 41 cities, serving a population of 22 

million, have a treated-water supply having a hardness within this desirable range. 

A few cities that have a "soft" raw water add lime to control corrosion and consequently increase their water hardness to more than 61 ppm. Thirty cities, 

serving a population of about 23 million, have a treated-water supply with a 

hardness of less than 61 ppm.

The dissolved-solids content in raw-water supplies of 27 cities, which serve a 

total population of slightly more than 21 million people, is 100 ppr^ or less. 

Thirty-eight cities serving a total population of 23 million people have raw-water 

supplies with a dissolved-solids content between 101 and 250 ppm, whereas 48 

cities, serving a population of 28 million about half the population of these

1
2 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

cities furnish water having this range of dissolved solids. Twentv-nine cities 

serving a total population of 11 million people have raw-water supplies that contain between 251 to 500 ppm of dissolved solids. Because some o* these cities 

treat their water supply, 22 cities serving 8 million people furnish water having a 

dissolved-solids content between 251 and 500 ppm. Only six cities, serving a 

population of about iy2 million people, have raw-water supplies containing more 

than 500 ppm of dissolved solids; four of these cities soften the water and consequently reduce the dissolved-solids content. Thus, about 1 million people in 

three cities receive water containing more than 500 ppm of dissolved solids.

Chemical analyses of treated-water supplies indicate that more thr,n 90 percent 

of the supplies contain less than (a) 500 ppm of dissolved solids, (b) 100 ppm of 

sulfate, (c) 50 ppm each of calcium, sodium, and chloride, (d) 30 ppm of silica, 

(e) 20 ppm of magnesium, (f) 5 ppm each of potassium and nitrate, and (g) 1 ppm 

of ftuoride.

Spectrographic analyses, reported in micrograms per liter (/*g per 1), show that 

87 percent of the treated-water supplies contain less than 500 /*g per 1 of aluminum 

and more than 90 percent of the supplies contain less than (a) 500 /*g per 1 of 

strontium, (b) 150 /*g per 1 of iron, (c) 50 ^g per 1 of lithium, (d) 10 /ug per 1 each of 

molybdenum, nickel, lead, and vanadium, and (e) 5 /*g per 1 each cf chromium, 

rubidium, and titanium.

Radiochemical analyses of treated-water supplies reveal that the maximum 

beta activity of these supplies is 130 picocuries per liter (pc per 1) and the maximum activity due to radium content is 2.5 pe per 1, both of which are well under 

the recommended maximum limits for drinking water.

The report is divided into two sections. The first describes the uses of water 

in large cities, the raw-water supplies available for public supplies, tl-<; major and 

minor constituents and the properties of water, the methods of analyses, the treatment of water, the effects of chemical treatment on constituents and properties 

of water, and the costs of water treatment. The second is a city-by-city inventory 

that gives (a) the population of the city, (b) the adjacent communities supplied 

by the city water system, (c) the total population served, (d) the sources of water 

supply (including auxiliary and emergency supplies), (e) the average amount of 

water used daily, (f) the lowest 30-day mean discharge of streams us?.d for pubMc 

supply during recent years, (g) the treatment of water, (h) the rated capacity of 

each water-treatment plant, and (i) the storage capacity for raw and finished 

water. For 58 of the cities, the sources of water, the location of water-treatment 

plants, and the areas served by the city system are shown on maps. Chemical, 

spectrographic, and radiochemical analyses of treated water and chemical and 

spectrographic analyses for many of the raw-water supplies are presented in 

tabular form.

INTRODUCTION

Water is essential to man and industry. Unless adequate amounts 

of water of acceptable chemical quality are available, man and 

industry will move to a better water supply. Water of acceptable 

chemical quality is defined as water that requires no treatment before 

use or water from which dissolved minerals can be removed by 

economically feasible water-treatment methods.
INTRODUCTION 3

Information concerning the public water supplies especially the 

chemical character of raw- and treated-water supplies is important 

to operators of waterworks, industries planning to use the water, 

industries planning to sell chemicals and equipment pertaining to 

water, water-treatment consultants, public-health officials, and 

students interested in water supply.

For more than 40 years the U.S. Geological Survey tas been 

studying the quality of public water supplies. Collins (1923) reported 

on the public water supply of 307 places, which represented 3f percent 

of the Nation's total population; Collins, Lamar, and Lohr (1932) 

gave data for 670 places, which represented 46 percent of the total 

population; and Love and Lohr (1954) reported on 1,315 locations, 

which represented 58 percent of the total population. The present 

study was limited to the 100 largest cities in the United States as 

determined by the 1960 U.S. Census (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1961) 

in order to permit the inclusion of comprehensive spectrographic 

and radiochemical analyses of public water supplies. About 60 

million people, which is 34 percent of the Nation's total population 

and 48 percent of the Nation's urban population, are supplied from 

the water systems of these cities.

During these 40 years many changes have taken place in the 

public water supplies of the Nation. In 1922 only 2 cities (serving a 

population of less than 700,000) of these 100 largest cities softened 

their water supply. Today almost 11 million people in 28 of these 

cities receive softened water. Even in the last decade significant 

changes have occurred in the treatment of municipal water supplies. 

In 1952, only 10 of these 100 largest cities were fluoridating their 

water supplies, but today more than 21 million people in 34 of these 

cities receive fluoridated water. In the last four decades mary cities 

also changed their sources of raw water. Generally a new source of 

water supply had a lower dissolved-solids content and a lower hardness. These changes in water treatment and in the quality of the 

raw-water source have influenced the quality of the water served to 

the customer.

The 100 largest cities in this report hereafter also referred to as 

"these largest cities" are listed alphabetically by State in table 1. 

Each city has been assigned a number that identifies the city in many 

of the illustrations.

The first section of this report briefly describes uses of T^ater in 

large cities, the types of raw-water sources available for public 

supplies, the major constituents in water, some properties of water, 

many minor elements in water, the methods of analyses, the treatment 

of public water supplies, the effects of water treatment on constituents 

in and properties of water, and the cost of water-treatment chemicals.
4 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

The second section is a descriptive inventory, city by city, of (a) 

the suburban towns supplied by the city system, (b) the population of 

the city, (c) the total population served, (d) the sources of supply, (e) 

the auxiliary and emergency sources of supply, (f) the average daily 

water use, (g) where available, the lowest 30-day mean discharge of 

streams used for public water supply, (h) the water treatment, (i) the 

rated capacity of each treatment plant, and (j) the raw-water and 

finished-water storage capacity. For 58 cities the sources of water, the 

location of treatment plants, and the areas served by the municipal 

system are shown on maps. Chemical, spectrographic, and radiochemical analyses of all treated-water supplies and chemical and 

spectrographic analyses of many of the raw-water supplies are 

presented in tabular form.

USE OF WATER IN LARGE CITIES

In these largest cities, municipal water systems supply water for 

for homes, commercial establishments, industry, irrigation, and 

public needs such as fire fighting, street flushing, and operation of 

municipal offices and activities.

More water is used in daily activities than one might realize. 

As an example, a family of five camped for a weekend near the Atlantic Ocean. Facilities were primitive, and modern plumbing was 

lacking; nevertheless the family used 10 gallons of water for drinking, 

cooking, and washing even though the children washed only when 

ordered to do so!

At their home, which is in a large er stern city, this same family 

has modern conveniences: automatic clothes- and dish-washing 

machines, garbage disposal, shower and tub, and flush toilet. During 

1962, the family used an average of 275 gallons of water each day, 

or 55 gallons per member. No record was kept of the a mounts of 

water used for the various purposes, but the city of Akron, Ohio 

(Akron Bureau of Water Supply), estimated the use of wter in the 

average home in Akron to be as illustrated in figure 1.

The amount of water used in homes varies from regior to region 

and from season to season. A survey of middle-income homes 

throughout the United States indicated that smaller amounts of 

water are used per person in the humid East than in other parts of 

the country (K. A. MacKichan, written commun., 1960); the amount 

used by each member of the family ranges from 27 to 75 gallons per 

day in the East to more than 200 gallons per day in the West. In 

most areas, the amount of water used during the summer far exceeds 

the amount used during the winter. In Jacksonville, Fla., for
USE OF WATER IN LARGE CITIES

FIGURE 1. Use of water in an average home in Akron, Ohio.

example, the water pumped on January 31, 1960, was only about 

one-third the amount pumped on May 21, 1960.
6 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

During the past 20 years, many water-using devices that improve 

man's comfort have had unprecedented popularity. For example, 

in Baltimore, Md., the amount of water used by commercial establishments for air conditioning and refrigeration alone increased 40 

percent during the 5-year period 1948-52 (Requardt, Shaw, and Wolman, 1953). The amount of water used in the home also has increased substantially because of more widespread use of garbage-disposal equipment, shower baths, automatic dish- and clothes-washing 

machines, hot-water heaters, and sanitary plumbing.

In large cities many commercial firms and small industries that 

do not require large amounts of water obtain their water from the 

municipal water supply, if the quality of water furnished by the city 

is satisfactory. Although most commercial establishments do not 

use large amounts of water, the aggregate use of water by all commercial establishments in a large city can be a significant part of the total 

water demand on the municipal supply. In recent years, some 

commercial establishments for example, self-service laundries have 

significantly increased in size and number and so has their demand 

for water.

Industry also must have water to sustain itself and to expand. 

Maps showing concentrations of industries indicate that most industries are on streams and lakes near large cities. For example, the 

paper industry, which uses 5 to 40 gallons of water per pound of 

paper produced, is located principally in the water-rich areas of the 

East and the Northwest and along the Great Lakes (Mussey, 1955, 

p. 1-2). Many industrial establishments obtain part of their water 

supply from municipal water systems. In 1962, these largest cities 

sold an average of 27 percent of their public water supply to industry; 

one city sold 63 percent of its public supply to industry.

In a few cities, the amount of water used for irrigation is a significant part of the municipal water demand. For example, although 

water is used for irrigation only intermittently in Los Angeles, Calif., 

the water used for this purpose in a recent year (1960) was about 

equal to the entire public water demand during that year for Mobile, 

Ala., a city having a population of more than 200,000 people. In 

Houston, Tex., the city sells large amounts of untreated San Jacinto 

River water to rice growers.

Municipal water-supply systems in the United States during 1960 

supplied an average of about 150 gallons of water to each person 

each day. In these largest cities, the water requirements were 

higher than the national average. In Chicago, 111., enough water 

was furnished each day to supply each Chicagoan with about 255 

gallons During the same period, Springfield, Mass., furnished each
USE OF WATER IN LARGE CITIES

inhabitant about 181 gallons (the suburbs of Springfield, which are

less industrialized, required only about 68 gallons of water per person).

As a result of increases in population, domestic water demand,

and industrial water demand, most cities have expanded their water

1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960

YEARS

FIGURE 2. Increase in water use and population Los Angeles, Calif., and New

York City, N.Y., 1940-60. 

735-717 O 64 2
8 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

systems. Fifty-one of these largest cities were planning in 1962 to 

spend a total of more than $313 million on waterworks construction 

(Dowling, 1962). New York City supplied 30 percent more water 

in 1960 than in 1940; Los Angeles. 110 percent; and Tucson with its 

increased population and pleasant winter climate had to supply 

almost 600 percent more water in 1960 than in 1940. Figure 2 

illustrates the population changes and water demands of two of the 

largest cities in this country during the period 1940-60. It is interesting to note that in Los Angeles the water demand has steadily increased 

in direct proportion to the increase in population, whereas in New 

York City the amount of water supplied has increased 30 percent 

although the population served has increased less than 5 percent. 

The sharp dip in the water use in New York City in 1949 and 1950 

was due to water rationing caused by a severe drought in the watersheds from which New York City obtained its water supply. Additional water is now being diverted from the East Branch of the 

Delaware River to supplement the supply.

SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLIES

These largest cities obtain their water supplies from two types of 

water resources: (a) ground water wells and infiltration galleries 

and (b) surface water streams, lakes, and reservoirs. Most cities 

obtain their water from one type of source; a few cities always use 

multiple sources, whereas some cities use multiple sources only part 

of the year. For example, in El Paso, Tex., ground water is used most 

of the year, but during the summer, when demand is high, the Rio 

Grande is used to satisfy about 25 percent of the demand. The opposite is true for Bridgeport, Conn., which normally uses surface water 

but also uses ground water during periods of peak demand. Many 

municipal systems are connected with other municipal or industrial 

water supplies or can obtain water from other water sources during 

emergencies. The types of water sources used by these largest cities 

are shown in figure 3. The primary and auxiliary sources of water 

supply are given in the descriptive material for each of the 100 largest 

cities. The raw- and finished-water storage capacities for the individual cities also are given in the description.

GROUND-WATER SUPPLIES

Rain that falls on soil is pulled down into the ground by gravity 

and by capillary action. If the ground material is tightly compacted 

and has only minute pore spaces and cracks, water infiltrates slowly;
FIGURE 3. Sources of water for public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in the United States, 1962. See table 1

for identification of cities.
10 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

if the ground material contains large pore spaces and cracks and the 

rocks have large holes, the water infiltrates rapidly, and large amounts 

of water accumulate. Once in the ground, the water moves downwards 

or sideways until it meets an impermeable material. Here the water 

collects, filling all available pore spaces, cracks, and holes, and forms 

a ground-water reservoir or aquifer. 

According to Meinzer (1923, p. 148),

Among all kinds of rocks the best water bearers are deposits of gravel. Next to 

gravel come sand, sandstone, limestone, and basalt. Among the many kinds of 

rock material that do not yield water freely but are nevertheless drawn upon 

where first-class aquifers are lacking are the fine-grained and poorly assorted unconsolidated deposits and the hard rocks with only tight joints. The most completely unproductive of all materials are the true clays and fine silts, whose original 

interstices are too minute to yield water and which are too soft to have joints or 

other secondary openings.

The rock formations of the area also determine the chemical composition of the dissolved solids in ground water. Some rocks, such as 

granite, are nearly insoluble in water and have little influence upon 

the water in contact with them. Other rocks, such as limestone and 

dolomite, are highly soluble; water that has been in contact with such 

rocks may contain large amounts of dissolved minerals.

Ground water is in contact with rocks for a longer time than is 

surface water and thus contains more dissolved minerals than adjacent 

surface water. The presence of carbon dioxide underground generally 

causes more calcium carbonate to be dissolved in ground water than 

in adjacent surface water, which is constantly exposed to air. The 

underground conditions also favor dissolution of iron and manganese 

from the surrounding rock. The filtering action of soils and rocks produces clear, colorless water, but upon exposure to air the calcium 

carbonate in the ground water may form a white precipitate, and the 

iron and manganese may form a rusty-colored precipitate.

The chemical composition of most ground water generally does not 

vary greatly with time. Thus, a single chemical analysis of ground 

water from a specific location will probably be representative of the 

year-round chemical quality. However, excessive withdrawals or 

pollution can radically change the chemical quality.

Of these largest cities, 20 cities use ground water exclusively for 

public water supply, and 14 cities use both ground and surface water. 

Ground water is obtained from gravel deposits (4 cities), sandstone 

or sands and gravel (13 cities), limestone (5 cities), alluvium and 

valley fill (7 cities), and volcanic rock (1 city, Honolulu). In addition, 

a few cities obtain ground water from water-bearing formations that 

are a composite of some of these rock types or from formations that 

include clay, till, or glacial drift. Some cities obtain ground water 

from more than one water-bearing formation.
SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLIES 11

SURFACE-WATER SUPPLIES 

FACTORS AFFECTING STREAMFLOW

Most of the rain that falls during intense rainstorms flows overland 

into streams; only a small part soaks into the ground and becomes 

ground water. The amount of water flowing in streams varies with 

the amount of precipitation, the season of the year, and groundwater inflow.

In the northern part of this country, the soil freezes dur'ng the 

winter, and most precipitation as rain flows overland to streams. 

Precipitation as snow lies on the ground until melted. If the snow 

melts gradually, most of the water infiltrates into the ground; if the 

snow melts rapidly, a large part of the water flows overland to streams. 

Early spring rains melt the remaining snow, and the melt water and 

rain flow overland to streams. In parts of the West, many communities depend upon snowmelt to furnish a large part of the public 

water supply for the year. During the summer, the lack of rain and 

the use of water for crop irrigation decrease the amount of water in 

streams. With the onset of cooler weather and fall rains, streamflow again increases.

During and for a short period after rainstorms, the amount of 

water in streams increases. Gradually the level of water in the stream 

decreases. If no rain falls for a long time, the stream may dry up. 

Streams that dry up ephemeral streams are common in the arid 

parts of the Western United States. Streams that do not dry up 

after extended periods of no rain perennial streams receive water 

from underground storage.

The movement of water between perennial streams and groundwater reservoirs is governed by the relative heights of each. When 

the streams are in flood, the water level is higher than the water 

table near the stream, and water moves into the ground. As the 

stream level decreases, the amount of water moving to the zone of 

saturation in the ground decreases until the water level of each is 

about equal. After the level of water in the stream become^ lower 

than the level of water in the zone of saturation in the ground, ground 

water moves toward the stream. When flow in a stream is supported 

principally by ground water, it has reached minimum or base flow.

MINERAL CONTENT OF STREAMS

The amount of dissolved solids in a stream is ever changing. As 

the stream flows toward its mouth, many sources contribute dissolved and suspended matter to the stream. Forest arer.s may 

contribute dark-colored surface runoff containing nitrogenous wastes
12 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

from the decomposition of organic matter. Cultivated farmlands can 

contribute muddy runoff containing phosphate, potassium, and nitrate 

from fertilizers. Along various reaches of the stream, ground-water 

inflow may increase the dissolved solids in the stream, ar d industries 

may contribute waste waters containing appreciable amounts of dissolved chemicals. Thus, it is not surprising that the raw water 

obtained by Minneapolis, Minn., from the upper reaches of the 

Mississippi River contains about one-half the amount of dissolved 

solids as the raw water used by New Orleans, La., near the mouth of 

the river.

The dissolved-solids content of streams is at a minimum when 

streams are in flood. As the streamflow decreases, the concentration 

of dissolved solids generally increases. When the flow of water in 

a perennial stream is maintained by ground 'water, the chemical 

composition of the stream is influenced strongly by the composition 

of the ground water, and the dissolved-solids content is generally at 

a maximum.

IMPOUNDMENT OF STREAMS

Cities drawing water from uncontaminated mountain streams 

obtain water that is clean, low in dissolved solids, and free from 

disagreeable taste, odor, and color. But the volume of water in most 

mountain streams is small and undependable. Many cities impound 

water during periods of increased streamflow to provide water for 

extended periods when the consumption exceeds the streamflow. 

Where the drainage area of a stream is small and the impoundment 

of a single stream yields insufficient water, some municipal watersupply systems include a series of impoundment reservoirs. "So 

intricate is New Haven's system that water drawn from a tap in the 

city may be coming from one of the Maltsby Lakes in the morning, 

from Lake Whitney in the afternoon, and from Lake Gaillard in the 

evening" (New Haven Water Co., 1955).

Water is impounded in storage reservoirs during per'ods of high 

streamflow when the dissolved-solids content of streams is at a 

minimum. The dissolved-solids content of water in mo^t reservoirs 

is fairly constant. Reservoirs act as huge settling basins for suspended 

matter, and they are especially effective in reducing turbidity caused 

by intense summer rains of short duration (Churchill, IT57).

Temperature changes cause stratification of water in reservoirs and 

lakes. In the fall when the density of the surface layer exceeds that 

of the bottom layer, the lake water "turns over." That is, the 

bottom layer moves upward and displaces the surface layer, bringing 

to the surface high concentrations of manganese and the foul tastes 

and odors of purification. For example, manganese is present in
SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLIES 13

the discharge from a reservoir on the Chattahochee River near Atlanta, 

Ga., during late summer and early fall (Ingols and Wilroy, 1962), 

and Baltimore, Md., has a long history of manganese in fall turnover 

of impounded water.

Sixty-six of the 100 largest cities use water from streams, takes, or 

reservoirs; of these cities, 37 depend solely upon reservoirs, and 20 

depend solely upon natural streamflow. Cities that do not have 

raw-water storage reservoirs and thus obtain their water supply 

directly from streams are generally on large rivers: four cities are on 

the Missouri River, three are on the Ohio River, and three are on the 

Mississippi River; most of the remaining 10 cities withdraw water 

from streams that can furnish in excess of 450 mgd (million gallons 

per day). Many of the cities on smaller rivers have additional sources 

of supplies or have cast an eye on more desirable sites for future 

water-resources development.

THE GREAT LAKES

The Great Lakes constitute the largest body of fresh water in the 

world. The storage capacity of Lake Erie the shallowest of the 

Great Lakes is more than 10 times as great as Lake Me°,d, the 

largest artificial lake in the world. The combined overflow from the 

Great Lakes is equivalent to the flow of the fourth largest river in 

the United States.

The mineral content of the Great Lakes is relatively constant from 

month to month and changes only slightly from year to year. Near 

Erie, Pa., the dissolved-solids content of Lake Erie has increased only 

about 6 percent during the past 30 years (Pennsylvania Department 

of Commerce, 1958). The average dissolved-solids content of the 

lakes increases slightly in downstream order from Lake Superior to 

Lake Ontario.

The large volume of water in the lakes helps maintain fairly uniform 

water temperatures: summer temperatures offshore are 5° to 10° 

cooler than the temperature of the contributing streams (73°F is the 

expected high average temperature for Lake Erie).

Generally the turbidity in the Great Lakes is low. Verduin (1953) 

estimated that the turbidity in western Lake Erie is uniformly about 

11 ppm (parts per million). During high winds, storms, and periods 

of inversion of lake-water temperature, the silt on the lakebeds is 

disturbed and the turbidity increases.

Ten cities draw their water supply from the Great Lakes: Chicago, 

111., Gary, Ind., Grand Rapids, Mich., and Milwaukee, Wis., obtain 

their water from Lake Michigan; Buffalo, N.Y., Cleveland, Ohio, 

Toledo, Ohio, and Erie, Pa., obtain water from Lake Erie; and
14 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

Rochester, N.Y., withdraws about 21 percent of its water from Lake 

Ontario. Detroit, Mich., obtains its water from the Detroit River 

which, with the St. Clair River, carries the overflow from Lake Huron 

into Lake Erie.

CONSTITUENTS AND PROPERTIES OF

WATER

After a long, hard hike through the woods, a sip of cool spring water 

tastes wonderful; at such a time, it is difficult to think about the 

chemicals in water. One is tempted to say that this spring water is 

ideal after all, it is clear, cool, and sparkling, and it tastes good. 

But is it ideal water?

This same water may contain minute amounts of chemicals that can 

cause bodily harm if the water is ingested over a long period of time. 

It may contain chemical constituents that will consume lar?e amounts 

of soap and detergents, or it may contain constituents that will stain 

porcelain fixtures and laundry. It may contain constituerts that will 

form scale, which will gradually choke pipes, or it may lack these same 

constituents, and then it will corrode pipes. Does thi-* mean we 

should keep away from water? No! What we are saying is that all 

natural water contains chemical constituents from A (aluminum) 

to Z (zinc) and that the amounts of these constituent? vary from 

too much for one purpose to too little for another purpose; as a result, 

water generally has to be treated before it can be used.

MAJOR CHEMICAL CONSTITUENT?

The chemical constituents most commonly found in water are silica, 

iron, manganese, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, carbonate, 

bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride, fluoride, nitrate, and dissolved solids 

(dissolved solids is the residue after evaporating a water sample at 

180°C). Aluminum, boron, and strontium are present in appreciable 

amounts in some areas; these constituents will be discussed on page 

32.

Table 2 shows the major sources of each of these constituents and 

also the maximum concentrations of these constituents in surface 

and ground water, ocean water, and natural brines. In unpolluted 

surface and ground water, the occurrence and amount o* these constituents are regulated to a large extent by the geologic environment. 

In Pennsylvania, for example, the headwaters of a certain stream 

originating in an anthracite coal field are laden with sulfate; the pH is 

less than 4.0. When the stream leaves the anthracite field it contains
CONSTITUENTS AND PROPERTIES OF WATER 15

no bicarbonate; it then flows through an area underlain with limestone, 

and here the sulfate content decreases, the bicarbonate content 

increases, and pH increases to more than 4.5. Near its mouth this 

stream passes through a limestone quarry; here the stream p; cks up 

more bicarbonate and carbonate, and the pH becomes greater than 

9.0.

Most natural water contains calcium and magnesium; these elements are known as the alkaline earths and are the chief catiors found 

in many waters. (An ion is an element, or a group of elemer ts combined to act as a single constituent, that has an electrical charge; 

an ion with a negative charge is an anion; an ion with a positive charge 

is a cation.) It is not uncommon for natural water to contain several 

times as much calcium as magnesium.

Sodium and potassium are common alkali metals found ir water; 

generally, they are present in much smaller quantities tl an the 

alkaline earths. In southern Louisiana and Texas, calcium and 

magnesium in ground water are exchanged with sodium and potassium 

in the soil, and the resultant water is enriched in sodium and potassium 

and contains negligible amounts of calcium and magnesium. Streams 

receiving waste water from irrigation and streams in arid areas, in 

tidal areas, and in areas underlain by sodium chloride beds also contain considerably more alkali metals than alkaline earths.

Carbonate and bicarbonate are found in most natural water 

because of the abundant deposits of readily soluble limestone (composed principally of calcium carbonate) and dolomite (composed 

principally of magnesium and calcium carbonates). In the presence 

of carbon dioxide, the dissolving of carbonate rocks by water forms 

anions of bicarbonates and carbonates in water. Figure 4, a photograph taken at a roadcut in Oklahoma, illustrates the effect of water 

moving through a crack in a limestone deposit. Seemingly, water 

moved down the vertical crack in the limestone, dissolved the limestone, and enlarged the crack, a condition that permitted more water 

to enter. In time, the enlarged crack became filled with dirt. Many 

ground-water environments are favorable to the dissolving of limestone rocks and so large amounts of bicarbonate are present in the 

water. In different environments, water saturated with calcium 

carbonate may reprecipitate calcium carbonate.

Sulfate is present in natural water but is commonly not found in as 

large an amount as is bicarbonate; however, water draining mining 

areas, gypsum beds, and arid lands frequently contains more sulfate 

than bicarbonate.

Chloride and nitrate are commonly found in all water, generally in 

amounts less than 10 ppm.
TABLE 2. Major chemical constituents in water their sources, concentration

[Concentrations are in parts per million. Table prepared with the assistance of 

Constituent

Silica 

(SiOi)

Iron

(Fe)

Manganese

(Mn)

Major sources

Feldspars, ferromagnesium and 

clay minerals, amorphous silicachert, opal.

1. Natural sources: 

Igneous rocks: 

Amphiboles, ferromagnesian micas, 

ferrous sulflde 

(FeS), ferric sulflde 

or iron pyrite 

(FeSz), magnetite 

(Fe3 04 ). 

Sandstone rocks: 

Oxides, carbonates, 

and sulfldes of iron 

clay minerals. 

2. Manma.de sources: 

Well casing, piping, 

pump parts, storage 

tanks, and other objects 

of cast iron and steel 

which may be in contact with the water. 

Industrial wastes.

Manganese in natural water 

probably comes most often 

from soils and sediments. 

Metamorphic and sedimentary rocks and mica biotite 

and amphibole hornblende 

minerals contain large 

amounts of manganese.

Concentration in natural water

Ranges generally from 1.0 to 30 

ppm, although as much as 

100 ppm is fairly common; as 

much as 4,000 ppm is found 

in brines.

Generally less than 0.50 ppm in 

fully aerated water. Ground 

water having a pH less than 

8.0 may contain 10 ppm ; rarely 

as much as 50 ppm may occur. 

Acid water from thermal 

springs, mine wastes, and industrial wastes may contain 

more than 6,000 ppm.

Generally 0.20 ppm or less. 

Ground water and acid mine 

water may contain more than 

10 ppm. Reservoir water 

that has "turned over" may 

contain more than 150 ppm.

Effect upon usability of water

In the presence of calcium and 

magnesium, silica forms a 

scale in boilers and on steam 

turbines that retards heat; 

the scale is difficult to remove. Silica may be added 

to soft water to inhibit corrosion of iron pipes.

More than 0.1 ppm precipitates 

after exposure to air; causes 

turbidity, stains plumbing fixtures, laundry and cooking 

utensils, and imparts objectionable tastes and colors to 

foods and drinks. More than 

0.2 ppm is objectionable for 

most industrial uses.

More than 0.2 ppm precipitates 

upon oxidation; causes undesirable tastes, deposits on 

foods during cooking, stains 

plumbing fixtures and laundry, and fosters growths in reservoirs, filters, and distribution systems. Most industrial users object to water 

containing more than 0.2 ppm.
Calcium 

(Ca)

Magnesium 

(Mg)

Sodium

(Na)

Potassium 

(K)

Carbonate 

(COs)

Bicarbonate 

(HCO,)

Sulfate 

(SO4)

Amphiboles, feldspars, gypsum, 

pyroxenes, aragonite, calcite, 

dolomite, clay minerals.

Amphiboles, olivine, pyroxenes, dolomite, magnesite, 

clay minerals.

Feldspars (albite); clay minerals; evaporites, such as halite 

(NaCl) and mirabilite 

(NasSOi-lOHjO); industrial 

wastes.

Feldspars (orthoclase and microcline), feldspathoids, some 

micas, clay minerals.

Limestone, dolomite.

Oxidation of sulfide ores; gypsum; anhydrite; industrial 

wastes.

As much as 600 ppm in some 

western streams; brines may 

contain as much as 75,000 

ppm.

As much as several hundred 

parts per million in some 

western streams; ocean water 

contains more than 1 ,000 ppm, 

and brines may contain as 

much as 57,000 ppm.

As much as 1,000 ppm in some 

western streams; about 10,000 

ppm in sea water; about 25,000 

ppm in brines.

Generally less than about 10 

ppm; as much as 100 ppm in 

hot springs; as much as 25,000 

ppm in brines.

Commonly 0 ppm in surface 

water; commonly less than 

10 ppm in ground water. 

Water high in sodium may 

contain as much as 50 ppm 

of carbonate.

Commonly less than 500 ppin; 

may exceed 1,000 ppm in water 

highly charged with carbon 

dioxide.

Commonly less than 1 ,000 ppm 

except in streams and wells 

influenced by acid mine drainage. As much as 200,000 ppm 

in some brines.

Calcium and magnesium combine with bicarbonate, carbonate, sulfate, and silica to 

form heat-retarding, pipeclogging scale in boilers and 

in other heat-exchange equipment. Calcium and magnesium combine with ions of 

fatty acid in soaps to form 

soap suds; the more calcium 

and magnesium, the more 

soap required to form suds. 

A high concentration of magnesium has a laxative effect, 

especially on new users of the 

supply.

More than 50 ppm sodium and 

potassium in the presence of 

suspended matter causes foaming, which accelerates scale 

formation and corrosion in 

boilers. Sodium and potassium carbonate in recirculating cooling water can cause 

deterioration of wood in cooling towers. More than 65 

ppm of sodium can cause problems in ice manufacture.

Upon heating, bicarbonate is 

changed into steam, carbon 

dioxide, and carbonate. The 

carbonate combines with alkaline earths principally calcium and magnesium to 

form a crustlike scale of calcium carbonate that retards 

flow of beat through pipe walls 

and restricts flow of fluids in 

pipes. Water containing large 

amounts of bicarbonate and 

alkalinity are undesirable in 

many industries.

Sulfate combines with calcium 

to form an adherent, heatretarding scale. More than 

250 ppm is objectionable in 

water in some industries. 

Water containing about 500 

ppm of sulfate tastes bitter; 

water containing about 1,000 

ppm may be cathartic.

See footnote at end of table.
TABLE 2. Major chemical constituents in water their sources, concentrations, and 

[Concentrations are in parts per million. Table prepared with the assistance of 

Constituent

Chloride 

(Cl)

Fluoride 

(F)

Nitrate 

(NO,)

Major sources

Chief source is sedimentary 

rock (evaporites) ; minor 

sources are igneous rocks. 

Ocean tides force salty water 

upstream in tidal estuaries.

Amphiboles (hornblende), 

apatite, fiuorite, mica.

Atmosphere; legumes, plant 

debris, animal excrement, 

nitrogenous fertilizer in soil 

and sewage.

Concentration in natural water

Commonly less than 10 ppm in 

humid regions; tidal streams 

contain increasing amounts of 

chloride (as much as 19,000 

ppm) as the bay or ocean is 

approached. About 19,300 

ppm in sea water; and as much 

as 200,000 ppm in brines.

Concentrations generally do not 

exceed 10 ppm in ground water 

or 1.0 ppm in surface water. 

Concentrations may be as 

much as 1,600 ppm in brines.

In surface water not subjected to 

pollution, concentration of 

nitrate may be as much as 5.0 

ppm but is commonly less 

than 1.0 ppm. In ground 

water the concentration of 

nitrate may be as much as 

1,000 ppm.

Effect upon usability of water

Chloride in excess of 100 ppm 

imparts a salty taste. Concentrations greatly in excess of 

100 ppm may cause physiological damage. Food processing 

industries usually require less 

than 250 ppm. Some industries textile processing, paper 

manufacturing, and synthetic 

rubber manufacturing desire 

less than 100 ppm.

Fluoride concentration between 

0.6 and 1.7 ppm in drinking 

water has a beneficial effect 

on the structure and resistance 

to decay of children's teeth. 

Fluoride in excess of 1.5 ppm 

in some areas causes "mottled 

enamel" in children's teeth. 

Fluoride in excess of 6.0 ppm 

causes pronounced mottling 

and disfiguration of teeth.

Water containing large amounts 

of nitrate (more than 100 ppm) 

is bitter tasting and may cause 

physiological distress. Water 

from shallov/ wells containing 

more than 45 ppm has been 

reported to cause methemoglobinemia in infants. Small 

amounts of nitrate help reduce cracking of high-pressure 

boiler steel.
Dissolved 

solids

The mineral constituents dissolved in water constitute the 

dissolved solids.

Surface water commonly con- tains less than 3,000 ppm; streams draining salt beds in arid regions may contain in 

excess of 15,000 ppm. Ground water commonly contains less than 5,000 ppm; some brines contain as much as 300,000 

ppm.

More than 500 ppm is undesir- able for drinking and many industrial uses. Less than 

300 ppm is desirable for dye- ing of textiles and the manu- facture of plastics, pulp paper, 

rayon. Dissolved solids cause foaming in steam boilers; the maximum permissible content decreases with increases in 

operating pressure.

1,580 10 1,580 22 500

' U.S. Public Health Service (1962b).
20 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

FIGURE 4. Solution cavity in limestone. The effect of water moving through a 

limestone deposit is shown. The water moved down the vertical crack, dissolved the limestone, and enlarged the crack, a condition that permitted more 

water to enter.

For more than 60 years the dental defect that appears as a dark 

stain on tooth enamel and that is known as mottled enamel locally 

called "Texas teeth" or "Colorado stain" has been under investigation. It was reasoned that this defect was caused by some trace 

element in water. Later, fluorine was proved to be the cause (McNeil, 

1957). Still later, fluoride concentrations of about 0.6 to 1.7 ppm in 

water were found to reduce the incidence of dental caries, and concentrations greater than 1.7 ppm were found to protect the teeth from 

cavities but to cause an undesirable black stain (U.S. Public Health 

Service, 1962b). For further information on the physiological effects 

of fluoride, the reader is referred to a selection of papers on the subject 

prepared by the U.S. Public Health Service (1962a).

Water boiled in a dish leaves a crust of salt composed principally 

of silica, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, bicarbonate, 

carbonate, sulfate, chloride, nitrate, and some water bound in the 

residue. Upon heating this residue to 180° C, two changes occur:
CONSTITUENTS AND PROPERTIES OF WATER 21

most of the water of crystallization is expelled, and most bicarbonate 

is converted to carbonate. The residue dried at 180° C (called 

residue on evaporation) approximates the quantity of anhydrous 

chemicals in solution and is used as an indication of the disi^olvedsolids content in the water.

In many locations, efforts are made to obtain an adequate public 

supply of water containing small amounts of dissolved solids; the cost 

of treating water generally increases with increased amounts of 

dissolved solids. However, a person accustomed to drinking- water 

containing a moderate amount of dissolved solids may complain 

about the "flat taste" of drinking water that has less than 100 ppm 

of dissolved solids. The amount of dissolved solids in the untreated 

water used for public supply ranges from less than 100 ppm along the 

Appalachian Mountains and in the far West to more than 500 ppm 

in the arid Southwest. (See fig. 5.)

Many of the largest cities obtain their water supplies from more 

than one source. For these cities, the dissolved-solid contents 

were weighted in proportion to the population served by eact water 

source (fig. 5). The dissolved-solids content of each source was 

multiplied by the population served by that source. The products 

of the dissolved solids and population for each source were added. 

The resultant sum of the products was divided by the population 

served by all sources in the city to obtain a population-weighted 

average dissolved-solids content.

Many of the calculations of the population-weighted dis^olvedsolids content are based upon yearly averages supplied by officials 

of city waterworks. Other calculations of population-weighted 

dissolved-solids content are based on samples collected so as tc represent an average value. The dissolved-solids content for a fev^ cities 

was not calculated because of a lack of data.

The presence of specific amounts of certain constituents can have 

an adverse effect upon the usability of water. A few of the known 

tolerances of specific chemicals that affect the usability of water are 

listed in table 2. Some constituents, such as iron and manganese, 

are detrimental, even in small quantities. Fortunately, most water 

used by industry more than 95 percent is used for cooling, for 

which the main prerequisites are that the water be free of sediment, 

debris, and algae that could clog pipes. For a more comprehensive 

report on "quality tolerance of water for industrial uses," the reader 

is referred to Moore (1940).

Since about 1914, criteria have been promulgated to govern the 

quality of drinking water used on interstate carriers. The drinkingwater standards -established by the U.S. Public Health Service have 

gained wide acceptance and are now used by many water authorities
"^

FIGURE 5. Dissolved solids in untreated public water supplies of the 100 largest citi

age weighted by population served.) See table 1 for identifi
CONSTITUENTS AND PROPERTIES OF WATER 23

as a guide in determining local drinking-water standards. These 

standards provide two types of chemical limits: maximum permissible 

limits for chemicals having known or suspected adverse physiological 

effects and recommended permissible limits for chemicals that are 

generally nontoxic but have adverse qualities pertaining to color, 

staining, taste, and odor. The concentrations shown in table 2 are 

the maximum concentrations that should be found in a public water 

supply where "in the judgment of the certifying authority, other 

more suitable supplies are or can be made available" (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962b).

MAJOR PROPERTIES

The properties of water that influence the use of water and the 

degree of water treatment are hardness, specific conductance, pH, 

color, turbidity, and temperature. The description and caries, of 

these properties, their concentrations in natural water, the effect of 

concentrations upon usability of water, and concentrations in the 

public water supplies of the 100 largest cities are summarised in 

table 3.

HARDNESS

In one part of the country, a newcomer may be provokei into 

exclaiming about the hardness of the water because of his difficulty in 

working up a lather with soap and water. In another part of the 

country, a newcomer may remark about the softness of the water 

because soap suds are so easily formed. Hardness of water is a property of water that is a measure of the amount of soap required to 

form a lather. Not too many years ago the hardness of water was 

measured in the laboratory by determining the amount of soap solution that must be added to water to form suds.

Before soap can form a lather, part of the soap molecule must 

react with the calcium and magnesium in the water to form an insoluble curd. The smaller the amounts of calcium and magnesium, 

the easier soap suds are formed; conversely, the greater the amounts of 

calcium and magnesium, the more soap curds are formed and the more 

soap is consumed.

In 1856, Thomas Clark, of England, defined hardness as follows: 

"Each degree of hardness is as much as a grain of chalk or the calcium 

in a grain of chalk would produce in a gallon of water, by whatever 

means dissolved" (Baker, 1948). In this report hardness is expressed 

as the amount of calcium carbonate in a million parts of water chemically equal to the amount that could be formed from the calcium 

and magnesium in solution. Aluminum, iron, manganese, anc1 other

735-717 O 64 3
TABLE 3. Properties of water their description, concentrations, and effe

Property and 

unit of 

measurement

Hardness 

(parts per 

million)

Specific 

conductance 

(micromhos)

PH 

(pH units)

Description and causes

Hardness is expressed as the quantity 

of calcium carbonate equivalent to 

the calcium and magnesium present. 

It is caused principally by calcium 

and magnesium ions, but other 

alkaline earths (barium and strontium) and free acid and heavy-metal 

ions contribute to hardness.

Specific conductance is a measure of 

the electrical conductivity of water: 

it varies with the amount of 

dissolved solids and is used to 

approximate the dissolved-solids 

content.

pH values range from 0 to 14. Water 

with a pH of 7.0 is neutral. Water 

having a pH less than 7.0 is acid, and 

water having a pH greater than 7.0 

is alkaline.

Concentration or value in natural 

water

In most surface water the hardness is 

less than 1,000 ppm; in ground water, 

the hardness is generally less than 

2,000 ppm. In arid regions the 

hardness of surface and ground 

waters may be higher.

In the eastern and far northwestern 

parts of the United States most 

water has a specific conductance of 

less than 1,000 micromhos. In arid 

regions of western United States 

water with a specific conductance 

of more than 1,000 micromhos is not 

uncommon. Ocean water has a 

specific conductance of more than 

50,000 Hiierorabos.

pH of ground water commonly ranges 

from 6.0 to 9.0. In surface water 

it commonly ranges from 6.0 to 8.0. 

Water influenced by acid mine 

drainage may have a pH about 2.0.

Effect upon usa

Water low in hardne

of metallic surfa

consumes excessiv

and synthetic det

laundries, and tex

forms insoluble sc

causes problems in 

foods, beverages

Hardness of wat

follows:

Hardness range 

(ppm) 

0-60 

121-180 . .- 

More than 180 __ 

For most domestic 

water having a pH 

10 generally caus

lems. Water ha

the range may be 
CONSTITUENTS AND PROPERTIES OF WATER 25

 WsgofJ

fe §.2 SB »_

SUMi Il5ll!l Klifl- §2S*£-i

il-s^iii

a

iM^i S-" ..-o g 

o « ^ -S S

^g|l|§ Ssaltfll JS'2«g>.5 ® a.s.S'^'o g »«^ g-o u

M g 3 O g g O

§ ll-^2g .a^£ s.gg-2

..Ji'gS*? 1- «

objectionable. is water g 

advanta- iswater arm watement a 

for Hwever, rocesses. generally joling water,;he watertemperature, of water amount the

^ea«|

Ji.ac ) v 3 e 

S^COO

£ c O

-t

isli

o

if!!!

"

a « 

I|S03 OJ 8

si-8 !

*

2 

fl c a a H +J .1-1 *» 4J

-3

5 c- m'S
26 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

metals in water also consume soap and thus contribute to the hardness 

of water; however, the amounts in which they are present in the water 

are generally small, and their effect upon hardness is insignificant.

In 1933 when soap not detergent was a household name, it was 

firmly established that the amount and cost of soap used in the home 

increased with increases in the hardness of water. In recent years, 

with the advent of synthetic detergents, less concern has been expressed over the hardness of water. Today, synthetic detergents 

outsell soaps 10 to 1 (Soap and Detergent Assoc., 1962), and some 

people think that synthetic detergents are as effective in hard water 

as in soft water. However, most synthetic detergents contain about 

30-50 percent sequestering ingredients that react with calcium and 

magnesium, the hardness components of water. "In hard water these 

ingredients are decreased in effective concentration for their cleaning 

purpose" (DeBoer and Larson, 1961). A recent study indicated that 

three times the amount of synthetic detergents was required for 400 

ppm hardness water than for 0 ppm hardness (Aultman, 1957).

Sixteen cities, serving more than 15 million people, have "moderately hard" (61-120 ppm) raw water and do not soften their supply; 

laundries and other industries consider it advantageous to remove 

some of the hardness. Many municipalities try to reduce the hardness of their water supply to 85-100 ppm.

Twenty-two cities, serving almost 16 million people, have "hard" 

(121-180 ppm) raw water for their public supply. Homes- using hard 

water have more problems with soap curds than homes that use 

softer water. Many industries require that "hard" water be treated 

to lower the hardness. About one-half of the 22 cities, serving about 

6 million people, lower the hardness by some type of wate^ softening.

Twenty-seven cities, supplying more than 8 million people, have 

"very hard" (more than 180 ppm) raw water; only 15 of these cities, 

serving more than 5 million people, lower the hardness.

The anions in water principally bicarbonate and carbonate 

determine the proportions of "carbonate" and "noncarbonate" hardness that constitute the hardness of water. Carbonate hardness is 

the amount of hardness chemically equivalent to the amount of 

bicarbonate and carbonate in solution. Carbonate hardness is approximately equal to the amount of hardness that is removed from 

water by boiling. Carbonate hardness of water results in the deposition of a calcium and magnesium carbonate scale, especially at 

temperatures above boiling point; this scale impedes the transfer of 

heat and constricts the effective pipe diameter, which reduces the 

flow of water.

Noncarbonate hardness is the difference between tbe hardness 

calculated from the total amount of calcium and magnesium in solu-
CONSTITUENTS AND PROPERTIES OF WATER 27

tion and the carbonate hardness. If the carbonate hardness (expressed as calcium carbonate) equals the amount of calcium and 

magnesium hardness (also expressed as calcium carbonate), there is 

no noncarbonate hardness. Noncarbonate hardness is about equal 

to the amount of hardness remaining after water is boiled. The scale 

formed at high temperatures by the evaporation of water containing 

noncarbonate hardness is tough, heat resistant, and difficult to remove. 

Soft water and hard water are common terms, but there is no clear 

line of demarcation. Water that seems hard to an easterner may 

seem soft to many westerners. The hardness-of-water classification 

used in this report is as follows:

Hardness range (parts per million of calcium carbonate) Hardness description

0-60 Soft.

61-120 Moderately hard.

121-180 Hard.

More than 180 Very hard.

Figure 6 shows the hardness of untreated water sources for these 

largest cities. For cities that obtain their water from more than one 

source, the hardness is weighted according to the population served 

from each source. Many of the hardness calculations are based on 

yearly averages; others are based on samples collected to represent an 

average hardness of water. Some cities are not included here because 

of the lack of data.

For ordinary household uses and for many industrial purposes, 

"soft" water (hardness 0-60 ppm) requires no softening. However, 

softening is required by a few industries and the operation of some 

steam boilers at pressures in excess of 200 pounds per square inch. 

Twenty-nine cities, serving more than 21 million people, have "soft" 

raw water and do not soften their supply. Water having a low hardness may become corrosive; therefore, some of these cities add lime 

to raise the pH and thus slightly increase the hardness.

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE

Specific conductance is a convenient rapid determination used to 

estimate the amount of dissolved solids in water. It is a measure of 

the ability of water to transmit a small electrical current. The more 

dissolved solids in water that can transmit electricity, the greater the 

specific conductance of the water. Commonly, the dissolved solids 

(in parts per million) is about 65 percent of the specific conductance 

(in micromhos). This relationship is not constant from stream to 

stream or from well to well, and it may even vary in the same sources 

with changes in the composition of the water.

For highly mineralized water and highly colored water, the dissolved 

solids is more than 65 percent of the conductivity; for water con-
Less than 61

61-120 

/2/-I80 

A /Vfore //?an /SO

204 Numbers on map 

identify cities

FIGURE 6. Hardness of untreated public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in the United States, 1962. Several 

cities are not shown because of insufficient data. (Average weighted by population served.) See table 1 for identification of cities.
CONSTITUENTS AND PROPERTIES OF WATER 29

taining large amounts of acid, caustic soda, or sodium chloride, the 

dissolved solids is less than 65 percent of the conductivity.

pH

Water that is neither acidic nor basic (alkaline) is called a neutral 

water and has a pH of 7.0. The pH of water solutions can range from 

0 to 14 and can be increased or lowered by the introduction of chemicals. 

Strong acids such as sulfuric, hydrochloric, or nitric acid added to 

a neutral water can reduce the pH to as low as 0. Weak acids, like 

carbonic acid, added to water also lower the pH, although not as 

effectively as strong acids. Conversely, strong bases like sodium 

hydroxide (caustic soda) can increase the pH of water to as much as 

14; weak bases do not increase the pH of water as effectively as strong 

bases. Salts formed by the reaction of strong acids and strong bases 

generally have little effect upon the pH of neutral water. Salts of a 

strong acid and of a weak base such as iron sulfate when added 

to a neutral water lower the pH, and salts of a weak acid and a strong 

base such as sodium carbonate increase the pH of a neutral water.

Geologic terrane and environment influence the pH of streams, lakes, 

and underground water. Most rocks in contact with water are not 

very soluble, and most streams and underground water have only small 

amounts of dissolved solids. In these dilute solutions, the introduction or the loss of small amounts of chemicals can radically alter the 

pH. For example, when well water having a pH less than 5.0 and 

containing a large amount of carbon dioxide is aerated to expel the 

carbon dioxide, the pH can be raised to more than 8.0. The lower the 

concentration of dissolved solids in water, the more sensitive the pH of 

water is to additions or losses of chemicals.

The pH of a water has a strong influence on its usability. A low pH 

or a high pH can make water extremely corrosive to pipes and equipment. The pH affects the solubility of some compounds in water and 

thus determines whether a sample of well water will remain clear and 

colorless or whether it will become clouded or colored by precipitates 

such as iron oxide or calcium carbonate. In water-treatment plants, 

pH partly determines the amount of chemicals required to clarify and 

soften water.

In general, most natural waters have a pH between 5.0 and 8.0. A 

small percentage of waters have a pH less than 5.0. Acid mine drainage containing sulfuric acid may reduce the pH of streams to less than 

2.0, and some waters in contact with extremely basic rocks can have a 

pH in excess of 9.0.

The average pH of the raw-water resources used by 98 of the 100 

municipalities is shown in figure 7. Two cities are not shown on the
FIGURE 7. pH of untreated public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in the United States, 1962. Two cities are 

not shown because of insufficient data. (Average weighted by population served.) See table 1 for identification of cities.
CONSTITUENTS AND PROPERTIES OF WATER 31

map because of lack of data. The water supplies have been grouped 

into those having a pH of less than 7.0 and those having a pH between 

7.0 and 9.0. These data are based on calculations submitted by 

officials of city waterworks or on water samples that are representative 

of the pH for the water supply.

The water used by these largest cities is obtained from the best 

water resources available to the municipal water departments. As 

shown in figure 7, 18 of these cities, serving a total populatior of more 

than 16 million people, obtain raw water that has an average pH of 

less than 7.0; the pH of all raw-water supplies in these cHies was 

between 5.8 and 7.0. Eighty cities, serving a total population of more 

than 42 million people, obtain raw water that has an average pH 

between 7.0 and 9.0.

COLOR

The color of streams and lakes is caused principally by suspended 

sediment and by matter dissolved in water. Immediately after a 

rain, streams are muddy owing to the sediment in suspension. As the 

floodwaters recede, the muddiness of water disappears, and the water 

becomes clear. Most color due to suspended matter disappears with 

the settling out of the suspended matter. All color determinations in 

the laboratory are made on the water sample after the sediment has 

been allowed to settle. Because of the filtering action of roils and 

rocks, very little ground water has any noticeable color.

Surface water containing living and decaying plants and trees has 

a dingy tinge. During the summer when streamflow is low, the color 

of the water becomes accentuated because plant growth is accelerated and 

the decomposition of decaying vegetable litter proceeds at a rapid 

pace. Industrial waste water containing iron, copper, manganese, 

chromium, and other metals also may impart color. Colored water 

is objectionable for domestic use and in many industries, especially in 

food and beverage processing, paper manufacturing, and dyeing 

industries.

TURBIDITY

Turbidity of water is caused principally by fine sediments such as 

clay and silt and by minute organisms and plants that are. held in 

suspension and do not rapidly settle out. In lakes and streams the 

turbidity increases during the active growing period and, like color, 

also increases rapidly after rains and decreases as floodwaters recede. 

The heavier the suspended sediment particles, the quicker turbidity 

decreases. Turbidity, like color, is objectionable and undesirable in 

the home and in many industries.
32 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

TEMPERATURE

Because 95 percent of the water used by industry is for cooling, 

temperature is an important property of water. A consis tently low 

water temperature is desirable. Many industrial water users prefer 

ground water because its temperature generally does rot change 

more than 3°-4° F per year, and it generally approximates the 

mean annual air temperature. Ground-water temperature tends to 

increase with depth; below 60 feet, ground-water temperature increases only about 1° F for each 60-100 feet increase in depth.

The temperatures of streams and lakes are more sensitive to changes 

in air temperature. The mean monthly temperature of surface water 

approximates the mean monthly air temperature, except during freezing weather. The mean daily temperature of surface water increases 

at a slower rate in the spring months and decreases at a slower rate 

in the autumn than does the mean daily air temperature. The 

shallower the water depth, the more sensitive the water temperature 

is to changes in air temperature. Figure 8 is a general map of stream 

temperatures compiled from 467 maximum monthly mean temperature 

readings (U.S. Geological Survey, 1962).

/ \

FIGURE 8. Stream temperatures, in degrees Fahrenheit, during the summer.

MINOR CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS

In addition to the major dissolved constituents in water, many 

minor constituents (usually called trace elements if they are present
CONSTITUENTS AND PROPERTIES OF WATER 33

in concentration of less than 1 ppm) are also present. Tte sum of 

all these minor constituents commonly makes up less than 1 percent 

of all the dissolved constituents in water. The concentration of 

trace 'elements, as determined by spectrographic analyse? (see p. 

41), is expressed in micrograms per liter (jug per 1) which is 1 millionth of a gram of substance dissolved in a liter of solution. One 

thousand micrograms per liter is equal to 1 part per million. In 

this study only six metals aluminum, iron, manganese, barium, 

strontium, and boron have ranges of concentrations in untreated 

waters that exceed 100 jug per 1; all other minor elements have a 

maximum individual concentration of less than 100 /xg per* 1 and a 

medium individual value of lOjug per 1 or less.

Some sources of trace elements in water, concentrations found in 

natural water and in treated public water supplies of these largest 

cities, and the maximum amounts recommended for drinking water 

are summarized in table 4.

Data on the distribution of trace elements in natural water, with the 

exception of strontium, radium, and uranium, are meager. Previously, 

the concentration of the trace elements, such as those listed in table 4, 

was measured only when the presence of an element was suspected 

because of pollution. With the advent of improved techniques for 

measuring the minute amounts of trace elements, data on the distribution of these trace elements are increasing. Durum and Haffty 

(1963) found that concentrations of trace elements in Atlantic Coast 

streams when compared with the median concentrations in streams 

throughout the continent indicate the Atlantic Coast streams to be 

enriched in concentrations of silver, chromium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, strontium, and titanium and to be slightly deficient 

in barium and lithium. By the same standards, mino^-element 

concentrations in Gulf Coast streams exceed continental concentrations of aluminum, barium, copper, iron, lithium, rubidium, and 

titanium and are deficient in chromium, lead, and strontium. Pacific 

Coast streams are slightly enriched in lead and molybdenum and are 

deficient in barium, chromium, rubidium, and titanium.

Naturally occurring strontium in excess of 1,500 ng per 1 is present 

in streams in parts of northern and western Texas and soutl ern New 

Mexico and Arizona. Concentrations of between 500 and 1,500 ng 

per 1 occur in streams in the Southeastern United States, most of the 

Great Plains region, the Western mountain and plateau region, and 

California. Concentrations of less than 500 ng per 1 occur in streams 

in the Pacific Northwest, Northeastern United States, and the Central 

Lowlands (Skougstad and Horr, 1960). Apparently, the concentration of strontium is higher in water draining calcareous soils (soils 

containing calcium carbonate) than in water draining noncalcareous
TABLE 4. Minor constituents in water their common sources, concentrations found, and recom

water 

[For further information, the reader is referred to Rankama and Sahama

Constituent

Aluminum

Barium

Boron

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Lithium

Nickel

Some common sources

Feldspars, micas, and clay minerals; 

also present as the result of alum 

treatment in water supplies.

Feldspars, mica, biotite, barite, witherite.

Amphiboles, biotite, colemanite, and 

tourmaline; detergents; industrial 

wastes.

Chroraite; industrial pollution.

Native copper, chalcocite, bornite, 

chalcopyrite, cuprite, many other 

minerals containing copper. Copper 

and brass pipes; algae-controlling 

copper salts; industrial wastes.

Galena, aragonite, feldspars. Dissolution of lead pipes; industrial and 

mining wastes.

Mica, amphiboles, pyroxenes.

Pentlandite, niccolite, chloanthite, 

garnierite, millerite, olivine, hypersthene.

Concentration in natural water

Generally less than 1 ppm; as much as 

7,500 ppm in acid lakes.

Generally less 0.5 ppm. Sea water, 

about 0.05 ppm; brine, as much as 

5,000 ppm.

Generally less than a few tenths parts 

per million. Sea water, about 4.6 

ppm; mineral springs, may exceed 

500 ppm; brine, may exceed 9,000 

ppm.

Generally less than 0.1 ppm. Industrial pollution, as much as 40 ppm.

Generally less than a few tenths parts 

per million. Sea water, 0.001-0.01 

ppm; industrial pollution (mine 

water) as much as several thousand 

parts per million.

Generally less than 0.5 ppm in streams 

and in ground water. Sea water, 

0.004 ppm; industrial pollution, several hundred parts per million.

Generally less than 1 pnm. Sea water, 

0.1 ppm; brine, as much as 80 ppm.

Generally less than 0.1 ppm.

Concentration in t

water of public supp

100 largest cities 0*g 

unless otherwise ind

Maximum

1,500

380

590

35

250

62

170

34

Min

Not 

able

Less 

0.6

Not 

abl

Not 

abl

Not 

ab
CONSTITUENTS AND PROPERTIES OF WATER 35

la

o> s .

"^.S Is

gCQ

parts few enerally less thanper aSea 0.003-0.3 water, million. ppm; 

10 industrial pollution, ppm.

O

»

a?

3

1

« . mic waste detergents

n

be

g

oT

I <!

S3 

ft

So

£

ofRa««

1 

g

ft

*5

-4 U(

3 S

03 Q,

5 va

ISJ

sz0) «» a

<N

generally acontaminated water con1. less 10 than tains pcer 

|5

a

i

s &

 M in

0 0>

ga

d

8

Wl "*

§

§

|

«

J,

O

0>

o> .

 &£ $*

tfD

ia

0

i

a

>f 

2

i

O

o ^

«A

TS a 

~ -I I & 'a

fl 2 d

1§I ~^'a'l

o> S

sea

"O'S iT

'as 2 Nl1

c2

- S

^4 ||aTO i-J sa-i o

1

1

a

ci

g

in fresh- 5.0 lessenerally than ppm 30 much water streams; ppas 

Sea aboutgrund water, wa. in3,500 brine, much 13 ppm. as ppm; 

O

:sa aaa ca

tf£ si S-S isa«« . 4J QJ

S

'-3 .

<£ 0)

C3^53

_a> a

c3 »**- 

Q,°3 »J®-

-O oSS £,0 a

h

3 

.g

g

2

OQ

,

o> fO_a>

-w,Q 

I"

9

aa 

a

0

i

.c+B

i

o

8 ** 'a a> 

u§

22a^

. a

sphene il, biotite, 3s 

5 "3 2^

-J3 Sa '3 B

I

1

(H

14*!:

0

generally ncontaminated water con44 micrograms less thanains per

liter.

t>

1

8 .

3 SB

1

1-5

as M CJ

. fc tfi 

0) O>

o ** e-3

3 §to c"s"

±5-'? a" §8

p

3

I

£

^

'O ^ 0

 S-o 

I 03

o

o

Sea amounts. inenerally trace industrial pollu- 0.005 water, ppm;

thousand several much tion, as 

million. parts per

0

1

T3

.9

SB 3

**

o>5 

 g w 

|l 

||rj **

S

1 0

a

OQ

0

5

N
36 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

soils (Alexander, Nusbaum, and MacDonald, 1954). Information on 

the distribution of strontium has been made available as a result of the 

recent interest in strontium 89 and strontium 90, which were released 

by nuclear tests.

The beneficial and the detrimental effects of some trace cements on 

humans have been known for many years. Supplementary iron has 

been used in medicine since about 1000 B.C. (Strain, 1961). The 

effects of arsenic were carefully described by medieval chemists more 

than 400 years ago. For some trace metals such as antimony, 

arsenic, bismuth, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, 

iron, lead, selenium, silver, strontium, and zinc the amounts causing 

a beneficial or a detrimental effect have been approximately determined. The effective dosage varies with age, weight, tolersnce, retention of the element, presence of other trace elements, and sensitivity 

of the individual. If an effective dosage (in milligrams) is known and 

an average amount of water taken over a 24-hour period i*" assumed, 

then a safe concentration can be recommended.

The presence of trace elements in process water used by industry 

can be harmful. Unfortunately, the effects of these trace elements in 

water are being learned slowly and, in some instances, at gre^.t expense. 

One paper manufacturer found that the use of alum a chemical 

commonly used in the clarification of water tends to precipitate 

barium. One plant has spent as much as $30,000 per year for treatment of its water to hold the barium in solution (G. E. Ferguson, 

written commun., 1961).

Some trace elements and properties are determined by radiochemical 

analysis. (See p. 44.) Concentrations of uranium are expressed in 

micrograms per liter. Radioactivity due to radium and beta activity 

are expressed in picocuries per liter (pc per 1). A curie is approximately the amount of radioactivity in 1 gram of radium to be more 

precise, a curie is the amount of radioactivity giving 3.7X1010 (37 

billion) disintegrations per minute (Stearns, 1961). A picocurie is 

1 million-millionth of a curie, or 3.7X10" 2 (0.037) disintegrations per 

minute. The amount of activity due to radium in most natural 

water ranges from 0.1 to about 10 picocuries.

Radium is a common source of radioactivity in water, and it has the 

lowest maximum permissible concentration of any radioactive element 

in water. From a health standpoint, less radium can be tolerated in 

drinking water than any other element emitting radiation. The 

amount of radium in water is commonly measured by determining the 

alpha-emitting activity of the element radium.

In the last two decades the location of deposits of radium and 

uranium have been of national concern. In the present study and
ANALYSES OF WATER 37

in an earlier study (Hursh, 1954), radium was detected in most large 

municipal water supplies. Scott and Barker (1962) found the largest 

amounts of uranium in natural water in the west-central United 

States..

Beta particles, or electrons, are almost weightless and have a 

negative charge. Beta activity is caused by the emission of beta 

particles from unstable elements, principally strontium in water, that 

tend to decay into other elements. Several beta emitters occur in 

nature, and many have been created artifically. Products of fission 

the breaking up of an atom with the release of huge amounts of 

energy from atomic power installations or from atomic weapons 

consist largely of beta emitters (Barker, 1959).

ANALYSES OF WATER

The analyses of the water supplies of these largest cities are of 

interest to operators of waterworks, industrial water users, geochemists, city officials, water-treatment consultants, and many others. 

Because of the widespread interest in the quality of these water 

supplies, each treated-water supply was sampled and analyzed chemically, radiochemically, and spectrographically. In addition, most 

raw-water supplies were chemically analyzed, and many rr.w-water 

supplies were also analyzed spectrographically.

The samples of water for many chemical and all radiochemical and 

spectrographic analyses were collected and analyzed by personnel of 

the Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey. For many 

years the quality of water in streams, lakes, and ground-water supplies 

have been analyzed in laboratories of the Water Resources Division. 

Many of the chemical analyses of streams and lakes are published in 

an annual series of water-supply papers entitled "Quality of Surface 

Waters of the United States."

Many municipal water authorities cooperated in this project by 

furnishing yearly average, maximum, and minimum comprehensive 

chemical analyses, which have been incorporated into the tables of 

chemical analyses in the second section of this report. The analyses 

furnished by these waterworks officials are clearly indicated in the 

tables. In addition, many cities determined, at regular intervals, the 

pH, hardness, and alkalinity of raw and treated water; these data 

have been summarized in separate tables.

Many tests are made in the analyses of water used in the home, 

in industry, and for irrigation. (See fig. 9.) Some tests such as 

pH, hardness, bicarbonate, color, turbidity, and temperature are
38 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

performed routinely in many municipal water laboratories; other 

determinations such as for boron, chromium, iron, manganese, 

chloride, and nitrate may be performed only at infrequent intervals 

or when a specific constituent is suspected of having a concentration 

that may cause problems. Few laboratories routinely perform all the 

tests listed on the pictograph (fig. 9).

The tests are made for many reasons. Water to be used in the 

home is tested at the treatment plant to ensure that the water is 

acceptable for drinking and that it does not contain corcentrations 

in excess of the values recommended in table 2. In addition, the 

waterworks operator analyzes raw water to estimate the quantity of 

chemicals that will be needed to obtain the desired tr?.ated-water 

quality, and he analyzes treated water to ensure that the desired 

water quality has been obtained; the operator does not want to 

waste chemicals in treatment, nor does he want to overtreat the water.

Many of the tests made on water to be used in industry are similar 

to the tests made on water to be used in the home. The presence of 

iron and manganese in excessive amounts causes staining problems 

in the industrial-dyeing establishments just as it does in the home 

laundry, and excess amounts of iron are as undesirable in large foodprocessing plants as they are in domestic supplies. The presence in 

water of certain constituents and properties causes added problems 

in some industries. For example, water having a hardnes^ of 30 ppm 

could disrupt the manufacture of synthetic rubber, and water having 

a high chloride content has stopped the manufacture of high-grade 

toilet tissue. Other industrial processes are sensitive to specific 

constituents, and industrial water users must be on their guard 

against undesirable concentrations of these constituents.

Although the number of tests performed on water used for agriculture is fewer than the number of tests made on water to be used 

in the home or industrially, these tests are just as important. Water 

that contains excessive amounts of sodium can cause s, sealing of 

certain soils and thus prevent water from penetrating the soil down 

to the plant roots. Some plants need specific concentrations of some 

elements; boron, for example, is essential to plant growth, but it is 

toxic at concentrations only slightly above the optimum (U.S. Salinity 

Laboratory Staff, 1954). High concentrations of other constituents 

such as magnesium, sulfate, and chloride can cause plant growth 

problems.

CHEMICAL ANALYSES

In this study the chemical analyses basically consisted of the determination of silica (SiO2 ), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), calcium 

(Ca), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na), potassium (K), bicarbonate
ANALYSES OF WATER 39

(HCO3), carbonate (CO3), sulfate (SO4), chloride (Cl), fluoride (F), 

nitrate (NO3), dissolved solids, hardness, specific conductance, pH, 

color, turbidity, and temperature.

Tests

Water use

Home Industry Agriculture

FIGURE 9. Tests commonly made in water analyses. 

735-717 O 64 4
40 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

The values of most constituents obtained by chemical analysis 

represent the amount of the constituents in solution at the time of 

the analysis. For some constituents and properties, these values 

may be slightly higher or lower than the values that might have 

been found if the analysis had been done directly at the sampling site.

Most of the principal methods used in the chemical analysis of 

water samples in this study are illustrated in figure 10 and briefly 

described in the following paragraphs. For a more thorough description of the methods used, the reader is referred to "Methods for 

Collection and Analysis of Water Samples," by Rainwater and 

Thatcher (1960).

Generally, pH is measured by immersing a set of electrodes in a 

water sample; the potential produced is measured by a pH meter.

Silica, iron, nitrate, manganese, fluoride, magnesium, and sulfate 

are determined by adding a known amount of color-causing reagent 

to water and measuring the intensity of the resultant color in a spectrophotometer. The intensity of the color produced is approximately 

proportional to the concentration of the constituent being determined.

Hardness, chloride, calcium, carbonate, and bicarbonate are determined by adding a measured amount of standardized reagent to a 

known volume of water until a color change or pH change signals 

that the reaction is complete.

Sodium and potassium are measured in a flame photometer. In 

this determination, the solution to be analyzed is vaporized in a 

flame, and the resultant color intensity of the flame is measured.

All these methods mentioned require that the concentration of the 

constituent being analyzed be fairly low; most of the waters used for 

public supply fall in this category. However, if the concentration of 

the constituent is large, the constituent may be measured gravimetrically. In this method, the substance to be analyzed is precipitated; the precipitate is filtered, washed, and weighed. This method 

may be used to determine silica, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, sulfate, and chloride.

Dissolved solids are usually measured by evaporating a known 

volume of water sample, drying the residue at 180° C, and then 

weighing the residue.

Color of water is measured by visually comparing the color of the 

sample against a set of color standards. Turbidity, likewise, is 

measured by visually comparing the turbidity of the sample against 

a set of turbidity standards.

Specific conductance is determined by dipping a cell into a water 

sample and measuring the electrical conductivity of the water sample. 

The conductance of the water is calibrated in micromhos (onemillionth of a mho).
ANALYSES OF WATER 41

SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSES

Spectrographic analysis is a rather recent and exciting technique 

used in the analysis of water. More than 60 elements in water can be 

analyzed by this method from a small amount (about 60 milligrams) 

of the residue formed from the evaporation of a water sample. This 

method is extremely sensitive; for example, as little as 0.23 micrograms of silver per liter was detected in one of the water supplies. 

The minimum percentages of some trace elements that can be detected are listed in table 5.

TABLE 5. Spectrographic detection limits for elements

[The concentration of an element in micrograms per liter is obtained by multiplying the percent of the element in the residue by the acidulated dissolved solids of the water]

Percent of Percent of 

Element residue Element residue

Aluminum (Al)_________ 0.0001 Manganese (Mn)_________ 0.001

Arsenic (As)---_______. .1 Molybdenum (Mo)....____ .0003

Boron (B)_._______________ .001 Nickel (Ni)____________ .001

Barium (Ba)_____________ .001 Phosphorus (P)-_______ .1

Beryllium (Be).________ .0001 Rubidium (Rb)--_______ .001

Cesium (Cs)-.-________ .003 Silver (Ag)-__________ .0001

Chromium (Cr)__________ .0001 Strontium (Sr)__________ .001

Cobalt (Co)..__ __________ .001 Tin (Sn)_____---_----_-__ .001

Copper (Cu) ___________ .0001 Titanium (Ti)_________ .0003

Iron (Fe)______________ .001 Vanadium (V)____________ .003

Lead (Pb)_______________ .001 Zinc (Zn)___ __ __-- -1

Lithium (Li).__________ .0001

Spectrographic analysis is based on the measurement of light emitted 

by individual elements in a sample that has been volatilized and 

ignited by an electric arc. A small amount of an element is put into a 

flame that melts, volatilizes, and ignites the element and produces a 

light that is characteristic of the element. For example, a small piece 

of sodium put into a flame turns the flame yellow; the introduction of 

a piece of lithium into a flame turns the flame bright red. The ignition 

of a sample at about 4,000° C containing more than one element 

produces a light that is a combination of the lights emitted by the 

individual elements. To measure the individual elements, the light 

from ignition of the sample is dispersed through a prism to obtain a 

series of bright lines, each of which is characteristic of an element. 

The intensity of each spectral line is proportional to the concentration 

of the element causing the spectral line.

The techniques used in the Spectrographic analyses of water samples 

in this study were reported by Haffty (1960) In most Spectrographic 

analyses the concentration of elements was calculated by multiplying 

the percentage of each element in the acidified residue by the dissolved-
42 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

CHEMICAL ANALYSI!

Source

EVAPORATION

Tungsten 

P) lamp

Prism

Photoelectric 

cell

Slit

Sample

ceii : I

Silica Fluoride 

Iron Magnesium 

Nitrate Sulfate 

Manganese

Spectrophotomete

SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

Heat lamps over 

evaporating dishes

WEIGHING 

RADIOCHEMIC.

Gross beta counter

GROSS BETA-ACTIVITY RADIUM

FIGURE 10. Methods of chemical, spectrograph
ANALYSES OF WATER 43

JOR CONSTITUENTS

Hardness

Chloride

Calcium

Carbonate

Bicarbonate

Flame

Slit

Sodium 

Potassium

Flame photometer

MOR CONSTITUENTS

rr

Spectrograph

ALYSIS

Alpha scintillation 

counter

SPECTROGRAPH 1C ANALYSIS

Photocell

Ultraviolet 

lamp

Spectral lines

Fluorimeter

URANIUM

1 radiochemical analyses of water.
44 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

solids content of an acidulated water sample. In a few analyses, where 

insufficient water was available, the concentration was calculated by 

multiplying the percentage of each element in the acidulated residue 

by the dissolved-solids content determined in the routine chemical 

analysis; these analyses are footnoted in the tables of spectrographic 

analyses.

Most public water supplies contained the following minor constituents: aluminum, barium, boron, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, 

lithium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, rubidium, silver, strontium, 

and titanium. In addition, beryllium, bismuth, gallium, phosphorus, 

scandium, tin, vanadium, ytterbium, yttrium, and zinc were detected 

in some raw and treated water supplies. Elements looked for but 

not found were antimony, arsenic, cadmium, cerium, cesium, 

dysprosium, erbium, europium, gadolinium, germanium, gold, hafnium, 

holmium, indium, iridium, lanthanum, lutetium, mercury, neodymium, niobium, osmium, palladium, platinum, praseodymium, 

rhenium, ruthenium, samarium, tantalum, tellurium, thallium, thorium, 

thulium, tungsten, and zirconium.

A few elements notably iron and manganese were analyzed both 

chemically and spectrographically. Where the values of the constituents obtained by chemical analysis differ from the values of the constituent obtained by spectrographic analysis, the spectrographic values 

are generally higher. This fact is understandable. The acidification 

of the spectrographic sample at the time of collection prevented the 

precipitation of the metals; thus, slightly more metal may have remained in solution in the acidified spectrographic sample than remained in solution in the chemical analysis of the sample, which is not 

acidified.

RADIOCHEMICAL ANALYSES

Three radiochemical determinations were made on the water samples 

collected in this study: (a) determination of the activity due to the 

emission of beta particles, (b) determination of the activity due to the 

emission of alpha particles from radium, and (c) determination of the 

concentration of uranium. Each of these methods can be used to 

detect extremely small concentrations. In the analyses of the waters 

used for public supplies, the minimum activity of beta particles detected was less than 1.1 pc per 1, the minimum activity of alpha particles emitted by radium was less than 0.1 pc per 1, and the minimum 

concentration of uranium was less than 0.1 jug per 1.

The beta activity of water samples was determined by evaporating 

a water sample to dryness in a platinium dish, transferring the residue
WATER TREATMENT 45

to a small stainless-steel disk called a planchet, and measuring with a 

suitable beta counter the beta activity emitted.

The radium content of the water sample was determined by adding 

sufficient barium and sulfate to precipitate'barium sulfate and then 

boiling the solution. Radium in the water sample is coprecipitated 

with the barium sulfate. The precipitate is collected on a membrane 

filter. After more than 12 days, the alpha activity of radium is 

measured with an alpha scintillation counter and compared with 

standards.

Uranium was determined by evaporating a sample of water to dryness and fusing the residue with an alkaline salt containing fluoride. 

The cooled residue was then exposed to ultraviolet light, and the 

resulting fluorescence was measured with a fluorimeter and compared 

with that of standards.

For a more detailed explanation of these radiochemical methods of 

analyses the reader is referred to a paper entitled "Determination of 

Radioactive Materials in Water" (Barker, 1959).

WATER TREATMENT

Constituents and properties of public water supplies commonly 

are kept within prescribed limits. Although an excessive amount of 

some constituents could be harmful, a deficiency of some constituents 

also is undesirable. Over the years, the minimum and maximum concentrations of many constituents that affect the uses of water have 

been determined. As one might expect, some constituents are harmful in drinking water but are not detrimental for many industrial uses. 

Many efforts have been made to establish what an "ideal water" 

contains with respect to dissolved constituents. Table 6 lists the 

characteristics and concentrations of an ideal water quality as visualized by a task group of the American Water Works Association. 

The task group readily admits that "few, if any, waters can fully meet 

such a definition of the ideal" (Bean, 1962).

Most cities in this study treat their raw-water supply to improve 

the quality. The treatments of the municipal water supplies for 

these cities have been summarized in table 7. In addition, the 

treatment given to each water supply is given in the section describing 

the operating characteristics of each municipal water supply. In 

order to understand the necessarily brief description of the treatment 

given for each city, we shall take a quick look at common municipal 

treatments of water.
46 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

TABLE 6. Characteristics of water of ideal quality, as suggested by the American

Water Works Association 

IData after Bean (1962, p. 1316)]

Maximum 

concentration 

Physical characteristics in ideal water

Turbidity________________________ _____________________ppm_ <0. 1

Color (true)______________________________________.color units.__ 3

Odor____-----_--_----___--__________________________-_________ (»)

Taste_ ________________________________________________________ None.

Chemical constituents

[parts per million] 

Toxic:

Lead (Pb)_______________________________________ 0. 03

Barium (Ba)_______________________________________________ . 5

Fluoride (F) 2 :

50.0-53.7°F_.____.__.__._______._..__.._.____._____.___ 1. 2

53.8-58.3°F__ _._._.__...______._._....__.__.___. 1. 1

58.4-63.8°F_.__.__..____._______________________ 1. 0

63.9-70.6°F______________________.._____ . 9

70.7-79.2°F__._______...._._____._.___.______________ .8

79.3-90.5°F____________________________________________ . 7

Arsenic (As)___________-___________________________________ . 01

Cyanide (CN)_-__-_--______________________________________ . 01

Silver (Ag)__ ________________________________________ . 02

Selenium (Se)______________________________________________ .01

Cadmium (Cd)____.______________________________________ . 01

Chromium (Cr, hexavalent)__________________________--__-___ . 01

Nontoxic:

Aluminum (Al)________________J__________________________ .05

Iron (Fe)_________________________________________________ . 05

Manganese (Mn)___________________________________________ . 01

Copper (Cu).______________________.__________ _________ . 2

Zinc (Zn)______. _______________________________ ______ 1.0

Nitrate (NO3) __-----_-______________-___---_ ___________ 22

Corrosion and scaling characteristics

[parts per million] 

Hardness (as CaCO3)__ ______________________________ _______ 80. 0

Alkalinity (as CaCO_)___________________'_____________ ____"_____ (3)

Radiological activity 

[picocuries per liter] 

Gross beta_ ____________________________________________________ 100

Radium (Ra226)__ _____________________________________ ______ 3

Strontium (Sr90)_______________ _______________________ _____ 5

1 No change on carbon contact.

2 Temperature in the 5-year average of maximum daily air temperature.

a Not more than 1 ppm change in alkalinity in distribution system; not more than 1 ppm change in alkalinity after 12 hours at 130° F in a closed plastic bottle, followed by filtration.
WATER TREATMENT 47

TABLE 7. Sources and treatments of public water supplies of the 100 largest cities

in the United States, 1962

Source and treatment

Surface water: 

Chlorination___ __ _______ ___ _ _______

Sedimentation and coagulation. _ _ ___

Rapid sand filtration __ ____ _ __ ______ _

Slow sand filtration _ _ _____ _ __ ______

Pressure filtration ___ ___ _____________

Iron removal. _____ _ __ _ ____________

Softening: 

With lime 1 . _____ ... ____ _ ...

With lime-soda ash__ ____ _ _ ___ _

Ground water: 

No treatment _______ __ _ _____ ___

Chlorination_ _____ ___ _____ _____

Sedimentation and coagulation _ _____ _

Rapid sand filtration. __ _ _____ _ ____ _

Iron and manganese removal _ ____ ______

Softening :

With lime-soda ash_ __ _______ ___

Mixed surface and ground water : 

No treatment _______ ___ __ ______

Sedimentation and coagulation _ _____ ___

Rapid sand filtration. __ __ ______ _ ___

Iron and manganese removal __________ ___

Softening: 

With lime_ __ _________ ___ ______ ._

With lime-soda ash. __ _____ _ _

Number 

of 

cities

66 

54 

51 

7 

2 

4

10 

9

1 

19 

7

7 

5

3 

1

1 

13

7 

8 

1 

1

2 

1 

2

Population served

Thousands

39, 939 

27, 772 

26, 511 

2,536 

356 

1,475

4,649 

3,359

150 

5,565 

2, 147 

2,970 

1,474

1,055 

320

72 

14, 015 

8,770 

1,921 

33 

500

340 

259

698

Percent of 

population of 

100 largest cities

65.9 

45.8 

43.8 

4.2 

.6 

2.4

7.7

6.0

. 2

9.2 

3.5 

4.9 

2.4

1.7 

. 5

. 1 

23. 1 

14. 5 

3.2 

. 1 

.8

.6 

.4 

1. 2

1 At least one city supplements lime softening with soda ash during critical periods.

Municipal water-treatment plants are designed to be able to produce treated water of the desired quality from the worst local rawwater supplies. For example, many treatment plants are designed to 

handle water from streams that may at times carry large amounts of silt 

and floating trash and to soften the hardest water that can be obtained 

from the watershed. The maximum amount of water that a treatment plant is designed to treat is called the rated capacity of the 

plant; the rated capacities of the treatment plants in these largest 

cities are given in the descriptive material for the individual city. 

During times of high water demand, raw water generally has a low 

turbidity and thus does not need to stay the full time in the sedimentation and clarification basins. Thus, treatment plants can treat 

more water than the rated capacity. Few treatment plants operate 

at rated capacity for extended periods of time.
48 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

For ease in understanding water treatment, a drawing showing the 

principal steps involved in the treatment of a hypothetical "very 

hard" surface water laden with silt is shown in figure 11. To further 

illustrate the processes involved, photographs of various actual 

treatment plants are included. Few municipal supplies employ all 

the processes. Some cities may use only a few of the processes, 

whereas other cities use parts of this basic treatment plan, repeat 

some processes, and may add a few that are not shown. Ground-water 

supplies generally do not require clarification, but many of the other 

processes illustrated are used in treating ground-water supplies.

SCREENING

Water is pumped or flows by gravity from a stream into a sedimentation basin. To prevent tree limbs and other floating and submerged trash from entering intake pipes, the water passes through a 

crib, which consists of iron grates extending above and below the 

water surface.

PRECHLORINATION

Chlorine added after screening or at any phase before filtration is 

called prechlorination. The amount of chlorine to be added is determined from laboratory tests. Chlorine gas is not applied directly 

to the water being treated; instead, regulated amounts of chlorine 

are applied to a small stream of water, which is then mixed into the 

water to be treated. Chlorine added at this phase controls the growth 

of plants and microscopic organisms that could impart undesirable 

tastes and odors to the water. The plants and organisms might also 

be deposited on the filter beds, coat the particles of sand, and thus 

reduce the efficiency of the filter bed. Tastes, odors, and bacteria 

also may be controlled at this point by "breakpoint chlorination." 

In this method the amount of chlorine added to water is sufficient to 

ensure that there is chlorine gas in excess of the amount required to 

oxidize organic matter, sulfides, unoxidized iron and manganese, and 

any other oxidizable matter in the water.

SEDIMENTATION

Chlorinated water now flows into a sedimentation basin, where the 

destruction of organic material by chlorine continues to improve the 

taste arid odor of water. The basin is designed so that the water will 

move slowly and give the coarse particles of suspended matter time to 

settle to the floor of the basin. The size of the basin and the detention time of the water in the basin depends upon the amount of water
WATER TREATMENT 49

being treated and the coarseness of the sediments. Coarse sediments 

may settle in hours, whereas fine sediments could require days and 

even weeks to settle completely. Under normal operating conditions, 

sedimentation basins remove a large percentage of suspended matter 

from water and thus prevent suspended matter from being carried 

along onto the filter beds. Sedimentation at this stage also is called 

"presedimentation" and "plain sedimentation." Natural lakes and 

large artificial reservoirs act as huge sedimentation basins and have 

the added advantage of seldom requiring cleaning. (Small artificial 

sedimentation basins require periodic or continuous cleaning to 

remove the deposited suspended matter.)

CHEMICAL TREATMENT

After sedimentation, chemicals are added for coagulation, softening, 

and removal of tastes and odors. In these largest cities, the three 

principal chemicals added are alum, lime, and carbon. Alum is added 

for coagulation, lime is added for softening and corrosion control, and 

carbon is added for the removal of undesirable tastes and odors. 

Many of the chemicals added have beneficial secondary effects. Lime 

added primarily for softening also accelerates coagulation and improves water color. Alum added primarily for coagulation improves 

color and assists in the settling of sludge from lime softening. At 

some municipal water-treatment plants, chlorine or other disinfectants 

may be added in the chemical-treatment building; the addition of 

these disinfectants is discussed on pages 48 and 58.

COAGULATION

To remove the sediments, turbidity, color, and organic matter that 

were not removed in the sedimentation basin, coagulation chemicals 

are added in the chemical-treatment building. These coagulation 

chemicals when added to water form clumps that resemble cotton 

candy; these clumps are called floes, and suspended sediment and 

bacteria adhere to them. The large floes slowly settle and drag down 

the suspended matter. Without these coagulation chemicals and the 

resultant floes, the suspended matter could coat the sand grains of 

the filters, and fine particles and some color could pass through the 

filter and appear in the water served to the consumer.

The amount of the coagulation chemicals and the efficacy of coagulation is influenced by water temperature, pH, water color, turbidity, 

mineral content of the water, mixing time, violence of agitation, the 

presence of nuclei for the sediment to adhere to, and the type and 

dosage of chemicals (Am. Water Works Assoc., 1950). Coagulation
50 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

A pump station at Dallas lex Photograph 

Srmshed by Dallas Water Works Drv chemical feeders at Charlotte. N C

PUMP STATION 

Water is pumped 

through grates to 

keep out tree limbs 

and other floating 

trash PRIMARY SETTLING 

The heavier impurity 

laden floes settle to 

the bottom of the 

dander Most 

suspended matter is 

removed in this 

operation

RAPID MIXING

CHAMBER 

Water and chemicals SEDIMENTATION

BASIN Alum 

Heavier suspended 

matter settles out I

to ensure dispersion 

of chemicals

CHEMICAl TREATMENI 

Chemicals added to 

(a) remove sus 

penned matter by 

forming snow 

flakes like floes (b) 

lower water hardness 

by precipitating 

calcium and mag 

nesium and (ci re 

move taste odor and 

color

FLOCCULATOR 

Water is gently mixed 

until flocculation and 

precipitation are com 

plete Precipitated 

calcium carbonate, 

suspended matter 

and other impurities 

cling to the balls of 

floe

SECONDARY SETTLING

Water moves through

this basin slowly to

allow the finished

suspended matter to

PRECHLORINATION

Chlorine added to

destroy organic

material in the water

Tank of chlorine at Greensboro N C

Flocculator, primary settling and

secondary settling basins at Dallas. Tex

Photograph furnished bv Dallas Water Works

Source (Delaware River) and a sedimentation

basin at Philadelphia. Pa water department

Photograph furnished by Philadelphia Water Works

FIGURE 11. Flowsheet and pictures illustrating the treatment of a hypothetical "very har

various processes. Most of the cities nam
WATER TREATMENT 51

Rap"! sand filte> hprK at Greensboro N C Dry chemical feeders at Charlotte. N C

FILTER BEDS 

A1 ! suspended matter 

remai ni n g after 

sedimentation and 

most bacteria are 

removed as the 

watei is strained 

through the sa nd 

bed

POSTCHEMICAL

TREATMENT 

Prior to distribution, 

fluonde added to 

prevent dental decay, 

me added to raise 

pH and chlorine 

added to ensure 

disinfection

1

TREATED WATER

STORAGE

Water stored in reser 

voir until needed at 

the many s mailer 

distribution water 

tanks

STORAGE TANK 

Water is pu mped to 

higher elevation 

storage tanks in 

convenient locations 

for ready distribution 

to consumer

Elevated storage tank at Raleigh N C

PDSTCHLORINATION 

Chlorine added to 

ensure that water at 

tap is sarrtary

Treated water storage basin at Greensboro N C Tank of chlorine at Greensboro N C

lie water supply. Photographs of actual municipal water treatment plants illustrate the 

his figure do not have "very hard" water.
52 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

chemicals are usually added under the supervision of the laboratory 

personnel of the waterworks plant. The dosage of chemicals required 

to obtain optimum coagulation is commonly determined by measuring 

the amount required to obtain a good floe in a jar containing a sample 

of water being treated.

A recent technique for adding coagulating chemicals takes advantage 

of the fact that coagulation chemicals dissolved in water have a 

positive charge and suspended matter in water has a negative charge. 

The coagulation chemical is added until the water sample is neither 

negative because of an excess of suspended sediment nor positive 

because of an excess of coagulation chemicals.

The most commonly used coagulation chemical is aluminum sulfate more commonly know as alum. Of the 68 cities in this study 

that used coagulation chemicals, 52 used alum. Aluminum sulfate 

reacts with bicarbonate and carbonate ions in water and lowers the 

pH of the water being treated. Alum forms the best floes in the pH 

range of 5.5 to 6.8 (Nordell, 1961). If water contains large amounts 

of bicarbonate and carbonate, sulfuric acid may be added to lower 

the pH. After coagulation, lime or soda ash may be added to raise 

the pH to more than 9.0 to prevent corrosion in distribution pipes.

Iron compounds are less commonly used for coagulation. Ferric 

sulfate commercially known as Ferrisul or Ferrifloc was used in 

eight cities, and ferrous sulfate commonly known as copperas was 

used in seven cities. Iron salts used for coagulation also react with 

bicarbonate and carbonate ions in water and lower the pH of the 

water. For effective coagulation, the ferrous iron is oxidized to ferric 

iron by chlorine or the dissolved oxygen in the water; iron salts mixed 

with chlorine are effective in removing color. When iron salts are 

used for coagulation and to remove color, the optimum pH range of 

the water is 3.5 to 5.0 (Nordell, 1961). Waters coagulated with iron 

salts at this low pH are treated after coagulation with lime or soda 

ash to raise the pH and to prevent corrosion. Effective coagulation 

with iron salts also occurs at a pH greater than 9.0; iron compounds 

mixed with lime are especially effective in clarifying turbid waters.

Activated silica and clays are used as coagulation aids, especially 

during cold weather, because they improve coagulation by further 

promoting the formation of rapidly settling floes. About 10 percent 

of the cities in this study use coagulation aids in addition to the 

coagulation chemicals.

Some municipal water systems do not add coagulation chemicals 

but recirculate a part of the sludge from previous coagulation and 

softening operations. The recirculated sludge serves as a nucleus 

for the fine sediments and bacteria to adhere to. The recirculated 

sludge and the adhering sediments then settle out of the water.
WATER TREATMENT 53

SOFTENING

Water hardness is caused principally by the presence of calcium 

and magnesium in water. To lower the hardness of water called 

softening the amounts of these constituents must be reduced or the 

constituents removed altogether. In municipal supplies, water is 

softened principally by (a) the addition of lime called lime softening and (b) the addition of lime and soda ash called lime-soda 

softening. In these softening processes, calcium and magnesium in 

water are converted from a soluble form into bulky precipitates of 

calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide. Softening processes 

produce considerable volumes of sludge, which can carry dowr suspended sediment, turbidity particles, bacteria, and minute particles 

of organic matter. Softening chemicals added with coagulation 

chemicals increase the efficacy of coagulation chemicals. Most cities 

that employ these methods of chemical softening have a subsequent 

filtration operation to remove the softening sludge.

Lime softening. Lime softening is used in 15 of 28 cities that 

reduce the hardness of raw water. If hardness is caused by calcium 

bicarbonate, lime is added to reduce the amount of calcium; if hardness 

is caused also by magnesium bicarbonate, additional lime is added to 

remove a part of the magnesium content. About twice the amount of 

lime must be used to lower magnesium bicarbonate hardness as is 

needed to lower calcium bicarbonate hardness. Most calcium is 

removed (precipitated) from the solution before magnesium is removed.

Lime in excess of the amount used to cause the precipitation of 

calcium and magnesium is removed in a subsequent operation to 

prevent the deposition of calcium carbonate on filters and to prevent 

the deposition of calcium carbonate scale in distribution pipes.

Lime-soda softening. The lime-soda method of softening is used 

in 11 cities to reduce carbonate and noncarbonate hardness. As soda 

ash (sodium carbonate) is more expensive than lime, the accepted 

procedure is to add an excess of lime to remove the maximum amount 

of calcium and magnesium possible (carbonate hardness) and then to 

add enough soda ash to lower the hardness to the desired level. Ercess 

softening chemicals are removed in subsequent operations.

Cation exchange. In at least one city, the calcium and magnesium 

in water are taken out of solution by cation exchange and replaced by 

sodium. This process is usually carried out after filtration to prevent 

contamination and coating of ion-exchange resins. In the cationexchange process, water passes through a bed of material that has the 

property of replacing calcium and magnesium ions in water with 

sodium ions. By ion exchange, water hardness can be reduced to zero; 

however, this water is extremely corrosive and expensive. Before 1940,
54 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

the materials used in the beds were natural minerals called zeolites; 

today, most ion-exchange beds are composed of synthetic resins. 

On all but 14 days of the period July 1, 1960, to June 30, 1961, cationexchange softening was the only process used by the Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California, which supplies softened water 

to Los Angeles and Long Beach. The average hardness of the Colorado 

River was reduced from 323 ppm to a hardness of 200 ppm in the 

treated water (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 

1961). Infrequently, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California uses lime to partially soften water before cation exchange to 

prevent clogging of ion-exchange resins; the resultant lime sludge 

forms a nucleus for coagulation and clarification. After water passes 

through an ion-exchange softener, the bed material becomes reduced 

in sodium ions and must be regenerated by washing tH bed with a 

solution of sodium chloride (common table salt).

REMOVAL OF TASTES AND ODORS

Good drinking water is free of undesirable tastes anc1 odors. Undesirable tastes and odors generally come from two irajor sources:

(a) decaying vegetation, live and dead algae, and bacter'al slimes and

(b) sewage and industrial pollution. The oxidation and precipitation 

of iron and manganese also cause unwanted colors and tastes.

The removal of unwanted tastes and odors is a continuing process 

throughout water treatment. In many reservoirs and lakes, plants and 

shrubs are removed before water is stored and copper sulfate is 

broadcast periodically during growing seasons to reduce the amount 

of algae. In sedimentation basins and large bodies of water, natural 

sedimentation effects the removal of earthy materials that impart 

undesirable tastes, odors, and colors. If a strong disinfectant, such 

as chlorine, is also used in these basins, then algae and bacteria are 

killed and deposited with the earthy materials. Aeration and strong 

oxidizing chemicals cause iron and manganese oxides to precipitate 

from water. Alum and other coagulation chemicals clarify water by 

creating floes, which serve as nuclei for bacteria, suspended matter, 

algae, and other taste- and odor-causing materials to clin^ to and thus 

settle out. Some bleaching clays are effective in removing colors, in 

addition to acting as coagulation aids. The large volumes of sludge 

from lime softening act as nuclei for the attraction and removal of 

many causes of tastes and odors; lime also acts as a d:<4nfectant to 

remove undesirable taste- and odor-causing bacteria.

Activated carbon is an effective chemical added primarily to absorb 

taste, odor, and color from water supplies. Carbon in a slurry 

or in dry form is added with coagulation and softening chemicals.
WATER TREATMENT 55

After absorbing undesirable tastes, odors, and colors, carbon becomes 

a part of the coagulation floe and settles.

CLARIFICATION

Rapid mix. After coagulation, softening, and taste- and odorremoving chemicals are added, the water is thoroughly agitated to 

ensure that the chemicals are thoroughly dispersed. In man7 cities 

the chemicals are mixed in the water by large rotating blades, as 

shown in figure 11. At some locations, air is introduced intc water 

to assist the mixing. The air also causes the oxidation of iron and 

manganese and expels undesirable gases such as carbon dioxide and 

foul-smelling hydrogen sulfide. The water is thoroughly agitated 

for only a short period of time.

Flocculators. After the chemicals are thoroughly dispersed in the 

water being treated, the water is continuously and gently, but 

thoroughly, mixed. Floes are formed that attract most of the suspended sediments and other coagulable materials present in the water. 

In the foreground of the photograph of figure 11 some of tie floes 

can be seen as they are being gently rolled to the surface.

Primary settling. After floes have reached optimum size, tl e floeladen water flows to a primary settling basin, as shown in figure 11. 

Here the floes have an opportunity to settle and entrap most of the 

undesirable sediments that were not removed in the sedimentation 

basin. The deposited sludge is swept to a central point for disposal. 

Some plants reuse a part of the sludge to accelerate coagulation, some 

plants reclaim the lime in the sludge, and other plants dispose of all 

the sludge.

Stabilization. Water softened by lime and lime-soda processes is 

saturated with calcium carbonate before any calcium carbonate 

precipitate is formed. After the water has been softened to the desired 

hardness, water must be stabilized to prevent any further deposition 

of softening sludge. Stabilization, which is achieved by adding 

sulfuric acid or by injecting carbon dioxide gas (recarbonation) to 

convert the calcium carbonate in water into very soluble calcium 

bicarbonate, neutralizes the excess lime in water and lowers tl 3 pH. 

To prevent clogging of filter beds, some plants stabilize the water, 

and other plants stabilize after filtration to obtain a lower hardness 

water. Stabilization after filtration allows the filter bed to become 

coated with calcium carbonate precipitates and requires more frequent 

washing of the filter bed.

In some municipal water-treatment systems, phosphate compounds 

(Calgoji is popular) are added to calcium carbonate saturated water to 

prevent the precipitation of calcium carbonate scale. The phosphate

735-717 O 64 5
56 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

compounds also prevent the precipitation of iron oxides and reduce 

corrosion.

Secondary settling. After most of the sludge has been deposited 

in the primary settling basin, the water flows to the secondary settling 

basin. Here much of the remaining suspended matter settles, and 

the water is discharged to the filters for final purification.

FILTRATION

In these largest cities three types of filters are usec1 : rapid sand 

filter, slow sand filter, and pressure filter.

Rapid sand filters are large concrete boxes, commonly covering 

an area of 1,000 square feet or less, in which perforated pipe systems 

called underdrains are laid on the floor of the box. Overlying the 

filter underdrains is a layer of gravel, which gradually decreases in 

size from coarse gravel near the drains to a fine gravel on the top of 

the layer. Overlying the gravel layer is a layer of several feet of 

fine sand. Water flows onto the top of the filter and then, by gravity, 

flows through the sand layer, down through the gravel If yer, and into 

the filter underdrains. In some cities the sand layer has been replaced 

by a lighter weight layer of anthracite coal (anthrafilt). It takes 

about 2 hours for water to seep down through the rapid sand filters.

As water flows through the rapid sand filter, residual suspended 

matter is deposited on the sand grains and thus helps to filter the solid 

materials in water. After water passes through the filter for a time, 

the sand becomes dirty and the pores between the sand grains become 

clogged. As a result, flow of water through the sand filter is retarded. 

To free the rapid sand filters of this suspended matter, water is forced 

up through the filter bed and the deposited dirt and silt is flushed to 

waste. The time interval between filter-bed washing vf.ries with the 

composition of water, the water treatment, and the water temperature. 

Providence, R.I., washes its filter beds after about 80 hours of operation (Providence Water Supply Board, 1961); Dallas, Tex., after about 

60 hours (Dallas Water Council, 1960); and Toledo, Ohio, after about 

34 hours (Toledo Div. Water, 1962). Of the 70 municipalities that 

use filtration as part of the water treatment, 64 cities use the rapid 

sand filtration method.

A few municipal filtration plants use pressure filters instead of the 

more common gravity sand filter. The rapid sand filter and the pressure filter are similar in construction except that the pressure filter is 

enclosed in a steel shell for operating at pressures other than 

atmospheric.

Slow sand filtration is used to filter all or part of the water supplies 

of eight of the largest cities. Slow sand filters are constructed so that
WATER TREATMENT 57

a layer of fine sand is supported by a layer of gravel; the gravel h yer is 

supported by a filter underdrain. These slow sand filters commonly 

cover an area of about 1 acre. Water flows through the slow sand 

filters at about one-fiftieth of the rate at which it flows through the 

rapid sand filters. As water flows down by gravity through a freshly 

cleaned sand-filter bed, a slimy coat deposits on the sand grains. 

This slimy growth of suspended sediment and bacteria, called schmutzdecke, takes several days to develop and is primarily responsible for 

the removal of bacteria from water.

Slow sand filters are effective for the filtration of raw water that 

has without any previous clarification of the water low turtidity, 

low color, and low bacteria count. To prevent clogging of sand grains 

in slow sand filters, turbid water requires coagulation and clarification 

before filtration. The schmutzdecke on the sand grains of the slow 

sand filter is especially effective in removing tastes and odors. These 

filters are operated for months before they are cleaned but require 

many days to clean.

REMOVAL OF IRON AND MANGANESE

Iron and manganese in surface water seldom cause treatment 

problems, and the small amounts of these elements are generally 

removed during clarification, softening, and filtration. However, 

these elements in ground water can cause water-treatment prol^ems. 

Because of the presence of carbon dioxide and the absence of oxygen, 

most ground-water supplies contain considerably more iror and 

manganese than do adjacent streams. Most ground water is cler.r and 

colorless as it emerges from the well. On exposure to air, carbon 

dioxide gas is dispersed, and the iron and manganese in clear well 

(ground) water becomes oxidized to form unsightly precipitates that 

give water a rusty appearance.

Iron and manganese are removed from water principally by oxidizing these metals to their insdluble oxides by injecting air into water, 

cascading the water over a bed of coarse coke or similar mater al, or 

spraying the water into the air. The precipitated iron and manganese 

oxides settle out in sedimentation basins and are caught on the filter 

beds. (Water that is saturated with air is extremely corrosive; the 

air must be expelled by deaeration or by the addition of chemicals 

before the water is distributed to the consumer.) When necessary, 

manganese may be oxidized with permanganate; however, the resultant precipitate tends to clog filters (Bogren, 1962). The water is 

then settled and filtered to remove the fine insoluble precipitates.
58 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

POSTCHEMICAL TREATMENT

If the water is to be fluoridated, the fluoride is added generally after 

filtration, because the fluoride can be removed by lime-softening and 

alum-coagulation processes. The fluoride is added in the form of 

sodium fluoride, sodium silicon1 uoride, or fluosilicic acid; the amount 

added to the water depends on the amount already present and the 

desired concentration in the treated water. The optimum concentration recommended for drinking water (table 2) ranges from 0.6 to 1.7 

ppm, depending on the local 5-year average air temperature. The 

number of communities in the United States that added fluoride to 

their water increased from 6 to more than 2,000 between 1945 and 1962. 

In 1962, about 51 million people in the United States and Puerto Rico 

were using fluoridated water supplies (Am. Water V^orks Assoc., 

1964). In these 100 largest cities, 34 cities serving more than 21 

million people were using fluoridated water.

Lime-softening water that has not been stabilized before filtration is 

now stabilized with carbon dioxide, sulfuric acid, or a phosphate 

compound to prevent a heavy deposition of calcium carbonate scale in 

the distribution system. Lime is added to water having a low pH or 

a low hardness so that the pH will be increased and a slight scale of 

calcium carbonate will be deposited to control corrosion.

Except for final chlorination, the clarified, softened, and posttreated water is now ready for distribution to the consumer. This 

water is stored in clear wells or finished water reservoirs until needed 

in the various sections of the city. As required, treated water is 

pumped from reservoirs at treatment plants to small elevated storage 

tanks, distributed throughout the city. These tanks are sufficiently 

large to keep the various sections of town supplied with water and 

to prevent unduly large demand surges for water.

POSTCHLORINATION

While in storage, prior to distribution, the water is given a final 

treatment with chlorine. The addition of chlorine at this stage of 

the treatment, or at any time after filtration, is called postchlorination. 

The amount of chlorine added to water depends on the amount of 

organic matter and the amount of chemicals in water that will react 

with chlorine; after clarification and filtration, little organic matter is 

present in water. Sufficient chlorine must be added to water to 

ensure that bacterial growth is suppressed from the time that water 

leaves the treatment plant until water flows from the tap in the home. 

Water that may be in transit for a long time before being used is 

commonly treated with more chlorine than is water in transit for a
WATER TREATMENT 59

short period of time. In some cities, water is rechlorinated at pumping stations in the distribution system.

For many years the principal disinfectant used in water treatment 

has been chlorine. In many municipal water-treatment plants, 

chlorine gas is added to a water solution that is then mixed with the 

water to be treated. In some treatment plants the chlorine may be 

added as a dry powder called hypochlorite, which when dissolved in 

water releases chlorine gas. In about 30 percent of these largest 

cities, ammonia is used with chlorine to form chloramine compc ^mds, 

which are effective in maintaining a satisfactory residual of chlorine 

in distribution systems. Chloramines do not produce the undesirable 

tastes and odors associated with chlorinated waters that contain 

minute amounts of phenol compounds. Ozone, a form of oxygen, 

is also used, for disinfection in a few cities.

EFFECT OF WATER TREATMENT UPON WATER

QUALITY

Softening, adjusting pH, and coagulation change the chemical 

composition of water. The obvious changes in water quality are the 

lowering of the concentrations of calcium and magnesium to obtain 

Iqps hard water, the resultant lowering of the dissolved-solid? contents, and the changes in pH. In addition, iron and manganese 

concentrations in treated water are lower than in raw water. Most 

other constituents and properties of water are not altered significantly. 

The major changes that occur during lime softening, lime-soda 

softening, and cation exchange are illustrated in figure 12.

Softening with lime removes carbonate hardness. If the hardness 

is caused primarily by calcium, lime removes about equivalent amounts 

of calcium and bicarbonate from water; small amounts of magnesium 

in water settle out with the sludge of calcium carbonate (see fig. 12). 

If a significant part of the carbonate hardness is caused by magnesium, 

additional lime increases the amount of magnesium carried down 

with the softening sludge. Lime softening also causes the cop^ecipitation of iron, manganese, strontium, and possibly other trace 

elements.

Chemical analyses of water before and after lime-soda softening at 

one of these largest cities is illustrated in figure 12. The addition of 

lime and soda decreased the calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate 

contents but increased the sodium content. During the lime-soda 

treatment illustrated in figure 12, the amount of soda ash (sodium 

carbonate) added was not sufficient to give the treated water a 

significantly higher dissolved-solids content than the raw water.
60 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

EXPLANATION

'./

' y

^

$%

m

t 1 

i _ i

Na + K

Mg 

Ca 

CI+NCb+F

S04

HC03

Portion removed 

by treatment

Portion added 

by treatment

LIME TREATMENT

^U^ J; ^:;^^^|^,^

LIME-SODA TREATMENT

J-X :?>^M$M$i V. -> : ; <; \ "x^x^

'' ^.^ 'i:-^.//'/', 1 ,

! " L_

CATION EXCHANGE

' '/' '/- //. . / /'/J:/-''// //'.' Before

'. :-;/': .X /^ x After

PIGUEE 12. Effect of water softening upon the chemical composition of water

being treated.

As indicated in figure 12, cation exchange softens water by replacing 

a part of the calcium with nonhardness-causing sodium and also by 

replacing a part of the magnesium with sodium. In thi^1 process, the 

bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride, and nitrate concentrations remain 

unchanged. During cation softening, the dissolved-solids content 

generally increases, although the hardness is lowered.

In the coagulation process to remove turbidity ard suspended 

solids, the coagulants aluminum sulfate and iron sulfate lower the 

concentration of bicarbonate and carbonate in water and increase the 

concentration of sulfate. Because aluminum and iron sulfate are 

acidic, the pH of the water during this treatment is reduced, unless 

it is adjusted upward by the addition of lime. Although the aluminum 

coagulants may contain 0.3 percent iron as an impurity, this iron is 

subsequently removed during coagulation.

In chlorination, chlorine reacts with water to release cxygen, which 

acts as a disinfectant, and to form hydrochloric acid, which lowers the
WATER TREATMENT 61

pH of the water. The soluble chloride remains in solution and slightly 

increases the dissolved-solids content.

In the adjustment of the pH of water for the control of corrosion, 

the pH is raised generally by the addition of lime, which also increases 

the water hardness and generally increases the strontium content 

slightly. In some treatment plants soda ash (sodium carboiate) is 

used to raise the pH without increasing the hardness of the water.

Radioactivity is eliminated during many phases of water treatment. 

Ion exchange by some silts, natural sedimentation, and coagulation 

followed by clarification remove large amounts of radioactive n? aterials 

from turbid waters. Sedimentation and coagulation followed by 

clarification can remove between 45 and 85 percent of radioactive 

fission products; subsequent filtration removes additional amounts of 

radioactive materials. Softening by the lime-soda method also 

accelerates the removal of the radioactive materials in the ravr water. 

Complete ion exchange of water removes 99.99 percent of the radioactive 

materials (Bevis, 1960).

Recent spectrographic analyses indicate that of the impurities in 

water-treatment chemicals only aluminum, iron, and strontium alter 

the concentration of trace elements in the water being treated.

QUALITY OF THE WATER SERVED TO THE

CONSUMER

Let us now take a brief look at the finished product. Although 

it is difficult to establish any regional patterns of water hardness of 

treated-water supplies of these cities, the "soft" water rupplies 

(hardness less than 61 ppm) are located along the Atlantic coast, in 

coastal Oregon and Washington, and along the Gulf Coast westward 

to Houston, Tex., where natural cation exchange (softening) occurs. 

The hardest water supplies are generally in the far southwest and in 

the East North Central States (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and 

Wisconsin).

A comparison of the hardness of the treated-water supplies (fig. 13) 

with the hardness of the raw-water supplies (fig. 6) of these largest 

cities reveals some interesting changes in the hardness of water 

supplies as a result of municipal softening practices. (The hardness 

values in figure 13 were calculated by the same method used to 

calculate the population-weighted hardness of the raw-water supplies, 

figure 6.) Although 27 cities have a raw-water hardness exceeding 

180 ppm ("very hard"), only 13 cities have a "very hard" treatedwater supply; and although 22 cities have a raw-water hardness
FIGURE 13. Hardness of treated public water supplies of the 100 large

weighted by population served.) See table 1 for 
QUALITY OF THE WATER SERVED TO THE CONSUMES 63

ranging from 121 to 180 ppm ("hard"), only 16 cities have a "hard" 

treated water supply. Only 16 cities have a raw-water hardness 

ranging from 61 to 120 ppm ("moderately hard"), whereas 41 cities 

have a treated-water hardness of this desirable range. A few cities 

that have "soft" raw water add lime to reduce corrosion and thus 

increase the water hardness to more than 61 ppm. Thirty public 

supplies have a treated-water hardness of less than 61 ppm.

The, pH of the treated-water supplies of these largest cities if shown 

in figure 14. Most cities having a treated-water supply whose pH 

is less than 7.0 are in the northeastern part of the country. In most 

of these cities chlorination is the only treatment given to the water 

served to the consumer. Almost three-quarters of the cities have 

treated water with a pH ranging from 7.0 to 9.0. Of the 17 cities 

that have a treated-water supply with a pH greater than 9.0, only 3 

cities do not soften their water supply.

The dissolved-solids content of the water served to consumers in 

these largest cities in the United States is shown in figure 15. Only 

3 cities in the southwestern part of the country serving a population 

of about 1 million have treated-water supplies that contain more than 

500 ppm of dissolved solids, which is the maximum limit recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service for dissolved solids if other 

water sources are available. The treated-water supplies having the 

lowest dissolved-solids content are generally found in cities east of 

the Appalachian Mountains. Except for these general statements 

about the extreme ranges of dissolved solids, no statements can be 

made about any geographical distribution pattern of dissolved-solids 

content of treated-water supplies because of the diverse treatment of 

water supplies. For example, although Kansas City, Kan% and 

Kansas City, Mo., obtain raw-water supplies containing about the 

same amount of dissolved solids, the different water-treatmert practices of the individual cities result in the quality of the treated-water 

supplies being different. Kansas City, Kans., does not soften its 

water, whereas Kansas City, Mo., lowers the hardness to about 

85 ppm.

A comparison of the dissolved-solids content of the rav^-water 

supplies (fig. 5) with the dissolved-solids content of treated-water 

supplies (fig. 15) indicates that many cities have lowered their dissolved-solids content. Three of the six cities that have rav^-water 

supplies that contain more than 500 ppm have treated-water supplies 

that contain between 251 and 500 ppm; 22 cities have treated-water 

supplies that contain between 251 and 500 ppm of dissolved solids, 

whereas 29 cities have a raw-water supply that contains this range of 

dissolved solids. Although only 38 cities have a raw-water supply
FIGURE 14. pH of treated public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in 

by population served.) See table 1 for identi
FIGURE 15. Dissolved solids in treated public water supplies of the 100 lar

age weighted by population served.) See table 1 for 
66 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

containing from 101 to 250 ppm of dissolved solids, 48 almost half 

of the cities supply treated water having a dissolved-solids content 

of between 101 to 250 ppm. All 27 cities that have a treated-water 

supply that contains less than 100 ppm also have a raw-water supply 

with less than 100 ppm of dissolved solids; many of these supplies 

had some treatment chemicals added to the water, but seemingly not 

enough chemicals were added to increase appreciably the dissolvedsolids content.

STATE

Alabama

Arizona 

California

Colorado 

Connecticut

District of Columbia 

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii 

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa 

Kansas

Kentucky 

Louisiana

Maryland 

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota 

Mississippi

CITY

Birmingham 

Mobile 

Montgomery 

Phoenix 

Tucson 

Fresno 

Long Beach 

Los Angeles 

Oakland 

Sacramento 

San Diego 

San Francisco 

San Jose 

Denver 

Bridgeport 

Hartford 

New Haven 

Washington 

Jacksonville 

Miami 

St. Petersburg 

Tampa 

Atlanta 

Savannah 

Honolulu 

Chicago 

Rockford 

Evansville 

Fort Wayne 

Gary 

Indianapolis 

South Bend 

Des Moiiies 

Kansas City 

Topeka 

Wichita 

Louisville 

Baton Rouge 

New Orleans 

Shreveport 

Baltimore 

Boston 

Springfield 

Worcester 

Detroit 

Flint 

Grand Rapids 

Minneapolis 1 

St. Paul 

Jackson

BETA ACTIVITY, IN PICOCURIES PER LITER

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

 

 i

- 

- 

 

 

 i 

 

 

 

 i

- 

-« 

 -

 

 

 

- 

 

»

 

 

t

 -A 

 

1

 A

-A 

-A

 A

 A

*

i

'Mississippi River (90 percent of i

FIGURE 16. Beta activity of dissolved solids in untreated and treated public 

water supplies of the 100 largest cities in the United States, 1962.
QUALITY OF THE WATER SERVED TO THE CONSUMER 67

The maximum beta activity of the dissolved solids in the raw-water 

supplies of 17 of these largest cities during the period of July 1, 1961, 

to July 30, 1962, is given in figure 16. Also shown are tre beta 

activities of the dissolved solids of the treated-water supplies. As 

indicated on the illustration, the beta activity of the treated water is 

considerably less than that of the raw water. The beta activity of 

most treated-water supplies is well under the recommended maximum 

tolerance of 1,000 pc per 1.

STATE

Missouri 

Nebraska 

New Jersey

New Mexico 

New York

North Carolina 

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon 

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island 

Tennessee

Texas

Utah 

Virginia

Washington 

Wisconsin

CITY

Kansas City 

St. Louis 

Lincoln 

Omaha 

Jersey City 

Newark 

Paterson 

Albuquerque 

Albany 

Buffalo 

New York City 

Rochester 

Syracuse 

Yonkers 

Charlotte 

Greensboro 

Akron 

Cincinnati 

Cleveland 

Columbus 

Dayton 

Toledo 

Youngs town 

Oklahoma City 

Tulsa 

Portland 

Erie 

Philadelphia 

Pittsburgh 

Providence 

Chattanooga 

Memphis 

Nashville 

Amarillo 

Austin 

Corpus Christi 

Dallas 

El Paso 

Fort Worth 

Houston 

Lubbock 

San Antonio 

Salt Lake City 

Norfolk 

Richmond 

Seattle 

Spokane 

Tacoma 

Madison 

Milwaukee

BETA ACTIVITY, IN PICOCURIES PER LITER

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

- 

 

- 

- 

«

- 

 

 

-« 

- 

 

 

- 

 *

- 

 

- 

- 

< 

-A.

 

k

-A

13C

-A.

picoc

 A

aries jer lit

i

 A

--A 

:r

Beta activity in treated water supply. Source: Geological Survey analysis.

Maximum beta activity in raw water, July 1, 1961, to June 30, 1962. 

Source: U.S. Public Health Service, 1962.

FIGURE 16. Continued
68 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

The concentrations of constituents in treated-water supplies of 

these 100 largest cities as determined by chemical, spectrographic, 

and radiochemical analyses are summarized in table 8.

TABLE 8. Summary of chemical, spectrographic, and radiochemical analyses of 

treated-water supplies of the 100 largest cities in the United Stales, 1962

[ND, not detected]

Constituent or property

Water supplies having 

less than stated 

concentration

Concentration

Percent of 

water 

supplies

Chemical analyses

[parts per million]

Silica (SiOa). .............

Iron (Fe)...___ . ..

Manganese (Mn)___. ._ .

Calcium (Ca).. ..........

Sodium (Na) ..........

Bicarbonate (HCOs)-..

Carbonate (COs).. ..

Sulfate (SOi1).....

Chloride (Cl). ............

Fluoride (F)_.._

Nitrate (NOj).. ....... _

Do......

Hardness as CaCOs _ .

Noncarbonate hardness 

as CaCO3 ___--- ........

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) . . . _

pH. _____ __pH units-.

Turbidity. ...............

30 

.25 

.10 

50 

20 

50 

5.0 

150 

1.0 

100 

50 

1.0 

5.0 

500 

250 

200

75

500 

9.0 

10 

3

94 

98 

95 

93 

96 

93 

93 

91 

86 

93 

93 

92 

93 

97 

86 

94

94

93 

90 

96 

94

Constituent or property

Water supplies having 

less than stated 

concentration

Concentration

Percent of 

water 

supplies

Spectrographic analyses

[micrograms per liter]

Silver (Ag) ...............

Boron (B)._. ___ .......

Barium (Ba)...... .......

Iron (Fe)___... ...........

Nickel (Ni). .............

Lead (Pb)... ........ ... ..

Rubidium (Eb). ........

Titanium (Ti)_. ..........

0.50 

500 

100 

100 

5.0 

100 

150 

50 

100 

10 

10 

ND 

10 

5.0 

500 

5.0 

10

95 

87 

94 

94 

95 

94 

94 

96 

97 

96 

95 

92 

95 

91 

96 

96 

91

Radiochemical analyses

Beta activity 

picocuries per liter.. 

Radium (Ea)._ .do. 

Uranium (U) 

micrograms per liter..

20 

.2

2.0

92 

91

93

COST OF CHEMICALS USED IN WATER

TREATMENT

The cost of chemicals used in treating public water supplies varies 

with the treatment and the chemical and physical characteristics of 

the water being treated. Some public supplies are not treated, some 

are only chlorinated, some require clarification in addition to chlorination, and some are softened. In addition, some supplies require such 

further treatment as taste and odor control and removal of iron and 

manganese. The cost of treating water by the same process varies 

from city to city because of differences in composition of the raw 

water. Even in the same city, the treatment varies seasonally as the 

composition of raw water changes.
COST OF CHEMICALS USED IN WATER TREATMENT 69

Although disinfection by chlorination is a relatively simple process, 

the cost of chlorine added per million gallons of water ranges from less 

than 25 cents to more than $3.50. The cost varies with the characteristics of the water: the higher the dissolved-solids content, hardness, turbidity, and color, the higher the cost of chlorination. Many 

cities chlorinate public water supplies for less than $1.50 per million 

gallons of water.

Lime is widely used for raising the pH and for softening water. 

Water that does not require softening commonly has the pH adjusted 

to prevent corrosion. The amount and cost of lime added for pH 

adjustment depends on the pH and dissolved-solids content of the 

raw water and on the desired pH of the treated water. The cost of 

adding lime in lime softening and lime-soda softening processes depends to a large extent on the hardness of the raw water and the 

desired hardness of the treated water. Dayton, Ohio, lowers the 

average hardness from 356 ppm in the raw water to 103 ppm in the 

treated water a decrease of 253 ppm. A second city, Toledo, Ohio, 

lowers the average hardness from 124 ppm in the raw water to 70 

ppm in the treated water a decrease of 54 ppm. Dayton uses about 

five times as much lime as does Toledo.

The amount, type, and cost of coagulation chemicals used depend 

on the type and amount of turbidity and suspended sediment in the 

raw water. As the amount of turbidity and suspended sediment in 

the raw-water supply increases, the amount and cost of coagulation 

chemicals used increase. At Philadelphia, Pa., where the average of 

the turbidities of the raw-water supplies is about 75 ppm, about 182 

pounds of coagulation chemicals is added to a million gallons of water 

at a cost of about $4.25 per million gallons of treated water. At 

Washington, D.C., "the additional cost of alum and lime for treating 

high range turbidities of from 200 to 600 units compared to lov^ range 

turbidities of 5 to 10 units would cost about $1.28 per million gallons" 

(Smith, J. C., written communication, 1962).

Carbon used for taste and odor control is a chemical whose 

amounts and costs for treatment range from less than 5 cents 1 o more 

than $2.00 per million gallons of water processed; many cities apply 

carbon at a cost of less than $1.00 per million gallons.

Fluoridation chemicals are added to obtain a fluoride content of 

about 1 ppm in the treated water. The amount of treatment chemicals added depends on the amount of natural fluoride in the water. 

Generally the cost of the fluoride chemicals added to a million gallons 

of water is about $1.00.

In many cities the total cost of chemicals added to the water during 

treatment is less than $20 per million gallons of water and is only a 

small part of the cost of providing a desirable water supply.
70 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

INDUSTRIAL WATER USE

Many municipal water systems furnish significant amounts of water 

to industrial establishments, and a few cities have separate watersupply systems for industrial use. A brief discussion is given below 

of the amounts and quality of water used by industry r,nd the treatment given to industrially used water. For more detailed information 

on industrial water supplies and treatment, the reader is referred to 

publications dealing with industrial water supplies, such as those 

prepared by Betz Laboratories (1962), Nordell (1961), and Powell 

(1954).

Water is used in industry for three principal purposes: cooling 

water; boiler water, which is water used for the generation of steam 

in boilers; and process water, which is water that comes into contact 

with the product being manufactured.

Cooling water. The minimum quality requirement of once-through 

cooling water (water not recirculated) is that the water be free of 

sediment, debris, and algae that could clog pipes. Most once-through 

cooling waters receive a minimum of treatment: cblorination to 

suppress algae growth, and clarification of surface waters.

The quality requirements for recirculated cooling water are more 

critical. (See table 9.) The general path of recirculated cooling 

water is as follows: cooled water flows through heat exchangers and 

is warmed by the product being cooled; this warmed water is then 

passed through a cooling tower or pond, where it is cooled by heat 

exchange with air and by evaporation of a water spray. In this 

process the water becomes saturated with oxygen from air, which 

could accelerate metal corrosion. The dissolved oxygen is removed 

by deaeration or controlled by the addition of chemical inhibitors 

such as chromate and phosphate.

Cooling water may deposit scale or attack iron pipes after the water 

has been recirculated several times. To reduce corrosiveness and to 

prevent the formation of scale, a fraction of the recirculated cooling 

water is discarded to waste and replaced by water that has a lower 

dissolved-solids content or is softer.

TABLE 9. Water-quality tolerances of cooling water suggested by the American

Water Works Association

[Data modified from American Water Works Assoc. (1950)]

Limiting

values

Constituent or property (ppm) 

Hardness as CaCO3 ___________________________--__------__--------- 50

Iron (Fe)______.____..__________._._______._---______---__-----_-- .5

Manganese (Mn)___________________________-________-------------_ . 5

Iron plus manganese.________________________---___-_-_------------ 5

Turbidity_______________________________________-_-__-_---- 50

Corrosiveness.___--_______-_____________-__---____--_---_--------- None.
INDUSTRIAL WATER USE 71

Boiler water. Because of the rigid water-quality requirements for 

water used in boilers, only small amounts of chemicals can be tolerated. 

Table 10 gives the suggested water-quality tolerance for boiler water 

that is, for the water inside the boiler. At the high temperatures of 

steam boilers, corrosion and scale formation are accelerated. Water 

containing appreciable amounts of calcium bicarbonate or appreciable 

amounts of calcium sulfate deposits a heat-retarding adherent scale 

that becomes baked on the metal surface and is difficult to remove. 

In the presence of calcium, silica acts as a cementing agent and forms 

a low-heat-conducting hard glassy scale. Silica also deposits on 

turbines of steam-generating equipment and causes operating difficulties. The higher the pressure of the boiler, the lower the dissolvedsolids content that can be tolerated. (See table 10.) Silica and the 

hardness-causing elements that are responsible for scale formation 

are removed by methods such as hot lime, hot phosphate, limephosphate, and ion-exchange softening techniques.

TABLE 10. Water-quality tolerances of boiler water, in parts per million 

[From Betz Laboratories (1962, p. 174)]

Operating pressure (psi)

0-300._ _______________ __ _ __________ _____

301-450_______ _ ___ __ ____

451-600 _ _______ _________ _______ _ _ ____

601-750___ ______ _ ____ ____ __ __

751-900_.____________________ _________________

901-1,000_ ____________________________________

1,001-1,500___ _ _ _

1,501-2,000- ___ __ ________ __ ___ ___ __ __

2,001 and higher. _ _ _ ___ ___ ____ ___ ___ _

Total 

dissolved 

solids

3,500

3, 000

2, 500

2, 000

1, 500

1,250

1,000

750

500

Total 

alkalinity

700

600

500

400

300

250

200

150

100

Suspended 

dissolved 

solids

300

250

150

100

60

40

20

10

5

Boiler water having a low pH, a small amount of calcium and 

magnesium, and a large amount of sulfate and chloride can be corrosive. The more sulfate and chloride in water and the higher the operating pressure, the greater the danger of corrosion. These troublesome 

chemical constituents may be removed by ion exchange. The presence 

of dissolved gases, especially oxygen, also accelerates corrosion. To 

reduce corrosion by oxygen and other undesirable gases, water may 

be passed through degasifiers, or chemical inhibitors such as chromate 

or phosphate may be added. Lime may be added to raise the pH and 

thus prevent corrosion. In addition, the following may be added 

directly to water in the boiler: nitrates and tannins, to prevent a 

special type of boiler fracture known as "caustic embrittlement"; 

antifoam agents, to prevent foaming; and phosphate, to prevent scale 

formation.

735-717 O 64 6
72 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

Process water. The amount of process water used in an industrial 

establishment depends upon the product being produced. In the 

refining of petroleum, the amount of water that comes into contact 

with the product is small, whereas in the manufacture of synthetic 

rubber, more than 60 percent of the water used is process water. 

In a similar manner the quality requirements for process water vary 

widely. In the processing of many food products, water that is satisfactory for drinking is satisfactory for process use, whereas water used 

in the manufacture of synthetic rubber must have a hardness of less 

than 30 ppm (Durfor, 1963). A few of the maximum limits for chemical constituents in water to be used in industry are shovm in table 2. 

For the requirements of specific industries the reader is referred to 

NordeU (1961).

SUMMARY

About 60 million people 34 percent of the total population of the 

United States and 48 percent of the urban population are served by 

the water-supply systems of the 100 largest cities. Tl e amount of 

water used to furnish the domestic needs as well as the needs of commerce, industry, and other demands on the municipal systems of 

these largest cities ranges from about 13 mgd, which serves a population of 124,000 in Greensboro, N.C., to about 1,200 mgd, which serves 

a population of more than 8 million in New York City. The total 

amount of water used by the 100 largest cities is about 9,650 mgd. 

Many of these cities are expanding their water-supply systems to provide for anticipated increases in demands for water.

For these largest cities, the population served, the average amount 

of water used, the sources of raw-water supply, the raw- and finishedwater storage capacities, the types of treatment, and the rated capacities of the treatment plants are given in the descriptions of the 

individual cities. For easy reference, table 11 summarizes these data 

and lists the illustrations that show the raw-water sources, the location of treatment plants, and the water-service areas.

The water used by these largest cities comes from ground water 

wells and infiltration galleries and surface water streams, reservoirs, 

and lakes. Twenty cities use only ground water for public supplies. 

Fourteen cities utilize both ground and surface water; some use 

predominantly ground water, and others use mostly surface water. 

Sixty-six cities use water from streams, lakes, or reservoirs; of these 

cities, 37 depend solely upon impounded waters, and 20 depend 

solely upon natural streamflow. Many of the cities that depend 

solely upon natural streamflow obtain water from riverr that have a
SUMMARY 73

discharge in excess of 450 mgd. Water from the Great Lr,kes furnishes part or all the water supply for 10 of these largest cities.

Because ground water is in contact with surrounding rock formations for longer periods of time than is water in streams, most ground 

water (during a large part of the year) contains more dissolved solids 

than does the nearby surface water. The chemical quality of most 

ground-water supplies is stable, and ground-water tenrp eratures 

approximate mean annual air temperatures. In streams the chemical 

quality varies seasonally. The maximum concentrations of dissolved 

solids occur generally during base flow, when the flow of the stream is 

maintained by ground water; minimum concentrations of dissolved 

solids occur when the discharge of the stream is at a maximum and 

the effect of the ground-water inflow is subdued. Because streams 

are generally impounded during flood period, the mineral content of 

water in reservoirs is generally less than that of the unimpounded 

streams. The mineral content of water in the Great Lakes increases 

slightly downstream from Lake Superior to Lake Ontario but 

varies little seasonally.

Chemical, spectrographic, and radiochemical analyses we^e made 

of water supplies; the available analyses for each of the 100 largest 

cities are indicated in table 11, Table 12 summarizes the maximum, 

median, and minimum values of constituents and properties of water 

served to customers in these largest cities.

In order to furnish water that is safe, clear, and not too hard, most 

cities treat the water before it is pumped to the home. About 98 

percent of the population served by these supplies receive water 

that is chlorinated. To reduce turbidity in surface-water supplies, 

many cities clarify the water. About 56 percent of the population 

in these 100 cities receive filtered water. The most common treatment is rapid sand filtration; some cities employ slow sand filtration, 

and a smaller number use pressure filtration. Because of the natural 

filtering action of soils, few ground-water supplies require filtration 

except where used in conjunction with the removal of sludge from 

softening processes. Twenty-eight cities serving less than 20 percent of the total population of the 100 cities employ softening processes. Of the 28 cities, 15 cities employ lime softening to reduce the 

hardness of water. To remove troublesome amounts of iron or 

manganese less than 10 cities require special processes. To reduce 

incidence of dental caries in these cities, 34 cities serving more than 

21 million people fluoridate thin water.

The quality of the public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in 

the United States is summarized in table 13.
TABLE 11. Summary of data on public water supplies of the 100 largest c

State and city

Alabama: 

Birmingham.. -- ...

Arizona:

California:

Los Angeles..-- ....

Oakland ______

San Francisco _ - . _

San Jose.... _-.--..

Colorado: 

Denver. _ .. _ ...

Connecticut: 

Bridgeport.. ___

Hartford.. _____

New Haven_ -----

District of Columbia: 

Washington - ___

Florida: 

Jackson ville-_ . ___ Miami ........ -

Tampa. ...... ....

Georgia: 

Atlanta.. ______

Hawaii: 

Honolulu __ .. ....

Illinois: 

Chicago.- _- ___

Rockford. _ -- _ --

Populatiou 

served 

(thousands)

441 

211 

148

487 

232

150 

344 

2,458 

1,000 

181 

600 

1,600 

358

620

320 

355 

320

1,100

247 

550 

250 

290

600 

170

405

4,423 

132

Water 

used 

(mgd)

53.8 

20.0 

16.0

92.7 

39.0

53.4 

46.6 

466 

143.4 

47.5 

72.9 

166 

46.7

131

49.0 

42.5 

44.0

167

36.7 

102 

13.1 

29.6

68.2 

55.0

62.5

1,030 

19.8

Source

Surface 

water

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X

X

X

X 

X

X

Ground 

water

X

X 

X

X 

X 

X

X

X

X 

X*v

X

X 

X

X

Illustration

No.

17

18,19 

19 

20 

20 

19 

20 

20

21

22 

23 

24

25

26

27

28 

29

Storage capacity 

(million gallons)

Raw

5,682 

50 

14.5

0

1. 

28 

132 

101, 000 

0 

141,000 

180,000 

2,290

87,000

24,000 

42, 700 

22,300

560

0

2,500 

500

0

Treated

4.5 

26.2 

8.0

100 

33.3

5 

120 

000 

664 

14.5 

141 

404 

102

49.0

4.7 

15.8 

16.7

184

22.5 

12.0 

17.5 

24.6

30.5 

17.0

32.2

76.9 

20.0

Treatment

Clarification

X 

X 

X

X

X

X 

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X

X 

X

X

Softening

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X

Chlorination

X 

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X 

X

X 

X

X

X 

X
Indiana:

Iowa:

Kansas:

Wichita.- ..... .

Kentucky:

Louisiana:

Maryland:

Massachusetts:

Michigan: 

Detroit...... .......

Flint.- ..........

Minnesota:

St. Paul..- 

Mississippi:

Missouri:

Nebraska:

New Jersey:

New Mexico:

New York:

New York City .-

Yonkers- __ ......

160

168

225

500

133

259

200

131

255

152

628

164

1,387

2,000

236

187

3,078

196

200

582

334

150

750

760

128

327

350

750

550

201

142

593

8,350 

292

235

191

21.0

20.8

23.5

68.0

20.0

25.3

29.3

12.4

25.0

83.8

14.8

105

20.1

211

215

31.5

23.5

483

32.0

34.0

58.7

42.6

15.0

88.0

181

23.6

64.5

61.0

55.7

80.8

30.0

24.5

145

1,190 

62.9

42.3

12.0

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

X XXX

X*

30

31 

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

32

41

43

44

44

45 46 '

46

0

710

14,000

6.0

1,5700

1686

486, 000

26,900

7 760

6,400

6,750

35

86

10 800

28,000

12,800

1.000

30.0

22.0

14.0

30.0

10.5

22.7 

18.2

56.0

19.5

60.0

6.1

42.0

15.0

775

2,960

70.0

3.8

240

25.0

52.8

118.0

1.2

3.0

72.0

201.0

46.5

56.0

701.0

263

80

210

30.0

3,370

231

235

2.0

XXXX

X XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

See footnote at end of table.
TABLE 11. Summary of data on public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in 

State and city

North Carolina:

Ohio:

Oklahoma: 

Oklahoma City ....

Oregon:

Pennsylvania:

Rhode Island:

Tennessee:

Texas:

San Antonio ___ _

Population 

served 

(thousands)

213 

124

315 

750 

1,675 

594 

320 

400 

250

340 

292

542

160 

2,003 

1,210

383

231 

600 

350

150 

206 

212 

800 

280 

360 

770 

133 

603

Water 

used 

(mgd)

22.1 

13.0

41.1 

97.0 

319 

71.3 

46.6 

65.5 

22.2

31.1 

42.5

69.0

38.0 

510 

137

45.2

38.0 

68.8 

37.8

21.6 

29.7 

48.1 

89.8 

45.0 

47.0 

108 

18.0 

81.7

Source

Surface 

water

X 

X

X 

X 

X 

X

X 

X

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X

X

X

X

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X

Ground 

water

X

X

X

X

X 

X 

X

Illustration 

No.

47 

48

49 

50 

51 

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 

59 

60 

61 

62

63

Storage capacity 

(million gallons)

Raw

100 

3,020

10,100 

330 

80 

26,000

11, 000

99, 400 

36,200

20, 000

110 

39,700

0 

2.0

2.0 

741, 000 

98, 400 

566, 000

188, 000 

52, 000

Treated

21.3 

21.7

48.0 

131 

293 

49.0 

64.9 

35.0 

35.0

46.0 

55.0

208.0

44.6 

747 

531

54.4

13.0 

75.0 

60.0

28.5 

44.0 

44.0 

161 

92.6 

60.0 

60.0 

39.0

49.3

Treatment

Clarification

X 

X

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X

X

X

X 

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X

Softening

X 

X 

X

X

X

X

X 

X 

X 

X

Chlorination

X 

X

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X

X

X 

X 

X

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X
Utah: 

Salt Lake City..---

Virginia: 

Norfolk.. ...........

Richmond ..........

Washington:

Wisconsin:

272

375

303

735

183

165

135

867

59.3

41.9

31.1

103

68.0

48.2

17.0

143

X

X

X

X

X

X

64

65

66

67

51,300

8,900

170

4,760

3.3

94.4

20.0

58.0

385.0

89.9

313

9 4

99.0

i Most water receives no treatment, and radiochemical analyses were made on raw water.
78 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

TABLE 12. Maximum, median, and minimum values of constituents and properties 

of finished water in public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in the United 

States, 1962

[<, less than; ND, not detected]

Constituent or property Maximum Median Minimum

Chemical analyses

[parts per million]

Silica (SiO2) _________________________________

Iron (Fe) _ _______ ____ ______ _ __ ____

Manganese (Mn) _

Calcium (Ca)

Magnesium (Mg) _

Sodium (Na) _ __

Potassium (K) _

Bicarbonate (HCOs)____________. __________ __

Carbonate (CO3)_-.__- _______ _ ____________

Sulfate (SO4)_-_ _- - -_ -_--____-_______

Chloride (Cl) ________________________________

Fluoride (F)__ --___--_-_ __--__-____________--

Nitrate (NO8)__________ ______________________

Hardness as CaCO3 _ _

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCO3

pH . _ pH units

Color _ _ color units

Turbidity- ___--____--_-_-_______________----

72

1.30

2. 50

145

120

198

30

380

26

572

540

7.0

23

1,580

738

446

1,660

10.5

24

13

7. 1

.02

. 00

26

6.25

12

1. 6

4.6

0

T6

13

. 4

. 7

186

90

34

308

7.5

2

0

0.0

.00

.00

.0

.0

1. 1

. 0

0

0

. 0

. 0

. 0

. 0

22

0

0

18

5.0

0

0

Spectrographic analyses

[micrograms per liter]

Silver (Ag) _ _ _ _

Aluminum (Al) _ . _ _ _

Boron (B) _ _____ _________

Barium (Ba) __ _ _ _ _

Chromium (Cr) _ _ _ _ _

Copper (Cu) _ _ _

Iron (Fe)_____ _______________________________

Manganese (Mn) _ _ _ Molybdenum (Mo)_ _ _ _

Nickel (Ni)_______________________ ___________

Lead (Pb)____ _______________________________

Rubidium (Rb) _

Strontium (Sr)_ _ _ _

Titanium (Ti)___ _________ _ _ ___ _________

Vanadium (V)_ - - _ - -

7.0

1, 500

590

380

35

250

1, 700

170

1, 100

68

34

62

67

1,200

49

70

0.23

54

31

43

.43

8.3

43

2.0

5.0

1.4

<2. 7

3.7

1.05

110

<1.5

<4. 3

ND

3.3

2. 5

1.7

ND

<. 61

1. 9

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

2.2

ND

ND

Radiochemical analyses

Beta activity.

Radium (Ra)_ _

Uranium (U) _

do

130

2.5

250

7.2

< 1

. 15

<1 1

< 1

< 1
SUMMARY 79

TABLE 13. Summary of quality of public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in

the United States, 1962

Hardness (ppm):

61-120-_-_______-..

121-180...__. .......

Dissolved solids 

(ppm):

101-250..... ________

251-500.. ___________

pH:

7.0-9.0__. .__.....__.

More than 9.0 ......

Raw-water supplies l

Population served 

(millions)

21 

15 

16 

8

21 

23 

11 

1.5

16 

42

Number of cities

29 

16

22 

27

27 

38 

29 

6

18 

80

Treated-water supplies

Population served 

(millions)

23 

22 

11 

3.7

21

28 

8 

1

14 

38

7

Number of cities

30 

41 

16 

13

27 

48 

22 

3

g

74 

17

A few cities are not included because data are lacking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

Further information on quality of water may be obtained from the 

U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division offices listed below.

State

Alabama 

Alaska

Arizona 

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia 

Hawaii

Office

P.O. Box V

University, Alabama 35486 

P. 0. Box 36 

(Wright Building) 

Palmer, Alaska 99645 

P.O. Box 4070 

Tucson, Arizona 85717 

Federal Office Building, Room 2301 

700 West Capitol Avenue 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Federal Building and U.S. Court House, Room 8042 

650 Capitol Avenue 

Sacramento, California 95814 

See Utah. 

See New York. 

See Maryland.

Old Post Office Building, Room 117 

Washington, D.C. 20242 

Federal Building, Room 244 

Ocala, Florida 32670 

See Florida.

Office of the Branch Chief Pacific Area 

345 Middlefield Road 

Menlo Park, California 94025
80 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

State Office

Idaho See Oregon.

Illinois See Ohio.

Indiana See Ohio.

Iowa See Nebraska.

Kansas See Nebraska.

Kentucky See Ohio.

Louisiana Prudential Building, Room 201 

6554 Florida Boulevard 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806

Maine See New York.

Maryland Abbey Building, Room 3 

3 North Perry Street 

Rockville, Maryland 20850

Massachusetts See New York.

Michigan See Ohio.

Minnesota See Nebraska.

Mississippi See Louisiana.

Missouri See Arkansas.

Montana See Wyoming.

Nebraska Nebraska Hall, Room 125 

901 North 17th Street 

Lincoln, Nebraska 68508

Nevada 222 East Washington Street 

Carson City, Nevada 89701

New Hampshire See New York.

New Jersey See Pennsylvania.

New Mexico P.O. Box 4217

(Geology Building, 

University of New Mexico) 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106

New York P.O. Box 948

(Federal Building, Room 341) 

Albany, New York 12201

North Carolina P.O. Box 2857 (Federal Building) 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

North Dakota See Nebraska.

Ohio 2822 East Main Street 

Columbus, Ohio 43209

Oklahoma P.O. Box 4355

(2300 S. Eastern)

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73109

Oregon P.O. Box 3202

(Old Post Office Building, Room 416) 

Portland, Oregon 97208

Pennsylvania U.S. Custom House, Room 1302 

2d and Chestnut Streets 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

Puerto Rico 12 Arroyo Street

Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918

Rhode Island See New York.

South Carolina See North Carolina.

South Dakota See Nebraska.
REFERENCES CITED 81

State Office 

Tennessee 823 Edney Building

Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 

Texas Vaughn Building

807 Brazos Street

Austin, Texas 78701 

Utah Federal Building, Room 8428

125 South State Street

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 

Vermont See New York. 

Virginia See North Carolina. 

Washington Room 300, 1305 Tacoma Avenue, South

Tacoma, Washington 98402 

West Virginia See Maryland. 

Wisconsin See Ohio. 

Wyoming 1214 Big Horn Avenue

Worland, Wyoming 82401

REFERENCES CITED

Akron Bureau of Water Supply, [no date], Akron City Water Works: Akron,

Ohio, 6 p. 

Alexander, G. V., Nusbaum, R. E., and MacDonald, N. S., 1954, Strontium and

calcium in municipal water supplies: Am. Water Works Assoc. Jour., v. 46,

no. 7, p. 643-654. 

American Water Works Association, 1950, Water quality and treatment, 2d ed.:

New York, Am. Water Works Assoc., 451 p. 

 1964, Status of fluoridation in the United States and Canada, 10Q2: Am.

Water Works Assoc. Jour., v. 56, no. 1, p. 111-120. 

Aultman, W. W., 1957, Softening of municipal water supplies: Water and Sewage

Works, v. 104, no. 8, p. 327-334. 

Baker, M. N., 1948, The quest for pure water: New York, Am. Water Works

Assoc., Inc., 527 p. 

Barker, F. B., 1959, Determination of radioactive materials in water: Am. Soc.

Testing Materials, Spec. Tech. Pub. 276, p. 278-288. 

Bean, E. L., 1962, Progress report on water quality criteria: Am. Water Works

Assoc. Jour., v. 54, no. 11, p. 1313-1331. 

Betz Laboratories, Inc., 1962, Betz handbook of industrial water conditioning,

6th ed.: Philadelphia, Pa., Betz Laboratories, 425 p. 

Bevis, H. A., 1960, Significance of radioactivity in water supply and treatment:

Am. Water Works Assoc. Jour., v. 52, no. 7, p. 841-846. 

Bogren, G. G., 1962, Removal of iron and manganese from ground waters: New

England Water Works Assoc. Jour., v. 76, no. 1, p. 70-76. 

Chicago Department of Water and Sewers, Bureau of Water, 1961, Chicago

water system; a description the system and its sanitary protection: Chicago,

111., 29 p. 

Churchill, M. A., 1957, Effects of storage impoundments on water quality: Am.

Soc. Civil Engr. Proc., Sanitary Engr. Div. Jour., v. 83, no. SAL (paper

1171), 48 p., 24 figs. 

Collins, W. D., 1923, The industrial utility of public water supplies in the United

States: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 496.
82 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES, 1962

Collins, W. D., Lamar, W. L., and Lohr, E. W., 1934, The industrial utility of

public water supplies in the United States, 1932: U.S. Geol. Survey WaterSupply Paper 658.

Dallas Water Council, 1960, Water supply, city of Dallas a report to the consumer: Dallas, Tex., 21 p. 

DeBoer, L. M., and Larson, T. E., 1961, Water hardness and domestic use of

detergents: Am. Water Works Assoc. Jour., v. 53, no. 7, p. 809-822, 8 figs.,

6 tables. 

Dowling, R. T., 1962, Water works construction will top 338 million in 105

communities: Water Works Engineering, v. 115, no. 6, p. 469-471. 

Durfor, C. N., 1963, Water requirements of the styrene, butadiene, and synthetic

rubber industries: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1330-F. 

Durum, W. H., and Haffty, Joseph, 1961, Occurrence of minor elements in water:

U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 445. 

 1963, Implications of the minor elements content of some major streams

of the world: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 27, p. 1-11. 

Haffty, Joseph, 1960, Residue method for common minor elements: U.S. Geol.

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1540-A.

Honolulu Board of Water Supply, 1963, Oahu water plan: Honolulu, Hawaii, 68 p. 

Hursh, J. B., 1954, Radium in public supplies: Am. Water WorVs Assoc. Jour.,

v. 46, no. 1, p. 46-54. 

Ingols, R. S., and Wilroy, R. D., 1962, Observations on manganese in Georgia

waters: Am. Water Works Assoc. Jour., v. 54, no. 2, p. 203-207. 

Lamar, William, 1953, Chemical and physical quality examinat'on, Chap. 4 of

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Lake Erie pollution survey final report: p. 81-123. 

Lohr, E. W., and Love, S. K., 1954, The industrial utility of public water supplies

in the United States, 1952, pt. 1, States east of the Mississippi River; pt. 2,

States west of the Mississippi River: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply

Papers 1299 (pt. 1) and 1300 (pt. 2). 

MacKichan, K. A., and Kammerer, J. C., 1961, Estimated use of water in the

United States, 1960: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 456. 

McNeil, D. R., 1957, The fight for fluoridation: New York, Oxford Univ. Press,

241 p. 

Meinzer, O. E., 1923, The occurrence of ground water in the United States:

U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 489. 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 1961, Report of the fiscal

year July 1, 1960, to June 30, 1961: Los Angeles, Calif., Metropolitan Water

District Southern California 23d Ann. Rept. 

Moore, E. W., 1940, Progress report of the committee on quality tolerances of

water for industrial uses: New England Water Works Asscc. Jour., v. 54,

p. 263. 

Mussey, O. D., 1955, Water requirements of the pulp and paper industry: U.S.

Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1330-A. 

New Haven Water Company, 1955, Water lifestream of a community: New

Haven, Conn., 31 p. 

Nordell, Eskel, 1961, Water treatment for industrial and other uses, 2d ed.:

New York, Reinhold Publishing Corp., 598 p. 

Pennsylvania Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industrial Development,

1958, Industrial water supplies in Pennsylvania: Plant Location Factors

Rept. 3, 88 p. 

Phoenix Water and Sewers Department, [1961], Annual report for fiscal year

July 1, 1960-June 30, 1961: Phoenix, Ariz., 30 p.
REFERENCES CITED 83

Powell, S. T., 1954, Water conditioning for industry: New York, McG~aw-Hill

Book Co., Inc., 548 p. 

Providence Water Supply Board, 1961, Annual report of the Water Supply

Board of the City of Providence for the year ending September 30, 1961:

Providence, R.I., 103 p. 

Rainwater, F. H., and Thatcher, L. L., 1960, Methods for collection and analysis

of water samples: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1454, 301 p., 17

figs., 3 tables. 

Rankama, Kalervo, and Sahama, Th. G., 1950, Geochemistry: Chicago Univ.,

Press, 912 p. 

Requardt, G. J., Shaw, H. B., and Wolman, Abel, 1953, Report to the City of

Baltimore on future sources of water supply and appurtenant problems:

Baltimore, Md. 

Scott, R. C., and Barker, F. B., 1962, Data on uranium and radium ir ground

water in the United States, 1954 to 1957: U.S. Geol. Survey Pro*. Paper

426, 115 p., 2 pis., 7 figs., 2 tables. 

Skougstadt, M. W., and Horr, C. A., 1960, Occurrence of strontium in natural

water: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 420. 

Soap and Detergent Association, 1962, Synthetic detergents in perspective their

relationship to sewage disposal and safe water supplies: New YorV, Soap

and Detergent Assoc., 39 p. 

Stearns, R. L., 1961, Glossary of terms frequently used in nuclear physics: New

York, Am. Inst. Physics, 40 p. 

Strain, W. H., 1961, Effects of some minor elements on animals and people:

Rochester, N.Y., Rochester Univ. School of Medicine and Dentistry, 44 p.

[Presented at Am. Assoc. Adv. Science symposium "Geochemical Evolution the First Five Billion Years," Denver, Colo., December 29, 1961.] 

Streeter, H. W., 1953, Bacterial and sanitary analyses, Chap. 3 of Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Lake Erie pollution survey 

final report: p. 29-80.

Toledo Division of Water, 1962, Annual report 196l: Toledo, Ohio, 70 p. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1961, Statistical abstract of the United States, 1961:

1037 p. 

U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1952, Variations in Great Lakes levels: Detroit, Mich.,

U.S. Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes Div., 33 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1962, Water for recreation values and opportunities:

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Comm. Study Report 10. 

U.S. Public Health Service, 1962, Radiological health data: v. 3, nos. 1-12.

 1962a, Fluoride drinking waters: U.S. Public Health Service Pub. 825, 

636 p.

 1962b, Drinking water standards, 1962: U.S. Public Health Serv'ce Pub. 

956, 61 p.

1962c, Municipal water facilities, communities of 25,000 populations and

over, United States and possessions as of January 1, 1962: U.S. Public

Health Service Pub. 661. 

U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff, 1954, Diagnoses and improvement of saline and

alkali soils: U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Agriculture Handb. 60 p. 

Verduin, J., 1953, The suspended silt in western Lake Erie during the spring of

1951, in Chap. 5 of Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of

Water, Lake Erie pollution survey final report: p. 130-133.

I t !&«« <l&l-^(. =(.--!1=1 1I 1I !b !I !CTl-s!1=1 !I i-a!b-ll^t^i^C l^^^C-^&C»L t^i

INVENTORY OF MUNICIPAL 

SUPPLIES

Description of Facilities

Analyses of Raw and Treated Water

Maps of Water Resources

ALABAMA

Birmingham Mobile Montgomery

BIRMINGHAM

(See fig. 17.) 

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Bay View, Bessemer and its suburban area, Edgewater, 

Fairfield, Fultondale, Graysville, Homewood, Mountain Brook, Tarrant City, 

and outlying communities.

Population served: Birmingham, 340,887; total, about 441,000. 

Sources and percentages of supply:

Domestic supply: Cahaba River and Lake Purdy, a storage reservoir on 

Little Cahaba River, 90 percent; and Inland Lake, owned by the Birmingham Industrial Water System, from which raw water is purchased, 

10 percent. 

Industrial supply: Blackburn Fork of the Black Warrior River impounded

in Inland Lake, which has a 21-billion-gal capacity. 

Lowest mean discharge: Cahaba River at Centerville, Ala., for 30-day period in

climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 80.1 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 53.8 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Shades Mountain filter plant (Cahaba River and Lake Purdy): Plain sedimentation, prechlorination, coagulation with alum, sedimentation, rapid 

sand filtration, postchlorination, and addition of hydrated lime for adjustment of pH to between 7.5 and 8.0.

Putnam Station filter plant, formerly Birmingham Station plant (Inland 

Lake): Coagulation with alum, addition of lime for adjustment of pH to 

8.4, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, and postchlorination. 

Industrial supply from Inland Lake: Chlorination and addition of soda ash. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Shades Mountain filter plant, 55 m-jd; Putnam Station filter plant, 18 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: 5,682 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 106.

Finished-water storage: 4.5 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

87 

735-717 O 64 7
88 ALABAMA

Analytical data Birmingham

Inland Lake

10

8-29-61

R

PutnamStation 

filter plant '

10 8-29-61

F

Cahaba R'^er

90 8-29-6'

R

Shades 

Mountain 

filter plant

90 8-29-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj) _ . ._ .. .

Calcium (Ca). _____________

Sodium (Na) ____ . __ .... _ ......

Potassium (K).... ___ ..... _ ... _

Sulfate (SO4) 

Chloride (Cl)._ ..... ..............

Fluoride (F).. .............. ......

Nitrate (NOs)~. . . .. ...- ......

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) .....

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs. ....

Specific conductance (micromhos at 

250 C)__._*.-_.-..___-_-_._.._._______

pH._._. ...._.__.._._.____.._________.__

Color. ...... _ ....... _ .. .. _ ......

3.7 

.16 

2.0 

.5 

2.1 

.9 

9 

0 

.8 

2.9 

.0 

.4 

29 

7 

0

33

6.8 

10

3.3

.08 

8.8 

.7 

1.8 

.9 

20 

0 

9.0 

2.6 

.0 

.6 

43 

25 

9

68 

6.8 

0

5.7 

.03 

2) 

4.9

n

1.7 

87 

0 

3' 

2.0 

.1 

.3 

195 

85 

14

220 

7.0 

0

5.7 

.07 

29 

5.5 

9.9 

1.7 

90 

0 

37 

3.2 

.1 

.4 

147 

95 

21

238

7.5 

0

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per lit<v; <, less than]

Uranium (TJ) _ . ... ....

1.8 

<.l 

<-l

2.6 

< ! 

.2

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)..... .....................

Aluminum (Al) _____________

Boron (B) ______________

Barium (Ba) . __ . ______ .....

Beryllium (Be). __ __ . __ . _ . ....

Cobalt (Co)..... __ . __ ..... ...

Chromium (Cr) ____ ________

Iron (Fe) ........ _ .... __ .... .......

Lithium (Li)......................

Molybdenum (Mo). ___________

Nickel (Ni)._ .._......... . ...

Phosphorus (P) ___________

Lead (Pb). ............................

Rubidium (Rb)....._. _____ . _ ..

Tin (Sn)_ _____._____.__._

Strontium (Sr).... _ . _ .... ........

Titanium (Ti). ........................

Vanadium (V).... _ . _ ..... .........

Zinc(Zn)--.. .. _ ... _ . __ ..

0.35

86

7.3

10

ND

ND

.09

.67

17

1.0

ND

<-4

ND

.4

ND

2.2

<.4

ND

43

NP

43

31

5T

ND

ND

2.0

3.0

37

2.4

15

1.3

<1.9

ND

5T

6.0

ND

60

<1.9

ND

ND

<0.25

830

45

58

ND

ND

2.7

2.0

79

2.5

56

1.3

3.4

ND

2.2

6.3

ND

70

<2.2

ND

ND

 Spectrographic concentrations are based on nonacidified residue on evaporation.
BIRMINGHAM 89

M SMITH DAM

Inland system pipeline, 90 percent 

industrial and 10 percent domestic

* Sipsey industrial works 

V system pipeline 

\

5 MILES

Areas served by Birmingham water system

Birmingham city boundary

S 

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 17. Water supplies and areas served by Birmingham, Ala., water system 

(Approved by local municipal water officials, April 1963.) Areas served outside city 

1, Cardiff; 2, Alden; 3, Gardendale; 4, Graysville; 5, Blossburg; 6, Adamsville; 7, Republic 

8, Fultondale; 9, Bay View & Mulga; 10, Hillview; 11, Tarrant City; 12, Edgewater 

13, Pleasant Grove; 14, Fairfield; 15, Dolomite Div.; 16, Homewood; 17, Woodard 

18, Lipscomb; 19, Bessemer; 20, Mountain Brook.
90 ALABAMA

MOBILE

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Two suburban areas.

Population served: Mobile, 210,000 (1962); total, about 211,000.

Source of supply: Big Creek (impounded).

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Twenty million gallons in a municipal-owned

reservoir that is used by industrial plants. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 20 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Mobile treatment plant prechlorination, coagulation with alum and

lime, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, postchlorination, fluoridation, and

pH adjustment.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Mobile treatment plant, 40 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: Two reservoirs, 20 and 30 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 2.5. 

Finished-water storage: Elevated tanks, 1.2 million gal; ground reservoirs, 25

million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 1.3.

Regular determinations at Mobile treatment plant, 1961:

Finished water- _

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

2.7 

13

Max

8 

18

Min

2 

10

pH

Avg

5.6 

8 2

Max

7.6 

8.5

Min

5.0

8.7

Hardness 

as CaCO3 

(ppm)

Avg

6 

35

Max

8 

40

Min

4 

30

Turbidity

Avg

50 

1.9

Max

111

6

Min

32

1
MOBILE 91

Analytical data Mobile

Big Creek

100 

4-5-62 

R

Treatment plant

100 

4-5-62 

F

100 4-27-62 

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO.) ____.___._____.______._..._________._____.__

Iron (Fe). _________ .....................................

Sodium (Na)-------. --.-..-- ----..----.-.........

Bicarbonate (HC03). ...................................

Carbonate (C03 )_ _._____._____._._._- ..___________

Sulfate (S04)- - - 

Chloride (Cl).

Fluoride (F).... ........ ....................... . . .

Nitrate (NOs)--.. - _ _- . . . ....

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) _____ ._ .........

Hardness as CaC03 ______ _____ _ .. ...........

pH. ________ ............................................

Color....

3.2

.03

.0

.6

2.1

.3

4

0

.6

2.3

.0

.2

34

2

0

18

5.8

40

3.2

.00

11

.4

2.8

.4

14

16

16

3.0

1.1

.2

83

30

18

94

6.5

20

3.1

.03

10

.3

2.8

.4

14

0

7.8

7.1

1.1

.2

62

26

12

79

6.7

10

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograrns per liter; <, less than]

11<-l

.1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)_ _________________________________

Boron (B)__

Barium (Ba)

Beryllium (Be) . . .

Cobalt (Co).. ..............................

Chromium (Cr) _ _____ ... _____________

Copper (Cu) _________ _ __ __ _ ......

Iron (Fe) . . _

Lithium (Li).

Manganese (Mn) .. . .

Molybdenum (Mo) ....

Nickel (Ni). ___._._............ . ... ... .

Phosphorus (P)

Lead (Pb) . .

Rubidium (Rb) . .

Tin (Sn)

Strontium (Sr)_ .......______________________

Titanium (Ti)_

Vanadium (V)

Zinc (Zn)___ .

0.09

29

25

ND

ND

1.9

.62

57

.23

17

ND

1.1

ND

1.0

.8

ND

14

2.1

1.7

ND
92 ALABAMA

MONTGOMERY

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Montgomery, 133,874; about 14,000 outside the city limits;

total, 148,000. 

Sources and percentages of supply: Court Street pumping plant: 18 wells, 39

percent; Day Street pumping plant: 31 wells, 61 percent. Well depths range

from 72 to 740 feet. The depth of most wells is between 400 and 600 feet.

Individual well yield ranges from 100 to 750 gpm. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 16 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Day Street pumping plant: Chlorination, aeration, additior of soda ash and

Calgon, settling.

Court Street pumping plant: Chlorination. 

Raw-water storage: 14.5 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): Less than 1.

Finished-water storage: Two million gallons in each of four reservoirs. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

Average determinations of finished water on February 1&, 1960:

Plant

Day Street______ _ _ _ _

Court Street. _ ____ ______ ____

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

112

141

pH

8. 8

7.5

Hardness 

as CaC03 

(ppm)

52

26
MONTGOMERY 93

Analytical data Montgomery

Percent of supply... ... . ... .......

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished.. ...

18 wells at 

Court Street 

plant

39 8-29-61

R

Court Street 

treatment 

plant

39 8-29-61

F

31 wells at 

Day Street 

plant

61 8-29-61

R

Dav Street 

treatment 

plant

61 8-29-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj)-. . . 

Iron (Fe) . .-. ..... ..........

Sodium (Na)_- __ _________ ; ...

Potassium (K).___. _..__._._._......_._

Bicarbonate (fLCOi)... ................

Carbonate (COs) . . 

Sulfate (SO*)....... .................

Chloride (01)..........................

Fluoride(F). ..........................

Nitrate (NOS ) . . 

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C). .... 

Hardness as CaCOs ___ ________

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs __ -

Specific conductance (micromhos at 

25°C)_.. -_._.__.______________

PH._... ................................

Color. ..-.---........... _ . .

12 

.08 

3.5 

.3 

51 

1.3 

118 

0 

9.2 

8.8 

.4 

1.9 

154 

10 

0

243

7.2 

0

12 

.01 

3.3 

.2 

55 

1.1 

126 

0 

12 

9.7 

.4 

2.3 

167 

9 

0

255 

7.2 

0

17 

.05 

16 

1.0 

51 

1.6 

149 

0 

9.6 

13 

.4 

2.5 

203 

44 

0

305 

7.3 

0

17 

.05 

16 

1.0 

53 

1.4 

158 

0 

12 

12 

.7 

2.0 

212 

44 

0

317 

7.5 

0

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Radium (Ra)__ ........................

Uranium (U). .........................

2.7 

.1 

<-l

2.9 

.1 

< !

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; X, semiquantitative determination in digit order shewn; ND, 

looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)..._. ..................... ..

Boron (B) ______ .

Barium (Ba). _______ _

Beryllium (Be) -.________ _ _

Cobalt (Co)........ ....... ....

Copper (Cu) _______________

Iron (Fe) ......

Lithium (Li)... ___..._

Nickel (NO..- .

Phosphorus (P)____ _ .

Lead (Pb). _______ .... _

Rubidium (Rb)_

Tin (Sn)__________________ ______

Strontium (Sr) ...

Titanium (TO _

Zinc (Zn). ........

Gallium (Ga). ........ ..

ND 

83 

110 

67 

ND 

ND 

ND 

4.3 

45 

.12 

48 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

3.3 

ND 

93 

<2.4 

ND 

ND 

<.X

<0.31 

31 

140 

71 

ND 

ND 

ND 

17 

68 

2.6 

100 

ND 

ND 

370 

ND 

<3.1 

ND 

340 

<3.1 

ND 

ND 

ND

ARIZONA

Phoenix Twcson

PHOENIX

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Scottsdale and suburban areas of Phoenix. 

Population served: Phoenix, 434,277; total, 487,300.

Sources and percentages of supply: Verde River infiltration gallery, near Fort 

McDowell, 3 percent; Verde wells, 17 percent; Verde River (Verde River filter 

plant), 12 percent; Verde and Salt Rivers (Squaw Peak filter plant), 30 percent; 

Scottsdale wells, 15 percent; wells acquired from private water companies, 23 

percent.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Wells in downtown Phoenix. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 92.7 mgd (Phoenix

Water and Sewers Department, 1961). 

Treatment:

Squaw Peak filter plant (Verde and Salt Rivers): Presedimentation; coagulation with alum, lime, and activated carbon; sedimentation; rapid sand 

filtration; chlorination.

Verde River filter plant (Verde River): Addition of lime, coagulation with 

alum and ferric sulfate, addition of activated carbon, sedimentation, rapid 

sand filtration, stabilization with carbon dioxide, and chlorination. 

Ground water: Chlorination. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Squaw Peak filter plant, 90 mgd; Verde

River filter plant, 30 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: None. 

Finished-water storage: Squaw Peak plant, 40 million gal; 64th Street and Thomas

Road, 60 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 1.1.

Remarks: The total amount of water that can be produced from all sources is 

235 mgd. Storage for the water supply is provided by five major storage 

reservoirs having a combined capacity of 100 million gal. Engineering studies 

have determined that production capacity will be increased by an additional 121 

mgd by 1964 and by an additional 140 mgd by 1970. 

Regular determination at filter plants:

Plant

Squaw Peak : Finished

Verde River: Raw water.

Alkalinity as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

122

Max

202

Min

132

pH

Avg

7 7

Max

8

0 

. &

Min

7. 5

Hardness as CaCOj 

(ppm)

Avg

205

Max

2.40

Min

136
96 ARIZONA

Analytical data Phoenix

Percent of supply _______

Depth of well (feet) _____

Diameter of well (inches) . . _

Date drilled..-- __ . .........

Type of water: R, raw; P, 

finished..... ...... ..... .

Verde 

River

12

7-27-61

R

Verde 

River 

filter plant

12

7-27-61

P

Squaw 

Peak 

filter plant

30

7-27-61

F

Verde 

well field

17

1-11-62

F

Scottsdale 

well 36

15

1,000

20

1958

1-11-62

P

Well 105 i

466

16

10*v±

jL,ie on

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO»)._ -..-. ........

Calcium (Ca)_... ______ .

Bicarbonate (HCOs) _ - _

Sulfate (SO4)----- __ .-.. _

Chloride (Cl)_.____ _,_ ____ ._

Pluoride (F) ......... ......

Nitrate (NO8).. ..............

Phosphate (POO---- ____ ..

Nitrite (NO2) . -

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180° C)-_ ...................

Noncarbonate hardness as

Specific conductance (micropH.. ...... ....-..... -....

14

.02

50

14

131

4.8

176

0

51

196

.4

2.7

560

184

40

1,000

7.8

3

74

13

.02

53

15

131

4.9

164

0

63

198

.3

3.1

567

192

58

1,020

7.3

2

74

13

.02

46

15

138

4.8

142

0

57

212

.3

3.6

563

176

60

1,020

7.2

2

82

22

.00

61

26

3.2

286

0

71

27

.3

2.6

386

258

24

640

7.8

0

68

26

.00

98

42

96

4.0

209

0

130

218

.3

11

756

418

246

1,270

7.7

0

84

0.00

125

43

220

97

540

.4

23

.01

.012

1,580

492

7.8

78

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Uranium (U) _.. _. 

7.0 

<.l 

1.4

11 

<.l 

1.3

5.7 

.2 

2.6

21 

.4 

5.5

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fou*)d]

Silver (Ag)... .... ......

Cobalt (Co). __- __-. .......

Lithium (Li).-...............

Nickel (Ni).-__ -__. .....

Lead (Pb).. ...............

Rubidium (Rb). . ...

Tin (Sn)...... ................

Zinc (Zn) ............ _._...

<0.8 

130 

45 

99 

ND 

ND 

ND 

2.7 

26 

91 

27 

<2 

<8 

ND 

ND 

12 

ND 

320 

<8 

ND 

ND

<0.8 

250 

29 

79 

ND 

ND 

ND 

1.6 

13 

81 

ND 

<2 

<8 

ND 

ND 

14 

ND 

320 

ND 

ND 

ND

<0.8 

260 

31 

81 

ND 

ND 

3.3 

4.7 

20 

82 

ND 

<2.4 

<8 

ND 

ND 

15 

ND 

450 

<8 

ND 

ND

<0.53 

31 

210 

58 

ND 

ND 

<.53 

1.9 

37 

16 

<5.3 

4.2 

<5.3 

ND 

12 

ND 

ND 

580 

1.6 

<16 

ND

<0.92 

20 

520 

100 

ND 

ND 

7.1 

2.1 

43 

43 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

<9.2 

ND 

680 

ND 

<28 

ND

iAnalyzed by the city of Phoenix.
ARIZONA 97

TUCSON

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: South Tucson, Rillito, and suburban areas around Tucson. 

Population served: Tucson, 212,892; total, 231,836.

Source of supply: Water supply comes from about 200 wells, from 130 to 1,000 

feet deep, located in three general groups:

Upper Santa Cruz wells: Nine wells located in Upper Santa Cruz basin, 

south and east from the Municipal Airport along and near the Nogales 

highway. Water from these wells is pumped to the surface and flows by 

gravity to the east-side distribution system and to storage in the 22d 

Street reservoir.

North-side wells, or "Mesa Wells": Water for the eastern and extreme northern parts of the city is furnished by about 150 wells that are in a 2-milewide southeast-trending area in the northeast part of the city. 

South-side wells: The supply for the west part of the city roughly the area 

within the city limits and South Tucson west of Tyndall Avenue comes 

from 21 wells along the east side of the Santa Cruz River. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 39 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Chlorination at all times, ammoniation at times. 

Finished-water storage: Ground reservoirs, 31.1 million gal; elevated storage,

2.2 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily weter used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.
98 ARIZONA

Analytical data ~Tucson

Date of collection.., ___ __ ... __ . ...

Type of water: F, finished _ - _____ ....

Composite of 

south-side wells

33

1-10-62

F

Composite of 

north-side wells

33

1-10-62

F

Composite of Upper 

Santa Cruz wells

33

1-10-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOi).... ..... .......... _.

Iron (Fe) ...... ... ............

Calcium (Ca)___ .....................

Sodium (Na).._. ....................... ....

Potassium (K). _ ._...... .................

Bicarbonate (HCOs) __ __ __

Carbonate (C 03). -_.... - ..

Sulfate(S04)-. ................ ..

Chloride (Cl).____ ..................... ...

Fluoride (F)..... ...................... ...

Nitrate (NOs)....

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) . ..

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C)- 

pH._ .......................................

Color............... .................

Temperature- ____ ____ . _ _ .°F_.

35 

.00 

63 

10 

67 

2.4 

242 

0 

115 

16 

1.0 

3.6 

433 

198 

0

654 

7.6 

0 

72

29

.on

42 

3.4 

34 

1.8 

158 

0 

39 

14 

.2 

7.9 

252 

119 

0

381 

7.8 

0 

70

34 

.00 

80 

11 

33 

2.7 

226 

0 

91 

17 

.3 

16 

412 

244 

59

603 

7.4 

0 

76

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per 1'ter; <, less than]

Radium (Ra)___ ....................... ..

Uranium (U). .......................... ...

7.7 

<.l 

6.2

<1.1 

<.l 

1.6

5.3 

.1

7.3

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag) .................................

Boron (B).. ................................

Barium (Ba) _________ . _ ...

Beryllium (Be). __________ . ...

Cobalt (Co)............................. __

Chromium (Cr) _________ . .

Iron (Fe)... ....... .....---.-..... ..

Lithium (Li)---. - ---.--- ... ..

Nickel (Nl)_ .....................

Phosphorus (P) ___ . _________

Lead (Pb)._ . ... . ........ . .

Rubidium (Rb) . ..............-. , ..

Tln(Sn).. . . . .... ...

Strontium (Sr)____ ................

Titanium (Ti)..

Vanadium (V)

Zinc (Zn).. ............ .... .....

ND 

35 

110 

91 

ND 

ND 

.79 

2.2 

36 

35 

ND 

14 

ND 

ND 

9.1 

ND 

ND 

850 

<1.7 

<17 

ND

<0.35 

19 

66 

130 

ND 

ND <.3- 

2.8 

83 

9.0 

<3.5 

1.8 

<3.5 

ND 

5.9 

ND 

ND 

550 

<1.0 

<10 

ND

<0.54 

17 

64 

130 

ND 

ND 

1.3 

1.4 

64 

7.0 

<5.4 

<1.6 

ND 

ND 

8.0 

ND 

ND 

400 

ND 

<16 

ND
CALIFORNIA

Fresno Sacramento

Long Beach San Diego

Los Angeles San Francisco

Oakland San Jose

FRESNO

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Fresno, 136,000; total, 149,600.

Source of supply: Fifty-eight wells. The depths of most of the wells are between

200 and 300 feet. The yield of the wells is reported to range from 2,000 to

2,425 gpm and to average 2,200 gpm. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 53.4 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: None.

Water storage: 1.5 million gal in two tanks. 

Days of water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in mgd):

Less than 1.

99
100 CALIFORNIA

Analytical data Fresno

Percent of supply. . ______

Depth of well (feet).--- _ - .. ..

Composite 

of wells

100

7-19-61

R

Well 32 1

182

20

1941

R

Well 3 i

123

18

1923

R

Well 27 1

130

la

R

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2).._.. ....................

Iron (Fe)--..- -------- ___ .... .....

Calcium (Ca). -------- _ - _ ..........

Sodium (Na) ______ _______

Bicarbonate (HCO3) - .. ........

Carbonate (CO3) -------------------

Sulfate (SO4)--- - --.., .

Chloride (Cl). ......... ................

Fluoride (F)._ .........................

Nitrate (NO3) ._._.___

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) . . _ .

Specific conductance (micromhos at 

25° C) ....... ...... ............

pH........ ... ..........................

68

.00

15

11

17

4.4

118

0

6.0

5.8

.1

13

221

82

249

7.5

58

.01

25

14

22

4.3

174

0

3.3

18

.1

5.4

267 

120

7.6

63

.01 3'

17

22

4.5

183

0

6.2

T

.1

6.0

30T 

143

7.7

68

.00

38

19

24

4.7

212

0

15

29

.1

5.8

340 

175

7.8

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Radium (Ra). ___ ___ ___ ..

Uranium (U) .-._.. ............ ........

12

<-l

.5

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)____ .........................

Cobalt (Co).. .......................

Lithium (Li).................... ..

Nickel (Ni)__ .......................

Lead (Pb)-.._ ........... ...........

Tin (Sn). ........ ...... ...............

Titanium (Ti)_. ......... . ...

ND

6.2

17

34

ND

ND

60

1.0

4.8

.62

ND

< Q

ND

ND

5.7

9 S

ND

19

ND

12

ND

i Analyzed by the Twining Laboratories.
CALIFORNIA 101

LONG BEACH

(See figs. 18 and 19.)

Ownership: Municipal. 

Population served: 344,168.

Sources and percentages of supply: Thirty-five wells, 60 percent of present 

supply; ground water supplies will be reduced by 25 percent in the near future 

when ground waters of the Central Basin are adjudicated; they will then constitute 45 percent of the supply. Metropolitan Water District (see following 

discussion) treated water, 40 percent of present supply. This will increase to 

55 percent when the well source decreases. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 46.6 m^d (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Long Beach treatment plant: Well water prechlorination; coagulation 

with ferric chloride; addition of diatomaceous earth, caustic soda and 

Calgon; sedimentation; rapid sand filtration; and postchlorination. 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California: See following description.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Long Beach treatment plant, 40 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: 28 million gal.

Finished-water storage: Clear wells, 3.8 million gal; other, 116 million grl. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 2.6.

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA

Ownership: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which is composed of 13 cities, 11 municipal water districts, and the San Diego County 

Water Authority:

The cities are: Anaheim, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Compton, Fullerton, 

Glendale, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena, San Marino, Santa Ana, 

Santa Monica, and Torrance. 

The municipal water districts and their component cities are:

Central Basin: Artesia, Bell, Bellflower, Commerce, Cudahay, Dairy 

Valley, Downey, Huntington Park, Lakewood, Lynwood, Maywood, 

Mirada Hills, Montebello, Norwalk, Paramount, Pico Rivera, Santa 

Fe Springs, Signal Hill, South Gate, Vernon, and Whittier. 

Orange County: Buena Park, Cypress, Dairyland, Fountain Valley, 

Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, La Habra, Los Alamitos, Orange, 

Placentia, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Westminster, and ?an Juan 

Capistrano.

West Basin: Culver City, El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa 

Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, 

Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, and Rolling Hills Estates. 

Pomona Valley: Claremont, Glendora, Industry, La Verne, Pomona,

San Dimas, and Walnut. 

Coastal: Brea, Costa Mesa, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, and San

Clemente.

Chino Basin: Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, and Upland, 

Calleguas: Oxnard.
102 CALIFORNIA

Ownership Continued

The municipal water districts and their component cities are Continued 

Eastern: Hemet, Perris, and San Jacinto. 

Western: Corona, Elsinore, and Riverside. 

Foothill. 

Virgenes.

The San Diego County Water Authority is composed of the following constituent cities and districts:

Cities: Escondido, National City, Oceanside, and San T'ego. 

Municipal water districts: Buena Colorado, Carlsbad, Piway, Rainbow,

Rincon del Diablo, Rio San Diego, and Valley Center. 

Irrigation districts: Helix, San Dieguito, Santa Fe, and South Bay. 

Cities within districts: Carlsbad, Chula Vista, El Cajor. and La Mesa. 

Population served: 7,739,000 (estimated for 1961).

Source of supply: Colorado River impounded in Lake Havasu. The main aqueduct line is designed to deliver 1,082 mgd (1,212,000 acre-ft annually) from Lake 

Havasu on the Colorado River to the terminal reservoir, Lake Mathews, near 

Riverside, Calif. A portion of the water from Lake Mathews is delivered to 

the F. E. Weymouth softening and filtration plant at La Verne, Calif. East of 

Lake Mathews two San Diego aqueducts deliver Colorado River water to the 

San Diego County Water Authority.

Treatment: F. E. Weymouth softening and filtration plant prechlorination,

softening by ion exchange, preliminary partial lime softening and coagulation

with alum and activated silica when necessary, rapid sand filtration, and pH

adjustment with lime.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: F. E. Weymouth softenirg and filtration

plant, 400 mgd.

Finished-water storage: Palos Verdes Reservoir, 358 million gal. 

Remarks: Plans call for a water treatment plant north of Yorba Linda to have an 

initial capacity of 200 mgd with provision for expansion to 40C mgd.
LONG BEACH 103

FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL

Colorado River

water-supply

lines

5 MILES 

J

EXPLANATION

Area of Long Beach water system 

supplied by the Colorado River

Area of Long Beach water system 

supplied by a blend of treated local 

well water and Colorado River water

Long Beach city boundary

o

Reservoir

Water well

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 18. Water supplies and areas served by Long- Beach, Calif., water system. 

(Approved by local municipal water officials, October 1963.)

735-717 O 64-
104 CALIFORNIA

Analytical data Long Beach

Type of water: R, raw; F, finLong Beach 

well water

(0 

R

Long Beach 

treatment plant

(') 

F

60 

1-23-62

F

La Verne treatment 

plant

40 1-24-62

F

(2) 

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2) - _ 

Iron (Fe). . _____ . _ _ _ __

Calcium (Ca) .. _____ ___

Bicarbonate (HCOs)...-- _ 

Chloride (CD 

Fluoride (F) _ _ ______

Nitrate (NOs) . _ _ .

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180° C) .__.. ...... _ ... .

Noncarbonate hardness as

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C).. ..............

pH. ........... ...............

Color... .. .-.. ... . ... ......

20

.04

13

1.0

71

1.0

182

5

13

20

.4

229

37

0

8.7

76

20

.03

24

2.3

63

1.2

173

6

15

27

.4

248

66

0

8.6

7

20

.00

20

1.0

74

1.0

188

0

13

34

.5

.1

250

54

0

415

8.0

7

9.8

.00

34

11

198

4.4

150

0

286

92

.3

1.3

722

130

1,150

8.2

3

8.7

52

17

151

4

139

1

285

88

.4

1.2

678

200

84

1,095

8.3

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

3.9

.1

< !

18

.3

8.6

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Cobalt (Co). 

Lithium (Li) . ... 

Nickel (Nl)

Lead (Pb).... . 

Rubidium (Rb)_. ... 

Tin (Sn)-._. 

Titanium (Ti).._._ ..............

<0.40

95

130

33

ND

ND

<.40

190

33

6.0

12

5.6

4.0

ND

5.6

4.0

ND

150

9.1

12

ND

ND

220

57

73

ND

ND

<.89

21

88

53

<8.9

6.7

9.8

ND

<8.9

ND

ND

670

<2.7

<17

ND

' Average analyses by the city of Long Beach, July 1, 1960, to June 30, 1961.

8 Average analyses by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, July 1, 1960, to June 30, 

1961.
CALIFORNIA 105

LOS ANGELES

(See fig. 19.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Total, 2,458,000 (includes 26,000 in Los Angeles County).

Sources and percentages of supply: Owens Valley Aqueduct sources, 59.7 percent; 

Los Angeles River Conduit, 11.3 percent; Metropolitan Water District, 20.1 

percent (see description under "Long Beach"); miscellaneous local wells, 

8.9 percent.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 466 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Municipal water system chlorination of reservoirs and distribution 

system.

Water storage, in million gallons: Impounding reservoirs, 114,043; flow regulation reservoirs, 244; central and western distribution reservoirs and tanks, 

6,613; San Fernando Valley distribution reservoirs and tanks, 11,546; and 

harbor distribution reservoirs and tanks, 14.

Days of water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in mgd): 

283.
106 CALIFORNIA

Analytical data Los Angeles

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished _____

Colorado 

River i

20(2)

R

San Fernando 

Reservoir

60 7-25-61

F

Weymouth 

treatment plant

20(2)

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica(SiOj). ... .

Calcium (Ca) ............................

Magnesium (Mg) __ _ ______ _ _____

Sodium (Na)._ ______________

Bicarbonate (HCOs) ---------------------

Carbonate (COa). --------------------------

Sulfate(S04)~- .

Chloride (Cl)_ 

Fluoride (F)__ .__ 

Nitrate (NOs) - . 

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C). ..- ..

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOa ______

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) _ _ 

pH.- ... ------ -- __ .-

Color.--..-....- .... ......... . ..

8.7

84

28

92

4

140

1

285

83

.4

1.4

657

323

206

1,040 

8.4

31

.01

24

5.1

32

3.5

133

0

23

16

.5

.2

212

81

0

307 

8.1

3

8 7

52

17

1 M

4

139

1

285

88

.4

].2

678

200

84

1,095 

8.3

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per lite-; <, less than]

5.2 

4! 8

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fourd]

Silver (Ag)___ 

Cobalt (Co)... 

Lithium (Li)... 

Nickel (Nl)_ -

Lead (Pb)._ 

Rubidium (Rb). -_ _ 

Tin (Sn)

Zinc (Zn)_ .__ 

<0.3

66

420

30

ND

ND

.77

130

30

95

24

16

4.8

ND

4.5

9.5

ND

150

<3

13

ND

1 Analyzed by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

2 Average analysis, July 1,1960, to June 30,1961.
LOS ANGELES 107

C.LOS ANGELES

EXPLANATION

Area served by Los Angeles water system

Area served by Long Beach water system

Area served by San Diego water system

Colorado River Aqueduct

Owens Valley Aqueduct

Santa Monica feeder line

Palos Verdes feeder line

First San Diego Aqueduct

Second San Diego Aqueduct

Dulzura Conduit

Point Loma 

Sea water 

conversion 

plant

Treatment plant 

3, Torrey Pine 

b, Alvarado 

C, Weymouth

Sutherland ReservoirSan Vicente Reservoir Conduit Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 19. Water supplies and areas served by Long Beach, Los Angeles, and San Diego, 

Calif., water systems. (Approved by local municipal water officials, April 1963.) List of 

reservoirs: A, Fairmont; B, Bouquet; C, Chatsworth; D, San Fernando; E, Morris; F, 

Palo Verdes; G, Lake Mathews; H, Lake Hodges; J, Miramar; K, Sutherland; L, San 

Vicente; M, Murray; N, El Capitan; P, Lower Otay; Q, Barrett; R, Morena; S, San 

Dieguito.
108 CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND

(See fig. 20.)

Ownership: East Bay Municipal Utility District.

Other areas served: Albany, Alameda, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Hercules, 

Piedmont, Pleasant Hills, Richmond, San Leandro, San Pablo, Walnut Creek, 

and unincorporated areas of Alamo, Ashland, Castro Valley, Chabot, Cherryland, Colonial Acres, Danville, El Sobrante, Fairview, Kensington, Lafayette, 

Orinda, Rodeo, Rollingwood, San Lorenzo, San Ramon, Saranap, Tara Hills, 

C & H Refinery (Crockett), and Union Oil Co. (Oleum). 

Population served: Oakland, 367,548; total 1,000,000. 

Sources and percentages of supply: Mokelumne River (impounded), 99 percent;

local supplies, 1 percent. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 143.4 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Orinda filter plant: Rapid sand filtration and chlorination.

Lafayette filter plant: Prechlorination, rapid sand filtration, and postchlorination.

San Pablo and Upper San Leandro filter plants: Aeration, prechlorination, 

addition of alum for coagulation, sedimentation, addition of lime for pH 

adjustment, rapid sand filtration, and post chlorination.

Chabot filter plant: Prechlorination, addition of alum for coagulation, 

sedimentation, addition of lime for pH adjustment, rapid sand filtration, 

and post chlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Orinda filter plant, 105 mgd; San Pablo 

filter plant, 54 mgd; Lafayette filter plant, 42 mgd; Upper San Leandro filter 

plant, 52 mgd; Chabot filter plant, 8 mgd.

Raw-water storage, in million gallons: Reservoirs: Pardee, San Pablo, Upper

San Leandro, Chabot, and Lafayette, 100,722. The storage capacities of the

terminal reservoirs are as follows: San Pablo, 14; Upper San Leandro, 13.5;

Chabot, 3.4; Lafayette, 1.4.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 2.3 years. 

Finished-water storage: One hundred and twenty-four distribution reservoirs,

664 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 4.6.

Remarks: Pardee Reservoir, having a storage capacity of 68,400 million gal, is 

about 94 miles northeast of the East Bay area. Water is released through an 

outlet tower into the twin Mokelumne Aqueducts, which together are capable 

of delivering almost 100 mgd by gravity flow. By operating pumping plants, 

the daily flow can be increased to more than 210 mgd. A third aqueduct 

scheduled for completion in December 1962 will increase the capacity to 338 

mgd. Most of this water is treated at the Orinda filter plant and transmitted 

into distribution mains; the remaining amounts are stored in the four terminal 

reservoirs.

Although much of the water is served by gravity, the district requires 89 

pumping plants and 124 distribution reservoirs to serve those living at the 

higher altitudes.
EXPLANATION

City boundaries of Oakland,

Sacramento, San Francisco,

and San Jose Area served by San Francisco Area served by San Jose 

water system water system

Sacramento raw water intake

Area served by East Bay Municipal Area served by Sacramento Water analysis sampling site Utility District water system

FIGURE 20. Water supplies and areas served by Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Jose, Calif., water systems. 

(Approved by local municipal water officials, April 1963.) List of reservoirs: A. Pardee; B. Hetch Hetchy; C, San Andreas; D, Pilarcitos; E, Crystal Springs; F, Calaveras; G, Lake Eleanor; H, Cherry Lake; J, Don Pedro; K, Moccasin; L, Priest: Reservoirs and filter plants: M, San Pablo; A', Lafayette; P, Upper San Leandro; Q, Chabot.

O CO
110 CALIFORNIA

Analytical data Oakland

Type of water: P, finished^. __ ...___

Orinda filter 

plant

99 1-30-62

P

San Pablo 

filter plant 1

(2)

P

Upper San 

Leandro filter 

plant i

(2)

F

Chabot filter 

plant i

(2)

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOs).___ - _ ......

Iron (Fe)_. _ _ . _ .. .. __

Calcium (Ca)...---- _ - __ ._ _ 

Potassium (K) ___ __ .. .......

Boron (B) __ ... _____ ______ _

Bicarbonate (HCOs). --------- _ ___-.

Carbonate (CO3) _ __ __.--___ ....

Sulfate (SO4) -- -- - 

Chloride (Cl)....___ _.. _

Pluoride (F)..._-_ _ .. __ ____ __ ...

Nitrate (NOs)

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)___.

Specific conductance (micromhos at 

25° C)._ .- __ ._ 

pH - .. ......

9.8

.00

8.0

.7

.5

19

.0

5.2

.2

40 

23

3

61

9.0

4.7

.02

.00

3.6

8.0

1.0

.4

.07

56

1

13

8.0

.1

.0

91 

57

9

152

8.6

5.4

.02

.00

00

6.1

6.7

1.3

.0

.03

78

1

20

.2

.0

113 

82

17

201

8.2

1.8

04

47

20

23

2.4

200

2

7.0

.3

.0

284 

199

32

472

8.2

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Radium (Ra).._ ____ _ __ ._

Uranium (U). .............

4.1 

<.l 

<,1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)____ .............

Cobalt (Co).. __.

Iron (Fe) _____

Nickel (Ni)__ . ................

Lead (Pb)-.._ .. ... .......

Rubidium (Rb). ..............

Zinc (Zn). ....................

<0.06

OK

25

17

ND

ND

20

2.1

25

2.1

1

0

26

1.0

ND

i ft

ND

27

1 8

ND

1 Analyzed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District.

2 Average analyses for the year 1961.
CALIFORNIA 111

SACRAMENTO

(See fig. 20.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Total, about 181,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Sacramento River, 85 percent of supply.

Because the intake of the water treatment plant is just below the confluence of

the American River with the Sacramento River, the water delivered to the plant

contains a large fraction of American River water. Seventy-eight wells of

which 55 were operated in 1960, 15 percent. 

Lowest mean discharge: Sacramento River at Sacramento, Calif., for 30-day

period in climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 4,090 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 47.5 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Sacramento filter plant prechlorination, coagulation with alum,

sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, adjustment of pH with lime, and postchlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Sacramento filter plant, 64 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: None. 

Finished-water storage: 14.5 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Sacramento filter plant, 1960:

Finished water. _ . __

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

59 

57

Max

78. 

84

Min

26 

13

pH

Avg

7.4

Max

7.8

Min

6.6

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

53 

33

Max

74

84

Min

26 

32

Turbidity

Avg

40 

0

Max

360 

0

Min

8 

0
112 CALIFORNIA

Analytical data Sacramento

Percent of supply ______ ____ __ _ _ _ _

Date of collection. __________

Sacramento Kiver

85

7-26-61

R

Filter plant

85

7-26-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2)____-_________ ______________

Iron (Fe) ____ ______ ______________ __

Calcium (Ca) ____ _ _____

Magnesium (Mg)_ _ _ _ _____

Sodium (Na) _ _ _ _ _ ________

Potassium (K) ___ ______

Bicarbonate (HCOg) _ _____ ___

Carbonate (COs) _ _ _ ____ ___ __

Sulfate (SOO -- --- -- 

Chloride (Cl)______________ _____________

Fluoride (F)_ ___________________ _ __

Nitrate (NO3)-_- ._..______-_.._.___._.-

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) _

Hardness as CaCO3 ___ _ ___ _ _ ._

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs __ __ __

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) 

pH__ _________________________________

Color. ________________________________

21

.01

10

6.6

10

. 8

69

0

7

8.0

. 1

. 9

110

52

0

149

7. 4

3

21

. 00

17

7. 2

12

1. 0

79

0

18

9. 5

. 0

. 2

136

72

7

200 

7. 9

2

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity __ _ _

Radium (Ra) _ _ _

3. 1

<. 1

< 1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Boron (B)__ __ __ _____ __ __ _______

Barium (Ba) _ _ _ _

Cobalt (Co)____ _______._______-_-__--_-

Chromium (Cr) _ _ _

Copper (Cu) ___ ___

Iron (Fe)___________-_-__-_.__- _______

Manganese (Mn) ______ _ ___ __ _ __ _

Molybdenum (Mo) ____ ____

Nickel (Ni)_ ___________________________

Phosphorus (P)__ ___ _ _____

Lead (Pb)_ ____________________________

Rubidium (Rb)____ _ _ _______

Tin (Sn)_____________________________ _

Strontium (Sr)_ _ _ ___ ___

Titanium (Ti) _ _ ____ ________ _______

Vanadium (V)__ __ _ __ _ _____ __ __

Zinc (Zn) __ ________________________ _

<0. 1

15

32

15

ND

ND

. 15

4. 4

29

. 51

6. 6

ND

<1

ND

1.6

1. 5

ND

9. 3

<1

<4

ND

<0. 2

34

54

29

ND

ND

. 33

8.3

21

. 72

1. 8

< 5

<2

ND

2. 1

1.6

ND

29

ND

4. 7

ND
CALIFORNIA 113

SAN DIEGO

(See fig. 19.) 

Ownership: Municipal. 

Other areas served: San Dieguito Irrigation District, Santa Fe Irrigation District,

Del Mar, and part of Coronado.

Population served: San Diego, 588,000 (1961); total, about 600,000. 

Sources and percentages of supply: San Diego River system, 47 percent; Cottonwood-Otay River system, 43 percent; San Dieguito River system, 10 percent. 

The percentages of supply shown are the "normal" percentages. Considerable 

quantities of Colorado River water have been used for the past several dry 

years. For the year ending December 1961, about 92 to 94 percent of the city 

supply was from the Colorado River. Colorado River water is received 

through the Colorado River aqueduct and the San Diego aqueducts of the 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (see description under 

"Long Beach") and the San Diego County Water Authority (se? "Long 

Beach").

The San Diego River system includes water from the San Diego River and 

tributaries and is stored in El Capitan, San Vicente, and Murray Reservoirs. 

Water from the upper San Dieguito River is stored in Sutherland Reservoir and 

diverted to the San Diego River system. Colorado River water is received at 

San Vicente Reservoir. Water from the San Diego River system is treated at 

the Alvarado plant.

The Cottonwood-Otay River system includes water from Buckman and La 

Posta Creeks (tributaries of Cottonwood Creek), stored in the Morera Reservoir; Cottonwood and Pine Valley Creeks, stored in Barrett Reservoir; and 

Dulzura Creek, stored in Lower Otay Reservoir. All Cottonwood-Otay water 

eventually reaches Lower Otay Reservoir. Colorado River water also reaches 

Lower Otay Reservoir from the San Diego aqueduct. Water from this system 

is treated at the Lower Otay plant.

Water from the San Dieguito River system is stored in Lake Hodges and 

San Dieguito Reservoir. Colorado River water from the second San Diego 

aqueduct also enters this system. Water from this system is treated at the 

Torrey Pines plant.

Miramar Reservoir stores Colorado River water; the water is treated at the 

Miramar Plant and enters the main distribution system in San Diego.

Point Loma sea-water conversion plant produces 1 mgd of fresh water; 

this water is passed through a limestone bed and then mixed with three volumes of treated water from the Alvarado plant before entering the distribution 

system. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 72.9 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Alvarado treatment plant (San Diego River system): Prechlorination, 

coagulation with ferric sulfate, partial softening with lime, settling, addition of polyphosphate, and rapid sand filtration. 

Lower Otay treatment plant (Cottonwood-Otay system): Pressure filtration

and chlorination.

Torrey Pines treatment plant (San Dieguito River system): Pressure filtration and chlorination.

Miramar treatment plant (Miramar Reservoir): Pressure filtration and 

chlorination.
114 CALIFORNIA

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Alvarado treatment plant, 66 mgd; Lower

Otay treatment plant, 16 mgd; Torrey Pines treatment plant, ? mgd; Miramar

treatment plant, 50 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: 141,000 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 5.3 years.

Finished-water storage: 141 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 1.9.

Analytical data San Diego

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished __

Lake Hodges 

Reservoir l

R

Alvarado 

treatment 

plant

47 1-24-62

F

Torrey Prres 

treatmert 

plant i

10

F

Lower Otay 

Reservoir 1

4

R

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2)_____ ..

Iron (Fe).._. ................. .........

Manganese(Mn) _ _ . .....

Calcium (Ca).________ ........ . ....

Sodium (Na) ...........................

Potassium (K) ______ ___ ....

Bicarbonate (HCO3) -------------------

Carbonate (CO8) ----------------- ..

Sulfate (800... ....... .................

Chloride (Cl)_.. ......................

Fluoride (F). ..........................

Nitrate (NOa).... . 

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) .....

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs ......

Specific conductance (micromhos at 

25° C).. ....... ...... ....... .....

pH____ ........................

Color.. _________ .............

.17

.23

Q7

29

99

5.6

155

0

97

.4

1.0

761 

334

207

7.9

12

.00

66

29

99

4.7

68

6

92

.5

1.1

666 

282

216

1,000

8.7

2

11

.01

.02

SQ

2C 107

5.8

151

0

29''

10.5

.5

.4

77i 33^

213

8.2

12

.04

.03

27

21

90

6.3

148

21

43

109

.5

.4

461 

155

0

9.1

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter]

Beta activity ___________ ...... 16 

.2 

6.9

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fou^d]

Silvpr ( \a\

Boron (B) ___ ....

Cobalt (Co)............................

Iron (Fe) - ._. .. ................

Lithium (Li)......... ........ . ....

Nickel (Ni). ................... ....

Lead (Pb).--. .........................

Tin (Sn)- . .................... ..

<0.78 

39 

93 

130 

ND 

ND 

ND 

14 

49 

33 

ND 

8.6 

<7.8 

ND 

11 

ND 

ND 

1,100 

<2.3 

<23 

ND

1 Analyzed by city of San Diego.
CALIFORNIA 115

SAN FRANCISCO

(See fig. 20.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Belmont, Belmont Water District, Burlingame, Moffett 

Field, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, Sunol, Pacifica, Foster City, 

Brisbane, Hillsborough, San Francisco International Airport, Milpitas, and 

Alviso; part of the supply for Alameda County Water District, Atherton, Daly 

City, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Palo Alto, South San Francisco, San Bruno, 

Half Moon Bay, Hayward, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Stanford 

University.

Population served: San Francisco, 742,855; total, about 1, 600,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Hetch Hetchy system, 72 percent of supply; 

Alameda system, 18 percent of supply; Peninsula system, 10 percent of supply. 

The Hetch Hetchy system includes the Tuolumne River impounded in 

Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, Priest Reservoir, and Moccasin Reservoir. These 

waters enter the transvalley aqueduct leading to San Francisco approrimately 

155 miles to the west. The present aqueduct has a capacity of 160 million gal, 

but approval has been given for the construction of a third pipeline.

The Alameda system lies on the east side of San Francisco Bay within the 

drainage area of Alameda Creek. The chief source is Calaveras Reservoir, 

which impounds Calaveras Creek and Arroyo Hondo and water diverted from 

upper Alameda Creek through a tunnel. W ater from Calaveras Reservoir flows 

by gravity to enter the Hetch Hetchy aqueduct. During dry years water is 

also obtained from Sunol filter galleries on Alameda Creek. When these 

sources are used, the water is pumped into the Hetch Hetchy aqueduct 

near the Bay Crossing Division.

The Peninsula system includes chiefly three reservoirs: Crystal Springs, 

Pilarcitos, and San Andreas. These reservoirs catch and store the knal runoff. Also Crystal Springs is the terminal reservoir for the Hetch Hetchy 

aqueduct, which carries water from all the Alameda and Hetch Hetchy sources. 

Water from Pilarcitos Reservoir is released to San Andreas Reservoir. Water 

from Crystal Springs and San Andreas Reservoirs is supplied to several distribution reservoirs throughout the city. Crystal Springs lines supplv downtown, commercial, and waterfront areas of the city and peninsula communities 

as far south as San Carlos. San Andreas lines furnish water to residential 

areas of San Francisco. Bay Crossing lines (Hetch Hetchy aqueduct) supply 

peninsula communities south of San Carlos and some communities in Alameda 

County.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Sunset well system and Lake Merced1 , within 

San Francisco.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 166 mpd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Chlorination, addition of copper sulfate for algae control in open 

reservoirs. Lime treatment of Hetch Hetchy water. Aeration of water from 

Calaveras Reservoir. Fluoridation of Crystal Springs and San Andreas 

Reservoirs.

Raw-water storage, in millions of gallons:

Hetch Hetchy system: Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, 117,300; Priest Reservoir,

770; Moccasin, 114.

Alameda system: Calaveras Reservoir, 31,500. 

Peninsula system: Crystal Springs Reservoir, 22,580; San Andreas Reservoir,

6,180; and Pilarcitos Reservoir, 1,010. 

Storage reservoirs, total capacity: Approximately 179,550.
116 CALIFORNIA

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 3 years. 

Finished-water storage, in million gallons: Distribution reservoirs total capacity,

403; elevated tanks, total capacity, 1.3. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average drily water used,

in mgd): 2.4.

Analytical data San Francisco

Type of water: R, raw; F,

Calaveras

Reservoir »

18 7-11-61

F

Crystal

Springs

Reservoir

8

1-31-62

F

San Andreas

Reservoir

2

1-31-62

F

Hetoh

Hetchy

Reservoir '

72 7-8-61

R

Hetch

Hetchy

treatment

plant '

72 7-11-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SlOj)~- ~- -~ ~- ~- -~ ~-

Iron (Fe) __ _ _ _-.__

Sodium (Na) _ _____ ......

Potassium (K)__._ ............

Bicarbonate (HCO3) __ - _ -

Carbonate (COs) _ ___ __

Sulfate (SO.) ~

Chloride (Cl).... . ......

Fluoride (F)._. .................

Nitrate (NO3) _

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180° C)__.__... ________________

Noncarbonate hardness as 

CaCO3 - ... ... ...

Specific conductance (micromhos 

at 25° C)-.. ___-__-_._ 

pH..............................

Color ____________ ...

7.6

.00

on

28

10

19

1.4

125

2

7.7

.1

.0

154

111

260

8.9

1

1

3.9

.00

7.6

1.2

3.3

.4

22

0

3.0

6.5

.2

.1

40

24

6

66

7.3

2

9.6

.01

9.2

2.2

4.9

.4

31

0

4.0

8.5

.9

.0

53

32

7

89

7.2

3

2.4

.02

.00

.7

.3

1.1

.2

4.2

0

.7

1.0

.0

.0

10

3

0

8

7.4

1

0

2.7

.03

.00

3.2

.6

2.9

.4

11

0

1.5

3.6

.0

.0

27

10

1

34

9.1

1

1

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

6.8 

<-l 

.2

11 

.1 

.3

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fourd]

Silver (Ag). .....................

Iron (Fe) .....................

Lithium (Li)....................

Nickel (Ni)

Lead (Pb).._ . ..........

Tin (Sn). .......................

Titanium (Ti)____. ______________

Vanadium (V) _ ._ __

<0.06

46

63

1Q

ND

ND

.39

31

97

.63

.57

3

*1

ND

3.2

<.6

43

.6

<1.7

ND

<0.08

89

41

22

ND

ND

1.5

7.3

110

1.5

15

.63

4.1

ND

4.7

<.8

ND

68

2.7

<2.4

ND

i Analyzed by the city of San Francisco.
CALIFORNIA 117

SAN JOSE

(See fig. 20.)

Ownership: San Jose Water Works (private).

Other areas served: Los Gatos and surrounding area.

Population served: San Jose, 204,196; total, 358,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: One hundred nineteen wells ranging in depth

from 185 to 1,535 feet, 80 percent of supply. Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Alamitos

Creeks supply about 20 percent of supply. These percentages vary during wet

and dry years. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 46.7 mgi (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Well water is not treated. Surface water is filtered througl diatomaceous earth.

Raw-water storage: Stream storage in five reservoirs, 2,290 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 49.

Finished-water storage: 102 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 2.2.

Analytical data, composite of wells 

[Percent of supply: 80. Date of collection: 7-20-61. Type of water: Finished]

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica(SiOj) -- .- .___

Iron (Fe) ______ _ _______ . __ .

Calcium (Ca) ___________________________

Sodium (Na)._. _....____ _-_.__

Bicarbonate (HCOs) __ __ .-

Carbonate (COs).. ______ . .....

Sulfate (SO4) - - . - 

Chloride (Cl).-.... ___________________

31

.00

51

18

29

1 9

237

0

23

32

Fluoride (F).. 

Nitrate (NOa) - -- -- -

Dissolved solids (residue at 180°C)_ - ....

25° C) . -. 

pH-...__._ _ . -

Color. .. __________________

0.0

6.7

335

203

9

533

7.8

3

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Radium (Ra)_ ____________ . ...

1 9

<0.1

0.5

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

SUver(Ag).... ..........................

Boron (B) .......

Cobalt (CO)

Iron (Fe)-...-..... - ____-_-____.----_

Lithium(Li). ........ ...... ....-. 

<0.32

49

52

84

ND

ND

1.0

3.0

5.2

2.1

<3.2

Nickel (Ni). ...... ... .... 

Lead(Pb)-..- ..... 

Rubidium (Rb) . ~ -

Tin(Sn) . - 

ND

ND

ND

11

ND

ND

98

ND

ND

ND

COLORADO

Denver

DENVER

(See fig. 21.) 

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Suburban areas, except Englewood. 

Population served: Denver, 496,105; total, about 620,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: South Platte River and tributaries (impounded), 45 percent; Fraser River and tributaries (impounded), 47 percent; 

other, 3 percent.

South Platte River is impounded in Antero Reservoir, Eleven Mile Canyon 

Reservoir, Lake Cheesman, and Marston Lake. Bear Creek is diverted near 

Morrison into Harriman Lake and Soda Lakes and thence to Marston Lake. 

Western Slope diversion water (Fraser River) is brought from beyond the Continental Divide via the Moffat Tunnel (about 25 miles northwest of the city) 

to South Boulder Creek to Gross Reservoir and from there to Ralston Reservoir. Water from Ralston Reservoir is brought by conduit to th^ Moffat 

filter plant, 3.5 miles west of the city. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 131 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Kassler slow-sand-filter plant: (a) South Platte River: settling, slow sand 

filtration, disinfection with chloramine, and addition of copper snlfate for 

control of algae in Platte Canon Reservoir, (b) Infiltration galleries: 

chlorination.

Marston Lake, north-side filter plant (South Platte River and Bear Creek): 

Settling, aeration, coagulation with aluminum sulfate, filtration with 

anthrafilt (coal), addition of activated carbon, disinfection with chloramine, 

addition of copper sulfate for control of algae in Marston Lake, microstraining, and disinfection with chloramine.

Marston Lake, south-side filter plant (South Platte River and Bear Creek): 

Settling, coagulation with aluminum sulfate, filtration with ranid sand 

filters, addition of activated carbon, disinfection with chloramine, addition of 

copper sulfate for control of algae in Marston Lake, microstraining, and 

disinfection with chloramine.

Moffatt filter plant (South Boulder Creek and Ralston Creek): Settling; 

coagulation with aluminum sulfate, sodium aluminate, and lime; filtration 

with rapid sand filter; treatment with activated carbon; and disinfection 

with chloramine.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Kassler slow-sand-filter plant, 50 mgd; 

Marston Lake, north-side filter plant, 100 mgd; Marston Lake, south-side 

filter plant, 25 mgd; Moffat filter plant, 150 mgd.

735-7170 64 9 119
120 COLORADO

Raw-water storage, in million gallons:

Storage reservoirs: Antero, 5,111; Eleven Mile, 31,861; Cheesman, 25,763;

Soda Lakes, 227; and Gross, 14,033. 

Operating reservoirs: Platte Canon, 295; Marston Lake, 5,817; Ralston Lake,

3,673; and Long Lake,.439. 

Total raw-water storage: 87,219. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 1.8. 

Finished-water storage: Marston Lake, north side, 33 million gal; Moffat, 16

million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at filter plants, 1960:

Plant

Kassler: 

Raw water _ . _ ..

Marston Lake, north side: 

Raw water _ .....

Finished water _ . . __

Marston Lake, south side:

Moffat:

Finished water __

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

60 

64

77 

77

80 

73

23 

24

Max

112 

106

118 

122

170 

140

32.0 

43.0

Min

34 

38

60 

60

60 

52

18.0 

18.0

pH

Avg

7.8 

7.8

8.1

7.7

7.9 

7.5

7.7 

7.6

Max

8.4 

8.3

8.5 

8.0

8.7 

8.2

8.1 

7.8

Min

7.4 

7.2

7.6 

7.4

7.3 

7.2

7.3 

7.4

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

101 

106

115 

114

113

107

32 

41

Max

120 

139

134 

129

140 

122

42 

51

Min

84

7P

81 

91

95 

91

21 

3f

Turbidity

Avg

12 

1.0

3.0 

1.0

3.5 

1.4

15 

.5

Max

36 

1.0

5.0 

1.0

7.8 

3.0

73

.7

Min

6 

1.0

3.0 

1.0

3.0 

1.0

5.0 

.3
DENVER 121

S\MOFFAT TUNNEL

 ^llVASQUEZ TUNNEL 

JONES PASS I ~~^ 

TUNNEL

US

I

Marston Lake

and filter

Dillon plants

Reservoir

(under construction)

Kassler filter plant/^-^-Reposed conduit

Proposed 

filter plant

EXPLANATION

Area served by Denver 

water system

Eleven Mile 

Canyon Reservoir Denver city boundary

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 21. Water supplies and areas served by Denver, Colo., water system. (Approved by local municipal

water officials, June 1963.)
122 COLORADO

Analytical data Denver

Percent of supply. .

Date of collection ._ ..

Type of water: R, raw;

F, finished ____ __

Fraser

River and

Williams

Fork

47

8-28-61

R

Moffat

filter

plant

46 8-26-61

F

South

Platte

River and

Bear

Creek

OOoo

o_9G_fil O^^O Dl

R

Marston

Lake

north-side

filter

plant

01ol

O_9Q_fl1 O^io^UJ.

F

South

Platte

River

15

fi_9Q_fi1 O^iy DJ.

R

Kassler

filter

plant

15 8-29-61

F

Marston

Lake

south-side

filter

plant

8

8-29-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOs) .............

Iron (Fe) ___ ...

Aluminum (Al) __ ..

Lithium (Li). ....

Calcium (Ca)._ __ ..

Magnesium (Mg). ......

Sodium (Na)

Potassium (K) .

Bicarbonate (HCO3) ... 

Carbonate (COs)... ..

Sulfate (SO4) ..... ... _

Chloride (Cl)...

Fluoride(F)... .

Nitrate (NO3). ..

Phosphate (POO...- ..

Dissolved solids (residue 

at 180° C)_. .. .

Hardness as CaCOs. .... 

Noncarbonate hardness 

as CaCOs--.

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C). PH.... ..._...,_.._::_

Color. .._..- __ __..--

8.2

.06

nn

6.8

1.9

2.0

.2

24 

0

9.0

1.0

40

25

58 

7.6

0

7.5

.00

00

10

9 9

9 7

28 

0

19

.0

.4

39

34 

11

86 

7.2

0

6.8

.08

00

97

8.0

24

1.8

86 

0

38

33

1.0

172

100 

3d

332

7.5

0

6.2

.03

.00

26

8.3

24

1.8

80 

0

38

32

.9

.7

175

09

QQ

335

7.4

0

7.8

.21

nn

12

34

2.0

104 

0

47

49

.9

.2

232

127 

41

448 

7.0

0

8.0

.10

.00

31

11

31

2.0

100 

0

51

44

.9

.7

216

123 

41

423 

7.4

0

9.0

.00

.00

6.1

.05

26

9.2

27

1.8

72 

0

43

34

.8

.6

.00

186

103 

44

335 

8.0

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity.. . ...

Radium (Ra) ____ .

Uranium (U) ...........

3.3 

<.l

4.8

<.l

1.7

6.8 

.9

2.8

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag) ..............

Boron (B) __ __ .

Barium (Ba) __ . _ . .

Cobalt (Co)... ..

Iron (Fe)_____ . _ .

Lithium (Li) .......... _

Nickel (Ni)._. .

Lead (Pb) . _

Rubidium (Rb) .

Tin (Sn). ....... _..

Strontium (Sr)

Titanium (Ti). ...

Vanadium (V)..

Zinc(Zn)........ ..

ND

OQ

6.2

ND

ND

<.07

16

39

.24

5.5

<.20

.7

ND

ND

1.1

ND

4.1

1.0

ND

ND

ND

15

5.7

12

ND

ND

ND

14

1.9

.53

3 7

^ 9>;

ND

ND

ND

g

ND

6.2

ND

ND

ND

<0.26

ion

21

ND

<2.6

1.0

31

on

4,2

15

 3 A

1 Q

ND

ND

ND

9OO

^9 C

ND

<0.26

42

74

ND

ND

90

32

5.3

7.1

2.4

3.2

2.9

ND

ND

oqn

<2.6

ND

ND

ND

86

100

72

ND

ND

ND

1.7

58

5.8

7.2

1.2

ND

ND

<3.6

ND

ND

240

<3.6

ND

ND

ND

62

30

110

ND

ND

.65

15

29

7.2

<3.4

1.5

5.5

ND

5.5

ND

ND

380

<3.4

ND

ND
CONNECTICUT

Bridgeport Hartford New Haten

BRIDGEPORT

(See fig. 22.)

Ownership: Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.

Other areas served (wholly or in part): Easton, Fairfield, Monroe, Shelton, 

Stratford, Trumbull, and Westport.

Population served: Bridgeport, 156,748; total, 320,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Saugatuck River impounded in S-uigatuck 

Reservoir, and Aspetuck River impounded in Aspetuck Reservoir. Water 

from these reservoirs is diverted into Hemlocks Reservoir, 51 percent. Water 

from the Housatonic well field and water from Means Brook are impounded 

in Means Brook Reservoir; Far Mill River, impounded in Far Mill River 

Reservoir. Water from these reservoirs is diverted to Trap Falls Reservoir, 

26 percent. Mill River impounded in Easton Reservoir, 21 percert and in 

Shelton Reservoir, 2 percent.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Westport well fields are activated during periods of peak loads. Shelton Reservoir is used when needed.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 49 mgd (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment:

Hemlocks and Trap Falls treatment plants: Chlorination, pH adjustment

with lime, and addition of Calgon.

Easton treatment plant: Chlorination and pH adjustment with lim?. 

Shelton and Huntington treatment plants: Chlorination, pH adjustment 

with caustic soda, and addition of Calgon.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Hemlocks treatment plant, 100 mgd; 

Trap Falls treatment plant, 50 mgd; Easton treatment plant, 32 mgd; Shelton 

treatment plant, 1.6 mgd; Westport treatment plant, 9 mgd.

Raw-water storage: 24,000 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): 1.3 years.

Finished-water storage: Tanks: North Avenue, 1.5 million gal; Tarhua, 3.0 

million gal; Nichols Tank, 0.2 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily wr.ter used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

123
124 CONNECTICUT

Analytical data Bridgeport

Type of water: R, raw; F,

Easton 

Reservoir

21 6-1-32

R

Easton 

treatment 

plant

21

e 1 e go

F

Hemlocks 

Reservoir

51 6-1-62

R

Hemlocks 

treatment 

plant

51 6-1-32

F

Trap Falls 

Reservoir

26 6-1-32

R

Trap Falls 

treatment 

plant

26 5-15-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SlOi).... .... .

Iron (Fe). __ ____ .....

Calcium (Ca) ___ ___

Bicarbonate (HCO3) ._-----

Carbonate (CO8 )- _ ---------

Sulfate (SO4)- - 

Chloride (Cl)_ ... ....

Fluoride (F)-. ... ..........

Nitrate (NOs)- 

Phosphate (PO4) - _____

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180° C).. ...... ..........

Noncarbonate hardness as 

CaCOs - 

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) .,...- _.-

pH__ ......................

6.5

.09

.01

1.1

3.6

1.2

11

0

13

5.9

.1

51

22

13

73

6.6

9

1

50

.02

11

.7

3 7

1.3

14

0

14

9.0

.1

.7

.06

60

31

19

86

6.7

5

2

55

4.0

.06

.01

.1

6.4

1.6

3.6

1.0

16

0

13

5.5

.1

.4

.01

47

27

14

78

6.9

6

.2

57

5.0

.07

.01

10

1.4

3.6

1.0

18

0

13

8.0

.1

57

31

16

88

7.2

3

60

7.7

i. 12

7.3

1.6

3.8

1.0

12

0

14

6.4

.1

1.0

57

25

15

79

6.6

12

2

62

7.7

1.19

1.02

0.1

10

1.5

4.1

1.0

10

0

16

11

.1

1.2

.40

68

31

23

91

6.7

6

2

56

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in mJcrograms per liter; <, less than]

14 

<.l 

<.l

14 

<.l 

<-l

22 

< ! 

< !

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fouid]

Silver (Ag). ..................

Boron (B). ...................

Barium (Ba) --------- _ -

Cobalt-(Co)- 

Lithium (Li)...- .... ... ..

Nickel (Ni) --. ..... ... .

Lead (Pb) .. .........

Rubidium (Rb)_ .

Tin (Sn) ...................

0.10 

38 

16 

21 

ND 

ND 

<.08 

50 

79 

.48 

23 

.27 

1.4 

ND 

3.8 

2.9 

ND 

27 

.6 

ND 

ND

0.19 

34 

8.7 

23 

ND 

ND 

.08 

60 

94 

.47 

21 

ND 

1.3 

170 

6.1 

2.5 

ND 

39 

1.7 

<2.0 

ND

<0.06 

30 

7.1 

12 

ND 

ND 

<.06 

20 

38 

.22 

16 

ND 

<-6 

89 

2.2 

.9 

ND 

3.8 

.3 

ND 

ND

i In solution when collected.
BRIDGEPORT 125

SMILES

EXPLANATION

Area served by Bridgeport 

Hydraulic Co.

Bridgeport city boundary 

Conduit

Treatment plants 

3, Hemlocks 

b, Trap Falls 

C, Shelton 

d, Huntington 

6, Easton

Tunnel Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 22. Water supplies and areas served by Bridgeport, Conn., Hydraulic Co. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, April 1963.) List of areas served: 1, Westport; 2, 

Fairfield; 3, Easton; 4, Monroe; 5, Trumbull; 6, Shelton; 7, Stratford. List of reservoirs: 

A, Shelton; B, Easton; C, Trap Falls; D, Hemlocks; E, Saugatuck; F, Aspetuck; G, Means 

Brook; H, Far Mill River.
126 CONNECTICUT

HARTFORD

(See fig. 23.)

Ownership: Metropolitan District of Hartford County.

Other areas served: (Member towns) Newington, Bloomfield, East Hartford,

Rocky Hill, Wethersfield, Windsor, and (nonmember towns) Glastonbury and

West Hartford.

Population served: Hartford, 162,178; total, 355,000. 

Sources and percentages of supply: East Branch Farmington River impounded in

Barkhamsted Reservoir; Nepaug River impounded in Nepaug Reservoir; Cold

Brook Reservoir.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: West Hartford Systems (series of small reservoirs) used when reservoirs are overflowing and when needed to supplement

regular system. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 42.5 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

West Hartford filter plant: Aeration, slow sand filtration, chlorination,

fluoridation, and corrosion control.

Cold Brook plant: Chlorination, corrosion control, and fluoridation. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: West Hartford filter plant, 55 mgd; Cold

Brook plant, 1.5 mgd. 

Raw-water storage, in million gallons: Barkhamsted Reservoir, 31,700; Nepaug

Reservoir, 9,700; West Hartford Reservoir, 1,300. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 2.8 years.

Finished-water storage: 15.8 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at West Hartford filter plant, 1961:

Alkalinity 

as CaCOa 

(ppm)

Avg

11

Max

12

Min

Q

PH

Avg

6.8 

7.2

Max

6.Q 

7.5

Min

6.7 

7.0

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

20

Max

23

Min

16

Turbidity

Avg

1.7

.7

Max

2.4 

.9

Min

1.2

.5
HARTFORD 127

^Proposed Cole Brook Flood Control Reservoir 

with provisions for water supply

EXPLANATION

Area served by Metropolitan 

District of Hartford County

Hartford city bounc iry

Water conduits

Series of reservoirs at West 

Hartford filter plant

S 

Water analysis sampling site

5 MILES

FIGURE 23. Water supplies and areas served by Metropolitan District of Hartford County, 

Conn., water system. (Approved by local municipal water officials, March 1963.) List 

of areas: 1, Bloomfield; 2, Windsor; 3, West Hartford; 4, East Hartford; 5, Newington; 6, 

Wethersfield; 7, Glastonbury; 8, Rocky Hill. List of reservoirs: A, Barkhamsted; B, 

compensating; C, Nepaug; D, Cold Brook; E, West Branch.
128 CONNECTICUT

Analytical data Hartford

Percent of supply _____

Date of collection _ _ _ _ __

Type of water: F, finished _ _ _ _

West Hartford filter plant

97 

4-16-62 . 

F

0) F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2)__ _ _ _ _ _ _

Iron 2 (Fe)___ _ __ _ _ _

Manganese 2 (Mn) _ __

Calcium (Ca) _____ __ _____

Magnesium (Mg)__ _ _ _

Sodium (Na) _ _ _ __

Potassium (K) ____ _____

Bicarbonate (HCO3) _ ..__ __

Carbonate (COs) ______

Sulfate (SO4) __ __ _ __ ___ __

Chloride (Cl)_ __ ________ ____ _______

Fluoride (F)_ _ __ _ _ _ _

Nitrate (NO3)-_ ______

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C)_ 

pH___________________________________

Color _____ _ _ _ __

Turbidity. __ __ ____

Temperature __ _ __ °F_

5.6

.05

.00

8. 0

1.8

2.8

. 6

18

0

11

3.9

1. 0

. 1

46

28

13

75 

7.0

3

3

44

4. 6

. 00

8.2

1.3

1 K fi [ 5. b

22

8.4

5.2

1.0

. 2

20

57 

7.2

5

1

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

14 

< 1 

< 1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)______ __ __________ __ _ _ ___

Boron (B)_. _____ _ _ _

Cobalt (Co) __ _______ _ ____ ___ _____

Copper (Cu) _ _ _ _ _ _

Iron (Fe) _______ _____ _

Lithium (Li) ______

Nickel (Ni)____________________________

Lead (Pb) ____________________ _ ______

Tin (Sn)____ _______ _ __ _____ _____

Titanium (Ti) _ __ _ __ _ _ _

Zinc (Zn)__ _ _ __ _ _ __ ___ _

0.29 

20 

56 

17 

ND 

ND 

<. 06 

7.2 

34 

.21 

1.9 

ND 

1.0 

230 

1. 7 

. 7 

ND 

13 

.8 

ND 

ND

1 Analyses by Metropolitan District, of sample composited for several months during 1961.

2 In solution when collected.
CONNECTICUT 129

NEW HAVEN

(See fig. 24.)

Ownership: New Haven Water Co.

Other areas served: Bethany, Branford, Cheshire, East Haven, Hamden, North 

Branford, North Haven, Orange, West Haven, and Woodbridge; the company 

sells water to Milford City.

Population served: New Haven, 152,048; total, 320,000.

Sources and percentages of supply. Lake Gaillard, 41 percent; Lake Whitney, 

13 percent; Lake Saltonstall, 12 percent; Lakes Dawson, Glen, Chamberlain, 

and Watrous (Woodbridge System), 12 percent; Lake Wintergreer, 9 percent; Lake Bethany, 4 percent; Beaver Brook Lake, 4 percent; and Maltby 

Lakes, 2 percent.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Hammonassett Lake, Branford Lake, 

Cheshire and Mount Carmel well fields.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 44 mgd (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment:

Whitney filter plant: Slow sand filtration and chlorination.

All other sources: Chlorination; Calgon added at times to some supplies.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Whitney filter plant, 12 mgd.

Raw-water storage, in million gallons: Lake Whitney, 258; Lake Wintergreen, 

100; Prospect Lake, 26; Lake Gaillard and Menunkatuc, 15,845; Maltby 

Lakes, 276; Woodbridge System (Lakes Dawson, Glen, Chamberlain, Watrous, 

and Bethany), 2,790; Lake Saltonstall, 1,600; Beaver Brook Reservoir, 18; and 

Hammonassett Reservoir, 1,400.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): 1.2 years.

Finished-water storage: 16.7 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily wf ter used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.
130 CONNECTICUT

Analytical data New Haven

Percent of supply _ 

Date of collection _ . 

Type of water:

Whitney 

filter 

plant

13 6-14-62

F

Lake 

Qaillard

41 6-14-62

F

Lake Saltonstall

12 

5-14-62

F

Woodbridge

system

12 6-14-62

F

Lake Wintergreen

9 5-14-62

F

Lake 

Bethany

4 5-14-62

F

Beaver 

Brook 

Lake

4 5-14-62

F

Maltby 

Lakes

2 5-14-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj). _ .

Ironi (Fe) ______

Manganese 1 (Mn) _ 

Calcium (Ca).-_- _

Magnesium (Mg)__. 

Sodium (Na)---- __

Potassium (K)_. ....

Bicarbonate (HC Os) . 

Carbonate (CO3). _

Chloride (Cl)....... _

Fluoride (F).........

Nitrate (NO3) -

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) . 

Hardness as CaCOs, 

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs .....

Specific conductance 

(micromhos at 

250C). .... ...

pH__... ...... ____ _

Color..... __ .......

Turbidity.... _ ...-

7.0

.08

.01 

23

2.8 

5.9

.6

60 

0 

ia

9.5

.1

3.4

107 

69

20

174

7.0

2

1

58

4.4

ns

.00 

8.0

2.6 

3.0

.6

20 

0 

13

5.3

.1

.8

56 

31

14

85

6.8

3

1

55

3.2

.08

.03 

21

6.4 

6.4

1.0

70 

0 

21

10

.0

1.1

112 

79

22

188

7.5

2

2

5.9

.23

.03 

7.2

1.4 

3.7

.7

11 

0 

13

7.2

.1

.8

58 

24

15

76

6.3

6

1

55

4.4

.11

.04 

6.2

1.6 

2.7

.4

5 

0 

18

3.4

.1

.3

51 

22

18

68

6.0

5

1

55

7.0

.10

.01 

6.2

1.6 

3.4

.6

7 

0 

13

7.3

.1

.5

54 

22

17

73

6.2

8

2

54

4.8

.07

.01 

18

5.8 

11

2.4

28 

0 

34

23

.1

6.4

133

69

46

209

6.7

2

2

59

5.4

.13

.00 

13

2.1 

5.3

.6

28 

0 

18

8.5

.1

1.5

78 

41

18

123

6.9

6

1

59

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Uranium (U) . ...

5.8

<.l

.2

9 A

<-l

.2

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag). __ .....

Aluminum ( Al) . . _

Barium (Ba). .......

Cobalt (Co). __ ....

Chromium (Cr). ....

Lithium (Li)........

Nickel (Ni).._. ...

Lead (Pb).. ... ...

Rubidium (Rb)_..._

Tin (Sn) ............

Strontium (Sr). .....

<0. 14

21

73

51

ND

ND

.70

40

26

.28

1 9

ND

1.9

ND

1.9

ND

ND

43

.5

<4.1

ND

0.30

9.5

28

12

ND

ND

<.06

14

98

.10

16

ND

.7

ND

1.5

<.6

ND

8.2

.6

ND

ND

1 In solution when collected.
NEW HAVEN 131

d Cheshire well field

EXPLANATION

Area served by New Haven 

Water Company

New Haven city boundary

Tunnel 

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 24. Water supplies and areas served by New Haven, Conn., Water Co. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, April 1963.) List of areas served: 1, Cheshire; 2, 

Bethany; 3, Hamden; 4, North Haven; 5, North Branford; 6, Woodbridge; 7, Orange; 

8, West Haven; 9, East Haven; 10. Branford; 11, Milford. List of lakes: A, Lake 

Gaillard; B, Lake Whitney; C, Lake Saltonstall; D, Lake Dawson: E. Lake Glen; F, 

Lake Chamberlain; G, Lake Watrous; H, Lake Wintergreen; J, Beaver Brook Lake; 

K, Maltby Lakes; L, Hammonassett Reservoir; M, Prospect Lake; N, Lake Bethany.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON, B.C.

(See fig. 25.)

Ownership: Department of the Army and the District of Columbia. The water 

system of the District has two components: the supply division and the distribution system. The supply division comprises the collection and purification 

systems; it is under the control of the Department of the Army and is operated 

by the Washington District Office of the Corps of Engineers. The distribution 

system is owned and operated by the District of Columbia.

Other areas served: Arlington County, Va.; part of Fairfax County, Va.; the

city of Falls Church, Va. Arlington County, Falls Church, and areas in

Fairfax County are served principally with water from the Dalecarlb. Plant.

Population served: Washington, D.C., 763,956; total, about 1,100,000.

Source of supply: Potomac River. The diversion dam and the raw water intake

are at Great Falls, Montgomery County, Md., about 10 miles from the District

line. The raw water flows by gravity through two conducts into Dalecarlia

Reservoir. This reservoir serves not only as a storage reservoir but also as a

sedimentation basin, from which the water flows by gravity to the treatment

plants.

Emergency supplies: 9.2 mgd of treated water available from Washington Suburban Sanitary District of Maryland. 

Lowest mean discharge: Potomac River at Point of Rocks, Md., for 30-day

period in climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 743 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 167 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Dalecarlia filter plant: Prechlorination, coagulation with alum, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, postchlorination or dechlorination as necessary, 

chlorine dioxide when necessary for control of tastes and odors, and lime 

for adjustment of pH.

McMillan filter plant: Water from the Dalecarlia treatment plant flows by 

gravity to Georgetown Reservoir, part of which serves as a sedimentation 

basin. Water then flows by gravity to the McMillan Reservoir, where 

further settling takes place. Water also receives slow sand fiHration, 

chlorination, chlorine dioxide as required, continuous adjustment of pH 

with lime, and fluoridation with sodium silicofluoride. An average fluoride 

content of 1.1 ppm is maintained in the finished water in the distribution 

system. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Dalecarlia filter plant, 104 mgd; McMillan

filter plant, 125 mgd.

Raw-water storage: 560 million gal (30 percent available). The three reservoirs, 

Dalecarlia, Georgetown, and McMillan, serve as storage reservoirs for unfiltered 

water.

133
134 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 3.4. 

Finished-water storage: Clear water basins, 79 million gal; ground-surface

reservoirs, 102 million gal; elevated tanks, 2.74 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 1.1.

Regular determinations at filter plants, 1960:

Dalecarlia:

McMillan: Finished

Alkalinity as 

CaCOs (ppm)

Avg

69

68

65

Max

104 

98

99

Min

42 

44

41

PH

Avg

8.1 

7.9

8.0

Max

8.4 

8.1

8.1

Min

7.8 

7.7

7.8

Hardness as 

CaCOs (ppm)

Avg

101 

117

110

Max

136 

150

143

Min

74 

93

84

Turbidity

Avg

49 

.0

0.0

Max

600 

2.5

0.1

Min

6 

0
WASHINGTON, B.C. 135

Areas served by water supplied from 

District of Columbia water system

District of Columbia city boundary

Aqueducts

Reservoir

A , Dalecarlia at Dalecarlia filter plant 

B , McMillan at Me Millan filter plant 

C , Georgetown

S

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 25. Water supplies and areas served by District of Columbia water system. 

(Approved by local municipal water officials, June 1963.) List of areas served: 

1, Arlington County; 2, Falls Church; 3, Fairfax County.

785-717
136 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Analytical data Washington, D.C.

Potomac River

100 8-25-61

R

Dalecarlia 

filter plant

45 8-25-61

F

McMillan 

filter plant

55 8-25-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO8) 

Iron (Fe) _________________ 

Sodium (Na) ___ .... ... _ .... 

Carbonate (CO3). ___ - ___ . ___

Sulfate(SO4) _ ... . .. . 

Chloride (Cl) . _ 

Fluoride (F)... ...... _ .... ___ .... _ ..

Nitrate (NOs) - _____ ......-..-.. .-_..

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) .. ___

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs __ - __ .

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C). 

pH-___-.___-_._--._..-_ __ ..-._. ......

5.7

.00

.00

.0

35

7.9

7.4

1.9

107

0

35

10

.1

1.1

.15

172

120

33

279 

7.0

5

80

4.8

.00

.00

.1

40

8.8

8.2

1.9

106

0

45

15

.9

1.2

.08

198

137

50

313 

7.9

2

78

3.8

.00

.00

.0

38

9.5

10

2.0

96

0

50

18

1.0

1.0

.16

204

134

56

324

8.2

2

78

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than, 

mum beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

MaxiMaximum beta activity, raw water, July 1,

Radium (Ra) __ .... ____ ... ___ . _____

Uranium (U). _____ .... ___ . ___ ..

29

4.2

.2 

<-l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag). ____ . ___ _. ___ . _ . __

Barium (Ba) __ _. ______________

Beryllium (Be). ____ . ______ . ______

Cobalt (Co) ___ . _____ ..... _ . _ ...

Chromium (Cr) ____________________________

Iron (Fe) ___________________

Lithium (Li) . _ _ 

Molybdenum (Mo). _____________

Nickel (Ni)_ 

Phosphorus (P) ________ _____________

Lead(Pb) __ . _ _ ___ ........ ___ . _

Rubidium (Rb). .._..............._..._....

Tin(Sn).... _____ . _ ..... _ ._...._...

Strontium (Sr) _____________________________

Titanium (Ti).._.____.___.___._____________

Vanadium (V) ________________

Zinc(Zn)____._._.._.._....._......._....._.

<0.25 

200 

20 

85 

ND 

ND 

4.0 

4.0 

280 

1.8 

100 

1.8 

7.8 

ND 

4.8 

<2. 5 

ND 

190 

5.2 

<7.5 

ND

<0.28 

300 

22 

86 

ND 

ND 

6.6 

3.3 

83 

1.8 

20 

2.2 

8.3 

ND 

5.8 

<2.8 

ND 

210 

3.0 

<8.3 

ND

<0.27 

160 

15 

82 

ND 

ND 

.49 

36 

30 

1.7 

3.3 

2.3 

8.5 

ND 

5.2 

<2.7 

ND 

210 

<2.7 

<8.2 

ND
FLORIDA

Jacksonville St. Petersburg 

Miami Tampa

JACKSONVILLE

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Jacksonville, 201,030; about 45,000 outside the cit;1 limits;

total, about 247,000. 

Source of supply: Forty-eight artesian wells ranging in depth from 1,000 to 1,300

feet. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 36.7 m-jd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Aeration and chlorination at each pumping station. 

Finished-water storage: Ground reservoirs, 19 million gal; two elevated tanks,

each containing 1 million gal; three elevated tanks, each containing 0.5 million

gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

137
138 FLORIDA

Analytical data Jacksonville

Percent of supply _ ________ _____

Depth of well (feet), ______ _ _ _ _

Diameter of well (inches) _ ____ __ __ ___

Date drilled.. ____ _____ _ __ __ _ _

Date of collection _ _ _ ___ __ ___ ___

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished. _ ___

Well?

100

1,250

10

1907

8-29-61

R

C.ilorination plant

100

8-9-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (Si02) ______ _ _ ___________ _____

Iron (Fe)_________.____ _____ ____ _ __

Calcium (Ca) __________ _______ _ _ _ _

Magnesium (Mg)___ __ _ _ _ _ _ ____

Sodium (Na)__ _____ ______ _ ___ _

Potassium (K) __ ___________

Bicarbonate (HCOa)_-_ ________ _____

Carbonate (C03) _ _ _____ ___

Sulfate (S04)------------ ----_-----___-

Chloride <Cl)-_ ___ _ ._ _________

Fluoride (F) _ _ _ _ _ ______ __ __. _

Nitrate (N03) __ __ _____ _ ___ _

Dissolved solids (residue at 180°C)_ ___ _

Hardness as CaCOs-- _ _ __ ______

Noncarbonate hardness as CaC03 _____ ___

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25°C)_ 

pH______. _________________ _ ____ ___

Color________________ _____ ___ __

Temperature. _ _ _._ ______ _ __ °F__

26

. 15

60

22

14

1.6

187

0

87

17

. 7

. 0

373

240

87

504 

7.9

5

25

.03

65

23

14

1.8

179

0

112

18

.8

.2

410

256

110

535

7.9

5

77

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity____ __ ______ ___

Radium (Ra) ________ __

Uranium (U)___ _______ ______

4. 7

.3

< 1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not founi]

Silver (Ag)_____ ___ ____ _ ____ _ _ _

Aluminum (Al) _ ________ _____ ___ _

Boron (B)____ _ __ _ _____ _ ____ __

Barium (Ba)_ ___ _______ __

Beryllium (Be) _________

Cobalt (Co)____ ________________________

Chromium (Cr) _ _ _ _____ _____ _ _

Copper (Cu) ____ _______ __

Iron (Fe) _ _ _____ _

Lithium (Li) _______ ____ _ _ __ _

Manganese (Mn) __ _ _ Molybdenum (Mo) _ ____ ______

Nickel (Ni)____________ ____ _____ _ _

Phosphorus CP) __ _ _ ___

Lead (Pb) ____________ ____ _ _

Rubidium (Rb) _ __

Tin (Sn)__ ________

Strontium (Sr)

Titanium (Ti) _______ ___

Vanadium (V)_____.__ _ _ _

Zinc (Zn)__ _ _______ ___

ND

11

34

15

ND

ND

. 71

.85

320

1. 1

ND

ND

<4. 7

ND

ND

ND

ND

400

ND

ND

<470

<0. 49

18

36

30

ND

ND

. 74

30

98

2.0

<4. 9

ND

ND

ND

<4. 9

ND

ND

840

ND

ND

ND
FLORIDA 139

MIAMI

(See fig. 26.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: El Portal, Miami Shores, Hialeah, Miami Springs, West 

Miami, Miami Beach, Surfside, Bal Harbour, Bay Harbor Island's, North 

Bay, Coral Gables, South Miami, Key Biscayne, Virginia Key, Fisher Island, 

Indian Creek, South Westside, North Bay Island, and Miami airport.

Population served: Miami, 291,688; total, about 550,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Forty percent of the supply is from two well 

fields near the Hialeah treatment plant: the two well fields contain twentythree 12- or 14-inch wells averaging about 90 feet deep. Sixty percent of the 

supply is from 17 wells at the Alexander Orr, Jr., treatment plant.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Seven wells equipped with diesel engines and 

standby diesel driven pumps are available for high pressure service

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 102 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment:

Hialeah treatment plant: Softening with lime and sodium silicite, sedimentation, iron and color removal, recarbonation, chlorination, fluoridation, andi rapid sand filtration.

Orr treatment plant: Softening with lime, iron and color removal, recarbonation, chlorination, and rapid sand filtration.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Hialeah treatment plant, 60 mgd; Orr 

treatment plant, 85 mgd.

Raw-water storage: None.

Finished-water storage: Clear wells, 12 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Average regular determinations at treatment plants, 1960-61:

HiaJeah:

Finished water. ______

Orr:

Finished water,,.. ...

Alkalinity

as CaCOs

(ppm)

Avg

225

36

207

31

Max

228

60

212

45

Min

220

30

200

24

pH

Avg

7.3

9.0

7.3

8.8

Max

7 ^

9.9

9. 2

Min

7 ^

8.0

8.5

Hardness

as CaCOs

(ppm)

Avg

944

75

227

51

Max

250

85

232

66

Min

240

75

222

44

Turbidity

Avg

0

0

0

0

Max

0

0

0

0

Min

0

0

0

0
140 FLORIDA

Analytical data Miami

Percent of supply ........

Type of water: K, raw; 

F, finished.--- ___ .-

Hialeah well fields

40 8-23-61

R

« 

E

Hialeah treatment 

plant

40 

(0

F

8-23-61 

F

Orr well field

60 8-23-61

E

0) 

E

Orr treatment 

plant

60

(0

F

8-23-61 

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SlOj).._ .... 

Sodium (Na)..-- __ -..

Potassium (K)-- ____ 

Bicarbonate ( HC Os) - - - -

Sulfate (800. -

Chloride (Cl)__..-_ .....

Fluoride (F)_.._.-._ ..

Nitrate (NO3)- 

Dissolved solids (residue 

at 180°C)__. ___________

Hardness as CaCO3 _----

Noncarbonate hardness

Specific conductance

pH...... ................

Color... _____ - _ -.-

Turbidity. ___ . ___

9.5

.33

88

5.0

22

1.6

272

0

16

30

.3

.1

333

240

17

530

7 S

45

8.5

1.7

85

7.3

}

OO 22

275

25

31

.2

.5

340

244

7.3

44

9 0

.00

22

4.8

f>O

32

4

26

42

1.0

.3

185

75

1Q

9.0

8

0

4.3

00

82

1.8

f 7.8

I .4 

248

0

15

12

.1

.6

263

212

9

444

7.7

5

.80 &"

2.0

; 1 1212

256

0

2'':

15

.1

.3

290

7.3

6

7.0

.05

20

2.0

13

45

1

24

16

1.0

.3

110

8.7

5

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter]

Eadium (Ra) ............

Uranium (U)._. _ . _ ..

2.7 

.1

.2

5.2 

.1 

.2

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; X, semi quantitative determination in digit order shown; ND

looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag). .............

Boron (B) _ . ___ ....

Cobalt (Co)_-... _ . ....

Iron (Fe)-_ ____ ....

Lithium (Li)............

Nickel (Ni)_._... ........

Lead (Pb)...............

Rubidium (Rb) ... 

Tin (Sn). ...............

Titanium (T{)

Vanadium'(V)- .........

Zinc (Zn)...... ..........

<0.50

12

71

21

ND

ND

ND

2.2

230

.50

35

9 S

ND

ND

31

ND

ND

<5.0

ND

ND

ND

13

49

13

ND

ND

ND

1.5

29

.70

25

1.4

59

ND

ND

<2.0

ND

250

ND

70

ND

ND

6.9

8.5

5.7

ND

ND

ND

1.4

450

<C4 1

ND

ND

4.1

ND

ND

280

ND

ND

ND

ND

<0.1<

110

49

17

ND

ND

6.6

1.6

13

.3

<^1 4

<4.3

1.4

ND

2.3

ND

ND

160

ND

ND

X

 Average analyses by the city of Miami for 1960-61.
MIAMI 141

EXPLANATION

Areas served by the 

Miami water system

Miami city boundary oa

Hialeah well fields and 

treatment plants

ob

Orr well fields and 

treatment plants

Water analysis sampling 

site

MILES

FIGURE 26. Water supplies and areas served by Miami, Fla., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, May 1963.) Areas served by the Miami water 

system: 1, Coral Gables; 2, South Miami; 3, West Miami; 4,South Westside; 5,Ahrport; 

6, Miami Springs; 7, Hialeah; S.Miami Shores; 9,El Portal; 10, Key Biscayne; ll.Virginia Ke.y; 12,Fisher Island; 13, Miami Beach; 14, North Bay Island; 15,Surfside; 16, 

Bal Harbour; 17, Indian Creek; 18, Bay Harbor Islands.
142 FLORIDA

ST. PETERSBURG

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Gulfport, Pinellas Park, Oldsmar, and Bay Pines Hospital.

Population served: St. Petersburg, 225,000; total, about 250,000 (estimated, 

1-961).

Source of supply: Twenty-three wells ranging in depth from 300 to 417 feet near 

Cosme in northwestern part of Hillsborough County. Ten new wells are now 

being developed.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 18.1 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Cosme treatment plant softening with lime, coagulation with suspension catalyzer, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, and chlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Cosme treatment plant, 23 mgd.

Finished-water storage: 17.5 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.0.

Regular determinations at Cosme treatment plant:

Finished water. ___ .

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

190

90

Max

200 

100

Min

180

88

PH

Avg

7.3 

7. 7

Max

7.8

Min

7.5

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

195 

92

Max

200 

95

Min

190 

90

Turbidity

Avg

7

Max

16

Min

5
ST. PETERSBURG 

Analytical data St. Petersburg

143

Cosme 

well field

100 8-21-61 

K

Treatmeit plant

100 

8-21-fil 

F

9-11-61 

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO.) . ......... ....................................................

Iroi-(Fe). _ ______-____.-_ -- _ __- 

Sodium (Na). ___________________________________

Potassium (K)__ _ . __ . ____________ . ______________

Carbonate (CDs).. ________________________________

Sulfate(S04) .......... _ _.______.___________.__._____ __ -.__ _.-

Chloride (Cl)....... ...................... ................................

Fluoride (F).-................................... .........................

Nitrate (NOs)-.... . . ......... .. ............... .........

Dissolved solids (residue at 180°C) _____________________

pH.......................................................................

Color............ .. _ ............... _ . _ . ___ .... _____ .. .......

14 

.01

70 

3.3 

6.1

.7

232 

0

.8

10 

.1

.7

229 

188 

0

382 

7.6

10

IS 

.12 

33 

3.3 

6.2 

.6 

106 

0 

3.2 

16 

.2 

.4 

152 

96 

9

219

7.5 

5

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter]

Uranium (U). .............

9.9

.4

.1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)__ ...... __ .... _ . ..... _________ . _ . ___ . ........

Boron (B)__ __ . . _ . _ . __ ...... _ . ______ . _ . _ . __ ....

Barium (Ba) ... _______ .. . ....................

Beryllium (Be) __ .......... ___ ... . . _ ... . _ .. __ . _ .....

Cobalt (Co)..-..........................................................

Chromium (Cr) . ______________________________ ....

Copper (Cu) _ _________________________________

Iron(Fe).. ___ . ___ .... _ . ___ ... .. ___ .... .........

Lithium (Li)...... .. . .. ......

Manganese (Mnj _____ _________ ..

Molybdenum (Mo) ____________ __ ___________

Nickel (Ni)....................--...................._....................

Phosphorus (P) .- __ . . .... _ ......

Lead (Pb). ...................... .... . __.____.__..._ 

Kubidium (Kb) ........................... ...... ....................

Tin (Sn)__. ____________ _

Strontium (Sr) ___ ______ . . ________ .....

Titanium (Ti)_________________. ___________________ ________________......

Vanadium (V). ..______.. . . ........

Zinc (Zn). ................... _ ... . ............ _ ....

ND

13

13

14

ND

ND

<.36

.8

79

.7

<3.6

ND

<3.6

ND

ND

ND

ND

97

ND

ND

ND

<0.21

130

56

13

ND

ND

ND

.73

56

1.0

6.6

ND

ND

ND

ND

<2.1

ND

68

ND

ND

ND

ND

73

75

5.1

ND

ND

.26

.7.

77

1.4

3.0

ND

ND

ND

<2. 0

ND

ND

73

ND

ND

ND
144 FLORIDA

TAMPA

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: About 290,000 including a suburban population of 10,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Hillsborough River, 97 percent; a few wells, 

3 percent. Water from the wells is used only when the flow o* the river is not 

sufficient to supply the demand. A new well field will be pu* into use in the 

future, and the present small well field will be abandoned.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Sulfur Springs (20 mgd) and a new well field 

14 miles east of the city (about 50 mgd), when completed.

Lowest mean discharge: Hillsborough River near Tampa, Fla., for 30-day period 

in climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-60: 8.0 mgd.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 29.6 mgd (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Tampa water works treatment varies from season to season compensating for additional color in times of heavy rains and for increases in 

hardness. Basic treatment is coagulation with alum; addition of lime, chlorine, 

and carbon; and rapid sand filtration.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Tampa waterworks plant, 60 mgd.

Raw-water storage: Lake at 30th Street, 2,500 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average dail;T water used, in 

mgd): 84.

Finished-water storage: Underground storage, 15 million gal; elevated tanks, 

9.6 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Remarks: Tampa has completed a 2 million dollar expansion program that is 

expected to make sufficient water available to the city until at least 1980. 

Filter capacity has been increased by 25 mgd. A new and mere efficient washing system for the filters has been initiated.

For future supplies that is, beyond 1980 Tampa is looking hopefully to the 

Green Swamp area, east of the city, which is currently being studied.

Regular determinations at Tampa water works, 1961:

Raw water ................

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

105 

72

Max

125 

84

Min

83 

57

pH

Avg

7.7 

8.4

Max

8.2 

8.7

Min

7.1 

8.1

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

i.ppm)

Avg

125 

115

Max

148 

148

Min

93 

94

Turbidity

Avg

0.23

Max

0.50

Min

0.10
TAMPA

Analytical data Tampa

145

Percent of supply

Date of collection _ _

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished

Hillsborough 

Elver

97

1-12-62

R

Tampa water 

vorks

97 1-12-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (Si02)___. ________ ____________________________

Iron (Fe)________________________ ___________ _ .__

Manganese (Mn) _____ ___ ___ _____

Calcium (Ca)

Sodium (Na)

Potassium (K) _ _ _ _

Bicarbonate (HCO3)___ __ ___ ______ __ ______

Carbonate (CO3 )__ _________________________________

Sulfate (SO4 )____ ___________________________________

Chloride (Cl) ______________ ___________________

Fluoride (F) _______________________________________

Nitrate (NO3)______ ________________________________

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCO3

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) _ _

pH

Color

7.8

.03

.00

55

5.6

8.0

1. 5

150

0

28

16

. 2

1. 0

214

160

37

339

8. 1

25

6. 5

. 01

.00

51

5. 1

8. 2

1. 7

98

4

48

18

.2

1.4

212

148

11

326

8.4

2

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity

Uranium (U) _

6.3

< 1

. 4

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)_____ ____________________________________

Aluminum (Al)

Boron (B)__ _____

Barium (Ba)

Beryllium (Be) _ __

Cobalt (Co) _ __ _ _____

Chromium (Cr)

Iron (Fe)_________________ _________________________

Lithium (Li) _ _

Molybdenum (Mo) _ _ ____ __

Nickel (Ni)_______. ___________ ____________________

Phosphorus (P) ____ _______ ______ ___

Lead (Pb) _________________________________________

Rubidium (Rb) __ ________ ____________________ _ _

Tin (Sn) __ __ _____

Strontium (Sr) _ _ _ ____ ____

Titanium (Ti) ________________ _______________ __.

Vanadium (V) __ _____ ______ _____ __

Zinc (Zn) _ _______________________________ _______

0. 55

730

29

14

ND

ND

5.7

4.4

170

<. 26

2. 9

6.2

7.0

ND

3. 9

ND

ND

240

3.6

10

ND

GEORGIA

Atlanta Savannah

ATLANTA

(See fig. 27.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Forest Park, Fairburn, Hapeville, Union City, and other areas

of Fulton County.

Population served: Atlanta, 487,455; total, 600,000. 

Source of supply: Chattahoochee River. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 68.2 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Hemphill filter plant: Coagulation with alum, chlorination, ammoniation, 

treatment with activated carbon, sedimentation, adjustment of pH with 

lime, and rapid sand filtration. 

Chattahoochee River plant: Same as Hemphill plant, except prechlorination

and postchlorination also are used.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Hemphill filter plant, 72.5 mgd. Chattahoochee River plant, 20 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: 500 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 7.3.

Finished-water storage: 30.5 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Hemphill filter plant, 1956-60:

Kaw water__. ___ ...

Finished water .

Alkalinity 

as CaCOa 

(ppm)

Avg

14 

16

Max

16 

22

Min

10 

14

pH

Avg

7.0

8.7

Max

7.3

Min

6.6

Hardness 

as CaCOa 

(ppm)

Avg

14 

22

Max

16 

25

Min

10 

20

Turbidity

Avg

27 

.1

Max

200 

.1

Min

5 

.0

14.7
148 GEORGIA

Analytical data Atlanta

Percent of supply. ______ __

Chattahoochee 

River 1

100 8-31-61

Hemphill 

filter 

plant i

100

8-31-61

Chattahoochee 

River '

R

Hemphill 

filter 

plant i

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2) --- __ 

Iron (Fe) 

Calcium (Ca)_- _______

Magnesium (Mg). __ ......

Sodium (Na). ... 

Potassium (K). ..............

Bicarbonate (H C Os) _

Carbonate (COs),. --------

Sulfate (SO.). .

Chloride (Cl)... ..............

Fluoride (F)___ ________ _

Nitrate (NO3) ... ... ......

8.0

.07

2.8

1.2

2.3

1.0

15

0

.0

5.0

.1

.1

8.2

.00

8.0

.7

2.2

1.2

21

0

8.4

5.0

.2

.5

180° C)_ 

pH

31

12

0

42

6.6

10

64

44

23

6

69

6.9

5

71

Radiochemical analyses

[B eta actvvity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in microajams per liter; <, less than. Maximum beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962"

Beta activity. ......

water. July 1. 1961, to June 

30, 1962. ... .... ... ... .... 13

3.3 Radium (Ra).... . . <0.1

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; X, semiquantitative determination in di?it order shown; ND,

looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)_.._ ______________

Boron (B)..... ...............

Barium (Ba) .. .

Beryllium (Be) ______ .

Cobalt (Co)_ _ . _ -._.

Iron (Fe) ... ...

Lithium (Li).--...-. _

Nickel (Ni)....._________.____

<0.03

130

68

11

NDjS- Q

50

84

120

fift

27

ND

1.2

0.07

32

8.8

29

ND

ND QQ

3.1

12

< 04

9.2

ND

.7

Lead (Pb) 

Rubidium (Rb) 

Zinc (Zn)_ - 

Ytterbium (Yb) 

Yttrium (Y). ....... ... . -

ND

8.7

2.5

ND

2.4

9.6

ND

ND

.OX

.X

.X

.ox

ND

3.5

5.3

ND

18

.7

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Spectrographic concentrations based on nonaeidified residue on evaporation.
ATLANTA 149

20 MILES

EXPLANATION

Areas served by Atlanta 

water system

Chattahoochee water works intake and 

treatment plant

Ab 

Hemphill treatment plant

Atlanta city boundary Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE .27. Water supplies and areas served by Atlanta, Ga., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, June 1963.) Areas served by the Atlanta water 

system: 1, Forest Park; 2, Hapeville; 3, Union City; 4, Fairburn.
150 GEORGIA

SAVANNAH

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Garden City and Hunter Air Force Base during emergencies.

Population served: Savannah, 149,245; total, 170,000.

Sources of supply: Domestic supply obtained from 14 artesian wells ranging in

depth from 525 to 1,000 feet; most wells are 650-700 feet deep and yield from

700 to 3,500 gpm.

Abercorn Creek is the source for the Savannah industrial and domestic water

supply. This separate system supplies industries with softer water than is

available from the principal artesian aquifer. Smaller amounts are used by

Savannah during emergencies. 

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Interconnected with Savannah industrial

and domestic supply, but the connection is used only during emergencies. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 55 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Cherokee Hill treatment plant (Abercorn Creek): Coagulation with alum, 

sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, prechlorination, and postchlorination. 

Ground water is chlorinated at pumps.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Cherokee Hill treatment plant, 50 mgd. 

Finished-water storage: Industrial and domestic water system: Elevated storage,

10 million gal; reservoir, 4 million gal; clear well, 3 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Cherokee Hill treatment plant, 1961:

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

17 

25

Max

19 

28

Min

15 

21

pH

Avg

6.6 

8.2

Max

6.8 

8.3

Min

6.4 

8.1

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

18 

39

Max

20 

43

Min

16 

33

Turbidity

Avg

30 

1.3

Max

43 

2.5

Min

21 

.3
SAVANNAH 151

Analytical data Savannah

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Abercorn 

Creek i

100

8-30-61

E

Cherokes 

Hill 

treatment 

plant

100

8-30-61

F

Well 2

100

540 8-30-61

E

Si]ica(SiO»)_ - - - --- --..--. -.- __. _

Iron (Fe).. - . -- --- - - 

Calcium (Ca).._ .

Bicarbonate (HCO»)-- ----------- - ------------------------- -

Carbonate (COs)- ------------------------------------------------------

Sulfate (SO*)

Chloride (Cl). ...___.-_____-_-___-_ .......... ....................

Fluoride(F)..--. . ---.-- .-- _-------.- --. - - , -

NitratedSTO))..- . .-- .--..-......--_-.-. ...-.-.. ...-

pH.... ...................................................................

Color.. ---.-..-.--....-.-...-.-.....-,....-...................-...---.---.

Temperature...-.- _ -.......--... _ .. __ . _ ............. ___ .. 0F-.

10

.27

4.0

.9

3.5

1.0

18

0

5.2

4.5

.2

.7

53

14

0

45

6.6

115

9.4

.00

18

1.1

4.2

1.0

35

0

16

9.5

.2

.3

91

50

21

129

7.3

5

78

53

.02

28

8.3

9.0

1.7

133

0

7.2

6.0

.5

.0

184

104

0

236

8.0

5

73

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; urnaium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

6.0 

.1

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; X, semiquantitative determination in digit order shown; ND,

looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)._ ...................................... ..__. ..._....._.._.._

Boron (B)... _......-___....__ _ ........................... _____ _ .

Barium (Ba)...._.._.. .-.___--______.__.__-____.-___-_______-_____.__-____

Beryllium (Be)

Cobalt (Co)..---- --.___--. ____..---__-______---_---._-----

Copper (Cu) __ .... _ .................................. __ . __ - _ .

Lithium (Li). .-....-.-... ...... ...... ....................................

Nickel (Ni).. ..... ...... . . . . . ...

Lead(Pb). -_._.-._.___.-__--____.__._.___.__________.________-._-.

Rubidium (Eb)---_--. .-_---.....-_..__-__..._.__.__.__._--..---._--.

Tin (Sn)

Strontium (Sr) _ . _ . ____ . __ . _ _ ....... . _ .._.. ...........

Titanium (Ti).. .......................................................

Vanadium (V)...-. .-. .-.--.....----._---..._.----......_...-_...-.

Zine(Zn). ... ..................... ..... ....... ..... ................

Ytterbium (Yb)._ .... . ..

Yttrium (Y)..... ....... ..... . . . . .......

Zirconium (Zr)

<0.05

110

32

12

ND

ND

.69

24

140

.12

21

ND

.9

ND

12

1.6

ND

2.0

3.5

ND

ND

.OX

.X

.X

<0.11

160

16

42

ND

ND

1.3

2.5

50

.16

150

ND

1.1

ND

<1.1

3.4

ND

26

1.1

ND

ND

X

X

ND

<0.26

2.9

10

13

ND

ND

.31

1.8

15

1.4

<2.6

ND

ND

ND

<2.6

3.7

ND

39

ND

ND

<262

ND

ND

ND

1 Spectrographic concentrations based on nonacidifled residue on evaporation.

,735-717 O 64 11

HAWAII

Honolulu

HONOLULU

(See fig. 28.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Honolulu, 294,179; total, 405,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Three artesian-well pumping stations, 49

percent; three underground pumping stations, 47 percent; seven spring and

mountain tunnel systems, 4 percent. Emergency supply, two connect'ons with

the U.S. Navy water system. The three artesian-well groups include 25 wells

ranging in depth from 240 to 636 feet. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 62.5 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Six of the seven mountain sources are regularly chlorinated. The

artesian-well and underground pumping stations are equipped with chlorinators,

which are not regularly used. 

Finished-water storage: 32 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily wr.ter used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

153
154 HAWAII

Analytical data Honolulu

Date drilled...... .. __ ....-......--.....-..-- ---.-.-... ... _ - _ -

Kaimuki 

pumping 

station

13 

300 

12

1928 8-29-62 

R

Beretania 

pumping 

station

23 

600 

12 

1926 

8-29-62 

R

Kalihi underground 

station

21

1937 8-29-62 

R

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOi)-..- 

Lithium (Li)... . .... .... ... .... 

Calcium (Ca)__. _ - __ -------- _ ........ -. . .

Sodium (Na).,.. __ ... .. __ . _ ... _ ..... ..- ...... .

Bicarbonate (HOOj). .... ... ... .. 

Sulfate (SO4)...---- _ ---------------------- _ - _ 

Chloride (Cl) . ____ 

Fluoride(F) _ __ _ _ _ ._ _ - 

Nitrate(N03)--- - - 

Phosphate (POO _ .. _ --------------- _ ------- _ .. 

Dissolved solids (residue at 180°C) .. ____ -... ___ ______

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs ___________ . ______ . _ 

pH_ ....... .. -

39

.74

.00

.05

.00

5.9

6.6

64

2.9

81

0

14

76

.0

.7

.24

251

42

0

3SS

6.7

41

.03

.00

.00

.00

8.7

9.2

35

3.2

78

0

8.6

45

.1

.0

.08

184

60

0

289

7.0

42

.03

.00

.27

.00

3.2

15

34

3.2

62

0

9.0

63

.0

1.0

.12

215

70

19

312

6.6

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per li^er; <, less than]

Beta activity ______________________ .. ... 

Radium (Ra)._. __ . ___ ... . . . .... . - ... ... .. . _ . _ ... ...

Uranium (U)___ 

1.8

<-- j

2.6

^ i

4.6

^ I

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fornd]

Silver (Ag) __ . _ ... _ . __ _. _ . _ - __ .. . __ .. _ .... . _ - .....

Boron (B). ________ _ .. _ . . ......

Barium (Ba) _ .. ___ . ___ _ ____ .. _ . ...... _ . ...

Beryllium (Be) __ .... __ . __ ...... __ . _ - __ ...... . __ . . __

Cobalt (Co)... __ --...- . .- , . , . . , . _ _ -....-..----

Chromium (Cr) _ ______ __ . _______ _ ._ ______

Copper (Cu) ___________________ . ................... 

Iron (Fe) ________ . . . . ___

Lithium (Li) _ Manganese (Mn). ________ ________________ . ____

Molybdenum (Mo) _ . . . . ___

Nickel (Ni) - . . . ........... ... 

Phosphorus (P) ______ . . _ _ _ ______ . . . ........_.....

Lead (Pb). ..... . . 

Rubidium (Kb)..... .

Tin (Sn) _ _ . ......

Strontium (Sr) _____ __ __ ______ .. . . ________

Titanium (Ti)-_ .. .. .

Vanadium (V). . ...

Zinc (Zn) ______ . _.....

<0.34

6.7

24

5.4

ND

ND

1.1

1.3

15

.74

ND

ND

ND

ND

.6

<3.4

ND

50

11

ND

<0.26

7.9

28

4.6

ND

ND

1.1

3.1

15

.56

ND

<.77

<2.6

ND

4.9

3.3

ND67

7.9

ND

<0.29 

5.5 

35 

13 

ND 

ND 

1.1 

8.4 

21

<.29 

3.7 

ND 

<2.9 

ND 

5.8 

3.7 

ND 

60 

1.0 

12 

ND
HONOLULU 155

Kahuku Pt EXPLANATION

Area served by Board 

of Water Supply

Honolulu city boundary

a, Kalihi well field 

b. Beretania well field 

C, Kaimuki well field

S

Water analysis 

sampling site

Bay

Diamond Head

FIGURE 28. Water supplies and areas served by Honolulu, Hawaii, water system. (Adapted 

from Honolulu Board of Water Supply, 1963.)

ILLINOIS

Chicago Rockford

CHICAGO

(See fig. 29.) 

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Fifty-eight municipalities outside the city limits, including 

Berwyn, Blue Island, Brookfield, Calumet City, Cicero, Elmwood Park, Evergreen Park, Harvey, Maywood, Melrose Park, Morton Grove, Niles, Oak 

Lawn, Oak Park, Park Ridge, South Stickney Sanitary District, and Skokie. 

Population served: Chicago, 3,500,000; total, about 4,423,000. 

Source of supply: Lake Michigan. The city is divided into three water districts: 

North District, Central District, and South District. The North D'^trict is 

supplied by Wilson Avenue Crib intake, 2.1 miles offshore at Wilson Avenue; 

the Central District, which is north of 39th Street, is supplied by Four Mile 

Crib, 3.2 miles offshore at 14th Street, and William E. Dever Crib, 2.7 miles 

offshore at Chicago Avenue; the South District filtration plant, whic1! is supplied by Edward F. Dunne Crib, 2 miles offshore at 68th Street, supplies the 

South District, which is the area south of 39th Street. The system has a total of 

10 pumping stations. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 1,030 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

South District filtration plant (three pumping stations): Prechlorination, 

fluoridation, coagulation with alum and ferrous sulfate (and acid-treated 

sodium silicate in winter months), activated carbon, lime for corrosion 

control, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, and postchlorinat'on with 

ammonia and chloramine.

North and Central Districts (seven pumping stations): Chlorination and 

fluoridation. Chlorination equipment is at each pumping station. Fluoridation equipment is at two pumping stations applying fluorine to water 

in tunnels serving the seven North and Central District pumping stations. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: South District filtration plant, 220 mgd. 

A new plant, the Central filtration plant, to supply an area north of 39th Street 

was 64 percent complete at the end of 1960. It will have a capacity of 960 mgd. 

Finished-water storage: South District filtration plant: Clear wells, 14.6 million 

gal; reservoirs, 32.3 million gal. A south-side pumping station: Ground 

storage, 30 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

157
158 ILLINOIS 

Regular determinations at South District filtration plant, 1960:

Alkalinity as 

CaCOs (ppm)

Avg

108 

102

Max

116 

106

Min

102 

95

PH

Avg

8.3

7.8

Max

8.5 

8.0

Min

8.0 

7.6

Hardness as 

CaCOs (ppm)

Avg

134 

138

Max

140 

144

Min

130 

132

Turbidity

Avg

15 

.0

Max

160 

.1

Min

1 

.0

Suburban areas shown in figure 29

Wilson Avenue Crib System:

Nl Golf

N2 Morton Grove

N3 Skokie

N4 Lincolnwood

N5 Niles

N6 Park Ridge

N7 Harwood Heights

N8 Norridge

N9 Schiller Park

N10 Franklin Park

Nil River Grove

N57 Rosemont

Dever Crib System:

C12 Elmwood Park

C13 Melrose Park

C14 Maywood

C15 River Forest

C16 Oak Park

C17 Forest Park

CIS Broadview

C19 Westchester

C20 Lagrange Park

C21 Brookfield

C22 North Riverside

C23 Riverside

C24 McCook

C25 Berwyn

C26 Cicero

C50 Hillside

C51 Burkeley

C52 Leyden Township

C54 Lyons

C55 North Lake

C57 Stone Park

South District Filtratior Plant:

527 Stickney

528 Forest View

529 Summit

530 Bedford Park

531 Evergreen Park

532 Oaklawn

533 Merrionette Park

534 Blue Island

535 Robbins

536 Midlothian

537 Harvey

538 Posen

539 Dixmoor

540 Marxham

541 Hazelcrest

542 Phoenix

543 South Holland

544 Calumet Park

545 Riverdale

546 Dolton

547 Burnham

548 Calumet City

549 Hometown

S53 South Stickne^

558 Alsip

559 Bridgeview

560 East Hazelcrest
CHICAGO 159

C56

Wilson Avenue Crib

Dever Crib

itral District filter plant

Four Mile Crib

Dunne Crib

South District 

filtration plant

Oak Forest Infirmary 

EXPLANATION

North District

Central District

Areas served by 

Chicago water system

Chicago city boundary

Water-district boundary

Water analysis sampling site

See preceding page for key 

to suburban areas

South District Water intake

FIGURE 29. Water supplies and areas served by Chicago, 111., water system. (Modified 

from Chicago Dept. of Water and Sewers, 1961. Approved by local municipal water 

officials, April 1963.)
160 ILLINOIS

Analytical data Chicago

Lake Michigan

100 

8-25-61

R R

Chicago

Avenue

Station

(Central

District)

46

O OA_ft1

F

Lake

View

Station

(North

District)

20

O Oc fii

F

South District

nitration plant

34

8 OK fil

F

191 fi fil

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOa)--- 

Iron (Fe) _ . _____________ __

Calcium (Ca) ... ________

Sodium (Na)-..~ - ... ... ... ...

Arsenic (As) _ -- __________

Boron (B)._. ______________ . ...

Copper (Cu) __ _ _- __ ___

Lead(Pb)-. 

Lithium (Li).. .... ______________

Zlnc(Zn).. 

Bicarbonate (HCOs) 

Carbonate (COs) _ ___ -- __ - __ -

Chloride (Cl)_ 

Fluoride (F).. .....................

Nitrate (NOs).. ................. .........

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C). .....

Specific conductance (micromhosat25 °C). 

pH _ ._ 

.03

.07

33

3.9

132

0

20

6.5

.1

.4

153

128

20

259 

7.8

1

71

1 fi

.01

31

9 7

3

n

1 9

.005

.03

.003

.04

.005

.01

.01

.02

132

2

21

7.0

.1

.5

.015

159

117

280 

8.3

8

3

38

1 Q

.05

09

32

4.0

128

0

20

8.0

1.0

.4

149

125

20

261

7.5

2

70

1 9

.06

.03

QO

11

4.0

128

0

20

8.0

.8

.3

154

125

259 

7.3

1

2

71

1.2

.04

.06

35

11

4.2

1.0

126

0

26

9.0

.9

.4

168

133

30

277

7.5

1

71

2 9

.01

33

10

3

0

.005

.02

.01

.005

.01

.01

.03

123

0

24

12

.8

.5

161

125

292 

7.9

2

40

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Uranium (U)

8.2

.1

.1

3.2

<.l

.1

2.9

<-l

.2

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; N D, looked for but not found]

Silver(Ag). . 

Nickel (Ni)

Lead(Pb)._ 

Rubidium (Rb). .........................

Tin (Sn)

Titanium (Ti) .........................

Zinc (Zn)_ .

<0.2

79

7.8

sn

ND

ND

1.6

14

.75 j^n

<

Q

3.2

ND

14

ND

ND

80

<2

ND

ND

<0.25

40

12

30

ND

ND

.75

7.5

52

.38

4.2

1.9

3.0

ND

2.5

ND

ND

120

<2.5

ND

<250

<0.24

45

15

36

ND

ND

.43

57

55

1.0

2.9

1.8

7.4

ND

4.5

ND

ND

91

<2.4

ND

<240

<0.27

350

21

40

ND

ND

.54

1.3

67

1.2

4.3

2.3

<2.7

ND

4.8

ND

ND

120

<2.7

ND

ND

1 Analyses by the city of Chicago.
ILLINOIS 161

ROCKFORD

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Rockford, 128,075; about 4,000 outside the city limits; total, 

about 132,000.

Source of supply: Thirty-one drilled wells of which 22 are normally us^d. The 

wells range in depth from 235 to about 1,600 feet. Six are group wells located 

at the steam plant; they are pumped as a group, but generally only fou r, which 

are electrically pumped, are used in preference to the other two, v^hich are 

airlift. This group furnishes about 8 peraent of the total supply. The remaining wells are pumped as individual units and are located throughout the 

city; all are tied into the main distribution system, so the water supplied to 

any section of the city depends on which wells are being pumped at the time.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 19.8 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Chlorination.

Raw-water storage: None.

Finished-water storage: Elevated, 15 million gal; ground, 5 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.
162 ILLINOIS

Analytical data Rockford

Percent of supply. __ _ ___ _ ___ _____________

Depth of well (feet) __ ____ ___. __ _ _ ____

Date of collection _ _ -______. _ ______ _________

Type of water: F, finished. ._ _ ___. _____

Unit well 15

92

20

1959

8-23-61

F

Composite of 

six group 

wells

8

12

8-23-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2 )._ _____ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _

Iron (Fe)__ _ _ _ _________ _ __ ___ ______ _____

Calcium (Ca)_ _ _______ _ _ _ ________ _ _______

Magnesium (Mg)_ _____ _ _ _ ____ ____ _ _ ___ ___

Sodium (Na). ___________ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ____ _

Potassium (K) _______ _ _ _ ______ _ _ ___ __

Bicarbonate (HCO3)_--_ ___ ______ ___ _ __ ______

Carbonate (COs)_ ____ ____ _ __ _ _ _ ____ _ ___

Sulfate (SO4)__ ____ ----- _ _--__ _____ -__-_____ _

Chloride (Cl)__ _

Fluoride (F) _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ ____ _ _____

Nitrate (NO8) __ _ ___ _ __ ----- _ - -

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)._ _ __. ____

Hardness as CaCO3 __- _ __ _._ .--_ ___ - _-_- _ -

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs _-__ __ ___ _ __ __

pH________________-____________________._________

Color. ____________________________________________

Temperature. _____ __ ___ _ _ __ ____ °F__

9 1

. 10

.06

57

32

3 4

1.7

332

0

12

35

. 1

. 2

284

274

2

49S

7.6

1

52

9.8

. 14

.07

73

38

7.6

2. 1

364

0

36

11

. 1

2.2

368

338

40

628

7. 5

2

58

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in microgramc per liter]

Beta activity ____ _ _ __ ______ _____ _ _ _ ____ _

Radium (Ra)_ ___ ____ ________ ______

Uranium (U)-._ _ __ ___ __ _____ ___ ___ _ __ _

7.3

2. 5

. 6

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fornd]

Silver (Ag) _ __ _________ ________ __

Aluminum (Al) ______ ____ ____ __ _ _______ _

Boron (B)_____ ___ ____ _ _ __ __ __ ______ _ _ _

Barium (Ba) ____ _ _____ _ ___ __ __ __ ___ _

Beryllium (Be)_ _ ___ ___ __ _ _ _ _ " ___ ______

Cobalt (Co)__ 

Chromium (Cr) _ ___ __ _____ __ __ ______ _ __

Copper (Cu)___ _ _ _ ____ __ ____ _________ _ _

Iron (Fe)___ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _____ _ ___ . _

Lithium (Li)__ ____ _ ____ _ _ ________ _____

Manganese (Mn)_ _ ____ ____ _ ____ __

Molybdenum (Mo) __ ____ __ __ _ _______

Nickel (Ni)_ _ __ _ _ _______ ____

Phosphorus (P)__ _ _ ____ ____ _ _ . _ _

Lead (Pb)_ ________________________________________

Rubidium (Rb) ___ __ ____ __ ____ _ __ __ _____

Tin (Sn)__ _ __________

Strontium (Sr) _ _ ____ _________________

Titanium (Ti)_ ______ _ _ _. ___ __________ ___

Vanadium (V)__ ____________ _ _ __ ___ ______ _

Zinc (Zn)__ _ ______ ____ ___ __ ______

<C. 5

7.0

se

NES '-

NE

?. 8

70

.65

<5

1.5

7.5 NF

7.5 NINE

36

NF

NF

<0. 59

20

56

200

ND

9.5

.77

3.9

150

.83

26

10

7.7

ND

ND

ND

ND

71

ND

ND

ND
INDIANA

Evansville 

Fort Wayne 

Gary

Indianapolis 

South Bend

EVANSVILLE

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Evansville, 141,543; about 18,500 outside the city limits;

total, about 160,000. 

Source of supply: Ohio River. 

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Several wells can be used in an emergency, and

some hotels and industries have their own wells. 

Lowest mean discharge: Ohio River at Evansville, Ind., for 30-day period in

climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 4,650 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 21 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Evansville filtration plant breakpoint chlorination, coagulation with

alum, treatment with activated carbon, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration,

final adjustment of pH by addition of lime and postchlorination. Activated

carbon and copper sulfate are added for algae control, when needed. 

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Evansville filtration plant, 36 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: None. 

Finished-water storage: 30 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily wrter used,

in mgd): 1.4.

Regular determinations at Evansville filtration plant, 1961:

Raw water __ ...

Alkalinity 

as CaCOa 

(ppm)

Avg

70 

66

Max

103 

100

Min

29 

40

pH

Avg

7.5 

8.2

Max

8.8 

8.9

Min

7.0 

7.6

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

136 

154

Max

217 

232

Min

72 

95

Trrbidity

Avg

102

Max

620

Min

6

163
164 INDIANA

Analytical data, filtration plant Evansville 

[Percent of supply: 100. Date of collection: 5-16-62. Type of water: flrished]

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj)~~ -~ -- -~ -~ -~ ~- ~- -

Iron (Fe)- .. _____ ..... _ .-....-

Sodium (Na).._ . 

Bicarbonate (HCOs).. . _ ... .. .. 

Carbonate (CO3) ........ _ .. _____

Sulfate (SCO.... ........................

5.2

.03

34

47

10

13

2.0

86

0

87

Chloride (Cl)... 

Flnoride (F). ..______.___ ____ _____._

Nitrate (NO3) 

PH.......... ............. ...............

22

2

2.8

249

158

88

388

7.5

3

74

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter, <, less than. Maximum 

beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum beta activity, raw water, 

July 1, 1961, to June 30, 1962..... ......

6.7 

22

Uranium (U)._ ......................

<0.1 

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not founi]

Silver (Ag)..._. _ . __ _____ .. ..

Boron (B)...... __ . ___ . __ ........

Barium (Ba). _______ __ .

Beryllium (Be). . ___ . _ . _ . _ ..

Cobalt (Co) _ __ _ 

Copper (Cu) _____ __________

Iron (Fe) _ ........ __

Lithium (Li). ...........................

Manganese (Mn)__ ____________

<0.29 

320 

26 

100 

ND 

ND 

3.2 

2.1 

16 

12 

ND

Nickel(Ni).. 

Lead (Pb)-.. 

Rubidium (Rb) . 

Tin (Sn). ...... ......................

4.4 

3.5

ND 

ND 

<2.9 

ND 

280 

2.6 

ND 

ND
INDIANA 165

FORT WAYNE

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: New Haven and about 3,000 people outside the city limits.

Population served: Fort Wayne, 161,776; total, about 168,200.

Source of supply: St. Joseph River (impounded).

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 20.8 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Three Rivers filtration plant coagulation with ferric sulfate, 

activated carbon, softening with lime and soda ash; chlorine dioxide, recarbonation, chlorination, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, ammoniation, and 

fluoridation. The water is softened to a hardness of about 85 ppm.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Three Rivers filtration plant, 48 mgd.

Raw-water storage: 710 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): 34.

Finished-water storage: 22 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.1.

Regular determinations at Three Rivers filtration plant:

Finished water .. _

Alkalinity 

as CaCCh 

(ppm)

Avg

225 

29

Max

314

42

Min

84 

17

PH

Avg

8.2 

9.7

Max

8.4 

10.1

Min

7.80 

9.20

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

279 

85

Max

362 

92

Min

128 

63

Turbidity

Avg

75 

.0

Max

T35 

.0

Min

30 

.00
166 INDIANA

Analytical data Fort Wayne

Percent of supply __ _______ _ _ ___

Date of collection __ _____ ______ ____

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished _ ______

St. Joseph 

River 

(impounded)

100

8-22-<U

R

Three Rivers 

filtration 

plant

100

8-22-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2)_________-____--______.__-_______-______

Iron (Fe)______ ____ _ __ _________ __ _ ___ __

Manganese (Mn)_ _______ _______ ___

Calcium (Ca)_ _______ __ _____ _ _ ______ ___

Magnesium (Mg)_______ __ __________ ____ _

Sodium (Na) _ __ _ __________________ _

Potassium (K) __ _____ _____________

Bicarbonate (HCO3) ___ __ _____ _ ------ ___ ___ _

Carbonate (CO3)__ _______ ___________ __ _________

Sulfate (SO4)_ - - _ _ _-- 

Chloride (Cl)_____________. _________________________

Fluoride (F) __ __ _____ _ _ _ __ __ ______ _ _

Nitrate (NO3)__ __ _ _ _ 

Dissolved solids (residue at 180°C) __ _

Hardness as CaCOs_ ___ ________ ______

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCO3 _ ___ _ ____ __ _

pH_______________________________________________

Color. ___ _ _____ __ ____ _____ __ _ __ _______ ___

Turbidity.. . _ _____ __ __ ____ __ _ __ _ ___ _

Temperature.- _ __ _ ____ _ __ ____ __°F _

8. 0

.56

.07

76

20

9.7

2. 6

256

0

67

10

.4

2.6

334

272

62

535

7.6

22

60

74

6. 1

. 03

.06

28

4. 0

15

2. 6

16

8

72

15

.8

2. 2

177

86

60

271

9. 0

2

74

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity _ _ ____ __ ___ ____ _ _ _ ___ _ _

Radium (Ra)____ ______ _______ ________ _ _ ___ _

Uranium (U) _ ___ _ _______ ______ _ _____ _ _

7. 1

<.l

<. 1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)___________._____________________________

Aluminum (Al) _____ ________ ____ _ _ _ _________

Boron (B)____.________ _ _______ __ ______ ___

Barium (Ba)___ _ ________________ ____

Beryllium (Be) __ ________ _ _ _________ ____ __

Cobalt (Co) ___ _ _____ _ _____ _ ___ _ _ __________

Chromium (Cr) ________ _____ _ _____________ ___

Copper (Cu)_-- - ------- - ______ _ ____________

Iron (Fe)_ ___________ _ _ ___. _ .__ _________ __

Lithium (Li)______ _ ____ __ ______ ___ _ ___. __ _

Manganese (Mn) _ ________ _ _____ _______

Molybdenum (Mo)_____ ___ _._ _ ___ _ _ _______

Nickel (Ni) ________________________________________

Phosphorus (P) ____ ___ _. ____________

Lead (Pb)____________________ _ ______________

Rubidium (Rb)__ ________ __ __

Tin (Sn)________________________ ___________________

Strontium (Sr) ______ ________ _______ ___

Titanium (Ti)____ ___________ _ __ ____

Vanadium (V)_______ ___ __ _ ____ ___

Zinc (Zn)_______ ______ _

<0. 54

180

75

130

ND

ND

2.0

70

110

1. 6

22

19

9. 6

ND

20

ND

ND

540

5.9

ND

ND

<0. 2

48

<11

27

ND

ND

3. 1

2.3

43

2.5

<2

3.9

2.5

ND

2. 7

ND

ND

350

<2

ND

ND
INDIANA

GARY

167

Ownership: Gary-Hobart Water Co.

Other areas served: Hobart, Griffith, Turkey Creek Meadows (subdivision), and

Ogden Dunes.

Population served: Gary, 178,320; total, about 225,000. 

Source of supply: Lake Michigan. 

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Lake George can be used to supply Hobart,

only, at rate of 1 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 23.5 mgi (U.S.

Public Healtn Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Gary-Hobart filter plant coagulation with alum, chlor'nation,

treatment with activated carbon, addition of clay and lime (either o^ both)

when necessary, rapid sand filtration, ammoniation, fluoridation, and postchlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Gary-Hobart filter plant, 52 mgd. 

Finished-water storage: Plant, 4 million gal; distribution tanks, 10 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water

used, in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Gary-Hobart filter plant, 1961:

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

122 

111

Max

140 

126

Min

108 

96

PH

Avg

8.1 

7.5

Max

8.4

7.7

Min

7.7 

7.2

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

142 

142

Max

148 

148

Min

132 

132

Turtidity

Avg

16 

0

Max

150 

0

Min

3

0

735-717<
168 INDIANA

Analytical data, Gary-Hobart filter plant Gary 

[Percent of supply: 100. Date of collection: 4-4-62. Type of water: Finished]

Chemical analyses 

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2) .._._. ....... _ ............

Potassium (K) __ . ___ . _ .... ....

Sulfate (SOOChloride (Cl). ................. _ ......

2.3

.02

.06

35

11

4

K

1.0

123

0

26

9.5

Fluoride (F).. _ ...... ... -. __

Nitrate (N03 ) 

Dissolved solids (residue at WC)... _ .

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25°C)

pH....... . 

0.6

.8

158

133

32

281

7.3

2

42

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter, <, less than. Maximum 

beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

July 1, 1961, to June 30, 1962.. __ ....

6.2

14

Radium (Ra) 

Uranium(U). 

<0.1

.3

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not forad]

Silver (Ag) _ ______________

Boron (B)__ ______ . __ ... __ ...

Barium (Ba) ______ . _____ . .....

Cobalt (Co)... __ ... ...... .... ..

Chromium (Cr) ____________ ..

Copper (Cu) ____________ .. ..

Iron(Fe).... ______ . _ . ___ . ....

Lithium (Li)....... .....................

Manganese (Mn). ______ ..

<0.24

96

26

A3

ND

ND

.24

1.7

31

.96

2.6

Nickel (Nf)

Lead(Pb).. 

Rubidium (Rb) 

Tin(Sn) 

Titanium (Ti). ...... . _ ...

Vanadium (V). ... - 

1.0

3.4

ND

5.5

ND

ND

82

1.3

ND

ND
INDIANA 169

INDIANAPOLIS

(See fig. 30.)

Ownership: Indianapolis Water Co.

Other areas served: Beech Grove, Ben Davis (unincorporated), Crows Nest,

Homecraft, Lynhurst, Mars Hill (unincorporated), Meridan Hills, North

Crows Nest, Southport, Warren Park, and Williams Creek. Most, but not all,

of Indianapolis is served. Fairwood (unincorporated) is supplied by two wells. 

Population served: Indianapolis, 476,258; total, about 500,000. 

Sources and percentages of supply: White River, 55.2 percent; Fall Creek, 44.8

percent.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Several wells. 

Lowest mean discharge:

White River near Nora, Ind., for 30-day period in climatic wate^ years

(April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 53.3 mgd. 

Fall Creek at Millersville, Ind., for 30-day period in climatic water years

(April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 25.5 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 68 mgd (U.S Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: White River and Fall Creek purifications plants prechlornation,

coagulation with alum and lime, treatment with activated carbon, sed'mentation, rapid sand filtration, auxiliary slow sand filtration at times, ammoniation,

fluoridation, and postchlorination. 

Rated capacity of treatment plant: White River purification plant: 72 mgd,

at normal operation; 84 mgd, with three slow sand filters operating. Fall Creek

purification plant, 32 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: Geist Reservoir, 7,000 million gal; Morse Reservor, 7,000

million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 206. 

Finished-water storage: Underground reservoir, 23 million gal; elevated storage,

3 million gal; ground reservoir, 4 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.
170 INDIANA

Analytical data Indianapolis

Type of water: F, finished. --_--_ ........ _ ...--....-.-... ..

FaU Creek 

purification plant

45 

5-17-62 

F 9

White River 

purification plant

55 5-17-62 

F 9

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Sfflca(SiO»). . - - .- .. ..-_- ..-...-.- -

Bicarbonate (HCOs) ....... .............. ......-.^. ....... .

Carbonate (COs) _ -----.--..--_-____--...---.--.... ------

Sulfate(SO4) - -- ---- - - - 

Chloride (Cl).. ................................................

Nitrate (NO3) - - ---- .. ------ ....

pH.................. ...........................................

Color........--. - .-. .. - . .....

2.8

.02

.01

57

22

8.1

1.5

204

0

53

18

1.1

3.2

285

233

66

474

7.2

5

71

0.02

.21

58

22

7.0

1.4

204

0

50

20

1.0

238

74

2.5

.05

.00

78

26

14

2.2

262

0

73

26

1.0

4.6

390

302

87

614

7.3

5

78

0.42

75

23

18

3.4

245

0

68

32

1.1

284

7.3

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per lifter; <, less than]

Beta activity... ................................................ 11

< !

1.3

10

.1

1.3

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fornd]

aaver(.Ag).... .................................................

Boron (B) _____ _ .... .. --

Barium (Ba)._ _________ .. . . .... _ . .....

Beryllium (Be). _____ ... __ . __ _ .. ___ - ....

Cobalt (Co)__ - .............................................

Lithium (Li)........ ...................... ........ ..........

Nickel (Ni)..- .. ..... ... ....... . _..... .

Lead (Pb). ......................... .. J . .. .........

Tin (Sn). -... . ... ....

Strontium (Sr) _ .. ______ ... . . .. . ..

Titanium (Ti). ...... ............ .. . ......

Vanadium (V). ..................... .............. ..........

Zinc (Zn). .......... ....

<0.39

170

33

77

ND

ND

ND

220

42

2.2

14

7 ^

<3.9

ND

17

ND

ND

150

3.1

ND

ND

ND

400

60

65

ND

ND

6.5

250

47

4.8

17

13

30

ND

ND

ND

ND

300

ND

ND

ND

Average analyses for 1961 by the Indianapolis Water Co.
INDIANAPOLIS 171

Area supplied by the 

Indianapolis Water Co.

Indianapolis city boundary

S

Water analysis sampling site

Whife Riy^r purjfj^fion 

 plant

5 MILES

FIGURE 30.- -Water supplies and areas served by Indianapolis, Ind., Water Co. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, April 1963.)
172 INDIANA

SOUTH BEND

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: South Bend, 132,445; about 200 outside city limits; total 

132,645.

Source of supply: Located at nine stations throughout the city are 27 wells 

ranging in depth from 92 to 206 feet: Airport Station, 3 wells, yield 5.5 mgd, 

93-107 feet deep; Central Station, 2 wells, yield 3 mgd, 115 feet deep; Coquillard 

Station, 4 wells, yield 12.5 mgd, 196-206 feet deep; Erskine Station, 1 well, 

yield 1 mgd, 175 feet deep; North Station, 4 wells, yield 12 mgd, 106-108 feet 

deep; Oliver Station, 4 wells, yield 13.2 mgd, 155-192 feet deep; Pinhook 

Station, 4 wells, yield 12 mgd, 122-131 feet deep; Rum Village Station, 1 well, 

yield 1 mgd, 137 feet deep; South Station, 4 wells, yield 7.5 mgd, 92-108 feet 

deep.

Figures on yield are based on pumping each well individually without interference due to pumping other wells in immediate vicinity. There is no set 

pattern in pumping the wells, but those furnishing water low in iron are pumped 

more than others.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 20 mgd (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment:

Coquillard Station and North Station: Chlorination and addition of

polyphosphate.

Seven other stations: Chlorination only at present. Polyphosphate will 

soon be added at Pinhook Station.

Pvaw-water storage: North Station, 6 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): Less than 1.

Finished-water storage: South Station, 7 million gal; elevated tanks, 3.5 million 

gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.
SOUTH BEND 173

Analytical data South Bend

Typp. of w^tfir: F, finished

Coquillard

Station

well 3

18 4-5-62

F

Pinhook

Station

well 3

18

4-5-62

F

North

Station

wells

5 and 7

18 4-4-62

F

Oliver

Station

well 4

20 7-30^62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOjj.... ................................................

Iron (Fe)_ --. __ ................... _ ......................

Sodium (Na) --.--.---------------.------.-_-.-_--_.-------.-

Potassium (K)..__ ........................ _ ..................

Sulfate (SO4).... ...... -..................-.......... .......

Chloride(Cl)... .-.- .. . .--_-.._ ___._..-... 

Fluoride(F). ..................................................

Nitrate (NO3)_...... __.........._.__._.__ ...................

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C). _______________

pH.......... ...................................................

Color. ..................... _ .................................

TprnpprfttiiFP ° -F

14

.92

.12

62

21

7.5

.6

268

0

24

6.0

.1

.1

270

241

22

464

7.5

3

54

13

.97

.09

62

24

5.4

.7

256

0

44

7.5

.1

.2

282

253

43

485

7.3

3

54

12

.16

.12

90

28

8.4

1.0

2S2

0

102

13

.1

.3

410

340

109

645

7.3

5

54

14

.02

.04

145

44

12

2.1

380

0

210

20

.0

6.7

683

544

232

970

7.3

1

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter]

Radium (Ra)..

4.7 

.3 

.2

6.7 

.1 

.2

10 

.1 

.3

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)........ ...... .......................................

Beryllium (Be) .... ........................... .. .

Cobalt (Co).. -----.---.-.-----..---._..-----.__._...__-_-_---.

Iron(Fe) . . -_ 

Nickel (Ni). ...................................................

Lead (Pb). ....................................................

Rubidium (Rb). _____________ ..................................

Tin (Sn). ............. .........................................

Strontium (Sr)________ ..................... ... .. . .--..--.-

Titanium (Ti).. ...............................................

Vanadium (V)

Zinc (Zn). .....................................................

<0.48

40

40

150

ND

ND

ND

2.9

1,200

1.2

120

2.6

<4.8

<480

21

ND

ND

120

2.3

ND

ND

<0.24

32

24

61

ND

ND

ND

18

1,700

.92

180

<73

3.2

<240

5.6

ND

ND

41

2.4

ND

ND

<0.56

11

62

150

ND

ND

ND

31

150

1.1

160

<1.7

9.0

ND

ND

ND

ND

110

ND

ND

ND

IOWA

Des Moines

DES MOINES

(See fig. 31.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Des Moines, 238,494; about 20,200 in communities outside 

the city; total, about 258,700.

Sources and percentages of supply: Infiltration gallery along the Raccoon River, 

50-75 percent of supply; Raccoon River impounded, 25-50 percent of the 

supply. The infiltration gallery is constructed of reinforced concrete rings 2 

feet long and 4 and 5 feet inside diameter and is placed in sand and gravel 15-31 

feet deep in one continuous line parallel with the river and 150-300 feet back 

from the main channel. It is constructed to permit the entrance of water 

from the surrounding sand and gravel through openings between each ring, and 

serves the double purpose of collecting the water and carrying it by grs.vity to 

the pumping station. At the present time the gallery is approximately 3 miles 

long.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Water in a 1,500-million-gallon reservoir located 

southwest of Commerce in the Raccoon River valley may be used during drought 

periods or in emergencies.

Lowest mean discharge: Raccoon River at Van Meter, Iowa, for 30-day period in 

climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 30.6 mgd.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 25.3 mgd (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Des Moines Water Works plant softening with lime and sola ash, 

coagulation with alum, recarbonation, rapid sand filtration, addition of polyphosphate for stabilization, chlorination, and fluoridation.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Des Moines Water Works plant, 96 mgd.

Raw-water storage: Impounding reservoir, 1,570 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): 62.

Finished-water storage: Clear well, 10 million gal; towers and standpipes, 12.7 

million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Des Moines Water Works plant, 1960:

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

244 

45

Max

377 

73

Min

188 

21

PH

Avg

7.7 

9.5

Max

8.3 

10.6

Min

7.2 

8.4

Hardness 

as CaCCh 

(ppm)

Avg

331

95

Max

428 

132

Min

228 

65

Turbidity

Avg

50 

.1

Max

1,330

.8

Min

0.1 

.1

175
176 IOWA

Analytical data Des Moines

Percent of supply..-.. _

Infiltration

gallery

75 1-22-62

Des

Moines

Water

Works

75 1-22-62

Infiltration

gallery

R

Des

Moines

Water

Works

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj) 

Iron (Fe)_ ________________

Manganese (Mn). ._ .

Boron (B) _____ ___ __

Calcium (Ca) 

Magnesium (Mg)-_____ _ ...

Sodium (Na). ------ _ 

Bicarbonate (HCOs)--- 

Carbonate (COs) . 

Sulfate (SOOChloride (Cl) _ 

Fluoride (F).... __________

Nitrate (NOs) 

19 

.08 

.06 

.08 

95 

33 

13 

2.8 

.00 

340 

0 

89 

11 

.3 

12

14 

1.00 

.06 

.06 

14 

18 

33 

2.8 

.00 

14 

23 

104 

11 

1.6 

13

Iodide (I)..- 

Phosphate (POODissolved solids (residue at, 

180° C) ~

Noncarbonate hardness as 

CaCOs--- - -_ 

Specific conductance (mipH........ ..... ...........

Color _ _. ____ _ --- -.

Turbidity..- 

0.002 

.27

464 

371

92

706 

7.8 

3 

2

0.000 

.66

244 

108

58

394 

9.5 

2 

2 

43

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; < , less than]

Radium (Ra)--__. _______...

5.6 

<.l

1.9

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fornd]

Silver (Ag)_ _ _ _ __ __ ____

Boron (B)_.. . _ .........

Beryllium (Be) _ . ___

Cobalt (Co)_. ____________ _

Chromium (Cr) -._ .- _ .

Iron (Fe). __-.____ ... _ -

Lithium (Li)_____________ ..

<0.30 

130 

39 

18 

ND 

ND 

1.0 

1.2 

36 

18 

<3.0

i

Nickel(Ni)----- 

Lead (Pb). . 

Rubidium (Rb)_. ...

Tin (8n)--.-. -- - _

Strontium (Sr)__..__ __ . __

Titanium (Ti).__ ... 

3.0 

<3.0 

ND 

5.7 

ND 

ND 

63 

<.9 

<9.0 

ND
DES MOINES 177

EXPLANATION

Area supplied by Des Moines 

water system

Water treatment and pumping plant

Des Moines city boundary Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 31. Water supplies and areas served by Des Moines, Iowa, water system. 

(Approved by local municipal water officials, June 1963.)

KANSAS

Kansas City Topeka Wichita

KANSAS CITY

(See fig. 32.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Suburban Wyandotte County and some of suburban Johnson

County.

Population served: Kansas City, 121,901; total, 200,000. 

Source of supply: Missouri River. The raw water is obtained by means cf either

or both of two intake structures and equipment. It is first pumped to the

electric power station, where it is used for condensing purposes. When it

leaves the condenser, a sufficient amount is pumped to the settling basins at

the water plant for the city supply. The remainder is wasted back into the

river. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 29.3 mgi (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962C). 

Treatment: Quindaro treatment plant coagulation with alum; addition of lime,

activated silica, activated carbon; sedimentation; rapid sand nitration; and

chlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Quindaro treatment plant, 60 mgd. 

Finished-water storage: Reservoirs and elevated storage, 17 million gal; clear

wells at plant, 1.2 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Quindaro treatment plant, 1961:

Raw water

Finished water_ _ _ ....

Alkalinity as 

CaCOs (ppm)

Avg

172 

171

Max

227 

250

Min

142 

126

PH

Avg

7.9 

7.9

Max

8.2 

8.4

Min

Hardness as 

CaCOs (ppm)

Avg

231

248

Max

299 

318

Min

 

Turb-'dity

Avg

810 

<1

Max

4,?<>0 

<1

Min

10 

<1

179
180 KANSAS

Analytical data Kansas City

Missouri

River

100

3-15-62

Quindaro

treatment

plant

3-15-62

Missouri

River

K

Quindaro

treatment

plant

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2).__ ______ ____

Iron (Fe) - 

Boron (B)._ -. . 

Sodium (Na).~ . __________

Bicarbonate (HC O3) ________

Carbonate (COs). ............

Sulfate (804)-- - 

Chloride (Cl)_ .. 

Fluoride (F) ... .

Nitrate (NOs) 

16 

.01 

.00 

.06 

49 

13 

26 

4.8 

.00 

169 

0 

69 

14 

.2 

8.3

9.7 

.00 

.00 

.04 

57 

11 

25 

4.3 

.00 

160 

0 

81 

20 

.3 

5.7

Iodide (i). ...................

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180° C).. _ - 

Noncarbonate hardness as 

CaCOs-.- -

Specific conductance (micropH

Color .

0.00 

.54

312 

174

35

464 

7.2 

9 

3 

55

0.00 

.28

311 

189

58

486 

7.6 

4 

2 

53

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than. Maximum 

beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum beta activity, raw 

water, July 1, 1961, to June 

30, 1962.. _ 70

26 <0.1 

2.4

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)__ __. ________.__

Boron (B)__ __ . __.

Barium (Ba) . -

Beryllium (Be) ......

Cobalt (Co).. 

Chromium (Cr) _

Iron (Fe). ... .

Lithium (Li). .... _._

ND

04(1

49

170

ND

ND

ND

3.3

24

17

6.0

Nickel (Ni) .. ... ..... 

Lead (Pb) 

Tin (Sn)____-_-_________-__--__

Zinc (Zn)._ 

4.9

4.5

ND

7.5

ND

ND

410

3.3

11

ND
KANSAS CITY 181

Area served by Kansas City, Mo.

Area served by Kansas City, Kans

Area served by both cities

Kansas City, Mo. and Kansas City, Kans. 

city boundaries

Treatment plant 

3, Quindaro. 

b, Kansas City, Mo. 

C, North Kansas City, Mo.

CASS COUNTY

I l I I

5 MILES 

J

Water analysis sampling site

NOTE: As of June 1,1963, maximum amount of 

water supplied to Johnson County is 7 mgd

FIGURE 32. Water supplies and areas served by the water departments of Kansas City, 

Kans., and Kansas City, Mo. (Approved by local municipal water officials, June 1963.) 

List of areasr served: 1, Clay County; 2, Wyandotte County; 3, Johnson County; 4, 

Jackson County.
182 KANSAS

TOPEKA

(See fig. 33.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Topeka, 119,484; about 3,000 outside city limits and about

9,000 at Forbes Air Force Base; total, about 131,000. 

Sources and percentages of supply: Kansas River, more than 99 percent; two wells,

50 feet deep, less than 1 percent. 

Lowest mean discharge: Kansas River at Topeka, Kans., for 30-day period in

climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-60: 187 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 12.4 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Topeka treatment plant prechlorination, plain sedimentation,

treatment with activated carbon slurry, softening with excess lime and soda

ash, coagulation with alum and silicate of soda, recarbonation, coagulation

with alum and silicate of soda, settling, chlorination, rapid sand filtration, and

fluoridation.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Topeka treatment plant, 40 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: None. 

Finished-water storage: Clear well, 40 million gal; reservoir and elevated storage,

16 million gal. 

Days of'finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 1.6.

Regular determinations at Topeka treatment plant, 1961:

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppni)

Avg

203 

62

Max

328 

135

Min

87 

43

PH

Avg

7.9 

9.1

Max

8.2 

10

Min

6.7 

8.1

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

292 

104

Max

472 

164

Min

128 

59

Turbidity

Avg

912 

<1

Max

1,120 

<1

Min

375 

<1
TOPEKA 183

Areas served by Topeka 

water system

Topeka city boundary

Treatment plant and 

raw water intake

4 MILES

Water analysis 

sampling site

FIGURE 33. Water supplies and area^ served by Topeka, Kans., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, June 1963.) List of areas served: 1, Goodyear Co. 

Plant; 2, Tecumseh; 3, Pauline; 4, Cullen Village.

735-717 0 6
184 KANSAS

Analytical data Topeka

Depth of well (feet)... _ - _ ..... . - _ _____ _ _ . _ _

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished .._ . _ _ _ .

Kansas 

River

100

3-9-62

R

Treatment 

plant

100

3-9-62

F

Well 2

1

50 3-9-62

R

Well 3

1

50 3-9-62

R

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica(Si02) -- -- --- -_-__._.-_._._ _____._______

Iron (Fe). ______________________________________________________

Boron (B;__ _ _ _ __ _ __. ...........

Magnesium (Mg)__. ... ........... .... _ .. ... _ _ . .

Potassium (K) _ _______ _ _ .... ________ ___.__. ....

Aluminum (Al) _ . . _ . . . Bicarbonate (HCOs) -----

Carbonate (CO3) -.. --____._ _ . . .........

Sulfate(SOi)........-..... ....... . . .

Chloride (Cl).... . ... . _____ __________

Fluoride(F). ________________________ ________ __

Nitrate (NO3) - ...... - ...... ..

lodide(I). . . ..........

Phosphate (POO... _ ___ .. .

Xoncarbonate hardness as CaCOs.

Spccific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) P n..._. ____________________ ................. _______

Color______ .......... .......... _ _ . . . .

Turbidity.- _--____... .......... ......

17 

.03 

.00 

.07 

110 

23 

72 

6.00 

.00 

316 

0 

128 

95 

.2 

4.9 

.005 

.58 

638 

368 

109

994

7.5 

4

36

10 

.02 

.00 

.09 

41 

5.7 

111 

5.9 

.00 

10 

24 

148 

119 

.7 

5.0 

.001 

1.1 

494 

126 

78

820 

9.6 

3 

2 

45

18 

.38 

.18 

.11 

112 

18 

66 

8.4 

.00 

312 

0 

131 

82 

.4 

.5 

.005 

.33 

611 

354 

98

958 

7.3 

3 

2 

54

17 

.03 

.15 

.16 

121 

21 

70 

7.0 

.00 

338 

0 

145 

87 

.3 

.3 

.007 

.72 

663 

390 

113

1,030 

7.4 

4 

5 

54

Radiochemical analyses 

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Radium (Ra)_. _ .___ _____ ___ . . .

Uranium (U) ... .

21 

<.l

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In microgrums per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag>_ _ ... ...

Boron (B)_. __ _ __ _ .......

Barium (Ba1._____._____. ....

Beryllium (Be) _ _.._-____.__. . . ._ _ . _

Cobalt (Co)__ _________________ .. ..... _ ...... __

Iron (Fe). . __._ ..

Lithium (Li) . _________ ______

Nickel (Ni) ... .

Lead(Pb). -._.._____._______.___._ _ . ______ _________

Rubidium (Rb).._._____. ............. __.___._________._._.___

Tin(Sn)__.__ _____ _

Titanium (Ti). ..____.__.___.. _. . _ _ .......__________.

Zinc (Zn)__.._ _. __ _ __ ._._ ._ _ _ ___ __ __ ____ _____

ND

220

29

50

ND

ND

<.61

<.61

12

18

ND

5.1

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

550

ND

ND

ND
KANSAS 185

WICHITA

(See fig. 34.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other area served: Eastborough, having a population of about 500.

Population served: Wichita, 254,698; total, about 255,000.

Sources of supply: Fifty-five wells ranging in depth from 45 to 265 feet and 

averaging about 200 feet, located in the Equus Beds about 30-35 mile? northwest of Wichita, are used for regular supply. The regular supply wells are 

spaced at least half a mile apart in the well field and have an average yield of 

about 900 gpm. The wells, equipped with turbine pumps, pump into spur 

lines connected to a supply line which conveys the water to the treatment 

plant located in the city. The control of the wells, the operation of which is 

manual, is centered at the treatment plant, so that individual wells may be 

cut in or out of pumpage as desired. There is considerable variation in the 

chemical composition of the water from individual wells'. The hardness 

ranges from about 115 to 370 ppm.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Eighteen local wells near the treatment plant 

are used for auxiliary supply. Six wells near Bently, 15-20 miles from Wichita, 

may be used in case of emergency.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 25 mgd (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Wichita treatment plant prechlorination at well head, aeration, 

softening with lime, chlorination, ammoniation, sedimentation, rapid sand 

filtration, postchlorination, polyphosphate (Calgon) stabilization, and pH 

adjustment with carbon dioxide.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Wichita treatment plant, 120 mgd.

Finished-water storage: Clear wells, 4.5 million gal; reservoirs, 10.5 million gal; 

elevated tanks, 4.5 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Wichita treatment plant, 1961:

Raw water

Finished water.

Alkalinity as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

221

108

Max

273

118

Min

137

98

pH

Avg

8. 1

Max

8 9 

. &

Min

8. 1

Hardness as CaCOs 

(pp-n)

Avg

217 

103

Max

370 

109

Min

114

98

NOTE. Raw-water figures are from single analyses of water from each of the 55 main wells; finished-water 

figures are from analyses of monthly composite samples.
186 KANSAS 

Analytical data Wichita

Wells in 

Equus 

Beds

100 2-13-62

R

Well 4 

near 

Bently

2-13-62

R

Treatment 

plant

100 2-13-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj)- __-_..__.__..___. _____..__..___._..____..____ __--_.__.-.

Iron (Fe)..- ---__-_-__--- _ ......... ........................ _ ........

Boron (B)._ ___ _______ ________________________

Calcium (Ca)_. ________________________ ........... ......

Potassium (K)____ ________ _______________ ______ ...

Aluminum (Al)_ __ __ .. . ...... .. __ ......

Bicarbonate (HCOs). __ .. _ . .. ___ ...... .......

Carbonate (COs). ........ _ ........ ...... _. ....... ........ . _ .....

Sulfate (SO4)__. ..... . ..... ...

Chloride (Cl) .......... .... . .... ...............

Fluoride(F) ...... ................... .. ._ .. ......... ................

Nitrate (NOt). .................. ......... ................................

Iodide (I)............ ....

Phosphate (POO...... ._... _ .... .. .... ..............

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)-. _ .. .. _____ ________

Hardness as CaCOs-. . . . ......

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs . . .. .. _ . ... -

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) - . _ .. _ _____

pH. ............ .... .. ... ..

Color.. _ .. .

Turbidity.... ....................... . .. ..... ..............

Temperature..... ..... . .. ° F_.

22

.07

.00

.02

66

10

60

3.0

.00

252

0

68

41

.4

.7

.000

.25

404

206

0

651

7.9

1

2

60

18

.05

.35

.08

120

21

148

5.4

.00

330

0

128

221

.4

.4

.000

.15

844

384

113

1,410

7.3

9

2

50

21

.01

.11

.22

22

9.2

61

3.0

.00

115

0

66

44

.4

.3

.ooc

.50

284

93

0

476

8.0

1

2

60

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activityRadium (Ra)_ 

Uranium (U).

4.8 

< !

.5

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag).. ........................ _. __ . ........................

Aluminum (Al)_. .. ___ . __ .....

Boron (B). __

Barium (Ba)..... -- _ - .- ..

Beryllium (Be) .. _____ .. .. _ ______

Cobalt (Co)-.-.----. .-.......-..- ..... ..............

Chromium (Cr)_-._ __ . .

Copper (Cu)._ ________ . _ . ______

Iron (Fe). ____ ... . .

Lithium (Li). ............. . _ ... .....

Molybdenum (Mo) ......

Nickel (NO -

Phosphorus (P) . _ .

Lead (Pb).-_ ... ... ...

Rubidium (Rb)

Tin (Sn)__ _ . _ . ..

Strontium (Sr)_ . _ ..

Titanium (Ti). .......... . . .

Vanadium (V).

Zinc (Zn)...... ................... .. - ...........

ND

94

26

34

ND

ND

ND

1.2

21

8.6

4.3

3.7

<3.9

ND

ND

ND

ND

230

ND

ND

ND
WICHITA 187

Equus beds well field

3 

^

^"X-l Cheney 

"V^i Reservoir site

%& Under construction \^-_r^M^, 

completion date: 

January 1965 * ^lEastborough 

.6'c'al^/;

10 0

I i i i i I

10 MILES

EXPLANATION

Area supplied by Wichita water system 

Wichita city boundary

Water-supply pipeline

Proposed pipeline

 

Proposed pumping station

A

Treatment plant

S 

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 34. Water supplies and areas served by Wichita, Kans., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, June 1963.)

KENTUCKY

Louisville

LOUISVILLE

Ownership: Louisville Water Co. (operated as a private corporation, but stock 

is owned by city of Louisville).

Other areas served: Towns of St. Matthews, Shively, Middletown, Jeffersontown, 

and Anchorage; many small cities in Jefferson County.

Population served: Louisville, 390,639; total, about 550,000.

Source of supply: Ohio River.

Lowest mean discharge: Ohio River at Louisville, Ky., for 30-day period in 

climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 4,530 mgd.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 83.8 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Louisville filtration plant plain sedimentation, prechlo~ination, 

coagulation with alum (sometimes with sodium aluminate and activated carbon) 

softening with lime and soda ash, clarification, recarbonation, rapid sand filtration, postchlorination, ammoniation, adjustment of pH -{when not softening) 

with lime, and fluoridation (with sodium silieofluoride). When necessary for 

taste and odor control, breakpoint chlorination, activated carbon, and chlorine 

dioxide are used.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Softening plant, 160 mgd; filtration plant, 

162 mgd.

Raw-water storage: In treatment, 167.5 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 2.0.

Finished-water storage: 60 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Louisville filtration plant, 1961:

Raw water..

Finished water. .

Alkalinity as 

CaCO3 (ppm)

Avg

74 

54

Max

110

87

Min

46 

39

pH

Avg

7.3

8.4

Max

7.9 

10.0

Min

6.9 

7.0

Hardness as 

CaCO3 (ppm)

Avg

131 

109

Max

206 

228

Min

78 

84

Turbidity

Avg

101 

0

Max

800 

0

Min

4 

0

18?
190 KENTUCKY

Analytical data Louisville

Percent of supply _ _ _

Date of collection. _ __ __ _ _ __

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished _ _ __

Ohio River

100

9-13-61

R

Filtration 

plant

100

9-13-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2) -_- ----------------------------------

Iron (Fe)-__------ ___ ----- ___-__-_-_____---____-

Calcium (Ca) - _ Magnesium (Mg) ___ ' _ _

Sodium (Na) __ _ _ _ _ _ _

Carbonate (CO3) -__-__ _-__.__.__.__-_-_____-__-_--

Sulfate (SO4 )___ ____________________________________

Chloride (Cl)__._ __- ___-__________--____-__-_-____

Fluoride (F) _______________________________________

Nitrate (NOj)__-__--____-____.__-___-__ ------------

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)

N on carbonate hardness as CaCO3 _

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C)

pH-_-__-- --------_---_----_----_----------

Color. _______ _____________________________________

Temperature, _ . _ _ - ._ °F

C. 2

. 05

. 04

41

£. 5

ie

2. 6

90

C

74

20

.3

5.2

221

141

67

37C

7.3

r;

84-

0.9

. 03

. 00

24

9. 9

26

2. 5

46

0

81

28

.4

2. 5

202

101

63

346

7. 8

3

84

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than, 

beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum

Beta activity._____-_____-__________-_-___--__-__-_.

Maximum beta activity, raw water, July 1, 1961, to 

June 30, 1962.___________________________________

Radium (Ra)______________________________________

Uranium (U)_______________________________________

46

5.6

< 1 

. 4

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Aluminum (Al)

Boron (B)__-_-------__--_-__ ___________ _________

Barium (Ba)

Beryllium (Be)

Cobalt (Co)____ ____________________________________

Chromium (Cr)

Copper (Cu) _

Iron (Fe)----___. ____________ _____________________

Lithium (Li) _ _ __ _ Manganese (Mn)

Molybdenum (Mo) _

Nickel (Ni)__________________ _____________________

Phosphorus (P)_ __ _ _

Lead (Pb)_----___---__ -__ _ _______________

Rubidium (Rb)

Tin (Sn)_____.___ ___ _ __ ____

Strontium (Sr) __ _ _

Titanium (Ti) ___-_- ___ . ____ _____

Vanadium (V)- _ - -

Zinc (Zn) ._ __ __ __ .

 e^C 3

39C

42

14C

ND

ND

7.2

17

15C

_-. 8

12

7.8

<3. 0

ND

11

_. 7

ND

36C

4.2

ND

ND

<0. 2

680

37

76

ND

ND

6.6

7. 1

76

7.6

5.6

4. 6

<2. 4

ND

5. 1

3. 7

ND

180

<2. 4

7. 3

ND
LOUISIANA

Baton Rouge New Orleans Shreveport

BATON ROUGE

Ownership: Baton Rouge Water Works Co.

Population served: 152,419.

Source of supply: Seven weJJs at Lula Street plant range in depth from 1,601 to

2,553 feet, and diameters range from 6 to 12 inches; five wells at Bankston

Street plant range in depth from 1,153 to 2,382 feet and are 9 inci "5S in diameter;

five wells at Government Street plant range in depth from 1,745 to 2,664 feet,

and diameters range from 6 to 10 inches; three wells at Lafayette Street plant

are about 2,250 feet deep, and diameters range from 8 to 9 inches. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 14.8 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Lafayette Street plant, Bankston Street plant, Lula Street plant,

and Government Street plant chlorination. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Lafayette Street plant, 1.8 mgd; Lula

Street plant, 4.7 mgd; Bankston Street plant, 5.0 mgd; Government Street

plant, 6.7 mgd.

Finished-water storage: 6.1 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

191
192 LOUISIANA

Analytical data Baton Rouge

7 wells,

Lula

Street

plant

26 

3-30-62

F

3 wells,

Lafayette

Street

plant

10 

3-30-62

F

5 wells,

Government

Street

plant

37 3-30-62

F

5 wells,

Bankston

Street

plant

27 4-24-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica(SiO_) . - ... 

Potassium (K)_ . ........... .......

Bicarbonate (HCOs). .- . _ . -.

Carbonate (COs) ------------------------ ------------- -~

Sulfate(S04) 

Ohloride(Cl)... . - -. .. ... 

Fluoride (F)...-... ....... ....... ........ ........

Nitrate (NOs) 

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° O)._ _ _ ______ .... ...

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) ______ . - _

pH...____.._ _ ____ _____ ___________________

Color---__-___-_-___ ____________ _____ ______

32

.01

.9

.4

72

.5

174

0

11

5.2

.2

.1

239

4

0

299

7.6

10

19

.03

.C

.0

97

1.3

241

0

11

4.6

.3

.1

276

0

0

397

8.3

20

.01

.0

.0

78

.8

190

0

9.6

6.2

.2

.0

229

0

0

323

8.0

20

27

.01

1.2

.5

67

.8

365

0

8.4

7.0

.0

.0

209

5

0

285

7.7

10

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per li^er; <, less than]

Radium (Ra)___ _ __________________ __ __ _ ______

Uranium (U)--_______ ____________ . ________________

1.4

.1

<.l

1.3

.1

<.l

1.8

.1

<.l

1.9

<.l

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)-__-_ ______ _ _______ _______________

Aluminum (Al)__- _ _____ __ ________ _______ _____

Boron (B)__. _______ _ _____________ _________________

Beryllium (Be)... __ _ _____ _____

Cobalt (Co) 

Chromium (Cr) __ ________ __ ... ... _ ___

Copper (Cu) ___ __________ __ _____ _ ___ _ ______ ___

Iron (Fe). - -.----------_-.-.- _____ .... .

Lithium (Li).._ ______

Manganese CMn) _ __ __ ___ _____ .... __ _ __________ _ .

Nickel (Ni). .-. -

Phosphorus (P) i. __ -.

Lead (Pb)__. _______________ ________ ______ ______

Rubidium (Rb) ___

Tin (Sn) ___

Strontium (Sr).__ _ ..

Titanium (Ti). _.___-_.

Vanadium (V). _ . __ . __ _ _

Zinc(Zn)..-

0.80

27

73

28

ND

ND

<.32

3.0

51

7.6

14

<.95

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

13

1.0

ND

ND

<0.39

120

43

36

ND

ND

.39

19

39

7.0

17

<1.2

<3.9

ND

ND

ND

ND

20

5.1

ND

ND

<0.33

120

33

31

ND

ND

<.33

16

49

7.5

14

<.98

<3.3

ND

3.9

ND

ND

19

3.1

ND

ND

<0.3

33

36

36

ND

ND

<.3

63

17

9.3

22

ND

<3.0

ND

4.5

ND

ND

29

3.6

ND

ND
LOUISIANA 193

NEW ORLEANS

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: New Orleans, 627,525.

Source of supply: Mississippi River.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Jefferson Parish, East Jefferson Water

District 1. 

Lowest mean discharge: Mississippi River near Vicksburg, Miss., for 30-day

period in climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 91,500 m<>d. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 105 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Carrollton purification plant: Softening with lime, sedimentation, treating 

with activated carbon at times, chlorination, coagulation with ferrous 

sulfate, sedimentation, ammoniation, addition of polyphospl ates for 

stabilization, chlorination, and rapid sand filtration.

Algiers purification plant: Prechlorination, coagulation with ferrou0 sulfate, 

softening with lime, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, and addition of 

activated carbon when required. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Carrollton purification plant, 232 mgd;

Algiers purification plant, 7.8 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: None. 

Finished-water storage: Carrollton purification plant, 35 million gal; Algiers

purification plant, 7 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.
194 LOUISIANA

Analytical data New Orleans

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished . __ 

Mississippi 

River

100

7-21-61

R

Algiers 

purification 

plant

3

7-21-61

F

Carrollton 

purification 

plant

97 7-21-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj)-. --------_____-__-____

Iron(Fe). - .---- 

Bicarbonate (HCOs)----.- ---------

Sulfate(S04)~ -------------------

Chloride (Cl)_--.-- ---.-------

Nitrate (NOs). --------------------

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)

Specific conductance (micromhos at 

pH

Color

25° C)- - 

5.3 

.01 

48 

11 

17 

2.8 

148 

0 

43 

26 

.2 

.2 

254 

163 

42

414 

6.8 

10

4.5 

.01 

29 

6.7 I"* 

2.8 

46 

0 

49 

36 

.3 

1.6 

212 

100 

62

316 

8.3

1 .

4.5 

.02 

20 

7.8 

18 

2.8 

36 

0 

46 

32 

.2 

1.4 

187 

82 

52

284 

7.9 

10

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium hi micrograms per liter; <, less than. Maximum 

beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum beta activity, raw water, July 1, 1961, to June 

30, 1962----------- ..

Uranium(U). 

38

6.2

<-l

.2

6.3

.1 

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fornd]

Silver (Ag). ....-----... -________-

Aluminum (Al) __ ________________

Boron (B)-_ __ --___-_ ....

Barium (Ba) --------------------

Beryllium (Be). ----------------

Cobalt (Co)--.-----

Chromium (Cr) __ ... ..

Copper (Cu) __ 

Iron (Fe). ------------ --___-

Lithium (Li). --------- ..

Molybdenum (Mo) ___ .. .- ...

Nickel (Ni)-- ------

Lead (Pb) -._ -... ._

Rubidium (Rb). ___ _

Tin (Sn) .,. _._._.______

Strontium (Sr) ..____. .

Titanium (Ti)_. .......

Vanadium (V)--__ _-_-______ _______

Zinc (Zn)__ -____--

<0.39 

710 

74 

170 

ND 

ND 

1.6 

15 

430 

4.3 

47 

3.9 

9.4 

ND 

5.9 

3.9 

ND 

200 

30 

<12 

ND

<0.25 

47 

71 

PI 

ND 

ND 

.78 

2.7 

3F4 

3.4 

<2.5 

4.9 

<2.5 

ND 

4.9 

<2.5 

ND 

IfO 

<2.5 

7.6 

ND

7.0 

23 

34 

82 

ND 

ND 

.55 

2.5 

59 

3.8 

<2.1 

3.2 

2.7 

ND 

2.3 

<2.1 

ND 

97 

<2.I 

<6.3 

ND
LOUISIANA

SHREVEPORT

195

Ownership: Municipal.

Other area served: Barksdale Field.

Population served: Shreveport, 164,372.

Source of supply: Cross Lake.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 20.1 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Cross Lake treatment plant: pH adjustment with lime, ammoniation, 

coagulation with alum, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, and chlorination.

McNeill Street treatment plant: pH adjusted with lime, ammoniation, 

coagulation with alum, sedimentation, rapid sand nitration, and chlorination. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Cross Lake treatment plant, 40 mgd;

McNeill Street treatment plant, 14 mgd. 

Finished-water storage: Cross Lake, 6 million gal; McNeill Street, 4 million gal;

69th Street (Cross Lake), 5 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Cross Lake treatment plant, 1960:

Raw water.

Finished water.

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

25 

34

Max

36 

44

Min

15 

26

pH

Avg

6.9 

8,5

Max

7.1

8.7

Min

6.7 

8.3

Hardness 

as CaCO3 

(ppm)

Avg

42 

60

Max

44 

64

Min

39 

58

Tu-bidity

Avg

17 

0

Max

27 

0

Min

8 

0
196 LOUISIANA

Analytical data Shreveport

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished __ _____ _ _ ___ __ _____ _ _______

Cross

Lake

100 7-27-61

R

Cross

Lake

treatment

plant

74 7-27-61

F

McNeill

Street

treatment

plant

26 7-27-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica(SiO.)_____________________________________..___________-______. ______

Calcium (Ca)_____________. ______________ ________________________________

Sodium (Na) ____________________________________ ________________________

Bicarbonate (HCOs)..--- __ . __. __ _ . _________,--_-_-__----.

Carbonate (CO3 ) ------------__----_--_ - _______ ______________________

Sulfate (SO.) ---___-_- __-_.____._______.._______ ___________ -___-_-__

Chloride (Cl). _______

Fluoride(F).._ ___________ ,__ . . __ ____

Nitrate (NO3 ) ___________ _______ ___ .... _ ___________ __________

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) ______ ______ _________ __ _ _ __.:__

Hardness as CaCOs __ _ _ -

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C)

pH_ ____-______,____._________._.______________ _______..____.___.__

Color. ____ ____ _. _

3.7

.02

10

4.2

24

2.0

33

0

12

40

.1

.3

142

42

15

231

6.6

10

3.9

.02

19

3.8

24

1.9

37

0

17

50

.1

.1

176

63

33

279

6.5

0

3.7

.02

18

4.2

24

2.0

36

0

20

48

.1

.1

176

62

32

276

6.4

10

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per li*«jr; <, less than]

Radium (Ra)____________ ____ __ __ _____

Uranium (U)

24 

.1

5.7 

<. 1

Spectrographic analyses

[In roicrograms per liter. <, less than; X, semiquantitative determination hi difit order shown; ND 

looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)_-____________ _______ __ _ _ ________

Aluminum (Al)

Boron (B)__ _ _ ______

Barium (Ba)

Beryllium (Be) _ _ Cobalt (Co) _____________ .

Chromium (Cr) _

Copper (Cu)_ _

Iron (Fe). _______ ______ __ _

Lithium (Li)

Manganese (Mn) _ Molybdenum (Mo) .

Nickel (Ni)._

Phosphorus (P) _ ___

Lead (Pb) ______ _____

Rubidium (Rb) ________

Stronium (Sr)

Titanium (Ti)

Vanadium (V) _

Zinc(Zn)._

Ytterbium (Yb) ________

Yttrium (Y)_.

<0. 18 

46 

80 

78 

ND 

ND 

.34 

6.0 

100 

1.3 

100 

ND 

21 

ND 

11 

3.5 

ND 

85 

2.3 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND

<0. 19 

680 

31 

91 

ND 

ND 

.41 

2.1 

81 

1.7 

58 

ND 

2.1 

ND 

3.1 

3.3 

ND 

150 

2.7 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND

0.24 

540 

69 

120 

ND 

<2.2 

.52 

18 

280 

2.1 

71 

.67 

3.5 

ND 

6.7 

3.9 

<2.2 

240 

4.5 

ND 

ND 

X 

X
MARYLAND

Baltimore

BALTIMORE

(See fig. 35.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: A large population of the Metropolitan District of Anne 

Arundel, Baltimore, and Howard Counties.

Population served: Baltimore, 939,024; total, about 1,387,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Water from Gunpowder RiVer, impounded 

in Loch Raven Reservoir and supplemented from Susquehanna River below 

Conowingo Dam, is treated at the Montebello plant and constitutes approximately 55 percent of the total supply. Water from North Branch Patapsco 

River, impounded in Liberty Reservoir, is treated at the Ashburton plant and 

supplies 45 percent of the population served.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 211 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Montebello (Gunpowder River) and Ashburton (North Branch 

Patapsco River) filtration plants plain sedimentation, prechlorination, coagulation with alum, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, and adjustment of 

pH to 7.8 with lime. Fluoridation with fluosilicic acid to increase concentration 

of fluoride to 1.0 ppm in the finished water.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Montebello filtration plant, 240 mgd; 

Ashburton filtration plant, 120 mgd.

Raw-water storage: 86,000 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): 1.1 years.

Finished-water storage: Filtered water reservoirs, elevated tanks, strndpipes, 

775 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 3.7.

Remarks: The water supply for the Metropolitan District of Baltimore County, 

which borders the city of Baltimore on three sides, is obtained from the city 

of Baltimore. The Metropolitan District installs the distribution system and 

then turns it over to the city of Baltimore, where it becomes an integral part 

of that city's system.

Commercial consumption is primarily from the Montebello plant. 

Construction of facilities to add 250 mgd from the Susquehanna Fiver has 

begun; completion is expected in 1963.

Regular determinations at filter plants, 1960:

Montebello: Finished

Ashburton:

Alkalinity

as CaCO3

(ppm)

Avg

43

39

32

Max

49

37

Min

39

28

pH

Avg

7.9

7.8

Max

8.0

7.9

Min

7.5

7.7

Hardness

as CaCOs

(ppm)

Avg

60

47

Max

66

54

Min

57

41

Tu-bidity

Avg

0.1

3

.1

Max

0.2

.1

Min

0.1

.1

1P7
198 MARYLAND

Analytical data Baltimore

Loch

Raven

Reservoir

55 8-22-61

R

Montebello

filtration

plant

55 8-22-61

F

Liberty

Reservoir

45

R

Ashburton

filtration

plant

8-22-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

SilicaCSiOs).. . -... .

Sodium (Na)__- _ . _____________________ __

Sulfate(SO4) ... .-.-.._-.-. -...

Chloride(Cl). ... ... 

Fluoride (F). ......... _ .. ... ... ... ............ .. __ . ..

Nitrate (NOs) 

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) . .........................

pH.......... ...................................................

Color............... ..-.-..- . -........ ..... .........

5.5

.01

.00

.0

12

3.2

3.7

1.8

43

0

8.4

5.5

.0

3.3

.17

68

43

8

111

7.0

3

66

5.9

.00

.00

.0

18

3.5

3.1

1.6

48

0

10

9.0

1.0

3.4

.06

89

58

19

141

7.7

2

67

5.9

.00

.00

00

8.5

2.6

3.6

1.5

25

0

9.0

5.5

.1

4.7

.20

59

32

11

91

6.4

5

54

6.2

.00

.00

.0

18

2.2

4.0

1.8

43

0

12

9.0

.9

5.4

.06

89

55

20

141

7.7

3

56

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

2.9 

.1

<.l

2.9 

.1 

< !

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fouid]

Sliver (Ag)... _ ........ ....... .........................

Boron (B)___. ................ .- --_._.____ ...... ......

Cobalt(Co) . .....

Lithium(Li)... .. ................................... -...-.-.

Nickel(Ni).. . _ ._ _ 

Lead (Pb) . ... . .... 

Rubidium(Rb) __ _ 

Tin (Sn). ......................................................

Strontium (Sr)_ ____________ __ ..... _ ......

Titanium (Ti)_. .......................... .. .. ... .. .....

Zinc (Zn).... ....... _____.___._._.____..___._.___.__.-_-_-.. 

0.74

99

16

39

.75

.99

2.6

26

280

.16

52

.83

5.8

ND

43

3.3

1.1

32

2.7

<3.0

99

<0. 13

260

13

44

ND

ND

2.0

1.9

640

.14

10

.78

4.0

ND

7.2

3.0

ND

43

2.1

<3.8

<130

0.25

180

15

28

ND

ND

1.7

3.7

310

.16

8.0

ND

4.7

ND

5.9

3.1

ND

42

3.2

<3.7

<120
BALTIMORE 199

-^3 ^ g

S o " "3 

15 E >« 

fe'5 O o

IV -- C -S

s- c !- rt .

o c cs IT-I iv

E "V A «

5 S.,2 S E

13 «S -S g.

W fc; > 5 ^

735-717 O 64- -14

MASSACHUSETTS

Boston Springfield Worcester

BOSTON

(See fig. 36.)

Ownership: Metropolitan District Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Other areas served: Member towns: Arlington, Belmont, Brookline, Cambridge, 

Chelsea, Everett, Lexington, Lynnfield Water District, Maiden, Marblehead, 

Medford, Melrose, Milton, Nahant, Needham, Newton, Norwood, Feabody, 

Quincy, Revere, Saugus, Somerville, Stoneham, Swampscott, Wakefield, 

Waltham, Watertown, Winchester, and Winthrop. The following nonmember 

towns: South Hadley, Chicopee, Wilbraham, Lancaster, Clinton, Northboro, 

Southboro, Framingham, Marlboro. (Cambridge, Needham, Peabody, Wakefield and Winchester are only partially supplied.)

Population served: Boston, 679,197; total, about 2 million (supplies 48 percent 

of the State).

Sources and percentages of supply: Swift River, impounded in Quabbin Reservoir, 

and Ware River diverted into Quabbin Reservoir through a deep rock tunnel. 

Water from Quabbin Reservoir is conducted through a tunnel to Wachusett 

Reservoir, then to Norumbega and Weston Reservoirs, the two principal distribution reservoirs.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Sudbury Reservoir goes into Framingham 

Reservoir No. 3; it has a capacity of 1,200 million gal and has been used intermittently.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 215 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment:

Weston Reservoir plant and Norumbega Reservoir plant: Chlorination and

ammoniation. 

Newton Pumping plant: Chlorination and partial dechlorination (sulfur

dioxide). 

Six small plants: All use Chlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Weston Reservoir plant, 100 mgd; Sudbury 

plant, 100 mgd; Norumbega plant, 225 mgd.

Raw-water storage, in million gallons: Reservoirs: Quabbin, 412,240; Wschusett, 

65,000; Sudbury, 7,254; Framingham No. 3, 1,180.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): 6.2 years.

201
202 MASSACHUSETTS

Finished-water storage, in million gallons: Reservoirs: Norumbega, 204.6; 

Weston, 200; Spot Pond, 1,892.7; Fells, 85.2; Waban Hill, 16.7; Chestnut 

Hill, 522.8; Bear Hill, 2.5; Arlington (open reservoir), 2.0; Arlington (two steel 

standpipes), 2.0 (each); Bellevue No. 1, 2.5; Bellevue No. 2, 3.7; Lexington, 

2.0; Nash Hill, 25.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 14.

Regular determinations at Norumbega treatment plant, 1961:

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

6.6 

6.0

Max

8.0 

7.2

Min

5.5 

4.7

pH

Avg

6.6 

6.5

Max

6.9 

6.7

Min

6.4 

6.2

Hardness 

as CaCOa 

(ppm)

Avg

13 

13

Max

18 

18

Mil

11 

11

Turbidity

Avg

0.8

.8

Max

1.5 

1.5

Min

0.4 

.4
Nonmember Member 

See title for town listings

Boston city boundary

Aqueducts

A, Cochituate D, Wachusett 

B, Chicopee £, Weston

Valley F, Pressure 

C, Quabbin G, Sudbury

Tunnels

A, Wachusett-Marlboro Tunnel 

B, City Tunnel

A

Chlorine treatment plant 

s

Water analysis'sampling site 5 

I i

0 

i i I

5 MILES 

J

FIGURE 36. Water supplies and areas served by the Metropolitan (Boston, Mass.) District Commission water system. 

(Approved by local municipal water officials, March 1963.) Areas supplied by Metropolitan District Commission water 

system; Nonmembers: I, South Hadley; II, Chicopee; III, Wilbraham; IV, Lancaster; V, Clinton; VI, Northboro: VII, Southboro; VIII, Framingham; IX, Marlboro; Members: 1, Arlington; 2, Belmont; 3, Brookline; 4, Cambridge; 5, Chelsea; 

6, Everett; 7, Lexington; 8, Lynnfield water district; 9, Maiden; 10, Marblehead; 11, Medford; 12, Melrose; 13, Milton; 14, 

Nahant; 15, Needham; 16, Newton; 17, Norwood; 18, Peabody; 19, Quincy; 20, Revere; 21, Saugus; 22, Somerville; 23, Stoneham; 24, Swampscott; 25, Wakefield; 26, Waltham; 27, Watertown; 28, Winchester; 29, Winthrop.

8

CO
204 MASSACHUSETTS

Analytical data Boston

Quabbin 

Reservoir '

Norumbega 

Reservoir

Percent of supply._______________

Date of collection.---_--____-_____ 

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished.

100

1-15-62 

R

100

4-17-62 

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOa)__-___-__-_______-____-___-_-_-_---__--_ 1. 0

Iron (Fe)____-_-----_-___________________________ , 04

Manganese (Mn)___________________________________ .00

Aluminum (Al)_________________________________-___ . 15

Copper (Cu)__________.__________________________ . 04

Calcium (Ca)_______-_-_____________-____________ 2. 9

Magnesium (Mg)____ _______________________________ . 6

Sodium (Na)_______________________________________ 1. 7

Potassium (K)_____________________________________ . 7

Arsenic (As)_______________________________________ . 00

Bicarbonate (HCOg)__-____-_-_____-___.--________._ 5

Carbonate (CO3)_---------------------------------- 0

Sulfate (SO4)___._._________________________________ 6. 9

Chloride (Cl)-______________________________________ 2. 1

Fluoride (F)_-_-__-_-____________________________ .1

Nitrate (NO3) ------_--------_--_-------_------_-- . 0

Dissolved solids (residue at 180°C)___________________ 25

Hardness as CaCO3 _________________________________ 10

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCO3____----_--_------_ ______-__-

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25 0 C)--____-__-_-_ __________

pH________________________________________________ 6. 3

Color.____________________________________________ 5

Turbidity____-_-___________________________________ 0

Temperature.__________________________________°F__ __________

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter]

Beta activity.____________________________________

Radium (Ra)..___________________________________

Uranium (U) _____________________________________

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)___________________________________

Aluminum (Al)___________________________________

Boron (B)_-_-_-_-_-______-_-_--___-___________

Barium (Ba)_____________________________________

Beryllium (Be)___________________________________

Cobalt (Co)______________________________________

Chromium (Cr)___________________________________

Copper (Cu)_____________________________________

Iron (Fe)________________________________________

Lithium (Li)_-_-______--____-_-__-____-__________

Manganese (Mn)_________________________________

Molybdenum (Mo)_______________________________

Nickel (Ni)______________________________________

Phosphorus (P)___________________________________

Lead (Pb)__________ _____________________________

Rubidium (Rb)___________________________________

Tin (Sn).___ ___________________________________

Strontium (Sr)___________________________________

Titanium (Ti)____________________________________

Vanadium (V)____________________________________

Zinc (Zn)________________________________________

1 Analyzed by the Metropolitan District Commission.
MASSACHUSETTS 205

SPRINGFIELD

(See fig. 37.) 

Ownership: Municipal. 

Other areas served: Agawan, Longmeadow, East Longmeadow, Southwfck, and

Ludlow. Westfield, Wilbraham, and West Springfield receive a small part of

their supply from Springfield.

Population served: Springfield, 178,700; total, 236,290. 

Sources and percentages of supply: Little River impounded in Borden Brook and

Cobble Mountain Reservoirs, 91 percent; Ludlow Reservoir, 9 percent. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 31.5 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

West Parish filters (Cobble Mountain Reservoir): Aeration, slow sard filtration, and marble contact filtration.

Ludlow filter plant: Slow sand filtration and chlorination. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: West Parish filters, 45 mgd; Ludlow filter

plant, 10 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: Little River system, 25,429 million gal; Ludlow Reservoir,

1,500 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 2.3 years. 

Finished-water storage: Provin Mountain Reservoir, 60 million gal, with 30

million gal to be added in summer 1962; Ludlow Reservoir, 10 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 3.2.

Regular determinations at West Parish treatment plant, 1961:

Alkalinity

as CaCOs

(ppm)

Avg

5

5

Max

7

Min

4

4

PH

Avg

6.4

6.7

Max

6.5

6.7

Min

6.2

6.6

Hardness

as CaCOa

(ppm)

Avg

12

12

Max

13

13

Min

9

9

. Turbidity

Avg

3

Max

5

Min

2
206 MASSACHUSETTS

Analytical data Springfield

Percent of supply___ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __

Date of collection, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Type of water: F, finished _ _ _ ___

Little P.iver 

(Cobble 

Mountain 

Reservoir)

91

4-16-62

F

Ludlow Reservoir

9

4-16-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2)___ -----------_-_--------_-------------_

Ironi (Fe)_._____._______ . ________________________

Manganese 1 (Mn)____ __ _ _ _ _ _

Calcium (Ca) __ __ _ _ _ _ __

Magnesium (Mg)_ __ _ . _ _

Sodium (Na) __ _ . _ _ _ _ _

Potassium (K) ___ _ _ _ _ _

Bicarbonate (HCO3) _____ __ _ _

Carbonate (CO_)_ __________________________________

Sulfate (SO4)-__. -_ -_-__ _____ _________________

Chloride (Cl) _ ___________ _ ___ - ____ __________

Fluoride (F)_____ _ ____ _ _ ________

Nitrate (NO3)__ ____________________________________

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) _

Hardness as CaCOs __ _ _ _

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOt _ _

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) _ _

pH_ ______________________________________________

Color___________________ _ _ __ __ ______________

Turbidity. _____________ _ _ _ ___ __________

Temperature- _ _ _ _ _ °F

4. 1

.04

. 00

2.2

1. 1

2.9

.7 f"

0

e. e

5. 0

. 0

.2 3"

7

47

6 2

6

1

40

3.2

.08

. 00

5. 1

1. 1

2. 8

. 9

8

0

8.9

6.0

. 0

. 1

34

17

11

55

6.4

4

0

49

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity ________ ___ ___

Radium (Ra) _ _____ __ ____ ___

Uranium (U)______ ___

6.6

< 1

< 1

6. 5

< 1

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fo-7nd]

Silver (Ag)_ ____ _ __ _ ___ _ _

Aluminum (Al)_ _ __ _ _ ___ __

Boron (B)___ _ _ ______

Barium (Ba)_ ____ __ __

Beryllium (Be) _ ____ __ _ __ _____

Cobalt (Co)_____________ _ _ _ ___ __ _______

Chromium (Cr) ______ ___ _ __ ____

Copper (Cu) ____ _ __ ___

Iron (Fe) _______ _ ___.

Lithium (Li) ____

Manganese (Mn) _____ __ __ _ _____

Molybdenum (Mo) _ __ _

Nickel (Ni).____ _ ___ _

Phosphorus (P) _____ _ _ __ _ _ _

Lead (Pb) __________ _ _ _ _ _____

Rubidium (Rb) _ ___

Tin (Sn)________ _ _____

Strontium (Sr) ____

Titanium (Ti)__ _______ _ _ _____ _

Vanadium (V) _ ___ _ _ ____

Zinc (Zn)__ ____ _ _ _____

0. 14

17

5.9

15

ND

ND

<. 04

41

25

.21

1. 5

ND

.9

ND

1.6

1.3

ND

8. 1

.4

ND

ND

0.49

14

10

31

ND

ND

<. 04

4.9

70

. 12

11

ND

.7

ND

1.3

1.9

ND

20

.4

ND

ND

i In solution when collected.
SPRINGFIELD 207

EXPLANATION

Areas served by Springfield water system 

Springfield city boundary

Aqueduct 

^^Springfield 

B, Ludlow

 

Filter plant

a, West Parish 

b, LudlouS

Water analysis sampling site

Littleville Dam 

for flood control 

and water supply 

(under construction)

Provin

Mountain 

~ Reservoir 

\, vL River ~^i

Ludlow 

Reservoir

Cobble Mountain 

Resermir.

Borden Brook 

Reservoir

5 MILES

I i i i i

FIGURE 37. Water supplies and areas served by Springfield, Mass., water system. 

(Approved by local municipal water officials, March 1963.) Areas served by 

Springfield water system: 1, Southwick; 2, Agawan; 3, Longmeadow; 4, East Longmeadow; 5, Ludlow.
208 MASSACHUSETTS

WORCESTER

(See fig. 38.) 

Ownership: Municipal. 

Other areas served: Woodland Water District, Elm Hill Water District, and

Pinecroft Water District. 

Population served: Worcester, 186,587. 

Sources and percentages of supply: Lynde Brook Reservoir fed by Kettle Brook

Reservoirs 1, 2, 3, and 4, 65 percent; Holden Reservoir 2, fed by Pine Hill,

Kendall, and Holden 1 Reservoirs, 35 percent.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Wachusett and Quiiiapoxet Reservoirs. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 23.5 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Lynde Brook Reservoir, Worcester, Apricot Street, and Olean Street

plants chlorination. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Olean Street plant, 30 mgd; other plants,

12 mgd.

Raw-water storage: 7,760 million gal, including the Quinapoxet Reservoir. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 330.

Finished-water storage: 3.75 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.
WORCESTER 209

5 MILES

EXPLANATION

Area served by Worcester water system 

Worcester city boundary

Aqueduct

Chlorine added to water

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 38. Water supplies and areas served by Worcester, Mass., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, March 1963.) High service supply reservoirs: 

A, Kettle Brook 1; B, Kettle Brook 2; C. Kettle Brook 3; D, Kettle Brook 4; E. Lynde 

Brook. Low service supply reservoirs: F, Holden 2; G, Holden 1; H, Kendall; /, Pine 

Hill. Emergency supply reservoirs: J, Quinapoxet; K, Wachusett(owned by Metropolitan 

District Comm. (Boston).) Water districts: 1, Woodland; 2, Elm Hill; 3, Pinecroft.
210 MASSACHUSETTS

Analytical data Worcester

Percent of supply _

Date of collection _ _

Type of water: F, finished. _ _

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Holden 

Reservoir 2

35

4-17-62

F

Lynde Brook 

and Holden 

Reservoir

65

0)

F

Silica (SiO2) _____________________________________

Iron 2 (Fe)

Calcium (Ca) _ _ _

Magnesium (Mg) _ _

Sodium (Na) __ _ _ _

Potassium (K)_ _ _ _ _

Bicarbonate (HCO3)---___ _ _______________________

Carbonate (CO3)_ ____ _ _ _ . ______ ___

Sulfate (SOO- _- ---------------------------------

Chloride (Cl)__ ________________ ---------------- _ _

Fluoride (F) ______ _ _ _ ____-

Nitrate (NO3) _

Dissolved*solids (residue at 180° C)

Hardness as CaCO3

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) _

pH___ ____________________________________________

Color

Turbidity.. _ __ __ _ ___ __ -

Temperature _ °F

4.6

.09

.03

3. 4

. 5

2.0

. 9

5

0

6.6

3.8

. 0

. 0

28

11

7

39

6. 0

4

1

42

4. 8

. 34

. 00

4. 4

. 0

3. 2

. 0

4

0

3.2

. 1

37

15

6. 5

12

2

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity

Radium (Ra) _ _

Uranium (V) _ _

36

< 1

<. 1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag) _

Aluminum (Al)

Boron (B) _

Barium (Ba)

Beryllium (Be)

Cobalt (Co) _ ________________ __ ___________ _ __

Chromium (Cr)

Copper (Cu)

Iron (Fe) ________ _ _

Lithium (Li)

Manganese (Mn)

Molybdenum (Mo) _

Nickel (Ni)___________ _ . _ ______

Phosphorus (P)

Lead(Pb)____ ___ ___ _ _.-___

Rubidium (Rb)

Tin (Sn) _ _

Strontium (Sr)

Titanium (Ti) - __

Vanadium (V)_

Zinc (Zn) _ ______ _ _ _

0. 06

26

12

9.3

ND

ND

.03

5. 2

61

.20

29

ND

.8

ND

1. 6

1. 4

ND

8. 1

. 4

< 9

ND

1 Average of analyses for the year 1961 by city of Worcester.

2 In solution when collected.
MICHIGAN

Detroit Flint Grand Rapids

DETROIT

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Cities of Alien Park, Belleville, Berkley, Birmingham, Center 

Line, Clawson, Dearborn, East Detroit, Ecorse, Farmington, Ferndale, Fraser, 

Garden City, Grosse Pointe Park, Grosse Pointe Woods, Hamtramck, Harper 

Woods, Hazel Park, Huntington Woods, Lathrup Village, Lincoln Park, 

Livonia, Madison Heights, Melvindale, Oak Park, Pleasant Ridge, River 

Rouge, Riverview, Roseville, Royal Oak, St. Clair Shores, Southfield, Southgate, 

Trenton, and Warren. Villages of Beverly Hills, Gibraltar, Grosse Pointe 

Shores, Inkster, and Wayne; townships of Brownstown, Canton, Dearborn, 

Farmington, Grosse Isle, Huron, Nankin, Plymouth, Redford, Romulus, Royal 

Oak, Sterling, and Taylor; Wayne County General Hospital (Eloise), Detroit 

House of Correction, and Wayne County Training School.

Population served: Detroit, 1,654,100; total, about 3,078,200.

Source of supply: Detroit River.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 483 mgd (U.F. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Water Works Park Station, Springwells Station, and Northeast 

Station all raw water is pumped first to the Water Works Park Station for 

prechlorination and distribution to the three stations, where identical treatment 

is given as follows: Coagulation with alum, treatment with activated carbon, 

sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, and postchlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Water Works Park Station, 3?0 mgd; 

Springwells Station, 452 mgd; Northeast Station, 192 mgd.

Raw-water storage: None.

Finished-water storage: Detroit owned, 197.4 million gal; on Detroit system but 

not Detroit-owned, 42.75 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Water Works Park Station, July 1959-June 1960:

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

80 

76

Max

84 

78

Min

78 

74

PH

Avg

8.0 

7.6

Max

8.1

7.7

Min

7.9 

7.4

Hardness 

as OaOOa 

(ppm)

Avg

100 

100

Max

104 

104

Min

96 

96

TurMdity

Avg

11 

.4

Max

21 

.6

Min

2 

.1

211
212 MICHIGAN

Analytical data Detroit

Percent of supply.. -----------

Type of water: R, raw; F,

Detroit River

100 9-1-61

R

(>)

R

(2)

R

Water

Works

Park

Station

100 9-1-61

F

Treated water

(')

F

&

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOi). .................

Calcium (Ca)... ..............

Bicarbonate (HCO3). .........

Carbonate (CO3) ----.-...-..

Sulfate (SOO--. .............

Chloride (Cl)..... ............

Fluoride (F)..................

Nitrate (NOS). ...............

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180° C>. ........ ............

Noncarbonate hardness as 

CaCOj ...................

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C). ............

pH..... - . ..-.... ...

Color.........................

Turbidity--....----.... ...

.17

.14

7.0

4.1

9

92

0

18

8.0

.0

19Q

99

24

213

7.6

3

 *n

73

2.8

.16

on

8

1 A

) 6

100

16

10

.39

100

19

8.5

60

.03

26

6

93

0

12

.16

121

96

16

8.0

1.5

.06

.03

28

7.0

/ 3.9

I S

94

0

19

9

n

.0

131

99

22

217

7.1

1

73

3.1

.01

30

8

I 

) 8

96

0

20

11

.28

145

99

23

227

7.8

.5

1.0

.01

26

6

92

0

15

7

.16

115

96

19

208

7.5

.2

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter. M aximum beta activity 

data from U.S. Public Health Service. 1962]

Beta activity. . ____ .. ....

Maximum beta activity, raw 

water, July 1, 1961, to June 

30, 1962...... ...............

Radium (Ra) __ ..........

Uranium (U).. _______ ........

16

2.8

.1 

.1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. ND, looked for but not found]

Boron (B).. ___ ............

Barium (Ba) _ . ______ ...

Cobalt (Co)..................

Iron (Fe)--._ .......... ......

Nickel (Ni) .. ......... ......

Lead (Pb). ...................

Rubidium (Rb) ._.____.__.___

Tin (Sn)-.... ........

Strontium (Sr)_....... .......

Titanium (Ti)... .............

Vanadium (V)_. __ . _ ......

Zinc (Zn; ...... .....

0 91

410

33

100

ND

ND

1.5

4.°.

9^0

.79

18

1.6

ND

2 1

ND

97

7.5

ND

210

0.22

960

22

40

ND

ND

1.1

56

.72

1.4

5.6

ND

4.0

ND

110

2.2

ND

ND

1 Maximum value of constituents in monthly averages of analyses by the city of Detroit during 1961.

2 Minimum value of constituents in monthly averages of analyses by the city of Detroit during 1961.
MICHIGAN 213

FLINT

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Flint, 194,940; about 1,000 outside the city limits; total, 

about 195,940.

Source of supply: Flint River (impounded). Water is stored in Earl L. Holloway 

Reservoir, about 10 miles above the water plant. Water is taken from the 

Flint River at the plant. Depth of water in the river at the intake is rezulated 

by two downstream dams, Utah and Hamilton, in conjunction with control of 

the release of water from Holloway Reservoir. Another reservoir, on Kearsley 

Creek, a tributary of the Flint River below Holloway Reservoir, can be used in 

the event of an emergency.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 32 mgd (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Flint filtration plant prechlorination, addition of activated carbon, 

chlorine dioxide, coagulation with alum, softening with lime and soda ash, 

sedimentation, recarbonation, rapid sand filtration, and postchlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Flint filtration plant, 56 mgd.

Raw-water storage: 6,400 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water vsed, in 

mgd): 200.

Finished-water storage: 25 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Flint filtration plant, 1960:

Raw water

Finished water _

Avg

8.3

10. 2

PH

Max

8. 4

10. 5

Min

8. 1

10. 2

Avg

15

. 01

Turbidity

Max

23

. 0

Min

3.8

. 0
214 MICHIGAN 

Analytical data Flint

Type of water: R, raw; F,

Flint River (impounded)

100 8-31-61

R

0) 

R

« 

R

Filtration plant

100 8-31-61

F

(0 

F

(s) 

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOa). ... -

Iron (Fe) ________ .. _ .

Sodium (Na)--.-... ... ....

Carbonate (COa)- ______

Sulfate (8Ot). ................

Chloride (Cl) _. 

Nitrate (NOt). ...............

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180°C) - __ -

Noncarbonate hardness as

Speeiflc conductance (micropH...........................

4.6

.24

.17

71

24

15

2.4

254

0

60

26

.1

1.1

348

276

68

578

7.4

17

74

1.00

2.4

85

29

265

26

49Q

312

103

56

16

180

41

12

270

202

46

5.7

.06

.02

.1

29

3.9

28

2.8

12

16

64

34

.1

.8

204

88

52

343

9.4

3

74

0.20

9 Q

30

5.0

57

92

34

246

90

55

0.86

25

.9

39

39

20

172

80

42

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

3.1 

< ! 

< !

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but "not fourd]

Silver (Ag).... ... ..... ... .

Boron (B) ______ ____

Barium (Ba)_. __ . _ . __ .

Cobalt (Co).... _ ___ . __

Lithium (Li)

Nickel (Ni)_.. -.._.__. .....

Lead (Pb)_ . 

Tin (Sn)....._. ...............

Titanium (Ti)..... _____ ..

Zinc (Zn) ____________

<0.53 

690 

79 

150 

ND 

ND 

.90 

17 

850 

3.0 

170 

5.8 

15 

ND 

15 

ND 

ND 

260 

11 

ND 

ND

<0.25 

160 

25 

36 

ND 

ND 

1.1 

4.8 

43 

4.6 

<2. 5 

5.1 

6.1 

ND 

3.3 

<2.5 

ND 

180 

<2. 5 

<7.6 

ND

1 M aximum value of constituents in analyses by the city of Flint of monthly composit ? sample during 1960.

2 Minimum value of constituents in analyses by the city of Flint of monthly composite sample during 1960.
MICHIGAN

GRAND RAPIDS

215

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Parts of neighboring towns.

Population served: Grand Rapids, 175,741; total, about 200,000.

Source of supply: Lake Michigan (99 percent in 1960).

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Grand River used when pumping system at 

lake breaks down and to make up high demand. Less than 1 percent ir 1960.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 34 mgd (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Grand Rapids filtration plant prechlorination, pH adjusted with 

lime to 8.2, addition of activated carbon and sodium silicofluoride, sedimentation, postchlorination, when needed, and rapid sand filtration. Auxiliary 

supply softened with lime.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Grand Rapids filtration plant, 66 mgd. A 

new 66-mgd filtration plant at Lake Michigan is scheduled to be completed by 

January 1963. After completion the present plant will be used to treat the 

auxiliary supply (Grand River) and to mix water from the two sources in the 

clear well.

Finished-water storage: 52.75 million gal; includes 9 million gal in clear well at 

plant.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily wate~ used, 

in mgd): 1.6.

Regular determinations at Grand Rapids filtration plant, 1960:

Alkalinity 

as CaCO3 

(ppm)

Avg

109 

107

Max

125 

115

Min

100 

80

pH

Avg

8.1

7.7

Max

8.5 

8.6

Min

7.5 

7.1

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppml

Avg

137 

140

Max

170 

170

Min

122 

126

Turbidity

Avg

5.5 

.02

MP.X

20 

.7

Min

1 

.0

735-717 O 64- -15
216 MICHIGAN

Analytical data Grand Rapids

Percent of supply _ _ _ _ _

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished ____

Lake Michigan

100

8-30-61

R

Filtration plant

100

8-30-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2) __ ____________ ___________

Iron (Fe)___ _ _ _ _ __

Manganese (Mn) _____ _ _____

Calcium (Ca) _______ __ _ ___

Potassium (K) __ _____ __

Bicarbonate (HCO3 )--_ _ _____-_-___-__

Carbonate (CO3)_

Sulfate (SO4) ------------_--------_--

Chloride (Cl).______.____. ____ _ ________

Fluoride (F)_ ________________ _ ________

Nitrate (NOs).------.---- --------------

Hardness as CaCOs---

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCO3 __ -

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) _ 

PH

Color. _______.____________-____-_-_---

Temt>erature__ - _ °F _

1.8

.01

. 03

34

11

4 1

.9

136

0

21

7.0

. 0

. 5

153

130

18

265

7.8

4

65

1.8

. 00

. 02

34

11

4 Q

. 9

126

0

24

8. 5

1. 1

. 5

153

130

27

273

7. 5

2

65

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in microgram^ per liter]

Beta activity __ _ _ _

Radium (Ra)__ _ _ _ -____

8. 5 

. 1 

. 2

Spectrographic analyses

[In mierograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fornd]

Silver (Ag) _____ _ _ _. _

Aluminum (Al)_ _ _______

Boron (B) ___________ _______ ________

Cobalt (Co)____ ________________________

Copper (Cu) ____ _____ _.

Iron (Fe) ___ __ _ _ ______

Molybdenum (Mo) _ _ _ _

Nickel (Ni) __-___-__________-_-_---_---

Phosphorus (P) _____

Lead (Pb) __-_________-_-_____--__---_-

Rubidium (Rb) _

Tin (Sn) _ _ _ ________________________

Titanium (Ti)________ __________________

Vanadium (V) __ _ __ __

Zinc (Zn)________ _ _ ___ __ ___ _

<0. 25 

77 

15 

74 

ND 

ND 

. 52 

52 

59 

. 71 

<2. 5 

<1. 7 

6. 2 

ND 

7. 1 

ND 

ND 

84 

<2. 5 

ND 

ND

<0. 23 

280 

14 

39 

ND 

ND 

. 90 

.97 

28 

1. 5 

<2. 3 

1.9 

<2. 3 

ND 

4. 4 

ND 

ND 

100 

<2. 3 

<6. 9 

ND
MINNESOTA

Minneapolis St. Paul

MINNEAPOLIS

(See fig. 39.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Columbia Heights, New Hope, Crystal, Bloomington, 

Morningside, Golden Valley, Metropolitan Airport, University Center, and 

parts of Edina and Fort Snelling.

Population served: Minneapolis, 482,000; total, 582,000. 

Source of supply: Mississippi River. 

Lowest mean discharge: Mississippi River at Anoka, Minn., for 30-day period

in climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 692 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 58.7 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Fridley softening plant: Softening with lime and soda ash; clarification and

stabilization with alum, carbon, and carbon dioxide as required. 

Fridley and Columbia Heights filtration plants: Prechlorination, treatment 

with alum, rapid sand filtration, postchlorination, ammoniaticn, and 

fluoridation. 

Intermediate water storage: Open reservoir, 75 million gal (after softening and

before filtration).

Finished-water storage: Standpipes, 1.5 million gal; reservoirs, 117 mill: on gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 2.0.

Regular determinations at filtration plants, 1960:

Plant

Fridley:

Columbia Heights: Finished water. ..........

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

158 

47

41

Max

214 

59

59

Min

97 

26

26

PH

Avg

8.2 

8.4

8.6

Max

8.85 

9.5

9.5

Min

7.6 

7.50

7.5

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

169 

60

67

Max

219

88

88

Min

103 

36

48

Turtidity

Avg

6.7 

.4

.3

Max

6C 

1.0

1.0

Min

0.8 

.0

.0

217
218 MINNESOTA

Analytical data Minneapolis

Percent of supply ______________

Date of collection _____ ________

Type of water: B, raw; F, finished __________

Mississippi River

100 7-31-61

R

Fridley flltratio" 

plant

51 7-31-61

F

Columbia Heights 

nitration plant

49 7-31-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2)-_ 

Boron (B) ____________________

Potassium (K) _ ...... ____ ...... __ .

Bicarbonate (HCCh) ____ . __ _ _ _._.

Carbonate (COs) ________ - __ - __

Sulfate(SO4) _ . .. _ ... ....

Chloride (Cl)_ - _ ______________.____.__

Nitrate (NO3)-. . - ....

Phosphate (POi) __ --.-. _ ... ... ... . __

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) _.._.____

Hardness as CaCOs _ - _______ ___

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs __ __

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) _ .

Color __________________ __

Turbidity.. _________________ ___ ____.__

11

.02

.00

.04

.4

48

16

7.3

1.5

222

0

16

1.6

.2

.4

.32

228

185

3

366

7.5

17

5

80

3.3

.00

.01

.04

.8

20

4.6

6.6

2.0

36

0

41

12

1.3

.0

.11

116

69

39

195 

7.5

2

1

76

4.0

.01

.00

.03

1.1

15

5.5

6.3

1.8

35

0

33

7.5

1.0

.0

.19

112

60

31

170 

7.8

3

1

80

Badiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than, 

beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum

Beta activity _ . ______________

Maximum beta activity, raw water, July 1, 

1961, to June 30, 1962.__... _..___________

Radium (Ra) _______________________________

Uranium (U). _________________________

66

4.1

<:!

4.1

<.l 

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)___.. _________________________

Aluminum (Al)____... ... .. ........... _______

Boron (B) _______________

Barium (Ba) ______ . _ . ____ . _____

Beryllium (Be) _ . _____ . _ . __ .. _____

Cobalt (Co).-_ _________________________

Chromium (Cr)_ . _________________

Copper (Cu) ______________ __

Iron (Fe)._. __ . _ . ________ .. ...

Lithium (Li)_._ ________________

Molybdenum (Mo) ____________ ___

Nickel (Ni). __________________

Phosphorus (P) ____ . _ . _ . ____

Lead (Pb)_.__-_._____________________ ..

Rubidium (Kb). ______________________ ....

Tin (Sn)___. _____________ ... ...

Strontium (Sr) _____ __ .. .

Titanium (Ti)'_______________________

Vanadium (V) ___ .... _____ .

Zinc (Zn)_. ___ ___ ._ .

0.48 

88 

68 

96 

ND 

ND 

1.4 

17 

29 

6.0 

24 

1.2 

4.4 

ND 

6.8 

16 

ND 

52 

<4.0 

ND 

ND

<0. 15 

420 

22 

22 

ND 

ND 

.68 

S.4 

f.9 

14 

2. 1 

.45 

2.0 

ND 

2 1

re

ND 

15 

<1.5

<4.5 

ND

<0.15 

560 

19 

26 

ND 

ND 

.59 

4.4 

19 

5.9 

2.8 

<.44 

8.4 

ND 

3.5 

1.9 

ND 

12 

<1.5 

<4.4 

ND
MINNEAPOLIS 219

Areas supplied by Minneapolis 

water system

Minneapolis and St. Paul 

city boundary

4 5 MILES

I I

Filtration plant 

a, Columbia Heights 

b, Fridley softening plant

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 39. Water supplies and areas served by Minneapolis, Minn., water system. 

(Approved by local municipal water officials, June 1963.) Areas served by Minneapolis 

water system: 1, New Hope; 2, Crystal; 3, Golden Valley; 4, Columbia Heights; 

5, Morning-side; 6, Edina; 7, Airport; 8, Fort Snelling; 9, Bloomington.
220 MINNESOTA

ST. PAUL

(See fig. 40.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Maplewood, Mendota Heights,

Roseville, and West St. Paul.

Population served: St. Paul, 313,000; total, 334,000. 

Sources and percentages of supply: Mississippi River, 90 percent; watershed of

impounding lakes, 10 percent.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Two artesian well fields and Centerville impounding lake system. 

Lowest mean discharge: Mississippi River at Anoka, Minn., for 30-day period in

climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 1,070 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 42.6 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: McCarron purification plant aeration, coagulation with alum,

softening with lime, recarbonation, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, chlorination, and fluoridation.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: McCarron purification plant, 100 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: 6,750 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 158. 

Finished-water storage: Reservoirs, 84 million gal; tanks and standpipes, 7.2

million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 2.1.

Regular determinations at McCarron purification plant, 1959:

Raw water. _ .

Finished water ....

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

164 

61

Max

193 

83

Min

140 

44

pH

Avg

8.3

8.6

Max

8.6 

9.0

Min

8.2 

8.2

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

178

88

Max

208 

111

Min

54 

72

Turbidity

Avg

1.0 

.2

Max

2.0 

1.0

Min

~"6.~i
ST. PAUL 221

C\WhiteBear 

X\ £~\ Lake

EXPLANATION

Existing raw water supply conduit

Area supplied by St. Paul 

water system

St. Paul and Minneapolis city 

boundaries

Future treated or raw water 

supply conduit

S 

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 40. Water supplies and areas served by St. Paul, Minn., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, June 1963.) Areas served by St. Paul water system: 

1, Roseville; 2, Lauderdale; 3, Falcon Heights; 4, Maplewood; 5, West St. Paul; 

6, Mendota Heights.
222 MINNESOTA

Analytical data St. Paul

Percent of supply _ ______

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished __

Mississippi 

River

90

7-31-61

R

McCarron purification plant

90

7-31-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2) _ _____ _ _ ___ _ _

Iron (Fe) _ _ __ _ _ _ _

Boron (B)_ . _______

Calcium (Ca) _

Magnesium (Mg) _ __ _

Sodium (Na) _ __ __ _ ___

Bicarbonate (HCO3) _.__ _ _ _ _

Sulfate (SO4)_ _________________ _ ______

Chloride (Cl) _ ___________ ______ ____

Fluoride (F)_ _ _ _ ______

Nitrate (NO3) _ _ _ _ _______

Phosphate (PO4)_____ __ _ __ ___ _ ___

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)

Hardness as CaCO3 __ _ _ __ _ _

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCO3 _

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) 

PH___________________________________

Color. __ _ _ _

Turbidity ________ __

Temperature ___ _____ °F_

2.5

.02

.04

.04

.5

44

10

6 9

2.8

180

0

14

4.0

. 2

.2

1Q

1QQ

153

5

312 

7.5

15

1

79

3.2

.00

.00

.08

.3

25

.9

6.0

2. 2

56

0

20

11

1.3

. 1

. 13

109

66

20

178 

7.8

2

0

80

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than. Maximum beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Beta activity __ ___ ____

Maximum beta activity, raw water, July 1, 

1961, to June 30, 1962 __ _ __ __ ___

Radium (Ra) __ ___ _ _ _ __

Uranium (U) __ _ _ _ ___

66

11

. 1

<-l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)___________._________________

Aluminum (Al)_ __ ______

Boron (B) _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _

Barium (Ba) _ __ _____

Beryllium (Be)_ ____ _ ____

Cobalt (Co)____________________________

Chromium (Cr) _ _

Copper (Cu)_ _ ________

Iron (Fe) __ ______

Lithium (Li) ____ _____

Manganese (Mn) _ _ _ _ _ _

Molybdenum (Mo) _ _ __ ___

Nickel (Ni)__________ _ ______ _____

Phosphorus (P) _ _ ___ _____

Lead(Pb)__ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _____

Rubidium (Rb)_ _____ ____ _ __

Tin (Sn)_____________________ _ _______

Strontium (Sr) ______

Titanium (Ti)__

Vanadium (V) _

Zinc (Zn)_ _ _ _ __

<0. 34

55

51

120

ND

ND

1.3

44

25

1. 7

41

1. 5

4. 1

ND

8.9

<3.4

ND

82

<3.4

ND

<340

<0. 17

210

98

45

ND

ND

1.7

24

58

8.9

5.0

1.4

5.3

ND

4.8

5.5

ND

91

3. 1

5.3

ND
MISSISSIPPI

Jackson

JACKSON

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Jackson, 150,000.

Source of supply: Pearl River.

Lowest mean discharge: Pearl River at Jackson, Miss., for 30-day p?riod in

climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 61.2 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 15 mgd (U.£, Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Jackson treatment plant coagulation with alum and lime, treatment

with carbon for taste and odor control, sedimentation, rapid sand fixation,

ammoniation, and chlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Jackson treatment plant, 37 mgd. 

Finished-water storage: 3 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Jackson treatment plant:

Raw water _ ...... __ .

Alkalinity as 

CaCOs (ppm)

Avg

16

25

Max

24 

40

Min

8 

15

pH

Avg

6.6 

9.0

Max

7.9 

9.2

Min

6.0 

8.0

Hardness as 

CaCOs (ppm)

Avg

35 

50

Max

48 

60

Min

6 

60

Turlidity

Avg

60

Max

1,000

Min

8

223
224 MISSISSIPPI

Analytical data, treatment plant Jackson 

[Percent of supply: 100. Date of collection: 4-30-62. Type of water: Finished]

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj)... -_-. .........

Calcium (Ca)... ...... ... ..

Carbonate (COs)... __ - _ ..

Sulfate (SO4) -..

Chloride (Cl). ................

Fluoride (F). .................

6.3

.03

16

1 9

3.4

1.1

0

23

5.9

.0

Nitrate (NOs)-- -

180°C)-.. ... ... .... -

CaCOs -.. ...

pH.... ...... ...- .. ...

0.2

95

45

24

117

7.0

10

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter]

Radium (Ra) __ ............

21 

.1

0.1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)___.._.__..______.__

Boron (B).. __ . ..............

Barinm (Ba) _____ ........

Beryllium (Be).. .............

Cobalt (Co) .. ..............

Copper (Cu) _________

Iron (Fe)-..__ ___ .. .......

Lithium (Li).. . ........

0.68 

210 

21 

28 

ND 

ND 

<.03 

2.2 

44 

.32 

44

Nickel (Ni)

Lead (Pb)_. .... . .

Rubidium (Bb)... ,........

Titanium (Ti)_._ _ ..........

Zinc (Zn)... . _.

ND 

1.1 

ND 

3.7 

1.6 

ND 

9.6 

.4 

ND 

ND
MISSOURI

Kansas City St. Louis

KANSAS CITY

(See fig. 32.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Towns of Avondale, Grandview, and Lee's Summit; a number 

of water districts in Clay and Jackson Counties; and Leawood and Lenexa, 

Kans.

Population served: Kansas City, 502,390; total, about 750,000.

Source of supply: Missouri River. Raw water is pumped from the river at a 

location about 4 miles upstream from the city to the purification work^ by the 

Low Lift Pumping Station. From the finished-water reservoirs at the purification site, the water is pumped by the Secondary Pumping Station through a 

tunnel under the Missouri River to reservoirs at the sites of two pumping 

stations in the city, Turkey Creek and East Bottoms Pumping Statiors. The 

water is delivered from these reservoirs by these two pumping stations into the 

city's main distribution system. Turkey Creek Pumping Station handles about 

two-thirds of the total demand on the distribution system. All pumping stations 

are electrically operated. Repumping is ordinarily required in the area in the 

south and southwest part of the city and in the area south of the city Tmits.

Lowest mean discharge: Missouri River at St. Joseph, Mo., for 30-day period in 

climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 5,970 mgd.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 88 mgd (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Kansas City treatment plant plain sedimentation (clarifier equipped 

basins), softening with excess lime (supplemented with soda ash during critical 

periods), clarification and coagulation with recirculated sludge (supplemented 

with ferric sulfate and alum during critical periods), chlorination and ar^moniation, flocculation, treatment with activated carbon, recarbonation, secMmentation, rapid sand filtration, and postchlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Kansas City treatment plant, 210 rrgd.

Finished-water storage: 72 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Kansas City treatment plant, May 1960-April 1961:

Raw water

Finished water. ....

Alkalinity as 

CaCOs (ppm)

Avg

163 

40

Max

221 

51

Min

130 

33

pH

Avg

8.2 

9.5

Max

8.3 

9.5

Min

8.1 

9.3

Hardness as 

CaCOs (ppm)

Avg

218 

85

Max

278 

95

Min

162

71

Turbiiity

Avg

800 

.0

Max

1,801 

.3

Min

70 

.0

22 r
226 MISSOURI 

Analytical data Kansas City

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished .....

Missouri River

100 

10-17-61 

R

100

e

Treatment plant

100 7-26-6J 

F

100 

0) 

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj)....... . 

Iron (Fe) _ .. 

Sulfate (S04 ) 

Chloride (Cl). .._.-.-..-..-...._.___.__

Fluoride(F)... 

Nitrate (N0j).___ ... ... ... ... ... ._ Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) .....

Specific conductance (micromhos at 

25° C)_ _-_ -- .-..

pH..________._._._ .-_- .__._.__._

7.0 

.10 

.00 

55 

16 

35 

6.6 

196 

0 

101 

12 

.5 

3.8 

350 

203 

42

522 

7.8 

15

78

11

59 

17

}

199 

0 

122 

21 

.4 

1.3

219

854

4.8 

.00 

.01 

2} 

4.8 

f 3? 

1 5.4 

2o 

3 

111 

13 

.4 

1.8 23' 

71 

41

33>

8.7 

5

7^

7.7

26 

4.8

}

128 

22

.2 

.8

85

9.5

0

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter. Miximum beta activity 

data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum beta activity, raw water, 

July 1, 1961, to June 30, 1962.......... 70

9.3

.5 

.2

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)........-.. ........ .........

Lithium (Li)...... .....................

Nickel (Ni). ...... ........ ............

Lead (Pb)..- .. .. . ...

Rubidium (Rb). - _._.

Tin (Sn) . ... ... ............

Titanium (Ti).__ ......................

Vanadium (V). ................

<0.56 

22,400 

110 

340 

ND 

ND 

7.8 

6.1 

33,800 

25 

290 

3.1 

15 

<560 

38 

7.8 

ND 

610 

15 

<17 

ND

<0.28 5^ 

81? 

85 

ND 

ND 

1.2 

7.4 

24 

25 

<2.8 

4.4 

3.6 

ND 

5.2 

ND 

ND 

271 

<2.8 

8.2 

ND

1 Average of monthly composite samples (May 1,1960, to June 30,1961); analyses by the city of Kansas 

City.

2 Water on April 11,1962, had aluminum content of 170 micrograms per liter.

3 Water on April 11,1962, had iron content of 8.0 micrograms per liter.
MISSOURI 227

ST. LOUIS

(See fig. 41.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: St. Louis, 756,000; also supplies a few noncity consumers; 

total, 760,000. Number of city water subscribers has actually diminished 

slightly in the past 10 years. Private companies operating outside ctty limits 

have vastly increased in number of subscribers, but much less water is used 

per capita there, since rates are more than double city rates.

Sources and percentages of supply: Mississippi River at the Chain cf Rocks 

plant, 5 miles below the confluence with the Missouri River, 66 percent of 

supply. (Although the Chain of Rocks intake is in the Mississipp River, 

nearly all the water drawn into the plant is derived from the Missouri River 

owing to natural channeling of flow.) Missouri River at the Howard Bend 

Plant, 37 miles above confluence of Missouri and Mississippi River, 34 percent 

of supply.

Lowest mean discharge:

Missouri River at Herman, Mo., for 30-day period in climatic water years

(April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 9,630 mgd.

Mississippi River at Alton, 111., for 30-day period in climatic water years 

(April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 14,100 mgd.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 181 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Howard Bend and Chain of Rocks purification plants sedimentation, softening with lime, coagulation with ferrous sulfate, sedimentation, 

secondary coagulation and sedimentation with alum, ammoniation (ammonium 

hydroxide), chlorination, rapid sand filtration, postchlorination, and fluoridation 

to 1.0 ppm.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Howard Bend purification plant, 120 mgd; 

Chain of Rocks purification plant, 240 mgd.

Raw-water storage: Chain of Rocks purification plant, 24 million gal; Howard 

Bend purification plant, 11 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): Less than 1.

Finished-water storage: Chain of Rocks clear well, 11 million gal; Compton Hill 

Reservoir, 85 million gal; Howard Bend Basin, 5 million gal; Stacy Park 

Reservoir, 100 million gal.

The finished water from the Chain of Rocks plant is pumped from the new 

dual pressure distributive station 3% miles south to the Boden area and 

3% miles farther south to the Bissell Point area, where the water is fed into 

the distributing system. Three-fourths of the output of the plant is pumped 

into the city mains connected with the Compton Hill Reservoir, which supplies 

the lower part of the city. The remainder of the output is pumped through 

the Boden area directly into the mains at a higher pressure and selves the 

higher sections of the city.

The finished water from the Howard Bend plant is pumped about 9 miles 

into the Stacy Park Reservoir, which is at an altitude high enough to supply 

by gravity flow the highest section of the city.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.1.
228 MISSOURI

Regular determination at purification plants, April 1960-March 1961:

Howard Bend:

Finished water... 

Chain of Rocks:

Finished water. _

Alkalinity as 

CaCOa (ppm)

Avg

153 

43

164 

46

Max

260 

107

253 

107

Min

87 

23

88 

25

PH

Avg

8.1 

9.2

8.1 

9.2

Max

8.4 

9.8

8.5 

9.8

Min

7.7 

8.2

7.8 

8.6

Hardness as 

CaOOs (ppm)

Avg

208 

107

206 

104

Max

320 

180

314

158

Min

112 

76

109 

70

Turbidity

Avg

850 

.1

700 

.1

Max

4300

.8

3600 

.6

Min

50 

.0

25 

.0
ST. LOUIS 229

EXPLANATION

Area served by city of 

St. Louis water system

Area served by St. Louis 

County water system

St. Louis city boundary

A

Purification plant 

z,Hutcard Bend 

b, Chain of Rockx

O

Reservoir 

A.Sfocj/Parfc 

B, Compton Hill

S

Water analysis sampling site

5 MILES

J

FIGURE 41. Water supplies and areas served by major water supply systems in the St. 

Louis, Mo., area. (Approved by local municipal water officials, March 1063.)
230 MISSOURI 

Analytical data St. Louis

Type of water: R, raw; F, 

finished ___ .. . _ _ ..

Missouri River

34 10-18-61

R

Howard Bend 

purification 

plant

34 10-18-61

F

Mississippi 

River

66 10-19-61

R

Chain of Rocks 

purification 

plant

66 10-19-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOs) __ _.._

Iron (Fe)- 

Sodium (Na)_._ ________

Carbonate (CDs) ________

Sulfate (SO4)-- -_ ..

Chloride (Cl) ............. _ ..

Nitrate (NOa)~-~ ___ - -

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180° C). _ . _.

Noncarbonate hardness as 

CaCO3 - _ ... 

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) ___ ___ .

pH..._._______.________________

Color _ _____ _ . ...

6.2

.20

fin

36

8

0

17

5.1

197

0

47

10

3.4

126

22

323

7 8

5

5.4

.03

.00

23

5.0

22

5.1

39

4

69

13

1.2

2.9

176

77

38

268

9.2

10

5.5

.40

.00

37

8.9

17

5.1

198

0

48

10

.4

3.2

222

129

24

324

7.7

5

5.6

.02

.01

22

5.9

22

5.0

44

0

70

13

1.7

2.9

183

80

44

274

8.2

15

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than, 

beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum

Maximum beta activity, raw 

water, July 1, 1961, to June 

30, 1962___. __ . _ ......

Uranium (U). .................

48

9.9

.1

.5

78

11

<.l 

1.0

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)____ ...... ........

Boron (B) _ _ ____ ......

Barium (Ba)_ _______ ....

Beryllium (Be) - ___ ... ..

Cobalt (Co).......... _ .......

Iron (Fe)--. ................

Nickel (Ni)..._ -. ..............

Lead (Pb) -......... ........

Tin (Sn). ................ ...

Strontium (Sr)_ _ . ....._...

Titanium (Ti).._ _ ..........

Zinc(Zn).-_ ________ . .

<0.22 

850 

37 

59 

ND 

ND 

1.5 

8.5 

95 

15 

4.3 

5.4 

4.1 

ND 

2.8 

<2.2 

ND 

150 

2.4 

8.9 

ND

<0.23 

1 2, 200+ 

43 

77 

ND 

ND 

2.0 

2.5 

39 

15 

3.4 

7.0 

4.8 

ND 

3.0 

<2.3 

ND 

250 

15 

11 

ND

1 Water on April 12,1962, had an aluminum content of 270 micrograms per liter.
NEBRASKA

Lincoln Omcha

LINCOLN

(See fig. 42.) 

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Lincoln, 128,000; suburban areas, about 300; total- 128,300.

Sources and percentages of supply: Thirty-three wells near Ashland, 96.5 percent;

21 wells in Lincoln, 3.5 percent. Two collecting pipelines carry the water

from the Ashland wells to the treatment plant. After treatment the water

is pumped into a concrete reservoir and then into a reinforced concrete pipeline

for transmission to Lincoln, a distance of about 25 miles.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: The 21 wells in Lincoln area are us?d also as

auxiliary supply and in emergencies. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 23.6 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Ashland purification plant: Prechlorination, aeration, rechlorination, ammoniation, sedimentation, and rapid sand filtration. 

Auxiliary supply: Chlorination only.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Ashland purification plant, 60 mgi. 

Raw-water storage: None. 

Finished-water storage: Closed reservoirs, 44.1 million gal; elevated1 storage,

0.4 million gal; concrete tanks, 2 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 2.

231

735-717
232 NEBRASKA

Analytical data Lincoln

Type of water: R, raw; F,

Composite of 

Ashland wells 

1, 2 A, and 56-4

1-23-62

E

Composite of 

Ashland wells 

6; 9; 54-1, -4, 

-7, -9, -11

Qfi

1-23-62

E

Lincoln wells l

4

7-10-61

R

Ashland 

purification 

plant

100 1-23-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj)~~ ----- ...........

Iron (Fe)~. 

Sodium (Na)_ - _ .... ....

Iodide (I) . ... - ... 

Bicarbonate (HCO3) ___ ....

Sulfate (SOOChloride (Cl).. ....... ...

Fluoride (F). ____._ __________

Nitrate (NO3) ... .......

Phosphate (POO - 

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180°C)- _ --- -. - ...

Noncarbonate hardness as 

CaCOt.. .......... ..........

Specific conductance (micropH.. _ __. ._ 

Color. _____ -. .. ___

36

.03

00

.06

00

58

6.2

26

8 n

.000

191

0

63

8.3

.4

.0

CO

309

170

13

461

7.5

3

2

AQ

34

.00

.34

.05

.00

58

9.4

25

8.4

.000

199

0

68

8.5

.4

.0

.47

317

183

20

475

7.4

2

2

51

36

.04

.00

54

16

25

4.5

248

0

59

15

.3

5.0

333

162

0

35

.00

.00

.05

.00

56

9.1

25

9.2

.000

192

0

67

10

.4

.3

.61

312

177

20

467

7.6

6

2

52

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter]

Uranium (U)...... .........

14 

.3

5.2

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fornd]

Silver (Ag) ...

Aluminum (Al). ___ _ .

Boron (B) ______ .. ..

Beryllium (Be)... ____ .. ..

Cobalt (Co)- ............. -

Chromium (Or) ___ _ ....

Iron (Fe). __ ... .. ___ ...

Lithium (Li)......-.. . ..

Manganese (Mn)_-__ ..........

Molybdenum (Mo). ...

Nickel (Ni)- . ... ... . .......

Lead (Pb). ...... .........

Rubidium (Rb) ___ .. .

Tin (Sn). ................ .....

Strontium (Sr) __ ______

Titanium (Ti) ........... .

Vanadium (V).. ___ _ ...

Zinc (Zn). .....................

<0.41 

28 

65 

150 

ND 

ND 

ND 

3.8 

22 

9.3 

<4.1 

2.8 

<4.1 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

230 

ND 

<12 

ND

1 Analyzed by the city of Lincoln.
LINCOLN 233

EXPLANATION

Area supplied by Lincoln 

water system

Lincoln city boundary

 

Pumping station

S

Water analysis sampling site

Note: Local wells in Lincoln 

are mostly in Antelope Creek 

Valley near southernmost 

pumping station.

Wells and jj 

collector lines']}

J

Pumping station and 

treatment plant

3 4 MILES 

I J

FIGURE 42. Water supplies and areas served by Lincoln, Nebr., water system. (Approved by local 

municipal water officials, June 1963.)
234 NEBRASKA

OMAHA

(See fig. 43.)

Ownership: Metropolitan Utilities District.

Population served: Omaha, 301,598; about 25,000 outside the city limits; total,

ab jut 327,000. 

Sou ce of supply: Missouri River. The intake and treatment plant are located

cm the Missouri River at Florence, Nebr. 

Lowest mean discharge: Missouri River at Omaha, Nebr., for 30-day period in

climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 4,650 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 64.5 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Minne Lusa treatment plant Plain sedimentation, prechlorination,

split treatment in which part is lime-softened and the remainder is coagulated

with alum and activated silica, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, and

postchlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Minne Lusa treatment plant, 140 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: 86 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 1.3.

Finished-water storage: 56 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Minne Lusa treatment plant, 1961:

Alkalinity as 

CaCOs (ppm)

Avg

172

68

Max

254 

122

Min

122 

37

pH

Avg

8.2 

9.5

Max

8.5 

9.9

Min

7.8 

9.1

Hardness as 

CaCO3 (ppm)

Avg

245 

148

Max

336 

201

Min

158 

121

Turbidity

Avg

280 

.2

Max

780 

1.1

Min

15 

.1
OMAHA 235

EXPLANATION

Areas served by Omaha water system 

Omaha city boundary

A

Minne Lusa treatment plant and 

raw water intake

S

Water analysis sampling site

4 MILES 

J

FIGURE 43. Water supplies and areas served by Omaha, Nebr., water system. 

(Approved by local municipal water officials, June 1963.)
236 NEBRASKA

Analytical data Omaha

Missouri

River

100

1-23-62

Minne

Lusa

treatment

plant

100 1-23-62

Missouri

. River

R

Minne

Lusa

treatment

plant

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO.) _ .......... .

Iron (Fe).__ ______ _ .....

Boron (B) __ _ ._ ..

Potassium (K). ____ __ .

Iodide (I) __ _____ _____ .

Bicarbonate (HCOs)... _ ..

Carbonate (COs) ___ _ -

Sulfate (SO4) ___ . __ _

Chloride (Cl).........._......

Fluoride (F).... _ ...........

16 

.02 

.00 

.13 

.00 

74 

23 

65 

6.4 

.005 

238 

0 

210 

13 

.6

11

.02 

.00 

.11 

.00 

35 

14 

65 

6.0 

.000 

58 

4 

211 

6.0 

.4

Nitrate (NOs) .

Phosphate (POODissolved solids (residue at

Noncarbonate hardness as

Specific conductance (mipH____.-._ 

Color. ____ ____ 

Turbidity.. 

0.4 

.19

523 

279

84

797 

7.3 

7 

2 

33

0.9 

.35

382 

144

90

612 

8.3 

3 

2 

33

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than. Maximum 

beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum beta activity, raw 

water, July 1, 1961, to June 

30, 1962 ... ......... 78

12 <0.1 

2.6

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag).__._

Aluminum (Al)___

Boron (B). ...........

Barium (Ba) ____ .........

Beryllium (Be).. .

Cobalt (Co). __ 

Chromium (Cr)

Iron (Fe). _ _____ . __ .

Lithium (Li) .....

<0.46

07

46

ND

ND

1.7

10

39

<4.6

Nickel (Ni)

Lead (Pb)... 

4.6

<4.6

ND

ND

ND

ND

410

<1.4

ND

ND
NEW JERSEY

Jersey City Newark Paterson

JERSEY CITY

(See fig. 44.) 

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: All or part of Hoboken, Lyndhurst, and North Arlington. 

Population served: Jersey City, 276,101; total, about 350,000. 

Source of supply: Rockaway River impounded in Split Rock and Boonton

Reservoirs. 

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: The supply system is interconnected with

the North Jersey District Water Supply Commission, Newark municipal, and

Passaic Valley Water Commission systems. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 61.0 mid (.U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Boonton Reservoir plant sedimentation and chlorination. 

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Boonton Reservoir plant, 100 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: Boonton, 7,500 million gal; Split Rock, 3,300 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 177.

Finished-water storage: 100 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 1.6.

237
238 NEW JERSEY

Analytical data, Boonton Reservoir Jersey City 

[Percent of supply: 100. Date of collection: 4-3-62. Type of water: Finished]

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOz).-- _ .... . 

Calcium (Ca). ________

Sodium (Na). ................

Carbonate (CO3).. __ . .......

Sulfate (SO4) 

Chloride (Cl).... ............

7.6

.02

04

11

3.5

4.6

1.0

24

0

18

8.2

.4

Nitrate (NOs).. . __

tono p\

CaCO3 ~ -

pH._ ............ .............

Color............. __ .....

1.1

75

42

23

110

7.0

5

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity. ................

Radium (Ra)_. ________

17 0.1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)....... .............

Boron (B)_. ..................

Barium (Ba)_._ ________ .

Beryllium (Be). ________

Cobalt (Co)..... ..............

Chromium (Cr)._. ...........

Copper (Cu) __________

Iron (Fe).--.. ___ . __ ....

Lithium (Li) .................

Manganese (Mn). ____________

<0.09

20

15

14

ND

ND

*? no

3.4

fi4

.24

67

Lead (Pb). _

Rubidium (Rb)... ... ..... .

Tin (Bn). .....................

Titanium (Ti)._-_ . -

ND

2.2

ND

3.4

ND

5.3

1.0

<2.6

ND
JERSEY CITY 239

EXPLANATION

Area served by Passaic Vallej 

Water Commission

Wanaque 

Reservoir

Area served by North Jersey 

District Water Supply 

Commission

Charlottebury 

Reservoir Area served by Jersey City

plit Rock 

Reservoir Area served by Newark 

water system

E X P L AT^AT IO NJcon.)

City boundaries of Paterson, Newark, 

and Jersey City

Cedar Grov 

Reservoir

Newark pipeline

Jersey City waterworks pipeline

Jersey City pipeline (emergency source)

North Jersey District Water Supply 

Commission aqueduct

Passaic Valley Water Commission aqueduct

 - - 

Great Notch crossover

Diversion from Pompton Lakes to 

Wanaque Reservoir

Treatment plant 

B.Ceriar Grow. b.Charlottebitr</; C, Little Fail:

O 

Pipeline interconnection

Water analysis sampling site

0

FIGURE 44. Water supplies and areas served by northern New Jersey water systems. (Approved by local municipal water officials, March 1963.) Areas served by northern 

New Jersey water systems: 1, Haledon; 2, Prospect Park; 3, Totowa; 4, Paterson; 5, 

East Paterson; 6, West Paterson; 7, Clifton; 8, Garfield; 9, Lodi; 10, Passaic; 11, Montclair; 12, Nutley; 13, Glen Ridge; 14, Bloomfield; 15, Belleville; 16, Lyndhurst; 17, North 

Arlington; 18,East Orange; 19, Kearny; 20, Hoboken; 21, Harrison; 22, Irvington; 23, 

Newark; 24, Jersey City; 25, Elizabeth; 26, Bayonne.
240 NEW JERSEY

NEWARK

(See fig. 44.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: All or part of Belleville, Bloomfield, Elizabeth, East Orange, 

Wayne Township, Pequannock Township, and Irvington.

Population served: Newark, 405,220; total, about 750,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Pequannock River and tributaries impounded 

in five interconnecting storage reservoirs Canistear, Oak Ridge, Clinton, 

Echo Lake, Charlotteburg 55 percent. Wanaque and Ramapo Rivers impounded in Wanaque Reservoir, 45 percent. The division of this impoundment is administered by North Jersey District Water Supply Commission. 

The city of Newark controls 40.5 percent of the North Jersey District Water 

Supply Commission system.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Interconnections with Passaic Valley Water 

Commission and Jersey City Water Company.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 55.7 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment:

Charlotteburg treatment plant: Prechlorination, screening, aeration, and 

adjustment of pH with lime and soda ash. Equipment available for 

ammoniation and flucridation. Water chlorinated again at Cedar Grove 

Reservoir. 

Wanaque Reservoir plant: Chlorination and adjustment of pH with lime.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Charlotteburg treatment plant, 150 mgd; 

Wanaque Reservoir plant, 146 mgd.

Raw-water storage: Canistear, 2,407 million gal; Oak Ridge, 3,895 million gal; 

Clinton, 3,518 million gal; Charlotteburg, 2,964 million gal; Wanaque, 28,000 

million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): 2 years.

Finished-water storage: Cedar Grove Reservoir (distribution), 679 million gal; 

Belleville Reservoir (balancing), 13 million gal; South Orange Avenue Reservoir 

(balancing), 9 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 12.6.

Average monthly determinations at Cedar Grove treatment plant, 1961:

Finished water . .

Alkalinity 

as CaCOa 

(PPm)

Avg

21

Max

29

Min

12

PH

Avg

......

Max

8.6

Min

7.2

Hardness 

as CaCOj 

(ppm)

Avg

42

Max

53

Min

30

Turbidity

Avg

2

Max

4

Min

2
NEWARK 241

Analytical data Newark

Type of water; R, raw; F,

Wanaque River

45 7-31-62

R

Wanaque Reservoir

8-22-62 

F

0) 

F

Cedar Grove 

treatment plant

55 3-30-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj)....._............._

Lithium (Li)..... ......... . __

Calcium (Ca) ..................

Potassium (K) ___ _____

Sulfate (SO4) .... ... __ .

Chloride (Cl). ....... ... . _ ...

Nitrate (NOs) . -. .

Phosphate (PO4). _______

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180° C).......... .............

Noncarbonate hardness as

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) ...............

pH.____.__ .....................

Color... .......................

Turbidity......................

1.9

.00

.00

8.8

3.4

3.6

.8

23

0

17

5.6

.1

.6

55

36

17

96

6.5

5

3.1

.07

.00

.00

.00

11

3 2

3.4

1.4

26

0

15

8.0

.1

.2

.08

66

41

19

99

6.5

1.4

.08

.08

16

2.0

26

10

6.7

65

34

8.7

11

3

6.4

.01

.02

10

2.8

4.2

.5

30

0

14

5.5

.2

.2

65

37

12

96

7.2

3

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity __________ ..................

Radium (Ra) __________ . .................

14 

.1 

.2

16 

<.l 

.1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)__.________._._. ___ .

Barium (Ba) ____________

Cobalt (Co).. .................

Chromium (Cr) ..................

Lithium (Li).....................

Nickel (Ni). .....................

Phosphorus (P) ..................

Lead (Pb). ......................

Rubidium (Rb)...... ______

Tin (Sn). ........................

Strontium (Sr) ...................

Titanium (Ti) ............

Vanadium (V). ............

Zinc (Zn). __ . _ . .......

0.09 

39 

7.7 

18 

ND 

ND 

.69 

14 

78 

.11 

170 

.58 

.9 

ND 

6.0 

1.1 

ND 

50 

1.4 

ND 

ND

0.38 

46 

17 

16 

ND 

ND 

<.09 

10 

280 

.43 

95 

ND 

l.« 

ND 

13 

1.0 

ND 

12 

1.2 

<2.6 

ND

1 Average of analyses by the North Jersey District Water Supply Commission-Wanaque Laboratory 

for the year 1961.
242 NEW JERSEY

PATERSON

(See fig. 44.)

Ownership: Supplied by Passaic Valley Water Commission.

Other areas served: Passaic Valley Water Commission (a) owns and operates the 

distribution system in Paterson, Passaic, Prospect Park, and a part of Clifton 

(population served in 1961, 286,700), (b) sells water wholesah to New Jersey 

Service Company and water departments of Harrison, Nutley, Totowa, West 

Paterson, and parts of Clifton (population served in 1961, 71,182), and (c) 

sells subsidiary water supplies to Hackensack and water departments of Haledon, Garfield, Lodi, and East Paterson (population served in 1961, 149,700).

Population served: Paterson, 143,663; total, approximately 550,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Wanaque River, Ringwood Creek, and 

West Brook impounded in Wanaque Reservoir, and Posts Brook and Ramapo 

River diverted to Wanaque Reservoir, 53 percent. The div'sion of this impoundment is administered by North Jersey District Water Supply Commission. The Passaic Valley Water Commission controls 37.7f percent of the 

North Jersey District Water Supply Commission System. Passaic River, 

47 percent. Passaic Valley Water Commission has rights to divert 75 mgd from 

the Passaic River at Little Falls, N.J., whenever such quantities are available. 

Diversion is made directly without storage.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 80.8 mgd (W. M. 

Seeker, written commun., 1963).

Treatment:

Little Falls treatment plant: Aeration, coagulation with alum, treatment 

with activated carbon, sedimentation, rapid and antl rafilt filtration, 

chlorination, adjustment of pH with lime, and dechlorinsvtion with sulfur 

dioxide.

Wanaque Reservoir plant: Chlorination and adjustment of pH with lime. 

Wanaque water is filtered at Little Falls plant.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Little Falls plant: gravity, 55 mgd; pressure, 

40 mgd.

Raw-water storage: Wanaque Reservoir, 28,000 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): 347.

Finished-water storage: Great Notch Reservoir, 178.5 million gal; New Street 

Reservoir, 63.9 million gal; Grand Street Reservoir, 20.5 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 3.3.

Average monthly determinations at Little Falls treatment plant, 1961:

Raw water _______

Finished water..... __

Alkalinity 

as CaCO3 

(ppm)

Avg

51 

48

Max

73 

67

Min

23

24

pH

Avg

......

Max

7.4 

7.3

Min

6.9 

6.9

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

69 

97

Max

94 

140

Min

44 

61

Turbidity

Avg

10 

0

Max

13 

0

Min

7 

0
PATERSON 243

Analytical data Paterson

Type of water: R, raw; 

F, finished... __ ...,.

Passaic River »

(2)

R

(3)

R

47

R

Little

Falls

treatment

plant

47 4-3-62

F

Wanaque

River

53 7-31-62

R

Wanaque Reservoir

8-22-62

F

0 4)

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (Si02). _ __ ...

Iron (Fe) 

Lithium (Li)________.._.

Calcium (Ca)..... _ ..

Bicarbonate (HCO3) _ .

Sulfate (SO4 ) ... 

Chloride (01). ..........

Fluoride (F). ....... ....

Nitrate (NO3 )_- ... 

Dissolved solids (residue 

at 180°C) .............

Hardness as CaCOs...., 

Noncarbonate hardness

Specific conductance

Turbidity. . .

17

1.1

.14

25

8.0

89

45

25

1.0

220

94

7.4

53

13

75

8.8

.31

.04

12

3.5

20

28

8.0

.3

85

44

6.9

30

7

OQ

13

.47

.10

19

5.8

62

30

15

.6

152

69

7.1 An

10

55

6.5

.01

.02

16

3.5

4.6

1.0

26 

0

24

11

.2

.8

90

55 

33

138

7.4

2

1.9

.00

.00

8.8

3.4

.*

23 

0

17

5.6

.1

.6

55

36 

17

96

6.5

5

3.1

.07

.00

.00

.00

11

3.2

3.4

1.4

26 

0

15

8.0

.1

.2

.08

66

41 

19

99

6.5

1.4

.08

.08

10

2.0

26

io

6.7

65

34

8.7

11

3

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Radium (Ra)__ 

11

<-l

<-l

14

.1

.2

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)._.-_ _.. 

Barium (Ba) ............

Cob'alt (Co)...'..........

Lithium (T,i)

Nickel (Ni) __ __' 

Lead (Pb). .............

Rubidium (Rb) -..-. .

Tin (Sn). ......... ......

Strontium (Sr) ..........

Titanium (Ti)

Vanadium (V) __ .

Zinc (Zn)._

<0.09

180

38

25

ND

ND

.41

5.4

120

.46

53

ND

3.7

ND

4.2

1.2

ND

33

1.7

^9 R

ND

0.09

39

7.7

18

ND

ND

.69

14

78

.11

170

.58

.9

ND

6.0

1.1

ND

50

1.4

ND

ND

Analyzed by the Passaic Valley Water Commission.

Maximum value of constituents in monthly averages of analyses during 1961. 

Minimum value of constituents in monthly averages of analyses during 1961. 

Average value of constituents for the year 1961.

NEW MEXICO

Albuquerque

ALBUQUERQUE

Ownership: Municipal. 

Population served: 201,189. 

Sources of supply:

Seventy-nine wells in 14 well fields:

Main plant (along east edge of valley between Central Avenue and

Indian School Road), 19 wells, 60-716 feet deep.

Candelaria (Candelaria Road at Arno Street), 4 wells, 288-553 f?et deep. 

Griegos (vicinity of Rio Grande between Montano Road and Candelaria

Road), 5 wells, 820-900 feet deep.

San Jose (South Broadway at San Jose Road), 7 wells, 306-510 feet deep. 

Bel Air (San Mateo Blvd. at Menaul Blvd.), 2 wells, 376-402 f?et deep. 

Burton (Burton Park), 1 well, 1,000 feet deep. 

Love (Los Altos Park), 5 wells, 1,170-1,284 feet deep. 

Atrisco 1 (vicinity of Rio Grande between Rincon Road and Gonzales

Road), 3 wells, 500-813 feet deep. 

Atrisco 2 (vicinity of Rio Grande between Osage Road and Five Points

Road), 10 wells, 207-504 feet deep. 

Duranes (vicinity of Rio Grande between Mountain Road and Matthew

Avenue), 8 wells, 834-1,000 feet deep.

West Mesa (Central Avenue West at 96th Street), 1 well, 1,100 feet deep. 

Thomas (vicinity of Wyoming Blvd. at Montgomery Blvd.), 4 wells,

1,020-1,224 feet deep. 

Leyendecker (vicinity of Louisiana Blvd. at Montgomery Blvd.), 4 wells,

1,000-1,020 feet deep.

Vol Andia well field (along Montgomery Blvd. between Sar Mateo 

Blvd. and Carlisle Blvd.), 6 wells, 1,010-1,025 feet deep wil1 supply 

part of the east mesa by the summer of 1962. 

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Main plant with 19 wells used during periods

of heavy water demand. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 30.0 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Chlorination and settling in clear wells. 

Finished-water storage: 80 million gal in 12 reservoirs. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 2.7.

Remarks: All well fields supplying the west mesa are connected, and all well 

fields supplying the valley and east mesa are connected. As the demand in 

an area exceeds storage water, available water can be pumped to the area of 

deficient supply.

245
246 NEW MEXICO

Water from Candelaria, Griegos, San Jose, and Duranes well fields supply 

the valley area of the city. Water that is not used in the valley is pumped to 

nearby parts of the city on the east mesa. Water from Bel Air, Burton, Love, 

Atrisco 2, Thomas, and Leyendecker well fields, in addition to the unused 

water in the valley, supply the east mesa. Water from Atri^co 1 and West 

Mesa well fields supply the west mesa.

Analytical data Albuquerque

Type of water: F, flnished..

40 wells, West 

Mesa Station 1

4

7-25-61

F

Santa Barbara 

Station 2

34

7

«e ( *

F

44 wells, Eubank Station 3

50

7 9fi_-fi1

F

8 wells, Thomas 

Station 4

6

*7 9fi_-fi1

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj) ~ ~- ...

Iron (Fe) ______ ._..__

Carbonate (COs)...- __ ......

Sulfate (SOO _ - ___ ------

Chloride (Cl)....... . ........ .

Fluoride (F). . .....

Nitrate (NOa) . ..

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180° C) .......................

Hardness as CaCOs. ...........

Noncarbonate hardness as

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) __ ..........

pH. .. .......................

47

.0

1.7

} 107

155

16

01

11

g

5.0

346

OQ

0

505

8

A

0

85

69

00

90

6.4

52

1 K3

0

66

11

.6

306

99

0

409

8.0

0

70

34

.00

34

2.f

33

0

32

14

.6

.9

214

97

0

327

7.9

0

73

00

.01

55

4.1

47

158

0

30

67

.5

.3

316

154

24

514

7.8

0

73

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <', less than]

7.1 

<.l

9.8

9.8 

<.l 

4.7

5.0 

<.l 

2.9

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fond]

Silver (Ag)-..-- ._-.______

Boron (B).__._..__ __ __ . ..

Cobalt (Co)..-.,.. ___

Chromium (Cr) ______

Iron (Fe)-_.__--_ _ __ ......

Lithium (Li)..................

Nickel (Nl)__-_. .. .

Lead (Pb). ....................

Rubidium (Rb)._______________

Tin (Sn). .......

Titanium (Tl).. ..............

Vanadium (V). ................

<0.5 

42 

75 

29 Nto

ND 

8.4 

2.1 

22 

40 

4.7 

2.2 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

180 

ND 

70 

ND

ND 

13 

47 

47 

ND 

ND 

.55 

4.7 

13 

3.9 

3.9 

<1 

ND 

ND 

3.9 

7.5 

ND 

310 

ND 

15 

ND

<0.3 

4C 

60 

210 

ND 

ND 

4.6 

2.9 

23 

25 

<3 

2.8 

3.3 

ND 

3.7 

4.0 

ND 

330 

<3 

21 

ND

1 Composite of Atrisco 1 and West Mesa well fields.

2 Composite of Griegos, Candelaria, and Duranes well fields.

» Composite of Griegos, San Jose, Atrisco 2, Leyendecker, Burton, and Love well fields.

4 Composite of Thomas and Leyendecker well fields.
NEW YORK

Albany 

Buffalo 

New York City

Rochesf** 

Syracuse 

Yonkers

ALBANY

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Hamlets of Hurstville and Karlsfeld in town of Bethlehem;

Niagara Mohawk steam-electric plant in town of Bethlehem; Ann Lee Home

and the county jail in town of Colonie. 

Population served: Albany, 129,726; total, 142,000. 

Sources and percentages of supply: Hannacrois Creek, impounded H Alcove

Reservoir, about 92 percent; Basic Creek, impounded in Basic Reservoir, about

8 percent. 

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Hudson River is used as source of unfiltered

industrial water to extent of about 6.5 million gal per week. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 24.5 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Feura Bush filter plant aeration, coagulation with alum, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, chlorination, and adjustment of pH with lime. 

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Feura Bush filter plant, 32 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: Alcove Reservoir, 12,100 million gal; Basic Reservoir, 716

million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 1.4 years.

Finished-water storage: City reservoirs, 210 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily weter used,

in mgd): 8.6.

Regular determinations at Feura Bush filter plant, November 1958-Oetcber 1959:

Alkalinity 

as CaCCh 

(ppm)

Avg

23 

30

Max

42 

45

Min

18 

25

PH

Avg

7.0 

8.6

Max

7.6 

9.1

Min

6.6 

7.6

Hardness 

as CaCCh 

(ppm)

Avg

43

62

Max

61 

78

Min

20 

28

Trrbidity

Avg

4.8 

.3

Max

16 

4

Min

0 

0

735-71710 64 247
248 NEW YORK 

Analytical data Albany

Type of water: R, raw; F,

Alcove Reservoir l

92 8-17-61

R

100 (2)

R

Feura Brsh filter plant >

92 8-17-61

F

100 

ffi

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj)~- ~- - _ .

Iron (Fe)-_--_.- _ . ______

Calcium (Ca), _________

Bicarbonate (HCOs). __ - _ .

Carbonate (CDs).. _______

Sulfate (SOt)... ................

Chloride (Cl). .................

Fluoride(F)... ..............

Nitrate (NO3) ------ ...

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180° C)___. ...................

Noncarbonate hardness as 

CaC03 . . 

Specific conductance (micropH___...._._._..._..-__..______

Color,.. _____________

Turbidity . 

9.3

.11

.60

11

2.8

1 S

1.0

34

0

13

9 1

.0

.0

56

1Q

11

09

7.1

6

1

58

.08

.28

28

1.0

.5

84

43

7.0

13

5

6.3

.03

.00

15

2.4

1 8

37

0

20

1.7

.0

68

48

17

112

7.2

2

0

61

2.0

.02

.02

19

1.0

1.2

28

4

20

2.0

.3

88

52

8.5

2

0

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per l'*er; <, less than]

Uranium (T.T)__ ...............

4.5 

.1 

<-l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; X, semiquantitative determination in di^it order shown; ND, 

looked for but not found]

Boron (B) __________ ..

Cobalt (Co)....... ..........

Chromium (Cr) ________

Iron (Fe)----_ ___ . .........

Lithium (T/i)... ................

Manganese (Mn) ...... ........

Nickel (NO... .................

Phosphorus (P) _________

Lead (Pb)_... ______________

Rubidium (Kb)... ..........

Tin (Sn). ......... _ ......

Strontium (Sr) .................

Titanium (Ti)___ _ . ___ .

Vanadium (V) _______ ..

Zinc (Zn) .. _ ....

Zirconium (Zr)_. ..........

0.12 

17 

3.6 

10 

ND 

ND 

.72 

73 

39 

.07 

450 

ND 

2.6 

ND 

11 

1.2 

ND 

21 

.6 

ND 

ND 

.X

0.07 

28 

3.8 

9.5 

ND 

ND 

.43 

140 

21 

.07 

75 

ND 

1.4 

ND 

1.1 

ND 

ND 

20 

<-7 

ND 

<68 

ND

1 Spectrographic concentrations based on nonacidified residue on evaporation.

2 Average of daily analyses by the city of Albany from November 1, 1959, to October 31,1960.
NEW YORK 249

BUFFALO

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Erie County Water Authority.

Population served: Buffalo, 532,759; total, 592,982.

Source of supply: Lake Erie.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Niagara River could be used in the e^ent of a

failure of Lake Erie intake. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during, 1962: 145 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Buffalo filtration plant coagulation with alum, sedimentation,

rapid sand filtration, chlorination, and fluoridation. 

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Buffalo filtration plant, 160 mgd. 

Finished-water storage: Clear well, 30 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Collins Park treatment plant, 1961:

Raw water_ ________ _____ _ _

Finished water. __ __________

£

Avg

95

89

Alkalinity 

is CaCO 

(ppm)

Min

95

90

Min

95

85

Avg

12

.0

Turbidity

Max

200

. 0

Min

1

. 0
250 NEW YORK 

Analytical data Buffalo

Type of water: R, raw; F,

Lake Erie

100 8-22-61

R

100

0)

R

Filtmion plant

100 8-22-61

F

100(2)

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica <SiO2)-. . ._

Calcium (Ca). ________ ..

Bicarbonate (HCOi) ...__

Carbonate (COs). _

Sulfate (SOO 

Chloride (Cl). ...... ..........

Fluoride (F). ..................

Nitrate (NOa)~ 

Phosphate (PO4) 

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180°C). ...... ................

Noncarbonate hardness as 

CaCOs . ...

Specific conductance (micropH....-... - .......... .......

Turbidity .. _ . __

2.0

.01

.00

38

8.6

o f>

1.4

116

0

23

23

.1

.2

177

131

36

306

8.0

1

0

75

106

22

.8

204

127

40

8.1

0

28

0.7

.04

.00

38

9.1

9.4

1.2

107

0

26

24

1.2

.1

ISA

133

45

309

7.7

1

0

74

109

.9

0

Radiochemical analyses '

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than. Maximum 

beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum beta 

water, July 1, 

30, 1962... 

activity, raw 

1961, to June

99

5.1

<.l

.2

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fornd]

Boron (B) .... ..........

Cobalt (Co)..-. ... ...

Iron (Fe) . .... ... _ ......

Lithium (Li)... ................

Nickel (Ni). ...... ..........

Lead (Pb)... ............

Rubidium (Rb).. ...........

Tin (Sn) 

Titanium (Tl). ................

Zinc (Zn) --.- . .... '..... .

\

<0.26

41

10

O1

ND

ND

2

0

22

28

.92

q i

.77

5.1

ND

6.4

ND

ND

110

<2.6

ND

<260

<0.26

600

39

37

ND

ND

.31

4.2

26

1.0

3.1

2.9

<Z6

ND

<2 6

ND

ND

160

ND

7.9

ND

i Average of seven monthly analyses by Erie County Health Department from January to July 1961. 

* Average of 210 daily analyses from January to July 1961 by the City of Buffalo.
NEW YORK 251

NEW YORK CITY

(See figs. 45 and 46.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served (wholly or in part): Elmsford, Mount Vernon, NevT Castle, 

New Rochelle, North Tarrytown, Ossining, Peekskill, Pleasantville, Soarsdale, 

Tarrytown, White Plains, and Yonkers.

Population served: Municipal system supplies 7,350,000 in New York City and 

about 500,000 in suburbs; Jamaica Water Supply Co. supplies about 450,000 

people in the borough of Queens; New York Water Service Corp. (Woodhaven 

Plant) supplies about 50,000 people in the Fourth Ward of Queens; total 

supplied, about 8,350,000. 

Sources and percentages of supply:

Catskill sources: Forty-three percent of 1961 supply. Schoharie Creek is 

impounded in Schoharie Reservoir, and the water is carried by Sb^ndaken 

Tunnel to Esopus Creek, which is impounded in Ashokan Reserve ir. The 

mixed water is carried to Kensico Reservoir by Catskill Aqueduct. A 

small amount of water is supplied to consumers directly from the aqueduct 

before it reaches Kensico Reservoir.

Delaware sources: Thirty-six percent of 1961 supply. East Branch Delaware River is impounded in' Pepacton Reservoir, and Neversink River is 

impounded in Neversink Reservoir. The water of these two reservoirs is 

carried to Rondout Reservoir; Rondout Creek is also impounded in 

Rondout Reservoir. Water from Rondout Reservoir is carried by the Delaware Aqueduct to West Branch (Croton) Reservoir and then into Kensico 

Reservoir. Construction of Cannonsville Reservoir on the West Branch 

Delaware River is in process. The water from Cannonsville Peservoir 

will be carried by tunnel to Rondout Reservoir.

Croton sources: Eighteen percent of 1961 supply. Waters from Rondout 

Reservoir, Boyd Corners Reservoir, and other related tributary sources 

mix in West Branch (Croton) Reservoir. Part of the mixed water 

is carried to the Rye Lake area of Kensico Reservoir. Some water 

from Middle Branch and Cross River Reservoirs is carried to Kensico 

Reservoir. The New Croton Reservoir is formed by waters of tbn Croton 

River basin and the Delaware Aqueduct. Water from the Nev Croton 

Reservoir serves areas in Manhattan and the Bronx as well as sonn outside 

communities. Kensico Reservoir receives water from the Bronx River 

basin, which mingles with water from the Catskill, Delaware, and Croton 

River waters. From Kensico, these mixed waters flow through the 

Catskill and Delaware Aqueducts to Hillview Reservoir. Water is supplied 

to several communities between Kensico and Hillview. Water from 

Hillview is supplied to the five boroughs and some outside communities. 

Richmond wells: Less than 1 percent of 1961 supply. Supplement the supply

to the borough of Richmond.

The Long Island system of wells and ponds is seldom used for supp'yPrivate water companies: The Jamaica Water Supply Co., about 3 percent 

of 1961 supply, and Utilities and Industries Corp., New York Water 

Service Division (Woodhaven Plant), less than 1 percent of 1961 supply, 

are franchised to supply water in part to the borough of Queens. Jamaica 

Water Supply Co. furnished about 3 percent of the 1961 supply, and New 

York Water Service Division Supply furnished less than 1 percent of 1961 

supply. Source is driven wells.
252 NEW YORK

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 1,190 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Surface water: Plain sedimentation in large storage reservoirs, chlorination 

and rechlorination of supplies after leaving open surface reservoirs. The 

Catskill supply receives, in addition, aeration and coagulation with alum 

when necessary at the Pleasantville plant.

Ground water: Private companies operate two gravity ant? three pressure 

filters for iron removal. Some well& have lime treatment for corrosion 

control. Treatment with caustic soda is planned for the rear future. 

Water storage, in million gallons:

Impounding and storage reservoirs: Pepacton, 143,701; Neversink, 35,466; 

Rondout, 50,048; Schoharie, 19,538; Ashokan, 130,478; Kensico, 30,573; 

12 reservoirs and 5 controlled lakes in Croton basin, 97,381; East Meadow 

Pond, 19; Wantagh Pond, 44; Massapequa Pond, 17.

Distribution reservoirs and standpipes: Central Park Reservoir, 1,021; 

Hill view Reservoir, 929; Jerome Park Reservoir, 773; Ridge wood Reservoir 

(two basins), 208; Far Rockaway Standpipe, 0.3; Silver Lake Reservoir, 

438; Grimes Hill Standpipe, 0.2.
NEW YORK CITY 253

Wells 

4.3 mgd

Areas served by New York City 

Bureau of Water Supply

S

Water analysis sampling site

5 MILES

J

FIGURE 45. Water supplies and areas served by New York City Bureau of Water Supply. 

Note-For other areas supplied by New York City Bureau of Water Supply see map of 

Yonkers. Water-use data based on 1960. Approval by local municipal water 

officials, April 1963. List of reservoirs: A, Schoharie; B, Pepacton; C, Ashokanj-D, 

Neversink; E, Rondout; F, Boyds Corners; G, West Branch; H, Middle Branch; /, East 

Branch; J, Bog Brook; K, Croton Falls Main; L, Titicus; M, Amawalk; N, Croton Falls 

Diverting; O, Muscoot; P, New Croton; Q, Cross River; R, Kensico; S, Hillview; T, 

Cannonsville Reservoir (under construction).
254 NEW YORK

Analytical data New York City

Percent of supply. __ .

Type of water: 

F, finished.. __ ...

Catskill and Delaware supplies

79 5-1&-62

F

(2) 

F

Croton supply

18 5-1&-62

F

(2) 

F

Jamaica 

wells (8, 

8A, 17A, 

and 31)

3

5-16-62

F

Jamaica wells 

(wells 1-48A)

(3) 

F

(4) 

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOs) . ... ...

Iron' (Fe)_ ....

Calcium (Ca).._ ______

Magnesium (Mg). ...

Sodium (Na) ____........

Potassium (K). _ . ...

Bicarbonate (HCOs). ...

Sulfate (SOO 

Chloride (Cl). ..........

Fluoride (F). ....___ ..

Nitrate (NOs) ____ .

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) ...

Hardness as CaCOs. __ 

Noncarbonate hardness

Specific conductance 

(micromhos at 25° C). 

pH....____..___ .........

2.0

.06

.00

6.9

1.0

1.8

.5

13

9.0

3.8

g

41

21 

11

62 

6.5

3

1

2.5

5.6

1.0

1.7

.7

7

12

3.5

.0

42

18

50 

6.7

7

3

3.8

.07

.02

14

4.8

4 *)

1.4

40 

0

16

10

.1

87

55 

22

142 

6.7

2

0

50

4.5

.11

14

4.4

3.3

1.3

37

0

19

8.9

.1

.3

97

54

137

7.5

5

4

51

21

.05

.04

45

19

17

1.6

158 

0

53

28

.0

8.6

283

191 

61 

453 

7.1

2

1

1 Q

256

35

17

422

307

590 

7.4

24

13

0.00

4 

0

4.0

37

9

45 

5.0

1

0

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Radium (Ka)_ .........

Uranium (U). ___ ..

9.5

<.l

.2

14

<.l

.2

3.5

.1

1.0

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag).. .........

Barium (Ba) ___ ....

Beryllium (Be). ... _ .

Cobalt (Co) --_-_.

Chromium (Cr) _________

Copper (Cu) __ _ ___

Iron (Fe)._ __________

Molybdenum (Mo) _ .

Nickel (Ni)_ ............

Phosphorus (P) __ .. .

Lead (Pb)_ .............

Rubidium (Rb)__ _ ....

Tin (Sn)_. . ..........

Strontium (Sr).

Titanium (Ti) __________

Vanadium ( V) . . __

Zinc (Zn)_ ________

0.23

85

2.5

OO

ND

ND

.35

22

OK

.27

39

ND

1.6

ND

2.3

.7

ND

20

2.9

<1.4

ND

 _ _ 0.27 

48

14

00

ND

ND

.52 

63

»7

.16

47

1.2

2.3

ND

8.2

1.1

ND

49

2.1

ND

ND

.._ _ 0.39 

9.3

58

62

ND

ND

<.39

2.9

120

1.5

190

ND

<3.9

ND

ND

ND

ND

89

ND

ND

ND

 . .-

 -----

-.-.- 

----- 

1 Analyzed by the Jamaica Water Supply Co.

2 Average analyses by the city of New York for 1960.

3 Maximum value of constituents measured during 1961.

4 Minimum value of constituents measured during 1961. 

1 In solution when collected.
NEW YORK

ROCHESTER

255

Ownership: Municipal.

Other area served: Livonia.

Population served: 292,000 by municipal system.

Sources and percentages of supply: Upland Supply (Hemlock and Canadice Lakes),

79 percent; Lake Ontario, 21 percent. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 62. 9 mpd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Upland Supply plant: Chlorination, ammoniation, and fluoridatior. 

Lake Ontario filter plant: Coagulation, flocculation, and rapid sand fiHration. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Upland Supply plant, 36 mgd: Lake Ontario

filter plant, 36 mgd.

Finished-water storage: 231 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 3.7. 

Remarks: Monroe County Water Authority supplies about 30,000 people in

Rochester. Its source of water is Lake Ontario. Directly or indirectly it

serves about 203,000 customers in Monroe County.

The Monroe County Water Authority and Rochester are building a ne^ intake

into Lake Ontario. They will share the intake, but each will have its

own treatment plant.

Regular determinations at Lake Ontario filter plant, 1961:

Finished water. ____ .

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(Ppm)

Avg

92 

83

Max

95 

86

Min

91

78

PH

Avg

8.0

7.4

Max

8.3 

7.9

Min

7.9 

6.9

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

127 

124

Max

130 

128

Min

120 

120

TurMdity

Avg

5.6 

.5

Max

40 

2.0

Min

1.0 

.1
256 NEW YORK

Analytical data Rochester

Percent of supply. .....

Type of water: R, raw;

F, finished ...........

Lake Ontario l

21 6-19-61

R

(2)

R

(3)

R

Lake Ontario

filter plant

21 5-23-62

F

(12)

F

Rochester

treatment

plant i

«

F

HenIOC'T

LaVe

79 6-9-61

R

Canadice

Lake

6-9-61

R

Upland

supply

79 5-23-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOz). ..........

Iron < (Fe) ...... ....

Sodium (Na). .........

Potassium (K)_. .......

Bicarbonate (HCOj)... 

Carbonate (CO3). .....

Sulfate (SO4). .........

Chloride (Cl)__._. _ ..

Fluoride (F). ..........

Nitrate (NOs).. .......

Phosphate (POO-. ....

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C). ......

Hardness as CaCOs ... _ Noncarbonate hardSpecific conductance

PH.. ..................

Color. ____ .........

Turbidity.. ...........

Temperature .... °F__

3.0

.07

.01

36

9.7

.09

93

17

27

.3

.1

233

130

54

8.3

2

60

3.0

36

11

.15

94 

0

.2

2.0

130

8.3

2

40

3.0

20

5.4

04

90 

0

12

25

.2

.1

1.0

193

82

7.9

0

1

.5

.37

.01

41

8.0

10

1.2

108 

0

29

26

1.1

.3

.09

194

136 

47

319

7.4

2

1

49

5.0

24

7.2

52 

0

17

14

1.2

.2

1.3

86

7.5

1

3

4.0

18

4.1

.03

49 

0

4.0

13

1.0

.1

66

7.0

0

1

5 0

.00

.00

21

5 0

5 2

1.2

62 

0

23

7.1

.0

.7

107

73

22

178

6 9

2

62

2.9

.00

.00

12

2.9

3.0

1.0

31 

0

19

2.6

.1

.6

62

42 

17

104

6.8

2

65

2.5

.06

.01

24

5.0

4.7

1.2

61 

0

24

10

1.1

.1

.07

111

81 

31

189

7.3

3

2

62

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per li^er; <, less than]

Radium (Ra) ..........

6.1

<.l

<.l

7.9

< !

< !

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fcnnd]

Silver (Ag). .-. ..

Aluminum (Al)... _ .'.

Boron (B)-- __ ... .

Barium (Ba)_ .........

Beryllium (Be) __ ..

Cobalt (Co).....- .....

Chromium (Cr)___ ....

Copper (Cu)_- .. ...

Iron (Fe)..-. ..........

Lithium (Li)_. ........

Molybdenum (Mo) ....

Nickel (Ni) ............

Phosphorus (P) ........

Lead (Pb)... .......

Rubidium (Rb)--.._._

Tin (Sn). ...........

Strontium (Sr). _ . ..

Titanium (Ti). ........

Vanadium (V)

Zinc (Zn)... ...........

0.30

47

20

40

ND

ND

1.4

23

27

1.2

3.0

2.4

ND

4.7

ND

ND

150

1.7

ND

ND

<0 1

95

12

35

ND

ND

ND

83

150

.5

17

1.5

ND

4.1

ND

ND

65

5.2

ND

ND

1 Analyzed by the city of Rochester.

2 Maximum value of constituents in monthly analyses during 1961. 

s Minimum value of constituents in monthly analyses during 1961. 

4 In solution when collected.
NEW YORK 257

SYRACUSE

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Parts of Dewitt, Onondaga, Geddess, Manlius, ElbrWge, and 

Skaneateles.

Population served: Syracuse, 216,038; total, about 235,000.

Source of supply: Skaneateles Lake. A legal limit for withdrawal from Skaueateles 

Lake is set at 58 mgd.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Otisco Lake (Onondaga County Water Authority) .

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 42.3 mgd (U.S. Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Syracuse treatment plant chlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Syracuse treatment plant, 58 mgd.

Finished-water storage: 235 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 5.6.
258 NEW YORK

Analytical data Syracuse

Percent of supply ____ _____ _ _____________

Date of collection _ ___ ______ __ __ __ ___

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished _ ______ _

Skaneateles Lake

100

6-7-61

R

Treatment plant

100

5-22-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOo)_____-__________________________

Iron1 (Fe)_ ________ ________________ .....

Manganese 1 (Mn)._ _ ________ ___ __ ____

Calcium (Ca)___ _ ____ _____ ___ ___ ___ _

Magnesium (Mg)_ ________ _ _______

Sodium (Na)____________ __ _ ___ ___ _____

Potassium (K)____ _________ ___________ __

Bicarbonate (HCO3)_ ______ _ ______ __

Carbonate (CO3) ___ _ _ _ ____ _ ...

Sulfate (SO4) -----_-_______-___-______-__

Chloride (Cl)_._____________________________

Fluoride (F) _ _ _ _____ _ _ __ _______

Nitrate (NO3) ------ _ __________________

Dissolved solids (residue at 1 80 °C) ___________

Hardness as CaCC>3_-________ ____________ __

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs __ _____ __

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25°C)____ 

pH__ _____________________________________

Color_____ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ ^__

Turbidity __ __ _ ______ _ _ ____ _ _

Temperature __ ____ _ _ ______ __ _ °F_

1.7

.00

.00

34

5.8

1.6

.9

110

0

17

2.6

.0

2.2

132

109

19

227 

7.1

1

59

1.0

.16

.01

35

6.0

1.7

.8

111

0

18

4.0

. 1

1.8

132

112

21

226 

7.9

2

3

54

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Radium (Ra)______ ___ ___ ______ _____ _

Uranium (U) __ _ _______ ______ _ ____

7.3

.3

<. 1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fcundj

Silver (Ag) ___ _ _______ _ __ _ ____ _

Boron (B)__ _ _ _______ _ ______ __ _ _

Barium (Ba) ___ _____ __________ ________

Beryllium (Be) __________ ______ __ _ __

Cobalt (Co) __ ________ _ ___ __ ______

Chromium (Cr)_____ ___ ___________ _____

Copper (Cu) _____ __ ___ _ _____ ______

Iron (Fe)__ _ _ _______________ ____ ___ _

Lithium (Li) _____________ ___ __________

Manganese (Mn) _______ _ _ ___ ________ _ Molybdenum (Mo)_____ ______ ____ _______

Nickel (Ni). _______________________________

Phosphorus (P) _ _______ _ ____ _________

Lead (Pb)___-____-_.____ ______ __ _ _____

Rubidium (Rb) ___ ___ _ _ __ _ __ _ __

Tin (Sn) ________ ___ _ _ ______ _

Strontium (Sr) _________ __ _____ _ _ ___

Titanium (Ti) _ ____ _ ____ __ _ _ _ __ _

Vanadium (V)_ ___ ____ _____

Zinc (Zn)__ ___ ____ _ ____

<0. 19

26

13

33

ND

ND

ND

10

33

.52

3.0

ND

ND

ND

17

ND

ND

54

1.1

ND

ND

1 In solution when collected.
NEW YOKK 259

YONKERS

(See fig. 46.) 

Ownership: Municipal. 

Population served: Yonkers, 190,634. 

Sources and percentages of supply: Saw Mill River and Grassy Sprain Brook,

35 percent; New York City supply from Hill view Reservoir, 65 percent; well

supply, 250,000 gpd pumped directly into system. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 12 mgd (U.if Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Saw Mill River filter plant: Slow sand filtration and chlorination. 

Grassy Sprain Brook plant: Chlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Saw Mill River filter plant, 16 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: Grassy Sprain Reservoir, 1,000 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 83. 

Finished-water storage: Nodine Hill Tower, 1 million gal; Concord Road Tower,

1 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations of finished water at Yonkers Laboratory, January-May 

1962:

Grassy Sprain Reservoir

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg Mas

104 

36

Min

74 

30

pH

Avg

......

Mas

7.4 

7.0

Min

7.1 

6.6

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

......

Mas

164 

96

Min

134

84

Turbidity

Avg

......

Max

5

10

Min

......
260 NEW YORK 

Analytical data Yonkers

Saw Mill 

Reservoir

18 5-15-62

F

Grrssy 

Sprain 

Rese-voir

17

5-15-62

r

Catskill 

Aqueduct

65

El E CO

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2) _ . ... .

Iron i (Fe) _______ ________________ - ____

Sodium (Na)_. ............ _ ........................ _ . ...

Sulfate (804)--- . . ............... ...........

Chloride (Cl) . _ .... . .. .. __ ..-.. 

Fluoride (F) ..... . . . _

Nitrate (NOs). _ - _ - ___ .. __ .. ___

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C). _______________

pH. ..........................................................

Turbidity... -. . _ ..... ... _ ..... .... __ 

3.5

.05

.00

41

16

20

4.0

142

0

39

38

.0

3.1

250

169

52

436

7.4

1

1

61

6.5

.24

00

17

7.1

1Q

2.7

42

0

27

37

.0

2.0

165

72

37

265

7.0

4

1

54

2.0

.03

.03

5.9

1.7

1.6

14

0

9.1

0 Q

.0

.1

37

22

10

62

6.7

4

2

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Uranium (U). ______ . _______ . ___ . ..............

10

.2

.3

13

.1

7.5

.1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag). ......................... .........................

Iron(Fe) _ . .. _ _ ........ __ ......... ...

Nickel (Ni).. ... __ . __ _ . __ .... .

Lead(Pb)... . _ . 

Rubidium (Rb)... __ ... .... . ... .. ... _ ... ...

Tin (Sn).____ _ _ .. .... _ ........ _ . _ . 

Zinc (Zn) ................... .. ........ ................

<0.41

65

73

77

ND

ND

1.8

27

97

.97

4.5

1.7

ND

9.7

ND

ND

130

1.5

ND

ND

0.32

140

45

84

ND

ND

.34

68

810

.39

1,100

ND

6.8

ND

4.3

4.8

ND

79

5.2

<5.4

ND

0.34

120

12

23

ND

ND

.14

58

68

.2C

34

ND

1.4

ND

7.1

.4

ND

12

1.7

ND

1 In solution when collected.
YONKERS 261

N t

Area served partly or wholly by 

New York City water system

Water analysis sampling site

Area served by Yonkers 

water system

Saw Mill River filter p/a'rit 

Low service ppmp/station

FIGURE 46. Water supplies and areas served by Yonkers, N.Y., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, April 1963.) List of reservoirs: A, Croton and New 

Croton; B, Kensico; C, Saw Mill; D, Grassy Sprain; ^Hillview. Note: Catskill Aqueduct 

brings water from Ashokian and Schoharie Reservoirs to Hillview Reservoir.

NORTH CAROLINA

Charlotte Greensboro

CHARLOTTE

(See fig. 47.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Suburban areas and Pineville.

Population served: Charlotte, 201,564; total, 212,946.

Source of supply: Catawba River impounded in Mountain Island Lake.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 22.1 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Hoskins treatment plant and Vest Station treatment plant aeration, 

coagulation with alum, carbon, primary chlorination, sedimentation, rspid sand 

filtration, final pH adjustment with hydrated lime, secondary chlorination, ammoniation, and fluoridation with sodium silicofluoride.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Hoskins treatment plant, 12 m-rd; Vest 

treatment plant, 24.6 mgd.

Raw-water storage: Two reservoirs, 50 million gal each.

Finished-water storage: Two clear wells, 12 and 6 million gal; four elevated tanks, 

1.3, 1.0, 0.5, and 0.5 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.0.

Remarks: The water is pumped from the Catawba River to raw-water storage; 

then it flows by gravity through the treatment plant to clear-water wells, 

where it is then pumped to distribution system and elevated storage tanks.

Future plans: Hoskins plant capacity is to be increased by 24 mgd during 1964-65. 

Enlarged Catawba River pumping station with additional pumps and emergency 

pumping equipment, construction to begin in 1963. A 72-inch raw-water line 

from Catawba River pumping station to Hoskins plant reservoir is to be installed 1963-64. Tanks to supply an added 4.5 mgd are planned.

Regular determinations at Vest treatment plant, 1960-1961:

Raw water. _ .........

Finished water. _ __

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

16 

19

Max

19 

22

Min

13 

16

pH

Avg

7.4 

9.0

Max

8.0 

9.2

Min

7.1 

8.1

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

13

24

Max

15

28

Min

10 

19

Turbidity

Avg

25 

.0

Max

1*2 

.2

Min

5 

.0

,735-717 O 64- -18 233
264 NORTH CAROLINA

Analytical data Charlotte

Percent of supply ______________________

Date of collection _______ ____________ ......

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished _ ___________ .....

Catawba 

Riven

100 8-15-61 

R

Hoskins treatment plant 1

100 8-15-61 

F

2 2-21-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica(SiOj). ....

Iron (Fe). ....... ..... ___ .. _

Aluminum (Al) _________ _________________

Calcium (Ca) ______ - ______ . ...... ....... .....

Magnesium (Mg) ___ . _ ___ __ _____ .. ._..

Sodium (Na)_. - _ ... __ . ___ ... ....

Bicarbonate (HCOs).. _____ . _ - ... . ...... _ .. .....

Carbonate (COa)- _________________ _______

Sulfate (SOO- - _. .

Chloride (Cl)........ ...... _______ . ______..______.._.....___

Fluoride (F)._. .. ___ ..... ______ .. .. .............

Nitrate(NO3)- .

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)_ . . .....

pH...........................................................

Color. __ . _____ _ . __ __ . ..........................

10

3.2

1.2

3.8

1.2

20

0

3.8

1.5

.1

.3

37

13

0

46

7.2

3

11

.01

net

8.7

1.5

4.1

1.2

22

3

7.4

3.5

1.1

.4

53

28

10

82

8.9

0

7.8

.01

.02

7.4

1.0

4.0

15

7

6.3

4.0

1.0

50

25

9.0

0

0

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per lite": <, less than]

3.0 __ .

<.l ._.. _._ .

.1 _______ ..

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; X, semiquantitative determination in digit order shown; ND,

looked for but not found]

Silver(Ag) . .

Cobalt (Co)- _ .. _ ... .... .....

Iron (Fe). ..................................... _ ............

Nickel (Ni). .... ... .... _ .. . 

Lead (Pb)... ........ ..................... _ ..... ...

Tin (Sn).... ................. __ ...........................

Titanium (Ti) _______ ______ . . ______ ... .

Zinc (Zn)._. __________ . ________ . _ .... ___ .

Ytterbium (Yb). ................................. __ ....

Yttrium (Y) ... _ . ....... . . .....

<0.04

59

250

8.9

ND

<.37

.10

.78

KO

.06

11

ND

.7

ND

4.4

1.2

ND

2.4

3.5

<1.1

<37

.OX

.X

.X

0.17

8.5

7.0

12

ND

ND

<.05

1.1

5.1

.06

12

ND

.5

ND

<.5

2.3

ND

5.3

<.5

<1.6

ND

ND

ND

ND

1 Spectrographic concentrations based on nonacidified residue on evaporation. 

' Analysis by city of Charlotte.
CHARLOTTE 265

Mountain Island 

Lake

Areas served by Charlotte 

water system

Charlotte city boundary

A

Treatment plant 

a, Hoskins 

b, Vest station

S

Water analysis sampling site

2 3 MILES 

I____I

FIGURE 47. Water supplies and areas served by Charlotte, N. C., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, February 1963.). List of areas served: 1, Residential area; 2, Airport area; 3, Yorkmont Park; 4, Montclair; 5, Lawsdowe; 6, Stonehaven; 

7, Arrowood; 8, Pineville.
266 NORTH CAROLINA

GREENSBORO

(See fig. 48.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Greensboro, 119,184; about 5,000 people outside the city

limits; total, 124,184. 

Source of supply: Reedy Fork, Horsepen Creek, and Brush Creek impounded in

Lake Brandt. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 13 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Greensboro filter plant prechlorination, coagulation with alum,

sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, adjustment of pH with lime, addition of

Calgon for corrosion control, and postchlorination. 

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Greensboro filter plant, 20 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: Reedy Fork impoundment, 19 million gal; Horsepen Creek

impoundment, 800 million gal; Lake Brandt, 2,200 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 232. 

Finished-water storage: Three elevated tanks, 0.2, 0.5, and 0.5 million gal; one

clear well, 2.5 million gal; one reservoir, 18 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 1.7.

Regular determinations at Greensboro filter plant, 1961:

Raw water __ __

Alkalinity 

as CaCOa 

(ppm)

Avg

26 

30

Max

38 

45

Min

19 

19

pH

Avg

7.1

7.8

Max

7.9

9.7

Min

6.3 

6.3

Hardness 

as CaCO3 

(ppm)

Avg

30 

47

Max

52 

66

Min

10

25

Turbidity

Avg

54 

0

Max

340 

0

Min

3 

0
GREENSBORO 267

Lake Brandt

Raw water reservoir 

-o.

Filter plant

Finished water, 

reservoir

EXPLANATION

Areas served by Greensboro water system

Greensboro city boundary

S 

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 48. Water supplies and areas served by Greensboro, N. C., water system. (Approved by local municipal water officials, February 1963.)
268 NORTH CAROLINA

Analytical data Greensboro

Percent of supply

Date of collection

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished

Lake Brandt

100

1-16-62

R

Filter plant

100

1-16-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2)__________________ __________

Iron (Fe)

Manganese (Mn)

Aluminum (Al)

Lithium (Li)

Calcium (Ca)

Magnesium (Mg)

Sodium (Na)

Potassium (K)

Bicarbonate (HCO3) _ _ _ _ ___

Carbonate (CO3) ___________________________

Sulfate (SO4)________________ __________

Chloride (Cl)___ __________ ______

Fluoride (F) _______________________________

Nitrate (NO3)________________ __________

Phosphate (PO4)___________ __________

Dissolved solids (residue at 180°C)

Hardness as CaCO3

Non carbon ate hardness as CaCO3

Specific conductance (micro mhos at 25° C)

pH

Color____________________ ____

Q 4

.02

.04

. 1

. 0

4.4

1. 7

2.9

2.4

20

0

7. 2

3.5

. 1

1. 5

. 1

49

18

2

59

7.0

10

7. 0

.01

.00

. 5

. 0

21

1.6

2. 7

2. 6

15

13

27

4. 5

. 2

1. 1

. 1

96

65

31

148

9. 6

2

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity

Radium (Ra)

Uranium (U)

12

.3

< 1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)______________________ __________

Aluminum (Al)

Boron (B) ___________

Barium (Ba)

Beryllium (Be)

Cobalt (Co)______________

Chromium (Cr)

Copper (Cu)

Iron (Fe)__________

Lithium (Li)

Manganese (Mn)

Molybdenum (Mo)

Nickel (Ni)___________

Phosphorus (P)

Lead (Pb)_______________ _____

Rubidium (Rb)

Tin (Sn)___________

Strontium (Sr)

Titanium (Ti)_ ________

Vanadium (V)

Zinc (Zn) _____

ND

1,500

11

8. 6

ND

ND

1. 1

7. 8

48

ND

16

ND

1.3

ND

<1.3

5. 2

ND

71

.4

<3. 8

ND
OHIO

Akron 

Cincinnati 

Cleveland 

Columbus

Dayton 

Toledo 

Youngstown

AKRON

(See fig. 49.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Mogadore, Stow, Tallmadge, the Chrysler Corp. at Twinsburg, and the General Motors Corp. at Hudson

Population served: Akron, 290,351; total about 315,000.

Source of supply: Cuyahoga River impounded in Lake Rockwell, East Branch 

Reservoir, and Wendell R. LaDue Reservoir. (Water from Mogadore Reservoir 

is used by industries.)

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Wells at Kenmore field and pumping station 

near Nesmith Lake can supply 1.5 mgd.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 41.1 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Akron water treatment plant coagulation with alum and ferrous 

sulfate, treatment with activated carbon when necessary, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration (anthrafilt), chlorination, and final adjustment of pH by 

addition of lime.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Akron water treatment plant, 60 mgd.

Raw-water storage: 10,100 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 250.

Finished-water storage: 48 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.2.

Remarks: The watershed can be depended upon to yield an annual average of 

65 mgd.

Regular determinations at Akron water treatment plant, 1961:

Raw water ....

Finished water. ..

Alkalinity 

as CaCCh 

(ppm)

Avg

74 

79

Max

121

137

Min

28 

39

pH

Avg

7.9 

8.3

Max

9.1

8.8

Min

7.2 

7.7

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

107 

130

Max

156 

184

Min

56 

76

Turbidity

Avg

5 

.4

Max

36 

5

Min

1 

.05

269
270 OHIO

Analytical data, treatment plant Akron

[Percent of supply: 100. Date of collection: 5-2-62. Type of water: Finished]

Chemical analyses 

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj). ...

Iron(Fe).. --

Potassium (K) ...................

Carbonate (CO^)...... ..............

Sulfate (SOO ...

Chloride (Cl)..-.. -.___ _._

1.3

.03

.03

35

6.7 6 2

1.7

74

0

46

15

Fluoride (F)......... ... 

Nitrate (NOs) ~ ..................

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)-

pH,._. ........................

Color,. ___---.__._-_--_ - - _..

Temperature .... ___ . _ .... °F-_

0.1

.2

172

115

54

264

7.5

5

63

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Radium (Ra). ....... ...............

8.6 Uranium(U)-. . - 0.1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)..----..--.. ..

Aluminum (Al).. ________ ..

Boron (B)__-_ _ .. .

Beryllium (Be)--..... ..

Cobalt (Co)... .... ....

Chromium (Cr).. .. _ ...

Iron (Fe)__ .......... ....

Lithium (Li)...............

Manganese (Mn)_.__ .......

<0.17 

790 

26 

43 

ND 

ND 

.65 

4.8 

48 

1.2 

6.4

Nickel (Ni)-.. -

Lead (Pb)- -----------------

Bubidium(Bb). --

Tin (Sn)-. . .----- 

Strontium (Sr) ........ ..... ......

Titanium (Ti).. ....................

Vanadium (V) --- -- 

Zinc(Zn)-- . -

<0.52 

2.6 

ND 

3.1 

ND 

ND 

71 

1.4 

ND 

ND
AKRON 271

EXPLANATION

Areas served by the Akron water system 

Akron city boundary

Industrial pipeline

LaDiie Reservoir 

(domestic source)

Water analysis sampling site

East Branch Reservoir i 

(domestic source)

Treatment rl Lake Rockwell 

plant /((domestic source)

Mogadore Reservoir 

(industrial source)

I__L

5 MILES

J

FIGURE 49. Water supplies and areas served by Akron, Ohio, water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, April 1963.) List of areas served: 1, Chrysler Corp.; 

2, General Motors Corp.;3, Stow; 4, Tallmadge; 5, Mogadore.
272 OHIO

CINCINNATI

(See fig. 50.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Addyston, Amberley, Arlington Heights, Blue Ash, Cheviot, 

Deer Park, Elrawood Place, Evandale, Fairfax, Golf Manor, Greenhills, 

Lincoln Heights, Marieraont, Montgomery, Mt. Healthy, Newt own, North 

Bend, North College Hill, Norwood, St. Bernard, Sharonville, Silverton, 

Woodlawn, other cities on occasion, and suburban districts.

Population served: Cincinnati, 502,550; total, about 750,000.

Source of supply: Ohio River.

Lowest mean discharge: Ohio River at Cincinnati, Ohio, for 30-day period in 

climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 5,120 mgd.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 97 mgd (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Cincinnati treatment plant prechlorination, coagulation with iron 

salts and lime (and periodically with alum), treatment with activated carbon, 

sedimentation, chlorination, rapid sand filtration, and ammoniation.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Cincinnati treatment plant, 200 mgd.

Raw-water storage: 300 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): 3.4.

Finished-water storage: 131 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.4.

Regular determinations at Cincinnati treatment plant, 1960:

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

40 

43

Max

56 

59

Min

15 

25

pH

Avg

7.5 

8.6

Max

9.0 

9.3

Min

6.9

7.8

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

137 

159

Max

224 

240

Min

63 

97

Turbidity

Avg

70 

0

Max

1,100 

0

Min

1 

0
CINCINNATI 273

EXPLANATION

Areas served by Cincinnati water system

Cincinnati city boundary

X

River intake and 

treatment plant

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 50. Water supplies and areas served by Cincinnati, Ohio, water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, April 1963.) List of areas served: 1, Greenhills; 2, 

Newtown; 3, Sharonville; 4, Woodlawn; 5, Evandale; 6, Amberley; T.Lincoln Heights; 

8, Blue Ash; 9, Montgomery; 10, Mt. Healthy; 11, North College Hill; 12, Arlington 

Heights; 13, Deer Park; 14, Fairfax: 15, Silverton; 16, Elmwood Place; 17, Golf Manor; 

18, St. Bernard; 19, North Bend; 20, Addyston; 21, Cheviot; 22, Norwood; 23, Mariemont.
274 OHIO

Analytical data Cincinnati

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished. ____

Ohio River

R R

Treatment plant

100 5-15-62 

F F

P) 

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOs)... ................ ............

Calcium (Ca).._ ______ . ____ ....

Potassium (K)..._. ______ ..........

Bicarbonate (HCO3)-_ __ ______ 

Sulfate (SOO ...

Chloride (Cl)..... .......... ...............

Fluoride (F).... ..... __________ ..

Nitrate (NO3) _ .. .-.... .

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) ___ ..

PH........................................

Color.. .. _____ - ___ . .........

Turbidity ____. ______________

0.04

51

58

0

132

59

.4

377

178

8.3

ion

0.00

25

5.5

35

62

15

.1

151

91

7.2

7

3.4

.02

.02

45

10

18

1.8

50

0

114

28

.2

2.0

261

153

112

403

8.1

3

67

0.02

59

12

138

66

.4

410

199

8.9

0.00

34

7.8

33

0

80

18

.1

185

116

8.3

Radiochemical analyses

[ Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than. Maximum 

beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum beta activity, raw water, July 1, 

1961, to June 30, 1962 _ .. ...... .....

Uranium (U) _ _ _ __ .

20

5.3

<-l

<-l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag). _______________________________

Boron (B). ______ __ .. __ .

Beryllium (Be) __ __ ...

Cobalt (Co) ................

Chromium (Cr) . .. . .....

Iron (Fe)._ .. ___ " __ . .

Lithium (Li)... ........... _ ... ....... .

Manganese (Mn) . ......

Nickel (Ni)-. .... ......

Phosphorus (P) ......

Lead (Pb)_ ____________

Rubidium (Rb). . . __ . ...........

Tin (Sn). ...... _ ..........

Strontium (Sr) _____ ______ ._ .

Titanium (Ti)._ ......... _

Vanadium (V)... _ . _________

Zinc (Zn) ....... .. . . .............

<0.29

28

84

ND

ND

2.0

17

11

7.5

ND

3.8

<"> Q

ND

ND

3.2

ND

210

ND

ND

ND

1 Maximum constituents in monthly analyses by the city of Cincinnati during 1961. 

3 Minimum constituents in monthly analyses by the city of Cincinnati during 1961.
OHIO 275

CLEVELAND

(See fig. 51.) 

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Sixty suburban areas and most of the remainder of Cuyahoga

County.

Population served: Cleveland, 876,050; total, about 1,675,000. 

Source of supply: Lake Erie. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 319 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Nottingham, Baldwin, Division, and Crown filtration plants prechlorination, treatment with activated carbon and lime when necessary,

sedimentation, fluoridation, rapid sand filtration, and postchlorination when

necessary. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Nottingham filtration plant, IfO mgd;

Baldwin filtration plant, 165 mgd; Division filtration plant, 150 mgd; Crown

filtration plant, 50 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: 80 million gal. 

Finished-water storage: 293 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Nottingham nitration plant, 1961:

Finished water _ .

Alkalinity 

as CaCOa 

(ppm)

Avg

94

86

Max

102 

94

Min

83 

73

pH

Avg

8.0 

7.5

Max

8.5 

7.9

Min

7.3 

7.0

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

127 

127

Max

132 

132

Min

118 

116

Turbidity

Avg

8.7 

0

Max

140 

1.0

Min

1.0 

.0
276 OHIO

Analytical data, Nottingham filtration plant Cleveland 

[Percent of supply: 100. Date of collection: 6-2-62. Type of water: Finished]

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Iron (Pe)_ _____ _ _______ _ ___ _

Calcium (Ca)_______ ________ _______

Magnesium (Mg)-_ ________ _ ___ _ 

Sodium (Na)____________ __ _______

Bicarbonate (HCO3)-______ ____ __

Carbonate (CO3)_____ _____ __ __

Sulfate (SO.). .-_----_-_-._--___-.

Chloride (CD __ ________________ ___

0.5 

.05 

.10 

35 

6.9 

11 

1.5 

88 

0 

30 

26

Nitrate (NO.)._.._ ______ __________

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) 

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs-_ .

Specific conductance (micro^ihos at

25° C) _______ _____________________

PH. _____________ __________________

1.0 

1.1 

185 

116 

44

290 

6.9 

7 

47

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picoeuries per liter; uranium in mierograms per liter; <, less than]

10 0.3

Spectrographic analyses

[In mierograms per liter. ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag). _____ _______ ___

Boron (B)__ _____________ _

Barium (Ba) _._ __________ __

Cobalt (Co)_. _ ___

Iron (Fe)_-_. _____________

Lithium (Li) _ . _ _

0.23 

250 

53 

32 

ND 

ND 

3.5 

6.0 

85 

1.2 

3.9

Nickel (Ni)

Lead(Pb)---- ____-__-___._--_-_--_

Tin (Sn) _.._____-____._.-___---_.--_

Titanium (Ti) _____________________

2. 1 

6.5 

ND 

7.9 

ND 

ND 

160 

4.9 

ND 

ND
CLEVELAND 277

EXPLANATION

Area served by the city of Cleveland 

Cleveland city boundary

Water intake

Filtration plant

a, Crown 

b. Division 

C, Baldwin 

d, Nottingham

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 51. Water supplies and areas served by Cleveland, Ohio, water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, April 1963.) List of suburban areas does not include 

Cleveland: 1, Rocky River; 2, Lakewood; 3, Bay Village; 4, Westlake; 5, North Olmstead; 

6, Fairview Park; 7, Park View; 8, Brook Park; 9, Middleburg Heights; 10, Linndale; 

11, Brooklyn; 12, Parma Heights; 13, Parma; 14, North Royalton; 15, Broadview Heights; 

16, Brecksville; 17, Seven Hills; 18, Independence; 19, Valleyview; 20, Brooklyn Heights; 

21. Cuyahoga Heights; 22, Newburg Heights; 23, Garfield Heights; 24, Maple Heights; 

2.3, Shaker Heights; 26, North Randall; 27, University Heights; 28, Warrensville 

Township; 29, Warrensville Heights; 30, Wcfodmere; 31, Beachwood; 32, Cleveland 

Heights; 33, East Cleveland; 34, Bratenahl; 35, Euclid; 36, Wickliffe; 37, Willowick; 

38, East Lake; 39, Lakeline; 40, Timberlake; 41, Richmond Heights; 42, Highland Heights: 

43, Mayfield; 44, Gates Mills; 45, Pepper Pike; 46, Lyndhurst; 47, South Euclid; 

48, Mayfield Heights; 49, Hunting Valley; 50, Orange; 51, Moreland Hills; 52, Bedford 

Heights; 53, Bedford; 54, Oakwood; 55, Solon; 56, Walton Hills.
278 OHIO

COLUMBUS

(See fig. 52.) 

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Bexley, Clifton, Franklin, Gahanna, Grandview Heights, 

Grove City, Lincoln Village, Marble Cliff, Mifflin, Minerva Park, New Rome, 

Riverlea, Upper Arlington, Valleyview, Whitehall, Worthington, and most of 

the remainder of Franklin County.

Population served: Columbus, 471,316; total, about 593,964. 

Sources of supply: Scioto River impounded in Griggs and O'Shaughnessy Reservoirs; Big Walnut Creek impounded in Hoover Reservoir. No definite percentage served by the two sources. Big Walnut Creek furnished more than 

half of supply in 1961, and its proportion will increase because the city is 

growing more to the east and northeast. 

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: White Sulfur Quarry, Olentangy River, and

Nelson Road wells. 

Lowest mean discharge: Scioto River at Columbus, Ohio, for 30-day period in

climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 56.4 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 71.3 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Dublin Road treatment plant (Scioto River): Coagulation with alum, soft-

^ening with lime and soda ash, treatment with activated carbon at times,

sedimentation, recarbonation, rapid sand filtration, addition of phosphate

(Calgon), chlorination, and treatment with chlorine dioxide when necessary.

Water is softened to a hardness of about 100 ppm.

Morse Road treatment plant (Big Walnut Creek): Treatment same as Dublin 

Road plant, except chlorine dioxide is not used and soda ash is used when 

needed for turbid water.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Dublin Road treatment plant, 50 mgd; 

Nelson Road treatment (standby) plant, 10 mgd; Morse Road treatment plant, 

60 mgd.

Raw-water storage: Griggs and O'Shaughnessy Reservoirs, 6,500 million gal; 

Hoover Reservoir, normally 19,500 million gal with provision for storage of 

additional 5,500 million gal with flash boards. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 1.2 years.

Finished-water storage: Dublin Road plant, 25 million gal; Morse Road plant, 

12 million gal; elevated and underground storage at various places in distribution system, 12 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations of monthly composites at treatment plants, 1961:

Dublin Road:

Finished water _

Morse Road:

Alkalinity

as CaCOs

(ppm)

Avg

159

33

92

34

Max

204

48

116

46

Min

108

27

76

22

pH

Avg

ft 9

10.1

8.0

9.7

Max

8.3

10.2

8.2

10.5

Min

8.1

9.9

7.9

9.0

Hardness

as CaCOs

(ppm)

Avg

272

104

152

98

Max

350

114

200

118

Min

204

98

128

76

Turbidity

Avg

40

0

12.6

.6

Max

110

0

27.0

2.4

Min

15

0

2.9

.2
COLUMBUS 279

EXPLANATION

Incorporated areas served by 

the Columbus water system

Sanitary districts served by 

Columbus water system

Columbus city boundary

A

Treatment plants 

a, Dublin Road 

b, Nelson Road 

C, Morse Road

S 

Water analysis sampling site

N

5MILES

i i i i

FIGURE 52. Water supplies and areas served by Columbus, Ohio, water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, April 1963.) Areas served by the Columbus water 

system: 1, Worthington; 2. Minerva Park; 3, Riverlea; 4, Upper Arlington; 5, Clinton; 

6, Mifflin; 7, Gahanna; 8, New Rome; 9, Marble Cliff; 10, Grandview Heights; 11, Bexley; 

12, Whitehall; 13, Franklin; 14, Grove City; 15, Valleyview.
280 OHIO

Analytical data Columbus

Date of collection, _ 

Type of water: R, 

raw; F, finished--

Big Walnut 

Creek

(') 

R

(2) 

R

Morse Road treatment 

plant

55 5-29-62

F

(>) 

F

(2) 

F

Scioto River

(') 

R

(2) 

R

Dublin Road treatment 

plant

45 5-29-62

F

(')

F

(2) 

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2)

Iron (Fe)-_ ____

Manganese (Mn)

Calcium (Ca)_- __

Magnesium (Mg) _ _

Potassium (K) .....

Bicarbonate 

(HCOs) - 

Carbonate (COs)---

Sulfate (SO4)~~ 

Chloride (Cl).._. -

Fluoride(F)__- .

Nitrate (NO3)-- 

Dissolved solids 

(residue at 180° C). 

Hardness as CaCOsNoncarbonate 

hardness as

Specific conductance (micromhos 

at25°C) ... 

pH.___ ... .

Color _ _____ ..

Turbidi ty_ .... ..

10

48

19

142

0

81

10

7.0

313

200

84

8.2

40

0.0

32

12

94

0

44

5.0

7.0

206 

128

47

10

6

3.1

.03

.00

34

4.5 

5.8

2.5

52

0

14

.2

4.2

168 

104

61

253

8.2

3

65

7

34

9

4

197

32

442 

114

7e

5

28

5

16

0

77

12

1.0

230 

98

9.9

0

7

84

34

249

0

182

32

574 

350

8.3

105

5

52

18

132

0

77

12

1.0

318

204

88

8.1

15

4.5

.02

.00

30

6.4 

34

2.6

9

10

127

20

.2

1.2

247 

102

78

395

9.3

3

71

3.6

30

9

24

7

78

11

6.0

209 

118

81

10.5

5

2

0.4

24

3

8

47

7.0

.7

141 

76

52

9.0

3

0

Radioctiemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, <]

Radium (Ra). . ....

Uranium (U) _-___-

9.1

.1

<.l

11

.1

<-l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Boron (B)_ _ ..

Barium (Ba)_ _ 

Beryllium (Be) ...

Cobalt (Co)__ 

Iron(Fe)_ ____

Nickel (Ni)__ .....

Lead(Pb)-_. ...

Tin (Sn)__ ... ...

Strontium (Sr)_ .

Titanium (Ti)-. 

Zinc(Zn) .........

ND

59

24

55

ND

ND

2.6

.99

2

0

ND

12

ND

ND

ND

3.5

ND

220

2.6

ND

ND

<0.26

15

23

40

ND

ND

4.0

1.5

5.8

6.3

ND

9.0

<2.6

ND

ND

<2.6

ND

740

ND

ND

ND

1 Maximum value of constituents in analyses by the city of Columbus of monthly composite, 1961. 

Minimum value of constituents in analyses by the city of Columbus of monthly composite, 1961.
OHIO 281

DAYTON

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Part of Montgomery County, the town of Trotwood, and,

sometimes, the city of Oakwood.

Population served: Dayton, 262,332; total, about 320,000. 

Sources of supply: Total of 59 wells. Mad River valley 10 deep wells and 37

shallow wells 18 to 38 inches in diameter most wells are 26 inches in diameter.

Miami River valley 12 wells, 26 inches in diameter and ranging in depth

from 80 to 180 feet. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1932: 46.6 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Ottawa Street treatment plant lime-soda ash softening, split recarbonation, rapid sand filtration, and chlorination. Alum is sometimes used

for coagulation. In summer chlorine is added ahead of plant for algae control

in filter. Split treatment is used whereby 20-25 percent of raw water bypasses

first softening stage directly to second stage. This serves to recarbonate

overtreated primary settled water, which will, in turn, soften the bypassed

water to some extent. Final hardness is about 100 ppm. 

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Ottawa Street treatment plant, 96 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: None. 

Finished-water storage: Clear well, 10 million gal; low service, 46 million gal;

high service, 8.9 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 1.4.

Regular determinations at Buffalo filtration plant, January 1961-July 1961:

Raw water

Alkalinity 

as CaCOi 

(ppm)

Avg

326

48

Max Min

PH

Avg

7. 6

8. 8

Max Min

Hariness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

356 

103

Max Min
282 OHIO

Analytical data Dayton

Well water

100 (') 

E

Ottawa Street 

treatment plant

ICO 5-14-62 

F 9

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOz) ----------- - . - 

Iron (Fe) - - _. . -

Calcium (Ca) _________ ... _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ _

Bicarbonate (HCOa) 

Sulfete(S04).-- 

Chloride (Cl) _.-__ .... -----

Fluoride(F) - _ __ __ 

Nitrate (TfiQi)... .............................................

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C).. __ ____ - ___ - _

pH. .. . __ .

0.23

89

33

} "

326

0

83

19

439

356

89

7.6

6.4

.00

.03

27

9.5

f 17

\ 1.8

46

0

80

18

.2

5.0

190

107

69

?14

7.5

3

64 -

0.00

28

8

\ go

/ ^

48

0

84

19

203

103

64

8.8

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity, -. ___ __ ________ ______ ___ _ ...

Eadium (Ra) _____ _ ........

Uranium (U).... ................. .. ............. 

6.8 

.1 

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)._. ................................. ..............

Boron (B)_. .................... . .......

Beryllium (Be)--.--.-.-....... . .

Cobalt (Co)..-_ .. ___ _ _

Iron(Fe)_-- . .-._. - . ... . .................

Lithium (Li)..-. ...........

Nickel (Ni) ... .... .. ..........

Lead(Pb).. .... .. ..

Eubidium (Rb)_. .............. ........

Tin (Sn).. ...............

Strontium (Sr).... ...... ....... - .....

Titanium (Tl). ....... ....... . . . ........

Vanadium (V)..... ...........................................

Zinc (Zn). ..................... ......

1.1 

32 

13 

ItO 

ND 

ND 

3.4 

4.7 

21 

2.1 

<2.1 

5.4 

34 

ND 

5.1 

ND 

ND 

5' 0 

1.4 

ND 

ND

1 Average of analyses by the city of Dayton of monthly composite samples, 1960.
OHIO 283

TOLEDO

(See fig. 53.) 

Ownership: Municipal. 

Other areas served: Maumee, Oregon, Ottawa Hills, Perrysburg, Rossford, and

suburban districts.

Population served: Toledo, 318,000; total, about 400,000. 

Source of supply: Lake Erie. The raw water intake is at a crib in Lake Erie,

about 9 miles east of Toledo near Reno Beach and 2 miles offshore. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 65.5 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Collins Park treatment plant activated carbon at low service (4

hours precontact time), prechlorination, coagulation with alum, lime and soda

ash softening, recarbonation, rapid sand filtration, postchlorination, and fluoridation. Water softened to 70 ppm.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Collins Park treatment plant, 120 mgd. 

Finished-water storage: 35 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily wrter used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Ottawa Street treatment plant, 1961:

Raw water __ ___

Finished water _ . _

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

33

Max Min

pH

Avg

8.3 

9. 5

Max

8. 9 

9.9

Min

7.4

8. 5

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

124 

70

Max

186

84

Min

104 

54
284 OHIO

Analytical data Toledo

Lake Erie

(i) 

R

(2)

R

Collins Park treatment plant

100 4-6-62 

F ? 9

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOs) 

Sodium (Na) .............................

Sulfate (SO4) 

Chloride (Cl)........ ............

Fluoride (F)_____ ....... ...................

Nitrate (NOa) - ...... ...... .

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) ........

Hardness as CaCOs. . ............

pH........._........ ......................

Color 

Temperature .. _ -.-.---.... _° F_.

11

1 «

38

28

1.5

319

186

97

8.9

30

6.8

3.0

is

15

172

104

24

7.4

2.9

.10

19

5.1

( 19

I 1.7

14

8

28

27

1.0

2.6

122

68

44

214

8.9

3

44

14

2.4

\ 6. 8

21

16

.0

172

84

20

8.5

26

7.3

lo

48

29

2.0

109

54

55

9.9

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter]

Radium (Ra) __________ ..

Uranium (U) . ......

12 

.1 

.1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)_. ............................

Boron (B) _ . ....

Cobalt (Co)--... ........ .......

Chromium (Cr)_ ______ ._. ...

Lithium (Li).. ............. .

Nickel (Ni)...... .................. ......

Lead (Pb).. . .............. .

Rubidium (Rb). ...... ............ . ....

Tin(Sn) .....................

Strontium (Sr)_. ...............

Titanium (Ti). ....................

Vanadium (V). .. ...

Zinc (Zn) ... ... ...........

<.16 

330 

30 

25 

ND 

ND 

3.7 

4.5 

56 

2.8 

2.7 

2.8 

3.9 

<160 

6.6 

3.0 

ND 

110 

2.2 

8.0 

ND

1 Maximum value of constituents in monthly analyses by city of Toledo during 1961.

2 Minimum value of constituents in monthly analyses by the city of Toledo during 1">61.
TOLEDO 285

MILES

Areas serviced by the Toledo water system 

Toledo city boundary

Water-supply pipeline

Collins Park treatment plant

Water intake

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 53. Water supplies and areas served by the Toledo, Ohio, water system. 

(Approved by local municipal water officials. April 1963.) List of areas served: 

1, Ottawa Hills; 2, Harbor View; 3, Oregon; 4, Rossford; 5, Maumee; 6, Perrysburg.
286 OHIO

YOUNGSTOWN

(See fig. 54.)

Ownership: Mahoning Valley Sanitary District (controlled by cities of Youngstown and Niles).

Other areas served: Niles and McDonald, directly; Austintown, Boardman, 

Canfield, Girard, and Mineral Ridge, indirectly.

Population served: Youngstown, 166,689; total, about 250,000.

Source of supply: Meander Creek impounded in Meander Creek Reservoir.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: May buy as much as 30 mgd from Berlin 

Reservoir in emergency.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 22.2 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Mahoning Valley Sanitary District-Meander Creek treatment plant 

coagulation with alum, softening with lime and soda ash, sedimentation, recarbonation, addition of activated carbon, rapid sand filtration, ammoniation, 

and chlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Meander Creek treatment plant, 64 mgd.

Raw-water storage: About 11,000 million gal (with flashboards).

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): 1.4 years.

Finished-water storage: 35 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.6.

Remarks: The cities of Youngstown and Niles control the Mahoning Valley 

Sanitary District, which sells water to them directly. These two cities can 

(and do) make contracts to supply water through their own lines to other 

communities.
YOUNGSTOWN 287

EXPLANATION

Areas served by Mahoning 

Valley Sanitary District

Youngstown city boundary

Aqueduct for emergency supply 

from the Berlin Reservoir

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 54. Water supplies and areas served by the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District, 

Youngstown, Ohio. (Approved by local municipal water officials, April 1963.) Areas 

served by Mahoning Valley Sanitary District: 1, Niles; 2, McDonald; 3, Girard; 4, Boardman; 5, Mineral Ridge; 6, Austintown; 7, Canfield.
288 OHIO

Analytical data, Meander Creek treatment plant Youngstown 

[Percent of supply: 100. Date of collection: 5-3-62. Type of water: Finished]

Chemical analyses 

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2) 

Iron (Fe) ___ _ _____ ..........

Potassium (K) ____ __ _______ _

Bicarbonate (HCOs)-.-. .. __ ___

Carbonate (C.Os) _ _ __ .. _ ____

Sulfate (SOO - . - ... .

Chloride (Cl)..... ...- ...... .

5.5

.06

.03

25

5.7

26

2.9

0

14

87

18

Fluoride (F). .__.._-. . ...

Nitrate (NOs) 

Specific conductance (micromhosat 25° C)

pH_______....__.___..__....._ ________

1.0

1.3

199

86

56

337

10.0

3

66

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

12

<0.1

<0.1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag).._... ....... .................

Boron (B)__ __ . ___ .. _ ....__..

Barium (Ba) __ .....

Beryllium (Be) .. .. ...

Cobalt (Co).... .__....__..

Chromium (Cr)

Copper (Cu).-

Iron (Fe).___. .. ...

Lithium (Li).... ......

Manganese (Mn) _ ...

<0.23

35

35

26

Nl)

ND

<.23

2.0

15

3.5

ND

Nickel (Ni)

Lead (Pb). . . 

Rubidium (Rb).._ . 

Tin (Sn). . ....-... . . 

Strontium (Sr)__ __ _ __ _ __ _ _

<0.70

3.0

ND

4.0

3.0

ND

87

<-7

<7.0

ND
OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma City Tulm

OKLAHOMA CITY

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas seived: Warr Acres and Village. Emergency connections to Tinker 

Air Force Base and Nichols Hills.

Population served: Oklahoma City, 324,253; total, 340,000.

Sources of supply: North Canadian River by diversion into two o^f-channel 

reservoirs, Lake Hefner and Lake Overholser, both within the city limits.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: 105 wells.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 31.1 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Lake Hefner and Lake Overholser treatment plants softening with 

lime, coagulation with alum, addition of carbon at times for taste and color 

control, sedimentation, recarbonation, rapid sand nitration, addition of Calgon 

if needed, chlorination, and fluoridation.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Lake Hefner plant, 37.5 mgd, Lake Overholser plant, 24 mgd.

Raw-water storage, in million gallons: Atoka Reservoir, 40,730; Lake Hefner, 

24,440; Lake Overholser, 4,888; Canton Reservoir, 29,330.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water- used, in 

mgd): 8.8 years.

Finished-water storage: Elevated, 11 million gal; other, 35 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.5.

Remarks: The Atoka Reservoir does not yet supply water to Oklahoma City. 

A 60-inch pipeline is currently under construction from Atoka to Elm Creek 

Reservoir southeast of Oklahoma City and should be completed in 1964. 

Elm Creek Reservoir, now under construction, will have 33,000 million gal 

storage. The Elm Creek water treatment plant will provide an additional 

30 mgd.

Regular determinations at Lake Hefner treatment plant, January 1961-July 1961:

Finished water... __ _ ..

Alkalinity 

asCaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

143 

39

Max

145 

45

Min

138 

33

pH

Avg

8.7 

10.2

Max

8.8 

10.3

Min

8.5 

10.1

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

246 

132

Max

255 

149

Min

237 

117

T irbidity

Avg

6 

0

Max

6 

0

Min

6 

0

289
290 OKLAHOMA

Analytical data Oklahoma City

Percent of supply. _____________ ___________________

Date of collection--__-_________ ____ _ _____________

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished _ _. _-_-__--__-__-

Lake Hefrer

100

7-28-61

R

Lake Hemer 

treatment 

plant

100

7-28-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (Si02)--_-- __ _ __ _ __________ _ __ _ _____

Iron (Fe).__- _ _ _ _ ____ ___ _ __ _ ... __ _____

Manganese (Mn)_ __ ... . .......______-________-___

Calcium (Ca). _______ ____________________ _________

Magnesium (Mg) ___________________________________

Sodium (Na)____ ________________ __________ ___ __

Potassium (K)-.-.____________ ____ ______ ___ __ ._

Bicarbonate (HCOs)--.- ______ _____ ____________

Carbonate (COa)- . _______ ____ _____ ____________

Sulfate (S04)---------_--------_- _ ______ _ _______

Chloride (Cl)___ ____________________________________

Fluoride (F)_. _________ _____ _ ____ _____ __ _ __

Nitrate (N03)__ _ __ _ ____ ____ _ ___ _ ----- ___

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)._--_ __ ----------

Hardness as CaCOa- ________ _________ _____ _______

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOa. _____ ___._-___-_--

pH.___ ___________ __ ______________________

Color.... __ _ _ ________ ___ ___________________

Turbidity.. __ ____________ _ _ __ __ __ _____._-._

Temperature __ __________ ______ _ __ __ __ °F_

3.2

.02

.00

58

26

90

7.6

182

0

152

107

.6

. 5

518

250

101

865

7. P

2

1

78

2. 6

.00

.00

29

16

84

7.6

8

14

135

104

. 6

.4

418

138

108

712

9.7

0

1

79

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity,. ______ ___ ___ __ _ _ ___ _ __ __

Radium (Ra)_._ _ ____ ___ ________ ______________

Uranium (U). ____________ _____ _______ _ _ ______

12

< 1

.3

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less then; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)__--__.____. _________ ___________________

Aluminum (Al). _ _____________ _ ____ _______

Boron (B)___ _ _ _ ________ ____ _____________ _ _

Barium (Ba)_____ ___________ ___ _________ _..___

Beryllium (Be)_______. ________ __ ________ _____

Cobalt (Co)... _____________________________________

Chromium (Cr) ______ _ _ ___ _ __________ __ _ _

Copper (Cu)___ _ _ _____________ __ _ _ __ _

Iron (Fe) __ _________ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _________ _

Lithium (Li) _______ ___ __ ______

Manganese (Mn)_ ______ _____________ __ ____ __

Molybdenum (Mo).. ______ ___ ________ _______

Nickel (Ni)________________________________________

Phosphorus (P)_ __________ _ __ _______ __

Lead (Pb)_ ________________________________________

Rubidium (Rb) _ __ __ _ ______ _ _ _ ___ __._

Tin (Sn)__-___, ___________________________________

Strontium (Sr)___ _____________ __________ _ _____

Titanium (Ti)___ _ _______ _ __ _______ _ ________

Vanadium (V) ________ ___ ___. _ __ _ ________

Zinc (Zn)___.________________ __ _ ______ _

<0. 76

130

170

140

ND

ND

1. £

14

39

20

7.6

4. 5

7. 6

ND

13

ND

ND

530

<7.6

ND

ND

0. 54

650

76

260

ND

ND

4.6

11

100

8. 6

48

3.2

25

ND

16

7.0

ND

140

15

<16

ND
OKLAHOMA

TULSA

291

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Skiatook, Sperry, Turley, and other consumers outside city

limits. Also serves raw water to Owasso and Spavinaw. 

Population served: Tulsa, 261,285; total, 292,000. 

Source of supply: Spavinaw Creek impounded in Upper Spavinaw Lake, about

60 miles east of Tulsa, and in Lower Spavinaw Lake, which is about 3 miles

downstream of Upper Spavinaw Lake. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 42.5 rr^d (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Mohawk treatment plant prechlorination, coagulation by alum

(with lime if necessary), and fluoridation, followed by mixing, sedimentation,

and filtration.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Mohawk treatment plant, 120 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: Lower Spavinaw Lake, 10,100 million gal: Upper Spavinaw

Lake, 26,070 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 2.3 years.

Finished-water storage: 55 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 1.3.

Regular determinations at Mohawk treatment plant, January 1961-July 1961:

Finished water. . . ___

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

86 

84

Max

. 94 

90

Min

71 

67

pH

Avg

8.1 

7.8

Max

8.2 

8.2

Min

7.8 

7.4

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

93

Max

100

Min

77

T

Avg

7.4 

1.0

irbidity

Max

13.5 

1.8

Min

4.0
292 OKLAHOMA

Analytical data Tulsa

Date of eolleetion___ ___ __ ____ _ _

Spavinavr 

Creek

7-27-61

R

Treatment 

plant

100

7-28-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2 )------~--------- __ __ - ____--__-.

Iron (Fe)_. ________ -_.__._________..__._._ _ ......

Manganese (Mn)_ __ __ _ _ _ _ - _ _

Calcium (Ca)__. _ _ . __ _ _ _ . _

Sodium (Na)._-__-_ __ . _ __ _ _

Bicarbonate (HCO3)__-._ ____ _____________________

Carbonate (CO 8) -----------------------------------

Sulfate (S04)---_ -_-------,--_-__---------------.

Chloride (01) ____ _______________--_-_-_____-_

Fluoride (F)_ ______________________________________

Nitrate (NO8)--_- _ ---- _ ---____-_.-------__----

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) __ _ _ _ _

Hardness as CaCO3 _ _ _

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCO3 __

PH________ ________________________________________

Color. ____________________________________________

Turbidity- _ __________ _______________ _____ ___

Temperature _ ° F

5. 8

. 01

. 00

31

2. 1

4. 3

1. 6

94

0

5. 8

6. 8

. 2

1. 1

108

86

9

176

7. 5

1

1

84

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity _ _ _

Radium (Ra)

Uranium (U) _ _ _ __ __ ___

3. 4

< 1

. 2

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag) _ _____

Aluminum (Al) - _ _

Boron (B)_ _______ ______ _ _ _______

Barium (Ba)

Beryllium (Be) _ _ _

Cobalt (Co)-__--___-______._ ______________

Chromium (Cr) _ _ _ ____

Copper (Cu) _____

Iron (Fe)__._______ ____

Lithium (Li) __ _ Manganese (Mn)

Molybdenum (Mo) _ _

Nickel (Ni)___

Phosphorus (?)_____

Lead (Pb)_ __________________ ______________

Rubidium (Rb)

Tin (Sn)____

Strontium (Sr)_ _

Titanium (Ti) _

Vanadium (V)

Zinc (Zn)__

<0. 19

330

63

63

ND

<1. 9

3.8

8.4

63

. 23

23

1. 7

9.2

ND

94

ND

ND

46

3. 1

<5. 8

<190

<0. 20

70

28

92

ND

ND

. 88

18

4. 8

4. 2

2. 6

2. 0

2. 0

ND

6.6

ND

ND

240

<2. 0

ND -

ND
OREGON

Portland

PORTLAND

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Gresham, Beaverton, part of Lake Oswego, and 52 private

water districts.

Population served: Portland, 372,676; total, 542,000. 

Source of supply: Bull Run River impounded in Lake Ben Morrow Reservoir

and Bull Run Lake, the source of the main branch of the river close to the

summit of the Cascades. 

Lowest mean discharge: Bull Run River near Bull Run, Oreg., for 30-day

period in climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-60: 80.1 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 69 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Headworks near Bull Run plant chlorination and ammoniation. 

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Bull Run headworks plant, 225 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: 20,000 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 290. 

Finished-water storage: 207.6 million gal in 7 reservoirs, 7 stanc"pipes, and

27 tanks. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 3.

293
294 OREGON

Analytical data, Bull Run Headworks Portland 

[Percent of supply: 100. Date of collection: 1-8-62. Type of water: Finished]

Chemical analyses 

[In parts per million]

Silica(SiOi). . 

Sodium (Na) .........................

Bicarbonate (HCO»)-- - ........ ..

Carbonate (COj) --.._ .__.._. ...

Sulfate (SOO . . ........

7.1

.12

1.0

.6

1.1

.4

8

0

.8

Chloride (Cl)_ .................. ........

Fluoride (F)- ......................

Nitrate (NOa)-- 

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) .

pH___ _ ................ ...........

2.2

.0

.2

22

5

0

18

6.4

5

45

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocnries per liter; uranium in micrograms par liter]

Beta activity _ -------- -...

Radium (Ra). ......... ... ..

18

.2

Uranium (U).-. ------------------ 0.2

Spectrographic anaylses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not founi]

Silver (Ag). 

Boron (B) ________ __ . ....

Barium (Ba) _ .._ ,____._. .

Beryllium (Be)--.. .....................

Cobalt (Co).. ... ..

Chromium (Cr).__. ..........

Copper (Cu) ________ ..

Iron (Fe) ___

Lithium (Li)...... ..

Manganese (Mn)_._ ................

<0.02

62

5.3

4.4

ND

ND

.04

.75

70

<.02

7.0

TJiptol f\TU

Lead (Pb).. - 

Tin(Sn).. -

Titanium (Ti)..-._. ... 

Vanadium(V) 

ND

.6

<22

.5

<-2

ND

2.9

3.3

<-7

ND
PENNSYLVANIA

Erie Philadelphia Pittsburgh

ERIE

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Wesleyville, Millcreek, Lawrence Park, and Harborcre^k.

Population served: Erie, 138,440; total, 160,000.

Source of supply: Lake Erie.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 38 mgd (U.S Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Chestnut Street and West filtration plants coagulation with alum,

rapid sand filtration, and chlorination. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Chestnut Street filtration plant, 3? mgd;

West Street filtration plant, 35 mgd. 

Finished-water storage: Reservoir "A," 33 million gal; Reservoir "B," 10 million

gal; East Grandview Standpipe, 0.8 million gal; West Grandview Standpipe,

0.8 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 1.2. 

Remarks: Construction ot a new 5 million gal reservoir at 33d and Page Streets

will be completed and in operation fall of 1962.

Average monthly determination at filtration plants, 1960:

Chestnut Street:

Raw water.

Finished water

West Street:

Finished water _ _ . _

Alkalinity

as CaCOa

(ppm)

Avg

91

87

92

89

Max

07

93

96

92

Min

81

78

87

83

PH

Avg Max

7.8

7. 6

Min

7 3

7.3

Turbidity

Avg

9

0

9

0

Max

40

0

?5

0

Min

1

0

1

0

295

7S5-717 O 64 -20
296 PENNSYLVANIA

Analytical data Erie

Date of collection..- -__._ _ _

Type of water: F, finished _ __._..-..__

Lake Erie '

100 (2) 

r

Chestnut 

Street 

nitration plant

100 

3-27-62 

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2)_-_ -------------------------------------

Iron (Fe)

Calcium (Ca) _______

Magnesium (Mg) _.--__ __ _ _ .._

Potassium (K) _ _ _

Bicarbonate (HCO3) --------------------------------

Carbonate (CO3)- --------- _-__--._----_---_ ._ --__

Sulfate (SO4)------------- -------------------------

Chloride (Cl)_ -__--__________ ___-_______----_ 

Fluoride (F) ______._.__._.__.______._____.__.___.__

Nitrate (NO8) -- _-----_- -----------------------

Hardness as CaCOs- _. . _

pH

Color

Turbidity,.- _______________________________________

1. 5

.02

40

9. 7

8. 2

. 5

107

0

25

23

. 1

. 6

182

121

34

7.4

1

0

0. 0

.00

. 02

41

6. 3

12

1. 5

108

0

28

26

. 1

2

175

129

40

316

7.7

3

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per l!t,er; <, less than]

Beta activity. ...

Uranium (U) . __

8.8

< 1

. 3

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag) .... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

Aluminum (Al)_ ___- _

Boron (B). ._-_-___-_ __ ______ ._-____-_______--___

Barium (Ba) ......

Beryllium (Be)

Cobalt (Co)..- -------------------------------------

Copper (Cu)

Iron (Fe) ___-______-__-_---,_-__._--_-_-__ _ ______

Lithium (Li)_ _.__ _ _ _ Manganese (Mn) _ _ Molybdenum (Mo)

Nickel (Ni)_._____._-_ -------

Phosphorus (P)--- _. _ .

Lead (Pb)___. ___________ _ ________

Rubidium (Rb)__ _

Tin (Sn). ___________ - _______

Strontium (Sr) _____ ___

Titanium (Ti)___ ______ _ _ __ ______ -

Vanadium (V) _ _ __

Zinc (Zn)_-_. ___--__--____- ___ _______ ___________

<0. 26

110

44

41

ND

ND

12

4. 4

87

2. 0

9. 7

3. 8

8. 4

ND

9. 0

ND

ND

170

4. 1

ND

ND

1 Analyzed by the city of Erie. 

J Average analyses for 1960.
PENNSYLVANIA 297

PHILADELPHIA

(See fig. 55.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: 2,002,512.

Sources and percentages of supply: Delaware River, 50 percent; Schuylkill River,

50 percent. 

Lowest mean discharge:

Delaware River at Trenton, N.J., for 30-day period in climatic water years

(April 1-March 31) 1950-60: 1,151 mgd. 

Schuylkill River at Philadelphia, Pa., for 30-day period in climatic water

years (April 1-March 31) 1950-60: 95 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 510 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Torresdale (Delaware River), Queen Lane (Schuylkill River), and

Belmont (Schuylkill River) filter plants prechlorination; presedimentation;

addition of carbon, lime and alum; rapid and slow mixing; sedimentation;

rapid sand filtration; posttreatment with fluorine, chlorine, lime, and phosphates. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Torresdale filter plant, 423 mgd. Queen

Lane filter plant, 150 mgd, Belmont filter plant, 80 mgd. 

Finished-water storage: East Park Reservoir, 677 million gal; Oak Lane Reservoir,

70 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 1.5. 

Remarks: Modernization of Behnont plant started late in 1961 and is scheduled

for completion in 1963; this includes installation of new rapid sand filter beds,

sedimentation basin, and chemical facilities. Capacity to be increased to 105

mgd.

Average monthly determinations at filter plants, 1960:

Torresdale:

Raw water ....

Finished water -...

Belmont:

Alkalinity

as CaCOs

(ppra)

Avg

32

33

54

40

Max

41

42

71

61

Min

24

15

41

24

pH

Avg Max

7.3

8.0

7.6

7.0

i

Min

7.2

6.6

7.4

6.5

Hardness

as CaCOs

(ppm)

Avg

56

84

125

131

Max

71

95

156

164

Min

42

63

100

99

Turbidity

Avg

126

0

32

0

Max

183

0

81

1

Min

44

0

9

0
298 PENNSYLVANIA

Analytical data Philadelphia

Percent of supply. . __

Date of collection. . ...

Type of water: R, raw; 

F, finished .........

Delaware 

River

(') 

R

(2) 

R

Torresdale filter plant

(') 

F

(2) 

F

50 3-16-62

F

Schuylkill 

River

0) 

R

(2) 

R

Belmont filter plant

(') 

F

(2) 

F

50 3-19-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2)_ ...........

Iron (Fe)._ _ ..........

Manganese (Mn)__ ....

Aluminum (Al)

Calcium (Ca)-__. ......

Sodium (Na)._._. ______

Potassium (K) .........

Bicarbonate (HCOa), 

Carbonate (CO3) _ __._

Sulfate (SO_) _ . ...

Chloride (Cl). .........

Fluoride (F).. . .....

Nitrate (NOa) .

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)-...__._

Hardness as CaCOs .... 

Noncarbonate hardSpecific conductance

pH..-_ ........ _.____..

Color ____ .

Turbidity... ___________

1.5

.19

50 

0

36

11

g

345

71

7.3

25

183

7ft

0.35

.00

29 

0

21

4.0

.3

129

42

7.2

8

35

0.21

.15

.10

51 

0

50

19

g

178

95

8.0

6

0

0.00

.00

.00

18 

0

32

11

.2

102

63

6.6

0

5.7

.06

.00

27

3.9

4.7

2.8

32 

0

43

16

.8

3.6

130

84 

58

211

7.2

2

1.9

.38

87 

0

100

23

1.9

320

156

7.6

40

81

80

0.34

.15

50 

0

59

8.0

1.3

180

100

7.4

8

9

38

0.18

.05

.10

74 

0

13 0

31

2.2

260

164

7.0

3

0

0.00

.01

.00

29 

0

61

10

1.0

151

99

6.5

0

0

9.4

.06

.00

22

6.8

7.2

2.2

26 

0

51

14

.8

6.7

139

83 

62

225

6.7

2

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than. Maximum 

beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum beta activity, raw water, 

July 1, 1961, to June 

30, 1962... ............

Uranium (U) ..........

24

13

<.l

<.l

30

9.6

<.l

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fornd]

Silver (Ag)___. .........

Boron (B)_._... ........

Cobalt (Co)......... 

Chromium (Cr) ____

Nickel (Ni)_-_.

Lead (Pb). .......... .

Tin (Sn). ..............

Strontium (Sr). ..

Titanium (Ti).____ . .

<0.17

120

42

62

ND

<1.7

3.5

14

69

1.7

5.0

2.0

7.7

<170

5.9

4.4

ND

92

3.2

5.0

ND

<0.15

25

25

32

ND

ND

<. 15

35

17

1.8

5.7

ND

13

150

4.8

1.7

ND

34

1.2

ND

ND

1 Maximum value of constituents in monthly average of analyses by the city of Philadelphia water department during I960.

2 Minimum value of constituents in monthly average of analyses by the city of Philadelphia water department during I960.
PHILADELPHIA 299

PHILADELPHIA

fljfrgsdale 

lifter plant

% f^

JEW

u^ 4 P Torresdale

intake

EXPLANATION

Area served by Schuylkill 

River water

Philadelphia city boundary

Water analysis sampling site

Boundary line dividing the two 

service areas moves to the east 

or west depending upon demand. Both areas are in the 

city and county of Philadelphia

MILES

FIGURE 55. Water supplies and areas served by Philadelphia, Pa., Water Department. 

(Approved by local municipal water officials, April 1963.)
300 PENNSYLVANIA

PITTSBURGH

Ownership: Municipal Aspinwall plant. South Pittsburgh Water Co. Hays

Mine filter plant and E. H. Aldrich plant.

Other areas served: Homestead, O'Hara, and Reserve, by municipal system; 

Bethel, Brentwood, Bridgeville, Carnegie, Castle Shannon, Crafton, Dormont, 

Green Tree, Heidelberg, Ingram, Mount Oliver, Munhall, Pleasant Hills, 

Rosslyn Farms, Thorn burg, West Mifflin,Whitake, Whitehall, Baldwin, Collier, 

Jefferson, Mount Lebanon, Scott, Snowden, and Upper St. Clair, by South 

Pittsburgh Water Co. 

Population served: Municipal, about 720,000; South Pittsburgh Water Co., about

490,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Allegheny River, used by municipal system, 

60 percent; Monongahela River, used by South Pittsburgh Water Co., 40 percent. 

Lowest mean discharge:

Allegheny River at Natrona, Pa., for 30-day period in climatic water years

(April 1-March 31) 1950-60: 886 mgd. 

Monongahela River at Charleroi, Pa., for 30-day period in climatic water

years (April 1-March 31) 1950-60: 239 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 137 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Aspinwall filtration plant (Allegheny River): Sedimentation, slow sand

filtration, chlorination, and addition of soda ash.

Hays Mine Filter and E. H. Aldrich filtration plants: Screening, coagulation

with alum, treatment with activated carbon, softening with lime and soda

ash, rapid sand filtration, chlorination, sulfuric acid, and fluoridation with

hydrofluosilicic acid.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Aspinwall filtration plant, 140 mgd; E. H.

Aldrich filtration plant, 25 mgd; Hays Mine Filter plant, 50 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: Municipal system, 100 million gal; South Pittsburgh Water

Co. system, 10 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): Less than 1. 

Finished-water storage: Municipal system, 502 million gal; South Pittsburgh

Water Co. system, 29 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 3.9.

Remarks: South Pittsburgh Water Co. provisions incorporated in the design of 

E. H. Aldrich plant to allow for future expansions from an existing capacity of 

25 mgd to 100 mgd.

Determinations at filtration plants, 1961:

Determination and 

plant

Regular; Aspinwall: FinMonthly average; Aldrich: 

Raw water ...

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

7

4 

33

Max

16

11 

41

Min

4

1 

26

pH

Avg Max

7.1

7.0 

9.1

Min

4.6

4.40 

7.6

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

120

112 

101

Max

184

195 

110

Min

60

69 

92

Turbidity

Avg

......

Max

139

Min

25
PITTSBURGH

Analytical data Pittsburgh

301

Allegheny River

(!) 

P

( 2) 

P

(3)

F

Aspinwall 

filtration 

plant

60 3-26-62 

P

Aldrich 

filtration 

plant

40 3-26-62 

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica(SiOj) 

Calcium (Ca) . _ .

Sodium (Na)

Potassium (K)

Bicarbonate (HCOs). -----------------------------

Carbonate (COa) ---------------------------------

Sulfate (SO4) 

Chloride(Cl) .- . .-.-..

Fluoride (F) ... ... _ Nitrate (NO3) - - --- --

Hardness as CaCOs---. _________ _____

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOj--. ________

PH ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Color...... __ . ...

8.0

.30

2.5

48

15

38

20

189

46

1.1

3.5

402

183

166

541

6.9

5.2

.10

.10

14

5.2

12

4

56

13

.8

1.6

122

57

54

186

5.1

6.5

.20

.60

30

9.5

22

9

112

27

.9

2.3

239

114

108

351

5.3

.00

.24

17

4.3

6 9

1.8

4

0

53

11

.3

2.0

110

60

57

181

5.4

2

4.2

.00

.03

25

5.4

17

1.5

24

0

88

4.3

.9

2.2

165

85

65

265

7.6

2

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than. M aximum 

beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum beta activity, raw water, July 1, 1961, to 

June 30, 1962 .

Radium (Ra) . . . .... ..... __ ...... ........

Uranium (U)

19

7.7

<.l

<.l

15

<.l

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <( less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag) _ _ Aluminum (A])

Boron (B). _______________________

Barium (Ba).--__. ______

Beryllium (Be)-. _________ .

Cobalt (Co)... ..

Copper (Cu)__- __________ _____ _ .....

Iron(Fe)- 

Lithium (Li).. _ .. _ _ . ___ __ .

Manganese (Mn). ...

Molybdenum (Mo) .--... _

Nickel (Ni) ......... .

Lead (Pb) __ 

Rubidium (Rb) 

Tin(Sn).... _-- _ ..

Strontium (Sr) . ----

Titanium (Ti)_. ............. .

Vanadium (V)

Zinc (Zn)-_____ ..........

<0.12

140

24

63

ND

ND

<.12

18

150

4.8

200

ND

31

ND

7.1

1.5

ND

57

1.1

ND

ND

<0.19

400

21

48

ND

ND

<.48

12

52

6.3

84

ND

2.1

ND

4.8

1.9

ND

150

1.4

ND

ND

1 Maximum values of constituents for the year 1961. 

J Minimum values of constituents for the year 1961. 

8 Average values of constituents for the year 1961.

RHODE ISLAND

Providence

PROVIDENCE

(See fig. 56.) 

Ownership: Municipal. 

Other areas served: Cranston, Johnston, and parts of North Providence, Warwick,

Smithfield, Coventry, and West Warwick. Kent County Water Authority

receives water which is not chlorinated or fluoridated. 

Population served: Providence, 207,498; total, 383,134. 

Source of supply: North Branch Pawtuxet River impounded. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 45.2 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Municipal plant coagulation with ferric sulfate (Ferrifloc) and lime,

sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, fluoridation (sodium silicon*uoride), and

chlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Providence filter plant, 105 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: 39,746 million gal in following reservoirs Regulating, 42

million gal; West Connaug, 453 million gal; Barden, 853 million gal; Moswansicut, 715 million gal; Ponagonset, 693 million gal; and Scituate, 36,611

million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 2.4 years.

Finished-water storage: 54.4 million gal. An additional 40 million gallc n reservoir became available in the summer of 1962. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 1.2.

Regular determinations at Providence filter plant, October 1960-Septemb^r 1961:

Finished water. ..........

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

4.7 

15

Max

5.1 

17

Min

4.3 

14

PH

Avg

6.2 

10.0

Max

6.6 

10.1

Min

6.0 

9.9

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

10 

28

Max

10 

30

Min

9 

27

Turbidity

Avg

0.2 

.1

Max

0.2 

.1

Min

0.2 

.0

30f
304 RHODE ISLAND

Analytical data Providence

Scituate Reservoir

92 4-18-62 

R 8

Filter plant

92 4-18-62 

F

(0 

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO.) _ .. _- ..- __-_ 

Iron (Fe) ... ..-,..--..-...........-...-......-......

Calcium (Ca)_. _____________ ___ ____

Lead (PI)). ............................................

Zinc (Zn)_._,. -----.---__-_-_--. _--__--_______-_-_--

Bicarbonate (HCOs). -------- _ . ...--... - 

Sulfate (SOt)...... .....................................

Chloride(Cl)---. - __-__ ____.__ . 

Fluoride(F)_.___ ...___.____.____.._ .... .......

Nitrate (NO3) -- - - - --- 

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)... _________

Hardness as CaCOs.. _____ _____________

pH ........... ......... _ ___.._---_______-_.____ 

Color...... ............ ... ... .......

Turbidity- _ ... ...... .-..--...--..--- ... ... -------

Temperature - _______________ . ___ °F_.

5.0

.05

.00

2.6

2.9

.6

5

0

6.0

15

.0

.0

28

9

5

40

29.8

7

20

43

5.1

.09

.02

.02

00

.03

3.0

.6

.0

.0

6

7.2

3.7

.2

33

10

6.2

0

5.9

.03

.00

11

.5

3.2

.7

5

6

14

5.0

1.0

.1

51

30

16

88

9.6

3

2

47

4.6

.01

.00

.07

00

.01

9.6

.0

.00

.0

19

13

4.1

1.1

50

28

10.0

0

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Radium (Ra).-.-----.--

Uranium (U). ------- _ ..

6.4

<.l

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag) . ............. ...........

Aluminum (Al) _____ _ _ .. ._

Boron (B)__ ________ . ______ ...

Barium (Ba). ______ .

Beryllium (Be) ____ _ .. . .. ..

Cobalt (Co) ............

Copper (Cu)_ __ ___________ ...

Iron (Fe)_. .............. . .

Lithium (Li) .. .

Nickel (Ni)_. ---.--... .

Phosphorus (P) ____ .

Lead (Pb). . ._____ _________ .. __

Rubidium (Rb)._ _ ___.

Tin (Sn)____ ._ ... .

Titanium (Ti)... __ .. .. .. . ..

Vanadium (V).. .... ._

Zinc (Zn).__ _ ..... ..

0.07

49

8.5

12

ND

ND

<.06

2.0

37

.51

1.6

ND

.9

ND

3.4

2.0

ND

14

.9

ND

ND

1 Average analyses by the city of Providence for October 1960-September 1961.

2 Value reported is for Aug. 15, 1962.
PROVIDENCE 305

EXPLANATION

Area served by Providence 

water system

Providence city boundary

Aqueduct

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 56. Water supplies and areas served by Providence, R.I., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, March 1963.) List of areas served by Providence 

water system: 1, Smithfield; 2, North Providence; 3, Johnston; 4, Cranston; 5, Coventry; 

6, West Warwick; 7, Warwick. List of reservoirs: A, Barden; B, Scituate; C, Regulating; 

D, Ponaganset; E, Moswansicut; F, West Connaug.

TENNESSEE

Chattanooga Memphis Nashville

CHATTANOOGA

Ownership: City Water Co. of Chattanooga, Inc. (a private company).

Other areas served: Ridgeside, East Ridge, Redbank-Whiteoak, Lookout Mountain, part of Dade County, Ga., city of Rossville, Ga., and furnishes treated 

water on wholesale basis to various nearby utility districts located in Hamilton 

County, Tenn., and Catoosa and Walker Counties, Ga.

Population served: Chattanooga, 130,000; total, 231,000.

Source of supply: Tennessee River.

Lowest mean discharge: Tennessee River at Chattanooga Tenn., for 30-day 

period in climatic water years (April 1-March 30) 1950-60: 11,600 msd.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 38 mgd (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Chattanooga treatment plant Addition of copper sulfate for algae 

control and activated carbon when needed, coagulation with alum and ferric 

chloride in emergency conditions, addition of limestone to adjust pH and for 

reduction of manganese, rapid sand nitration, chlorination, and fluoridation to 

maintain 1 ppm of fluoride.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Chattanooga treatment plant, 52 mid.

Raw-water storage: None.

Finished-water storage: 13 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Remarks: Quality of raw water varies from time to time due to control of upstream dams and lakes by Tennessee Valley Authority.

Regular determinations at Chattanooga treatment plant, January 1960--August 

1961:

Finished water. _ .........

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

52 

56

Max

56 

59

Min

46 

49

pH

Avg

7.4 

7.7

Max

7.5 

7.9

Min

7.3

7.7

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

73

87

Max

81 

97

Min

59 

75

Turl idtty

Avg

25 

0

Max

3<0 

0

Min

15 

0

307
308 TENNESSEE

Analytical data Chattanooga

Tennessee 

River

100

9-14-61

R

Treatment 

plant

100

9-14-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2) --_------_ -----------------------------

Iron (Fe)_______ _-_____-_____-____-__-_-----_---.__

Calcium (Ca) _ __ _ _ _ ._ _.__

Magnesium (Mg)_ _____ -__

Potassium (K)_ _ _ __ _ _

Bicarbonate (HCOs) ------------------ __ --- -----

Carbonate (CO3) _______ -____--___-_____ _ _ ______

Sulfate (SO4 ) --- ----- --- ---- -- -_

Chloride (Cl)_________ ______________________________

Fluoride (F) _____________________ __!_______ ________

Nitrate (NO3)------------_---- ---------------------

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) _ _ _ _ _

Hardness as CaCO3 _ - - - - -

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCO3 __ _ __ _ _

pH__ ___________________________________________ _

Color_--_____________ ___ _______________________

Temperature. _ _ °F

3. 8

. 05

. 01

23

5. 0

8.2

1. 1

70

0

13

16

. 2

2. 9

125

78

20

195

8. 0

5

79

3 7

. 00

. 01

28

4 Q

o A

Q

78

0

17

18

1. 0

2. 5

148

90

26

219

8.0

5

70

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in pieocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than, 

beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum

Beta activity.___-__--___-__________-_----____-----.

Maximum beta activity, raw water, July 1, 1961, to 

June 30, 1962____________________________________

Radium (Ra)______-___-___________-_____-__--_--_.

Uranium (U)____-_____________-___-_____-___---_-

58

6. 5

< 1

. 5

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; X, semiquantitative determination in digit order shown; ND,

looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag) ___ _ ______ __ _ ____.. __

Aluminum (Al) ._ _____ _ __

Boron (B) __ __ _________

Barium (Ba) _____ _ _ .

Beryllium (Be)_ _ _ _

Cobalt (Co)______, __________ ___________--_--_---__

Chromium (Cr) _ _ _ _ _ _

Copper (Cu) __ _ _ _ __ _____

Iron (Fe)________,_. _______ __ _.______--_---__

Lithium (Li)_

Manganese (Mn) __ _ _ _ Molybdenum (Mo) _ _

Nickel (Ni)__________ _ _______________

Phosphorus (P) _ __ _ ______

Lead (Pb) _ __.

Rubidium (Rb)__ _ _ _ ___________

Tin (Sn)_____________________ ______________________

Strontium (Sr) _ _ _

Titanium (Ti) _________ __ _ ________________

Vanadium (V) ____ _____

Zinc (Zn) _____ .

Gallium (Ga)

ND

290

22

67

ND

ND

5.2

4. 9

250

1. 7

100

1. 6

<2. 2

ND

14

2. 5

ND

110

6. 5

ND

ND

ND

<0. 24

680

16

61

ND

ND

5. 0

5. 4

40

. 94

24

2. 0

<2. 4

ND

4. 5

<2. 4

ND

99

2. 4

7. 1

ND

.X
TENNESSEE 309

MEMPHIS

(See fig. 57.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Surrounding county areas.

Population served: Memphis, 501,524; total, about 600,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Water is obtained from deep wells tapping 

two aquifers; one, the Claiborn Sand, is about 500 feet deep and the other, 

the Wilcox Sand, is about 1,400 feet deep. About 11 percent of the total 

supply comes from the deeper aquifer. Four well fields containing 128 wells 

supply four pumping stations: Parkway well field, 28 percent of supply; 

Sheahan well field, 28 percent of supply; Alien well field, 28 percent of supply; 

and Me Cord well field, 16 percent of supply. Fifty-six wells are electrically 

operated and pump from the 500-foot sand; 72 are airlift wells, of which 53 

pump from the 500-foot sand and 19 from the 1,400-foot sand. The airlift 

wells operate at 400-500 gpm. The electric-pump wells operate at 1,000- 

1,200 gpm. The Alien and McCord fields are supplied from the 500-foot 

sand and are electrically powered. The Parkway and Sheahan fields include 

wells in both the 500-foot and 1,400-foot sands and are partly pumped by electric-powered pumps and partly by airlift pumps.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 68.8 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Parkway, Sheahan, Alien, and McCord filtration plants aeration 

over coke or limestone trays, and rapid sand filtration for removal of iron, 

hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide, followed by slight chlorination.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: The total peak pumping capacity of the 

system is slightly more than double the following operating capacities: Parkway filtration plant, 30 mgd; Alien filtration plant, 30 mgd; Sheahan filtration 

plant, 30 mgd; McCord filtration plant, 15 mgd.

Raw-water" storage: 2 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water u?ed, in 

mgd): Less than 1.

Finished-water storage: 75 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.1.

Remarks: Test wells, tapping the 2,600-foot sand, show water from that depth 

to be several degrees warmer, to contain 110 ppm of carbon dioxide, and to 

have considerably higher total dissolved solids than water from the shallower 

sands. Therefore, this source is not being used at the present time.

Industrial users in the Memphis area are pumping from their own private 

wells about 50 percent as much water as the combined municipal fields are 

supplying the city.
310 TENNESSEE

Analytical data Memphis

Type of water: R, raw; F,

Alien

well

field

28 9-15-61

R

Alien

filtration

plant

28 9-15-61

F

Sheahan

well

field

28 9-15-61

R

Sheahan

filtration

plant

28 9-15-61

F

McCord

well

field

16 9-15-61

R

McCord

filtration

pla~it

If 9-15-S1

F

Parkway

well

field

28 9-15-61

R

Parkway

filtration

plant

28 9-15-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOs) .-.

Iron (Fe) 

Sodium (Na).. , ..... .....

Carbonate (CO»). .........

Sulfate (SOi). .............

Chloride (Cl)..... .........

Fluoride (F)............ ...

Nitrate (NO3). ... ... ...

Dissolved solids (residue 

at 180° C). ..............

Hardness as CaCOa. __

Noncarbonate hardness as 

CaCOs.. _ . - _ -

Specific conductance (micromhosat 25° C) __ ..

pH.......... ..............

Color... ........ __ ......

Temperature ____ °F..

8.3

.72

.01

12

6.1

7.5

.7

78

0

3.8

3.0

.4

1.2

O7

55

0

137

6.8

5

63

7

0

.16

.01

19

5.9

7.6

.7

77

0

3.6

3.5

.4

1.3

84

54

0

135

s n

5

63

o 7

.75

.02

7.5

3.0

12

.7

61

0

3.0

4.2

.0

.9

Of)

31

0

114

6.9

5

64

0 0

.00

.02

7.3

3.1

12

.7

<WJ

0

3.4

4.0

.7

72

30

0

114

7.4

5

68

6.8

1.2

.01

7.6

5.1

6.3

.7

55

0

5.2

3.0

.3

.8

68

40

0

108

6.7

5

63

7.3

.00

.01

8.6

4.6

6.3

.7

5*

0

5.4

3.5

L2

68

40

0

107

7.6

5

63

8.5

.74

.01

8.4

3.8

17

89

0

3.4

2.0

.3

.9

07

36

0

138

7.4

5

67

8

0

.03

8.7

3.7

17

82

0

3.4

9 n

.3

.9

100

36

0

137

7.7

5

73

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per 1'ter; <, less than]

Radium (Ra)__ _ ........

Uranium (U)_.._. ......... ........

3.3 

.3

<.l ..........

2.5 

.1

<.l - 

1.9

.2

<.l

2.6 

.1 

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag). ...............

Boron (B) _________

Barium (Ba). .............

Beryllium (Tie)

Cobalt (Co). - _ ---- .

Chromium (Cr) .... .....

Copper (Cu)-... --.---. _

Iron (Fe) ___ --._.......

Lithium (Li)..............

Nickel (Ni)..._-_. ._._____

Phosphorus (P)._ .........

Lead (Pb)..... ............

Rubidium (Rb).. ......

Tin (Sn).. ...... ..........

Strontium (Sr). ...... _ ..

Titanium (Ti). ....... .

Vanadium (V) .

Zinc (Zn). __ .... _ . ....

-..---.

0 1Q

19

9

1

oo

ND

2.1

ND

2.4

21

.51

2.7

ND

1.7

ND

<1.7

5

0

ND

Q Q

ND

ND

ND

... . ...

<0.12

70

19

EC

ND

ND

1.6

3.4

42

2.0

2

0

ND

<1.2

ND

2.2

3.7

ND

42

ND

ND

ND

<C.13

IP

14

6T

NE

NE

ND

17

22

.56

3J

NE

<1.3

NE

1.9

6.3

NE

22

NE

NE

NE

ND

190

29

84

ND

ND

ND

9.1

56

3.8

4.6

ND

<1.7

ND

3.2

4.1

ND

62

<1.7

ND

<170
MEMPHIS 311

EXPLANATION

Area served by the Memphis water system

Memphis city boundary

S 

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 57. Water supplies and areas served by Memphis, Tenn., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, May 1963.) List of filtration plants and pumping 

stations: a, McCord filtration plant; b, Parkway filtration plant; c, Sheahan filtration 

plant; d. Alien filtration plant; e. Proposed pumping station; f, Frayser pumping 

station (standby j.

T35-71T O 64- -21
312 TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Suburban areas about city including Forrest Hills, Oak Hills, 

Berry Hills, and Belle Meado.

Population served: Nashville, 253,900; total, about 350,000.

Source of supply: Cumberland River.

Lowest mean discharge: Cumberland River below Old Hickory, Tenn., for 

30-day period in climatic water \rears (April 1-March 31) 1950-60: 1,400 mgd.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 37.8 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Nashville treatment plant prechlorination, coagulation with alunv 

and lime, sedimentation, rapid sand nitration, postchlorination, ammoniation, 

adjustment of pll with lime, and fhioridation to 1.0 ppm of fluoride.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Nashville treatment plant: Normally operated near 40 mgd, peak of 60 mgd to be increased to 89 mgd.

Finished-water storage: 60 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.6.

Regular determinations at Nashville treatment plant, August 1960-June 1961:

Ra\v water __

Finished water

Alkalinity

:is OaCOs

(ppm)

Avg

65

67

Max

87

88

Min

46

50

pll

Avg

7.5

8.4

Max

7.8

8.5

Min

7.3

8.3

Hardness

as CaPOs

(ppm)

Ave

81

92

Max

108

117

Min

60

71

Turbidity

Avg

29

0

Max

60

1

Min

13

0
NASHVILLE 313

Analytical data Nashville

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished _____ ... __ __ _

Cumberland River

100 

9-13-61 

R

100 

0) 

R

Treatment plant

100 

9-13-61

F 9

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica(SiOi)....-- __-- -_.-________--_______._

Iron (Fe) _ __ __ _ ..

Aluminum (Al)______ __ .... __ _________ _ ________

Sodinm (Na) __

Potassium (K)_---_- ------._._._.___......-_..___._ __

Carbonate (COs) _ __.._-___ __ _ __ ___ _ ___

Sulfate (SO.). ----------------------------

Cliloride(Cl)-. . --.. .-

Pluoride(P).. --..--__--__-.____-__.-____--__________

Nitrate(NOs)- - - - ----- --

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)__ _ __ _ _ _ ____. 

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs- - _ -------

pH_.. ______ _..-._.____.________.__.___.__.__

Color_--_________________. _______________ _______ _ __

2.7

.24

.01

22

3.1

2.9

.9

fil

0

17

2.0

.2

2.8

88

68

15

142

7.6

5

75

4.1

.19

.50

.12

25

8.0

3.7

.8

31

3.9

106

104

15

123

7.5

29

2.7

.00

.01

25

4.0

3.5

.9

70

0

21

3.5

1.2

1.7

107

79

22

168

8.2

5

75

4.0

.04

.00

.14

33

6.8

4.0

.6

36

7.1

117

108

24

131

8.4

0

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, les^ than]

Beta activity __ _ ___ .

Radium (Ra)...-. ....

Uranium (U)__.. ._ ...

2.3 

<.l 

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)__. ._......__...__.________.._____. __ __

Boron (B) _ _._ ___. ..._ _ _ __

Barium (Ba) _ ____ _ _______ _______ _____

Beryllium (Be) ._ ._ _._-

Cobalt (Co)..- _______

Chromium (Cr).___ __ _ ___ ____ _

Iron (Fe)._. __ _ 

Lithium (Li)_ _ _______ ____

Manganese (Mn) _ Molybdenum (Mo) _______

Nickel (Ni)._-_ ... 

Phosphorus (P) ______ _ __ _ _ ._._ ____ __

Lead(Pb)-...- __ _ __________ ______

Rubidium (Rb) - ...

Tin (Sn). _____________________ __

Strontium (Sr)_--___ _ __ __ __ _____ _ _ _

Titanium (Ti) ........ ...

Vanadium (V)_-_-.-______ _____

Zinc(Zn)__ ______

<0.16 *>in

21

33

ND

2.3

3.7

3.1

260

.60

100

1.8

1.6

ND

60

2 A

ND

an

4.9

5.1

ND

<0.16

490

14

34

ND

ND

.50

1.4

53

.40

44

1.6

<1.6

ND

2.4

ND

ND

70

2.3

4.9

ND

i Average analyses by the city of Nashville of monthly composited daily samples, August 1, 1960, to 

June 30,1961.

TEXAS

Amarillo Dallas Houston

Austin El Paso Lubbock

Corpus Christi Fort Worth San Antonio

AMARILLO

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Amarillo, 137,969; total about 150,000 (1962). 

Sources and percentages of supply: Total of 94 wells: 69 wells in several well 

fields southwest of Amarillo in northern Randall and northwest Deaf Smith 

Counties, 55 percent; 25 wells east of Amarillo in southern Carson County, 

45 percent.

Randall County:

Palo Duro Field: Ten wells, each 200 feet deep, with an estimated

average minimum potential yield of 350 gpm. 

McDonald Field: Six wells, 260-289 feet deep, with an estimated

average minimum potential yield of 465 gpm. 

Bush Field: Six wells, 234-307 feet deep, with an estimated averagp

minimum potential yield of 535 gpm. 

Greely Field: Eight wells, 257-303 feet deep, with an estimated average

minimum potential yield of 510 gpm. 

Brinkman Field: One well, 267 feet deep, with an estimated minimum

potential yield of 390 gpm. 

Bassett Field: Three wells, 286-290 feet deep, with an estimated average

minimum potential yield of 410 gpm. 

Westex Field: Eight wells, 223-289 feet deep, with'an estimated average

minimum potential yield of 585 gpm. 

Section 98: Five wells, 245-306 feet deep, with an estimated average

minimum potential yield of 560 gpm. 

Section 1, 4, 6, 59, and 60: Fourteen wells, 228-302 feet deep, with an

estimated average minimum potential yield of 600 gpm.

Deaf Smith County: Sections 48 and 49: Eight wells (sec. 48, 1 and 2; 

sec. 49, 1-6), 255-323 feet deep, with an estimated average minimum 

potential yield of 600 gpm. 

Carson County:

Cornelius Field: Three wells, 495-530 feet deep, with an estimated

average minimum potential yield of 1,050 gpm. 

Deahl Field: Five wells (1-4, 17), 515-565 feet deep, with an estimated

average minimum potential yield of 1,050 gpm.

Masterson Field: Seventeen wells (4-16, 18-21), 480-552 feet deep, with 

an estimated average minimum potential yield ot 1,050 gpm.

315
316 TEXAS

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 21.6 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Chlorination.

Rated capacity of transmission plants: 57 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: One ground storage reservoir, 1.5 million gal; one ground

storage reservoir, 0.5 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): Less than 1. 

Finished-water storage: Four ground storage reservoirs, 5 million gal each;

one surface tank, 5 million gal; three elevated tanks, 1 million gal each; one

elevated tank, 0.5 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average d&ily water used

in mgd): 1.3.
AMARILLO

Analytical data Amarillo

317

Percent of supply. _ ___ ______

Depth of well (feet)____-__ _______

Date drilled. -_-____._.__________

Date of collection

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished _ _ _ ______________________

Composite 

of wells 

southwest 

of city

55

2-12-62

F

Palo 

Duro 

well 

fleld

900

1927

2-12-62

R

McDonald 

well 2

.*

267

18

1929

2-12-62

R

Bush 

well 4

307

16

1944

2-12-62

R

Westex 

well 3

223

1948 2-12-62

R

Well 

6, section 49

304

1952 2-12-62

R

Composite 

of 25 wells 

in Carson 

County

45

2-12-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million!

Silica (SiO2) _ _______

Iron (Fe) ______________________

Calcium (Ca) _________ _ _______

Magnesium (Mg)________________

Potassium (K)___________________

Bicarbonate (H.COz) -.. .-

Carbonate (CO)) _ _._

Sulfate (SO.) ---_

Chloride (Cl)____ ___ ___ _ _____

Fluoride (F)_ ___________________

Nitrate (NOs) --- - ---

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180°C)_____ ______ __ .

Hardness as CaCOs--.-.- __ ____

Noncarbonate hardness as 

CaCO._ . _ - .

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C)

pH ____________________________

Color

Turbidity... _________________ ___

63 

.02 

.00 

40 

34 

25 

5.0 

302 

0 

33

3^4 

3.2

364 

240

0

545 

7.3 

0 

0 

63

56 

.02 

.00 

44 

39 

19 

3.8 

316 

0 

37 

5.8 

4.0 

2.8

368 

270

12

565 

7.1 

0 

0

59 

.00 

.01 

41 

37 

17 

4.9 

305 

0 

30 

3.8 

3.3 

3.2

352 

254

4

536

0 

0 

62

72 

.02 

.00 

39 

43 

29 

6.2 

296 

0 

78 

7.8 

2.8 

4.3

428 

274

32

625

0 

0 

62

71 

.01 

.01 

44 

28 

27 

5.6 

292 

0 

31 

6.2 

3.3 

2.0

362 

225

0

529

0 

0 

61

64 

.00 

.00 

32 

34 

35 

5.6 

313 

0 

24 

6.8 

3.5 

4.9

364 

220

0

547

0 

0 

62

30 

.00 

.00 

35 

22 

21 

5.5 

237 

0 

15 

8.2 

1.3 

4.9

260

178

0

428 

7.2 

0 

0 

64

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picoeuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter]

8.6

.5

7.4

8.8

1.0

4.9

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Boron (B)_.__ . _____ _______

Barium (Ba) _ __________________

Cobalt (Co).. _ . .____ _ _______

Iron (Fe) __ __ .

Nickel (Ni)_

Phosphorus (P)__ ________________

Lead(Pb).__

Rubidium (Rb)-___ ___

Tin (Sn) ____,._ _______

Strontium (Sr)___ ______

Titanium (Ti)_ ________

Vanadium (V)_________

Zinc (Zn)____.__

ND

3.3

120

83

ND

ND

<.55

2.4

7.2

16

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

190

ND

<17

ND

ND

14

190

170

ND

ND

<.41

1.8

78

19

<4.1

2.3

ND

ND

9.1

ND

ND

390

<1.2

<12

ND
318 TEXAS

AUSTIN

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Twelve water districts which serve areas outside city limits,

including towns of West Lake Hills and Oak Hill. 

Population served: Austin 186,545; total, about 206,000. 

Source of supply: Colorado River. 

Lowest mean discharge: Colorado River at Austin, Tex., for 30-day period in

climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 1,030 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 29.7 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Filter plants 1 and 2 coagulation with iron salts (ferrous sulfate),

softening with lime, ammoniation, chlorination, sedimentation, rapid sand

filtration, and stabilization with sodium hexametaphosphate. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Filter plant 1, 33 mgd; flter plant 2, 30

mgd. Filter plant 2 is being enlarged to 60 mgd; it is scheduled for completion

in April 1963. 

Raw-water storage: Chain of seven lakes on Colorado River: 741,000 million

gal (2,276,000 acre feet). 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used

in mgd): 68 years. 

Finished-water storage: Four high-level ground storage reservoirs two, 10

million gal each; one, 8 million gal; and one, 2 million gal; four clear wells,

14 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average d"ily water used,

in mgd): 1.5. 

Remarks: Intake to filter plant 1 is in Town Lake; intake to filler plant 2 is in

Lake Austin. Both intakes and both filter plants are located within city limits.

Regular determinations at filter plants 1 and 2, 1961:

Finished water .........

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

155 

54

Max

185 

58

Min

137

50

PH

Avg

8.1 

10.0

Max

8.5 

10.5

Min

7.6 

9.8

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

187 

88

Max

222 

95

Min

172 

82

Turbidity

Avg

10 

0

Max

91 

0

Min

6 

0
AUSTIN 

Analytical data Austin

319

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished ____ _

Colorado River

100 (')

R

100

(2)

R

Filter

plant 1

63 6-28-62

F

Filter

plant 2

47 6-28-62

F

Tap at

807 Brazos

Street

100 1-12-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj)-- - -

Iron (Fe) __ .... . ... -_. _ ....

Manganese (Mn). __________ . ...

Sodium (Na) ___ - __ ......................

Potassium (K) . ..... ... ....... . . ...

Sulfete (8OO 

Chloride(Cl)... ._ _-.

Fluoride(F) . ............... .............

Nitrate (NOs) 

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) .... 

pH....... ...... ...............................

Color..-....--.-.-.--.........-.....-.....-...

Turbidity. . ......... ...... .......

9 Q

40

20

} 39

187

0

34

55

.3

1.2

294

182

30

526

7.6

10

44

10

{

^4

3.8

177

0

34

60

.3

.8

306

188

43

526 

7.6

7.7

.00

.00

15

15

33

4.0

8

26

36

63

.3

.5

255

99

49

390 

9.3

0

0

8.8

.02

.00

14

15

33

4.1

12

23

36

63

.3

.8

219

97

48

379 

9.2

0

0

11

.01

.00

17

16

33

3.7

32

14

35

60

.4

.5

235

108

43

395 

9.8

0

0

56

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, Ies3 than]

7.2 

<.l 

<.l

6.8 

<.l 

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Sflver(Ag). .........................

Aluminum (Al).. _____________ ....

Boron (B) _______________ .......

Barium (Ba)...... ..... _ ............. __ .

Beryllium (Be)__ ..............

Cobalt (Co) .. ,.. ...... ...... .......

Chromium (Cr)__ __ .

Copper (Cu).. __________________

Iron(Fe).. . ..... ...................

Lithium (Li) .. .........................

Manganese (Mn) .............................

Molybdenum (Mo) _______________ .

Nickel (Ni). ... ... .. ............ ...

Phosphorus (P)... _____ __ . _ _ ......

Lead (Pb)....... ...... .

Rubidium (Rb)......_ ..... . .

Tin (8n)... ............................

Strontium (Sr).. ............... __ ......

Titanium (Ti) _ .. _ . .

Vanadium (V) ____ ...

Zinc (Zn)_....... -

<0.27

15

71

35

ND

ND

<-27

.84

17

6.3

ND

1.0

<2.7

ND

ND

<2.7

ND

140

.9

<8.2

ND

<0.29

5.2

61

27

ND

ND

<.29

1.2

18

7.5

ND

<.87

<2.9

ND

ND

<2.9

ND

130

ND

ND

ND

ND

39

81

22

ND

ND

<.30

.69

21

5.4

<3.0

<-9

3.3

100

4.5

<3.0

ND

170

<-9

<9.0

ND

1 Composite of daily samples, January 1-31,1962. 

8 Composite of daily samples, June 1-30,1962.
320 TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

(See fig. 58.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Aransas Pass, Clarkwood, Flour Bluff, Gregory, Ingleside,

Odem, and Portland.

Population served: Corpus Christi, 167,690; total, 211,500. 

Source of supply: Nueces River, impounded in Lake Corpus Christi, about 35

miles from Corpus Christi. Water flows from the lake to the treatment plants

at Calallen. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 48.1 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Cunningham and Stevens treatment plants prechlorination, partial

softening with lime, coagulation with ferrous sulfate, sedimentation, fluoridation, rapid sand filtration, and postchlorination. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Cunningham treatment plant, 33 mgd;

Stevens treatment plant, 48 mgd.

Raw-water storage: Lake Corpus Christi, 98,400 million gal (302,100 acre-feet). 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 5.5 years. 

Finished-water storage: Elevated tanks, 2.75 million gal; grourd storage, 41.2

million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Stevens treatment plant, August 1960--July 1961:

Finished water. ... .......

Alkalinity

asCaCCh

(ppm)

Avg

133

88

Max

170

110

Min

60

50

pH

Avg

8.1

8.4

Max

8 7

9.2

Min

7.1

8.0

Hardness

as CaCCh

(ppm)

Avg

153

130

Max

232

170

Min

84

88

Turbidity

Avg

54

0

Max

890

0

Min

10

0
CORPUS CHRISTI 321

Lake 

Corpus Christi

Cunningham treatment plant

'i

Stevens treatment plant

Corpus Christi Bay

CORPUS 

CHRISTI

Areas served by the Corpus Christi 

water system

Corpus Christi city boundary

Treatment plant

S 

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 58. Water supplies and areas served by Corpus Christi, Tex., water system. (Approved by local municipal water officials, April 1963.) List of areas: 1, Gregory; 2, 

Aransas Pass; 3, Portland; 4, Ingleside; 5 Odem; 6, Clarkwood; 7, Flour Bluff.
322 TEXAS

Analytical data Corpus Christi

Percent of supply

Date of collection

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished

Nueces 

River

100

1-31-62

R

Cunningham 

treatment 

plant

100

1-31-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2)___. ____________________________________

Iron (Fe)---_---_-_--______-_______________________

Calcium (Ca)

Magnesium (Mg)

Sodium (Na) _

Potassium (K)

Bicarbonate (HCO3)___ _____ __ _ ____ __ __ ____

Carbonate (CO3) _ _ _ _ _ _

Sulfate (SO4)___----_--_____---____-__-___----______

Chloride (Cl)__ ________________________________ _

Fluoride (F)___ __ __ ___________ _ __ _ _________

Nitrate (NO8)__-_____ -______ __-_______ _ _ ____

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)

Hardness as CaCO3

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C)

pH_ ______________________________________________

Color____ _ __ _ __ ______

Turbidity_ _ _____________ _ _________ _____ ______

Temperature _ _ °F

15

. 10

.01

42

8.3

62

7.9

122

0

45

96

.4

. 0

348

139

39

597

7.6

0

58

15

.06

. 01

42

8.0

62

7.9

120

0

45

96

1. 1

.0

354

138

40

603

8. 0

0

0

57

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter]

Beta activity

Radium (Ra) _ ______ _ ____

Uranium (U)

13

. 1

.9

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)

Aluminum (Al)

Boron (B) _____________ _ ___ _ ___________________

Barium (Ba)

Beryllium (Be)

Cobalt (Co)_________ __ ___ ___ __________ _ ______

Chromium (Cr)

Copper (Cu)

Iron (Fe)______________ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __

Lithium (Li)

Manganese (Mn)

Molybdenum (Mo)

Nickel (Ni)____________ _ ________________

Phosphorus (P)

Lead (Pb) _ _ _ _

Rubidium (Rb)_ _______ ___ _

Tin (Sn) __

Strontium (Sr)_

Titanium (Ti) _ _ _ _ _ _

Vanadium (V) _

Zinc (Zn)___ ___ _ _ __ _

ND

83

270

140

ND

ND

<-4<

2.0

140

16

18

3.5

<4. 9

ND

7.3

5.3

ND

420

2.5

<15

ND
TEXAS 323

DALLAS

(See fig. 59.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Carrollton, Cockrell Hill, Farmers Branch, Fruitdale, Grand

Prairie, Irving, and Richardson. 

Population served: Dallas, 679,684; total, 800,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Elm Fork, impounded in Garza-Li^tle Elm

Reservoir, 67 percent; Denton Creek, impounded in Grapevine Reservoir, 26

percent; Lake Lavon (finished water purchased from North Texas Municipal

Water District), 7 percent.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: White Rock Lake; four wells used ir periods

of high water demand. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 89.8 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Bachman treatment plant: Prechlorination, softening with lime, addition of 

activated carbon for odor and taste control, coagulation with iron salts 

(ferric sulfate), sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, chlorinat! on, and 

ammoniation.

Elm Fork treatment plant: Prechlorination, softening with lime, addition 

of activated carbon for odor and taste control, primary coagulation, 

primary sedimentation, secondary coagulation, rapid sand Pltration, 

chlorination, and ammoniation. 

Wells: Chlorination. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Bachman treatment plant, 116 irgd; Elm

Fork treatment plant, 196 mgd.

Raw-water storage, in million gallons: Garza-Little Elm Reservoir, 157,000; 

White Rock Lake, 4,600; Grapevine Reservoir, 61,000; Lake Lavon, 42,000; 

Lake Tawakoni, 305,000. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 17 years.

Finished-water storage: 10 elevated tanks, 9 million gal; 7 ground storage reservoirs, 128 million gal; clear wells, 24 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.8.
324 TEXAS

Remarks: Garza-Little Elm Reservoir (also known as Lake Lewisville) is on Elm 

Fork Trinity River about 10 miles upstream from the Elm Fork treatment 

plant at Carrollton. Grapevine Reservoir is on Denton CreeV. 12 miles upstream from Elm Fork Trinity River. A diversion dam on the Elm Fork just 

downstream from the mouth of Denton Creek makes water from both reservoirs available to the Elm Fork treatment plant. Water from both reservoirs 

is diverted to the Bachman treatment plant from the Elm Fork, about 12 miles 

downstream from Denton Creek. East Side treatment plant has an initial capacity of 100 mgd, and a pipe line to Lake Tawakoni will be IT use in 1963.

Regular determination at treatment plants, October 1960-Septenber 1961:

Bachman:

Elm Fork: 

Raw water ............

Finished water. ......

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

119 

31

110 

32

Max

213 

69

122 

67

Min

72 

23

84 

20

pH

Avg

8.1 

10.3

7.9 

10.4

Max

8.2 

10.4

8.1 

10.4

MJn

8.0 

10.2

6.2 

10.2

Hardness 

asCaCO3 

(ppm)

Avg

164 

92

152 

$9

Max

305 

137

190 

143

Mir

9f 

7C

llf

7f

Turbidity

Avg

62 

0

49 

0

Max

732 

0

1,120 

0

Min

15 

0

13 

0
DALLAS 325

Garza-Little Elm 

Reservoir

Elm Fork 

treatment plant

Bachman 

treatment plant

WM t 9AW*A&» 5 $3^"'///'/////&M0&*'< 1

Proposed conduit 

to East Side treat 

ment plant

Area served by Dallas water system

Dallas city boundary

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 59. Water supplies and areas served by Dallas, Tex., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, April 1963.) List of areas served: 1, Carrollton; 

2, Richardson; 3, Farmers Branch; 4, Irving; 5, Grand Prairie.
326 TEXAS

Analytical data Dallas

GarzaLittle Elm

Reservoir

67

3-22-62

R

Elm Fork

treatment

plant

67 3-22-62

F

Grapevine

and GarzaLittle Elm

Reservoir

26

3-22-62

R

Bachman

treatment

plant

26 3-22-62

F

Lake

Lavon

7

2-26-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (Si02) 

Hydroxide (OH) ___ _ ____ __ ______ .

Bicarbonate (HCO3) ._ _ _ _ _ ._

Sulfate (SO*).. __ - _ - __ . _._ _ 

Chloride (Cl). ___. ___ _ ______ __.._ _

Nitrate (NOa) - ______ ____ _.

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C). _. _

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs- _ _

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C) 

pH________._____________________._________

Color- . . _ . __ _ ..

Turbidity _ - - - - -

2 1

.06

.00

53

6.2

39

4.4

139

0

44

64

.4

.5

291

158

44

515 

7.5

2.5

.01

.00

25

4.3

41

4.1

2

14

55

65

.7

.2

222

80

55

410 

9.6

0

0

2 2

.04

.00

55

7.1

33

4.4

157

0

52

42

.4

1.0

282

166

38

491

7.4

2.6

00

.00

25

4.6

41

4.7

1.7

14

64

55

.6

1.0

215

81

53

405 

9.7

0

0

4

0

04

00

18

3.5

15

3.3

7

10

52

13

.5

.0

134

59

37

228 

9.0

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Uranium (U)_..._ __ . __ . ______ ...

11 

.1 

2

12 

<.l 

.2

10 

<.l 

.3

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag). __ . _ .... __ .. __ . __ .

Beryllium (Be) __ _ _ _ _ ...

Cobalt (Co) . __ . ____ - ____ ....

Lithium (Li). __ ... .. ... __ .. _________

Nickel (Ni) . ___ . __ ..__.

Lead(Pb).,.. _______ .__..__ ___ ...

Rubidium (Rb)_ ._ __ __ _ _

Tin(Sn) _ ... _ . __ _____ __ _.__ _ _.

Strontium (Sr)._ .. ._ _ ... __ _

Zinc(Zn)... _ __ __ __ _ ...

<0.29 

72 

83 

29 

ND 

ND 

<.29 

2.4 

66 

7.2 

<2.9 

4.0 

2.9 

310 

8.6 

4.3 

ND 

210 

2.6 

ND 

ND

<0.28 

54 

74 

28 

ND 

ND 

<.28 

2.0 

28 

5.7 

<2.8 

3.7 

<2.8 

280 

4.0 

4.0 

ND 

180 

2.0 

ND 

ND

0.15 

70 

52 

32 

ND 

ND 

2.6 

150 

130 

4.7 

<1.5 

4.6 

5.2 

ND 

3.8 

2.4 

ND 

490 

1.8 

<4.6 

ND
TEXAS 327

EL PASO

(See fig. 60.) 

Ownership: Municipal. 

Other areas served: Biggs Air Force Base. 

Population served: El Paso, 276,687; total, about 280,000.

Sources and percentages of suppply: Rio Grande, 14 percent (includes 4 percent 

pumped from 8 shallow wells near Canutillo and transported to city by river); 6 

wells in Canutillo well field northwest of city (exclusive of shallow wells), 25 

percent; 6 wells in Mesa field, 16 percent; 11 wells in Nevins field, 14 percent; 14 

wells in Lower Valley, 15 percent; 6 wells supplying airport station, 13 percent; 

5 wells in downtown field, 1 percent; 2 wells in Montana field, 2 percent. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 45 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Well water: Chlorination.

Rio Grande treatment plant: Screening, grit removal, prechlorination, aeration by forced air, primary settling, coagulation with alum or ferric sulfate, 

softening with lime, addition of activated carbon for taste and od:>r control 

as required, settling, reflocculation, settling, recarbonation, chlorination, 

and rapid sand filtration.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Rio Grande treatment plant, 20 mgd; Mesa 

station, 10 mgd; Canutillo station, 20 mgd; Lower Valley station, 10 mgd; 

Nevins station, 27 mgd; Airport station, 14 mgd; Downtown station, 6 ingd; 

Montana station, 3 mgd.

Finished-water storage: Ground reservoirs and elevated tanks, 92.6 mil'fon gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 2.1.
328 TEXAS

Analytical data El Paso

Depth of well (feet). ...........

Date drilled.. _____.__.

Type of water: R, raw; F, flnRio

Grande

14

4 94 fi9

R

Rio

Grande

treatment

plant

14

4-24-62

F

Wells, at

Mesa

Station

16

1 1 ft fi9

F

Six

wells, at

Canutillo

Station

25

I

-ioco

F

Three

wells, at

Airport

Station

13

1_1Q_A9

F

Seven

wells, at

Nevins

Station

14

4-24-62

F

Well

V-70, in

Lower

Valley

15

704

1946 4-24-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOs) . . ........ .........

Calcium (Ca)_ ....... ......

Bicarbonate (HCOs) 

Carbonate (COs)--- ... 

Sulfate (SO«) -

Chloride (Cl). .................

Fluoride (F). ..................

Nitrate (N03).- 

Dissolved solids (residue at 

180° C)_- ....................

Noncarbonate hardness as 

CaCOs- __ . __ -... __ ...

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C). .............

PH

Color..........................

Turbidity ...................

16

4fi

.00

92

20

165

7 ft

236

0

9Qft

.6

.2

835

01 o

118

1,270

7.8

10

15

.07

.00

9ft

17

184

7.6

10

20

294

.5

.5

727

140

Oft

1 14ft

9.2

0

0

00

ftft

.00

42

14

93

6.1

193

0

70

91

1.4

5.0

455

1A9

4

746

7.1

0

0

30

ftft

.00

7.5

.7

ftft

1.1

77

0

79

4a

1.0

.0

302

22

0

464

8.0

0

0

37

.00

.00

24

ft 7

119

11

188

0

ft7

82

1.1

4.5

470

96

0

751

7.3

0

0

31

.00

.00

28

7.5

85

6.6

154

0

60

73

.8

5.4

373

101

0

615

7.2

0

0

31

.01

.00

32

9

K

172

8.8

162

0

75

204

1.0

1.0

615

120

0

1,050

7.3

5

0

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, lees than. Maximum 

beta activitydata from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum beta activity, raw 

water, July 1, 1961 to June 

30, 1962. -. . __ __ 34

24

< !

2.3

14

.2

3.4

<-"! 9

.5

.1

13

.1

5.4

11

.1

2.9

20

.1

4.7

Spectrographic analyses

[In mlcrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fouud]

Silver (Ag)____... . ._________

Aluminum (Al) _________

Boron (B) ____ . ____ . ...

Barium (Ba)...... ..........

Beryllium (Be). .. ..........

Cobalt (Co)._ ...............

Chromium (Cr) ...............

Copper (Cu) ...................

Iron (Fe).._ . . ..........

Lithium (Li) --... ..........

Manganese (Mn)__ ............

Molybdenum (Mo). _____

Nickel (Ni). ...................

Phosphorus (P) ................

Lead (Pb).. ............ ......

Rubidium (Rb)... .............

Tin (Sn). ......................

Strontium (Sr) . . ..........

Titanium (Ti) ________

Vanadium (V) ____ ...

Zinc(Zn).. ___ . ___ ..

<0.86

340

85

46

ND

ND

<.86

3.5

19

170

ND

5.6

ND

ND

ND

14

ND

760

ND

ND

ND

<0.64

64

100

210

ND

ND

1.4

3.7

44

26

ND

7.1

<6.4

ND

9.6

19

ND

1,200

<1.9

<^"1Q

ND

<0.37

19

59

44

ND

ND

<.37

1.5

20

37

<3.7

4.8

<3.7

ND

ND

4.8

ND

190

ND

ND

ND

<0.63

31

88

110

ND

ND

1.4

4.0

21

94

ND

6.9

6.3

ND

ND

16

ND

1,000

<1.9

<19

ND

ND

37

77

98

ND

ND

1.5

35

50

39

ND

2.8

ND

ND

14

67

ND

520

ND

<15

ND

ND

18

110

170

ND

ND

ND

16

52

120

ND

<2.5

ND

ND

ND

9.3

ND

1,000

ND

<25

ND
EL PASO 329

_UNITED STATES 

MEXICO

xCanutillo well field

Biggs Air Force Base 

Airport well field

Treatment plant

Montana well field

Downtown well field

EXPLANATION

Area served by El Paso 

water system

El Paso city boundary

S

Water analysis sampling site

0

I I

5 MILES

FIGURE 60. Water supplies and areas served by El Paso, Tex., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, April 1963.)
330 TEXAS

FORT WORTH

(See fig. 61.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served (partially): Westover Hills, Edgecliff Village, White Settlement, and Westworth Village. In emergencies supplies Haltom City, Benbrook, and Arlington. About 10,000 people within Fort Worth city limits are 

served by private water companies.

Population served: Fort Worth, 356,268; total, about 360,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: A series of three lakes on West Fork Trinity 

River; Lake Worth, Eagle Mountain Lake, and Lake Bridgeport, 99.5 percent; 

three wells in the western part of the city, 0.5 percent.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Lake Benbrook, on Clear Fork Trinity River, 

is available for emergency supply.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 47 mgd (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment:

North Holly treatment plant: Coagulation with alum and lime, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, and chlorination. 

South Holly treatment plant: Prechlorination, coagulation with alum and

lime, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, and chlorination. 

Water is rechlorinated at most booster stations.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: North Holly treatment plant, 79 mgd; 

South Holly treatment plant, 50 mgd.

Raw-water storage, in million gallons: Lake Worth, 10,980; Eagle Mountain 

Lake, 59,540; Lake Bridgeport, 88,090; Lake Benbrook, 29,000.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): 11 years.

Finished-water storage: Five ground reservoirs, 26 million gal; 12 elevated tanks, 

13 million gal; clear wells, 21 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.3.

Regular determinations at North Holly treatment plant, October 1960-September 1961:

Raw water. ... . _______

Finished water.... ______

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

128 

129

Max

134 

135

Min

124 

115

pH

Avg

8.0 

8.1

Max

8.3 

8.2

Min

7.6 

7.8

Hardness 

as CaCOa 

(ppm)

Avg

139 

144

Max

149 

153

Min

136 

139

Turbidity

Avg

22 

0

Max

40 

0

Min

5 

0
FORT WORTH 331

EXPLANATION

Areas served by Fort Worth water 

system (Haltora City, Benbrook, and 

Arlington supplied during emergency

Fort Worth city boundary

A

a, North Holly treatment plant 

b, South Holly treatment plant

S

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 61. Water supplies and areas served by Fort Worth, Tex., water system. (Approved by local municipal water officials, May 1963.) Areas served by Fort Worth 

water system: 1, Arlington; 2, Edgecliff Village: 3, Benbrook; 4, White Settlement; 5, 

Westworth Village; 6, Westover Hills; 7, Haltom City.
332 TEXAS 

Analytical data Fort Worth

Lake

Worth

99 2-27-62

R

North

Holly

treatment

plant

99 2-27-62

F

Lake

Benbrook

2-27-62

R

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica(SiOj). ... _ 

Calcium (Ca)____ . _. - _ _____ . ___ . ___ .....

Sodium (Na).. . 

Potassium (K)__. . ___ .. ___ . . _ _ . _____ ...

Bicarbonate (HCO3)~ ___ _ __ ._ .. _ ___ _____

Carbonate (CO3) .., ____ _ __ _ - ____

Sulfate (SO4 ). ____ __ 

Chloride(Cl). _ ._ _ _ . 

Fluoride (F)._ .. ____ . __ _ _______________ ....

Nitrate(NOs) - - . . . -

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) ... __ .. . _ __ . ......

pH_ _ _ _ 

Color.. _. _____ ___ __ . . . . __ _. . ..

Turbidity ___ __ _____ _ _ _ _____ _ .. .....

5.8 

.05 

.00 

44 

8.4 

20 

4.5 

153 

0 

20 

32 

.3 

.0 

228 

144 

19

387 

7.6

4.2 

.00 

.00 

45 

8.4 

20 

4.4 

146 

0 

24 

34 

.3 

.0 

228 

147 

27

394 

7.0 

0 

0

4.6 

.00 

.00 

45 

6.1 

15 

4.4 

143 

0 

26 

20 

.4 

.0 

209 

137 

20

348

7.4

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter]

Uranium(U). . __ _ _ _. . 

21 

.4 

1.4

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver(Ag). -_ 

Boron (B) ___ ______ .. _ ..... ..

Barium (Ba). _ _ ___ ___ __ .. .... __ ___ ..

Cobalt (Co)_ _ _ . _ . 

Iron(Fe).._- ______ __ ___ .

Nickel (Ni).-...... ...................... .... ___ _ 

Lead (Pb) ................ ... . .. .........

Rubidium (Rb) __ _ ________ __ .. .. ____ 

Tin (Sn).. ............ ... .. ..... ..

Strontium (Sr)

Titanium (Ti) ...

Vanadium (V) __ ...

Zinc (Zn) ..

ND

330

110

120

ND

ND

14

4.3

23

2.0

<3.6

4.0

4.3

ND

11

ND

ND

580

4.0

ND

ND
TEXAS 333

HOUSTON

(See fig. 62.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: About 770,000 people were served by the municipal system 

as of January 1, 1961. Many private wells in areas annexed in recent years 

have not been taken over by the city.

Sources and percentages of supply: San Jacinto River (Lake Hourton), 25 

percent; 153 wells, 75 percent. During 1960 pumpage from the San Jacinto 

River averaged 78 mgd, of which 25 mgd was treated and distributed through 

the municipal system. The remainder was furnished, untreated, to industrial 

users. About 80 percent of the ground water comes from 52 wells ir 8 major 

well fields; the remainder is obtained from 6 large-capacity wells and about 

95 smaller wells. The major well fields supply the following percentages of 

the total water supply for the city: Central well field, 3.0; South End field, 

6.0; Northeast field, 9.2; East End field, 4.9; Meyerland field, 0.7; Heights 

field, 14.0; South Park field, 3.1; and Southwest field, 17.7.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 108 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment:

San Jacinto purification plant: Prechlorination, coagulation wi*h alum, 

addition of activated carbon, rapid sand filtration, and stabilization with 

lime.

Heights plant: Aeration and chlorination. 

All other plants: Chlorination only.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: San Jacinto plant, 50 mgd; Cent~al plant, 

9 mgd; South End plant, 13.1 mgd; Northeast plant, 29.2 mgd; Fast End 

plant, 12.5 mgd; Meyerland plant, 3.5 mgd; Heights plant, 29.8 mgd; South 

Park plant, 5.2 mgd; and Southwest plant, 35.8 mgd.

Raw-water storage: Lake Houston, 52,000 million gal; no raw storage at wellfield plants.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): 1.3 years.

Finished-water storage: 60 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily wf.ter used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at San Jacinto purification plant, 1960:

Raw water..... _________

Finished water _________

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

fppm)

Avg

36 

30

Max

57 

36

Min

21

25

pH

Avg

7.3

8.7

Max

7.6 

8.2

Min

6.8 

7.8

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

47 

68

Max

66 

79

Min

28 

54

Trrbidity

Avg

68 

5

Max

120

5

Min

20 

0
Analytical data Houston

Depth of well (feet).-.. __________ . ___

Heights 

well field

14

7-25-61

F

East End 

well field

5

7-25-61

F

South Park 

well field

3

7-25-61

F

South End 

well field

6

7-25-61

F

Meyerland 

well

1

1,770

7-25-61

F

N

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica(SiO2) 

Chloride (Cl)~ 

Fluoride (F)........ .......... ___ . _

"MltratA fMOo^l

pH_._ __ _

18

.05

.00

26

6.5

111

2.4

291

0

7.2

63

.9

.0

378

92

0

641

7.2

0

0

16

.06

.00

4.0

1.0

177

374

0

7.6

59

1.5

.0

456

14

0

750

7.7

0

0

16

.07

.00

6.0

1.4

161

g

348

0

11

51

1.2

.0

420

21

0

695

7.8

0

0

1ft

.11

.00

19

5.4

100

269

0

10

42

.7

.0

333

70

0

553

7.2

0

0

20

.16

.00

23

1 1

ft7

1 Q

OKO

0

12

38

.8

.0

316

78

0

520

7.0

0

0

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms pe

Uranium (U)_ _ _ 

23

1.3

3.6

2.8

.3

.1
Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found. X, semiquantitative determinations in digit order shown]

Silver(Ag)... --- - ------- Cobalt (Co)....- 

Lithium (Li).. !M!9,n KEHIGSG (IVIn)

Nickel (Ni)

Lead (Pb) 

Rubidium (Rb) Tin (Sn).... ...... ....... ........................Titanium (Ti)....... ........... . 

Ytterbium (Yb) Yttrium (Y)..... ............... .....

ND

21

210

340

ND

ND

1.2

2.9

8628

11

4.1

<6

NDNDND

ND

600

<6

ND

ND

ND

42

110

70

NDND

ND

1.8

4318

<7

7.0

NDND

ND

NDND

120

<7

ND

ND

ND

11

160

380

NDND

1.5

2.0

2619

7.7

3.6

NDND

ND

ND

ND

370

ND<15ND

ND

ND

ND

<0.15

oon

24

57

ND

ND

.65

9 Q

290

.44

77

ND

3.3

ND

8.26.6

ND

11

35

<4.5

ND

XXX

<0.1

onn

9ft

120

ND

ND

.84

4.3 01

91

34

ND

4.5

ND

1.7

3 1

ND

71

1.4

<4.3

ND

XX

ND

GO GO 

Cn
336 TEXAS

EXPLANATION

Area served by Houston water system

Houston city boundary

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 62 Water supplies and areas served by Houston, Tex., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, April 1963.)
TEXAS 337

LUBBOCK

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Lubbock, 128,691; total, 133,000 (1961 estimate).

Sources and percentages of supply: Total of 141 wells. There are 81 wells in 

and adjacent to the city. The average depth of the wells is 135 feet, and the 

average yield is 110 gpm. Sixteen wells are in the Shallowater field about 14 

miles northwest of the city; they have an average depth of 114 feet and an 

average yield of 235 gpm. Forty-four wells are in the "Sand Hills" area of 

Bailey and Lamb Counties approximately 60 miles northwest of the city. 

These wells have an average depth of 220 feet and an average yield .of 530 gpm. 

The wells are pumped in groups to ground-storage reservoirs; from these 

reservoirs, the water is pumped to a booster station, where it is pumped into 

the distribution system. The wells in and adjacent to.the city furnish about 

25 percent of the supply; the Shallowater field, 10 percent; and the S^nd Hills, 

65 percent.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 18 mgd (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Chlorination.

Rated capacity of pumping plants: 47.4 mgd.

Finished-water storage: Eleven ground storage reservoirs and four elevated 

storage reservoirs have a combined capacity of 39 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily w^ter used, 

in mgd): 2.2.
338 TEXAS 

Analytical data Lubbock

Depth of well (feet)... _ .. ___ .. . ....

City well 

62 in 

Northwest 

well field

7

135

R

Composite 

of wells in 

south part 

of Lubbock

4

135

F

Northeast 

well field

13

135

F

Composite 

of wells in 

Sand Hills 

well field

65

220

F

Well 102 

in Shallowater well 

field

10

114 2-14-62

R

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj) -

Carbonate (COs) ________ _____

Sulfate (SO4) 

Chloride (Cl) 

Nitrate (NOa) 

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) ____

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C). 

pH.______._____.__.__ ._________..

nn

.01

54

AQ

1 9Q

16

364

0

1 ftQ

92

3.9

17

794

336

38

1,200 

7.1

EC

.02

.00

45

58

14

342

0

160

5.1

7.4

741

351

70

1,150 

7.2

0

53

.02

.01

71

62

15

324

0

237

115

3.0

9.5

861

432

166

1,220 

7.1

0

0

53

nn

nn

64

14

27

4.9

296

0

23

10

1.0

1.5

350

217

0

524 

7.2

0

0

43

.00

.02

98

120

102

30

357

0

572

64

7.0

9.4

1,220

738

446

1,660 

7.0

0

0

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter]

Uranium (U) ...

-

35 

.1 

13

7.4 

.3 

3.0

130 

1.S 

250

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not founi]

Silvpr ( \a*\

Cobalt (Co) 

Iron (Fe)_ __________ ________

Lithium (Li) . .

Nickel (Ni)__... ............ ..............

Lead (Pb)_ . _. ........

Rubidium (Rb) ________ ___ . .

Tin (Sn). .................................

Strontium (Sr) ............................

Titanium (Ti). ____________ .....

Vanadium (V)... ____________ ..

Zinc (Zn) ........... __ .. ...........

ND

22

590

71

ND

ND

<1.1

<1.1

32

78

<H

13

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

1,200

ND

34

ND

<0.51

6.1

120

210

ND

ND

<5. 1

13

38

14

5.1

ND

<5.1

ND

ND

ND

ND

280

<1.5

<15

ND

1.5

32

500

30

ND

ND

<1.5

15

6,600

96

75

68

<15

ND

38

ND

ND

6,300

ND

74

ND
TEXAS 339

SAN ANTONIO

(See fig. 63.)

Ownership: Municipal and Bexar Metropolitan Water District.

Other areas served: Balcones Heights, Olmos Park, Terrell Hills, part of Alamo 

Heights, two water districts, and Brooks Air Force Base are served by the 

city system; Castle Hills is served by Bexar Metropolitan Water I 'strict.

Population served: San Antonio, 587,718; total, about 603,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Fifty-nine city wells, about 85 percent; 18 

wells of the Bexar Metropolitan Water District, about 15 percent. Twentyfive of the city wells are in the following six well fields (stations): Market 

Street, four wells about 900 feet deep; Mission, six wells about 1,300 feet deep; 

Artesia, five wells about 1,300 feet deep; 34th Street, three wells rbout 950 

feet deep; Seale Road, three wells about 1,200 feet deep; Basin, four wells 

about 700 feet deep. Thirty-four wells are at various points throughout the 

city: the wells range in depth from 600 to 1,000 feet. The Bexar Metropolitan 

Water District wells are in eight pumping stations. (Sample for water analysis 

was collected at King Street Station.) Wells supplying the Castle Fills range 

in depth from 533 to 762 feet. Those supplying south and southwest San 

Antonio range in depth from 1,400 to 1,700 feet.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 81.7 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Chlorination.

Rated capacity of pumping plants: City-owned plants, 365 mgd; Bexar Metropolitan plants, 3'6 mgd.

Finished-water storage: City system, 8 ground reservoirs, 22.8 million gal; and 

12 elevated tanks, 21 million gal; Bexar Metropolitan Water District, ground 

and elevated storage, 5.5 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.
340 TEXAS 

Analytical data San Antonio

Percent of supply __ _______ ...

Depth of well (feet)--.----.---.---....

Date of collection ___ ________

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished....

4 wells, at

Market

Street

Station

900 2-8-62

F

Wells of

Bexar Metropolitan Water

District

2-8-62

R

5 wells,

Artesia

Station

1,300 2-8-62

F

5 wells,

Mission

Station

1,300 2-8-62

F

4 wells,

Basin

Station

700

2-8-62

F

3 wells,

34th

Street

Station

2-8-62

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOj)... ...... .......... ...

Iron(Fe).. . ___ ..... .. .. __ .

Manganese (Mn) .....................

Calcium (Ca).. _ .... . ___ ......

Magnesium (Mg) __ .............

Sodium (Na).._._____ . ___ ....... .

Potassium (K) ........................

Bicarbonate (HCOa) _ ------- _ ..

Carbonate (COa). __ ..........

Sulfate (SOd- .- ._

Chloride (Cl)................ .........

Fluoride (F) .......................

Nitrate (N03 )-.. ... . .. ... ...

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) ... 

Hardness as CaCOj... _________

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs- _ -

Specific conductance (micromhos at 

25° C). ...... ....... ......... ....

pH.. .................................

Color. _______ ____ _ .

12

.03

.00

62

16

7 Q

1.1

242

0

15

14

.3

4.8

265 

220

22

447

6.8

0

0

12

.02

.00

64

17

8.7

1.0

236

0

25

17

.4

3.8

278 

230

36

461

6.8

0

0

81

12

.02

.00

62

16

7.6

.9

238

0

19

13

.3

5.0

265 

220

25

446

6.8

0

0

75

12

.01

.00

65

18

10

1.1

237

0

32

18

.4

3.8

292 

236

42

486

6.7

0

0

82

12

.06

.00

70

18

7.2

1.2

252

0

31

13

.3

4.8

298 

248

42

492

6.7

0

0

73

12

.Of

.0

63

16

6.6

1.0

241

0

15

14

.3

4.8

260 

223

26

445

6.8

0

0

76

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium hi picocuries per liter; uranium hi micrograms per liter]

Beta activity.. __ ..............

Radium (Ra)_. ___ ........

2.5

.3

.3

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less then; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)-_ . ...............

Boron (B). _____ . _ ......

Barium (Ba)..._ ... __ .. .. .

Cobalt (Co).. ................... -

Iron(Fe)..- _ . ___ ..._... .. ..

Lithium (Li). ......................

Nickel (Ni)_- .....................

Lead (Pb). .........................

Rubidium (Rb) ...... ... ... ... ,. .

Tin (Sn). ............... . . .

Titanium (Ti)__ .

Vanadium (V). _____ .. ...

Zinc (Zn) ......

ND

K7

69

ND

ND

NDOK

9.3

1.5

ND^""l 9

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

400

ND<-"l9

ND
SAN ANTONIO 341

EXPLANATION

Areas served by San Antonio 

water system

San Antonio city boundary

Principal pumping station

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 63. Water supplies and areas served by San Antonio, Tex., water system. (Approved by 

local municipal water officials, June 1963). List of areas served: 1, Castle Hills; 2, Balcones 

Heights; 3, Olmos Park; 4, Alamo Heights; 5, Terrell Hills.
UTAH

Salt Lake City

SALT LAKE CITY

(See fig. 64.) '

Ownership: Municipal and Metropolitan Water District.

Population served: Salt Lake City, 189,454; about 83,000 in suburban areas;

total, about 272,000. 

Sources and percentages of supply: Big Cottonwood Creek, southeast of city,

30 percent of supply; Provo River impounded in Deer Creek Reservoir, northeast of Provo, 22 percent of supply; Parleys Creek impounded in Mountain 

Dell Reservoir, east of city, 14 percent of supply; many wells, both flowing and 

pumped, located throughout the city, 11 percent of supply; City Creek, north 

of city, 9 percent of supply; Little Cottonwood Creek southeast of city, 9 percent 

of supply; Third East Pumping Station, supplied by Murray Artesian Basin southeast of city, 3 percent of supply; and Emigration Tunnel, east of city, 2 percent 

of supply. Deer Creek Reservoir is used both as a regular and an auxiliary 

supply; during dry years this source supplies a greater proportion of the total 

supply than indicated above. Percentages shown above are representative of 

calendar year 1960. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 59.3 mg-i (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment :

Big Cottonwood Creek treatment plant: Prechlorination, coagulation, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, and postchlorination. 

Deer Creek Reservoir plant: Chlorination. 

Little Cottonwood Creek treatment plant: Prechlorination, coagulation,

sedimentation, rapid sand filtration and postchlorination. 

City Creek treatment plant: Coagulation, sedimentation and chlorination. 

Mountain Dell Reservoir plant: Addition of copper sulfate for algae control

and chlorination. 

Artesian well water is chlorinated; water obtained from most pumped wells

is not treated.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: City Creek treatment plant, 15 mgd; Big 

Cottonwood Creek treatment plant, 32 mgd; Mountain Dell Reservoir plant,

31 mgd; Little Cottonwood Creek treatment plant, 100 mgd. 

Raw-water storage, in million gallons: Twin Lakes Reservoir, 306; Lal e Mary

Reservoir, 242; Mountain Dell Reservoir, 1,100; Deer Creek Reservoir,

49,700. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 2.4 years.

343 

735-717 O 64 23
344 UTAH

Finished-water storage: The combined storage of finished water in various parts 

of Salt Lake City, both in reservoirs and steel or concrete t?,nks, totals 94.4 

million gal. Two new reservoirs are proposed one located near the State 

Capitol is to contain finished water from various sources; the other, a 5-milliongallon reservoir south of the terminal reservoirs, is to store water from the Little 

Cottonwood treatment plant.

Because of the need for intricate balancing of pressures, the finished water 

reservoirs are interlinked, and, thus, the supplies are mixed before reaching the 

consumer. As a result the composition of the water varies throughout much of 

the distribution system and changes considerably from time tc time during the 

year. The analyses given are believed to show reasonably well the composition 

of the water from the major sources of supply.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.6.

Determinations at treatment plants, December 1960-November 1961:

Alkalinity 

as CaCOa 

(ppm)

Avg Max Min

pH

Avg Max Min

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg Max Min

Turbidity

Avg Max Min

Regular determinations

Big Cottonwood:

Finished water _____

Deer Creek Reservoir:

Little Cottonwood: Raw

City Creek:

Parleys Creek at Mount 

Dell Reservoir: Raw 

water __ _ _______

93

116

51

168

176

124

117

158

64

188

187

202

42

41

QQ

36

139

137

152

8.4

1 A

7.8

8.5

8.1

9

0

9.5

8

C

8.5

8.8

8.7

9.0

7.8

7.6

7.5

7.4

8.1

8.0

7.6

149

201

95

209

240

218

244

108

246

245

268

70

70

ISO

66

176

170

210

1.8

.2

3.8

2.0

.4

.2

21

1.5

25

44

9.0

1.3

4.5

0.7

.0

.2

1.0

.3

.2

1.0

Average monthly determinations

Third East Pumping

139 1-i-t 7 Q 8.0 7.6 235 246 210
SALT LAKE CITY 345

Mountain Dell Reservoir

Murray

'Artesian

Basin

Twin Lakes Reservoii

c<- Lake Mary 

Reservoir

EXPLANATION Aqueduct of the Metropolitan 

Water District of Salt Lake City

Areas served by Salt Lake 

City water system

Salt Lake City boundary

Treatment plant 

a, City Creek 

b,Mt.Dell 

C,Big Cotton-wood 

d, Little Cottonu'iM)d 

e.Deer Creek (chlorination only)

Water analysis sampling site 2024 MILES 

i I I

FIGURE 64. Water supplies and areas served by Salt Lake City Utah water system. (Approved by local 

municipal water officials, December 1962).
346 UTAH

Analytical data Salt Lake City

Type of water: E, raw; F,

Deer

Creek

Reservoir

24 7-12-61

R

Little

Cottonwood

treatment

plant

11

F

Big

Cottonwood

Creek

33 7-12-61

R

Big Cottonwood

treatment

plant

7-12-61

F

30

1 9 97 fil

F

Mountain

Dell

treatment

plant

14 12-27-61

F

City

Creek

treatment

plant

9

F

Artesian

wells,

3rd East

Station

4

7-12-61

F

Silica (SiOj)... __

Boron (B). ____ . ......

Bicarbonate (HCOs). ....

Sulfate (SO4).. . _ . ___

Chloride (Cl) .............

Fluoride (F) ......... _ ..

Nitrate (NOs) __ - 

Phosphate (POO. ____

Dissolved solids (residue 

at 180° C)--.. _ ....

Noncarbonate hardness 

as CaCO3 _ ............

Specific conductance 

(micromhos at 25° C) ...

pH._..__.._.._.....__..__

Color.. ___ _____ .

Temperature. __ .... °F._

6.7

.00

00

36

11

4.3

1.0

122

32

7.0

.3

.3

159

136

36

276

7.8

5

56

6.2

nfl

.01

.18

13

12

2.3

152

0

74

13

.5

.3

05

956

195

70

423

7.6

5

60

5.6

.00

.00

.13

38

12

4.1

1.0

122

0

7.0

.00

170

44

291

5

54

6.3

.01

.00

.01

44

15

1.2

144

0

52

10

.3

.6

211

172

54

357

7.9

39

11

.06

.03

87

14

22

1.2

288

0

41

32

.1

.2

356

274

38

587

8.2

34

5.7

.01

.00

.13

52

15

4.3

.5

218

0

11

7.0

.2

.3

192

13

362

8.2

5

65

12

00

00

.16

63

20

OQ

200

0

72

.5

5.8

.09

351

239

75

578

7.8

5

64

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity _______

Radium (Ra) .............

Uranium (U).._ .......

3.8

<-l

.8

1.8 

<-l

.5

6.9 

.1

.5

21 

< !

.5

1.2 

< !

.8

3.6 

.1

2.8

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag). ...........

Aluminum (Al)_. ........

Boron (B) _________

Beryllium (Be).. .........

Cobalt (Co)..... __ ;....

Chromium (Cr). ......._.

Iron (Fe) ...... _

Lithium (Li)... _ .... ...

Manganese (Mn) ___ .

Molybdenum (Mo) . . ....

Nickel (Ni). ...... ___ ..

Phosphorus (P). .........

Lead (Pb). ...............

Rubidium (Rb). .........

Tin (Sn). ......... ___ .

Strontium (Sr). __ .

Titanium (Ti).___ __ ...

Vanadium (V) ______

Zinc (Zn)__._. _ ..... ...

<0.42 

80 

120 

130 

ND 

ND 

.93 

12 

80 

13 

420 

2.4 

18 

ND 

9.7 

5.5 

ND 

220 

<4.2 

ND 

ND

<0.38 

91 

65 

110 

ND 

3.8 

3.0 

6.1 

80 

12 

91 

2.0 

11 

ND 

<3.8 

4.6 

ND 

280 

ND 

<11 

ND

<0.27 

260 

24 

87 

ND 

ND 

.68 

1.3 

17 

.92 

<2.7 

2.7 

<2.7 

ND 

3.3 

ND 

ND 

140 

<2.7 

ND 

<270

<0.30 

280 

21 

78 

ND 

ND 

3.3 

4.5 

87 

1.2 

<3.0 

11 

7.2 

ND 

6.0 

<3.0 

ND 

280 

3.3 

ND 

ND

<0.54 

75 

49 

120 

ND 

ND 

ND 

110 

97 

3.0 

290 

ND 

<5.4 

ND 

12 

ND 

ND 

400 

6.4 

ND 

ND

<0.40 

28 

44 

56 

ND 

ND 

2.4 

8.4 

17 

.92 

<4.0 

1.8 

6.0 

ND 

5.6 

ND 

ND 

120 

ND 

ND 

ND

<0.57 

91 

68 

140 

ND 

ND 

2.5 

3.1 

53 

4.6 

<5.7 

68 

5.7 

ND 

62 

ND 

ND 

370 

49 

ND 

ND
VIRGINIA

Norfolk Richmond

NORFOLK

(See fig. 65.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: South Norfolk, Virginia Beach, and suburban areas. An 

unknown number of Army and Navy personnel are also served.

Population served: Norfolk, 276,897; total, about 375,000.

Sources of supply: Two systems of impounding reservoirs: Lake Smith system 

comprises a chain of reservoirs known as Lake Wright, Lake TayHr, Lake 

Whitehurst, Little Creek, Lake Lawson, Lake Smith, and North Landing 

Lake about 2 miles northeast of the city; Lake Prince system comprises Lake 

Prince on Exchange Creek and Lake Burnt Mills in Nansemond and Isle of 

Wight Counties, about 18 miles from the city.

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Nottoway and Blackwater Rivers.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 41.9 mgd (U.S. 

Public Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Moores Bridges and 37th Street treatment plants prechlcrination, 

coagulation with alum and lime, activated carbon, addition of bleacMng clay 

when needed, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, postchlorination, adjustment of pH with lime, and fluoridation.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Moores Bridges treatment plant, 40 mgd; 

37th Street treatment plant, 24 mgd.

Raw-water storage: Lake Smith system, 1,800 million gal; Lake Prime, 3,700 

million gal; Lake Burnt Mills, 3,400 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): 212.

Finished-water storage: two ground tanks, 6 and 12 million gal; elevated tanks, 

2 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Remarks: A 6,000-million-gallon reservoir on Western Branch of Nansemond 

River is to be completed in 1962. A new pumping station will be constructed 

at this reservoir to pump to existing lines. The Moores Bridges plsnt capacity will be increased from 24 mgd to 40 mgd.

Regular determinations at treatment plants, 1961:

Moores Bridges:

37th Street:

Finished water. ......

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

31

40

26 

38

Max

38 

49

42 

56

Min

25 

30

6 

15

pH

Avg

6.8 

8.2

6.7 

8.6

Max

6.9 

8.4

7.1

9.2

Min

6.5 

8.0

5.9 

7.6

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

54 

84

40 

67

Max

70 

99

51

82

Min

39

61

24

Trrbidity

Avg

12 

.1

4.8 

.2

Max

19 

.4

10 

1.2

Min

0.9

3 

0

347
348 VIRGINIA

Analytical data Norfolk

Lake 

Wright

62 1-17-62 

R

Moores 

Bridges 

treatment 

plant

62 2-12-62 

F

Lake 

Prince

38 1-17-62 

R

Lake 

B irnt 

Mills

1-17-62 

R

37th 

Street 

treatment 

plant

38 1-17-62 

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SlOj) 

Aluminum (Al)... ________ _ __

Lithium (Li)... _.._..

Sodium (Na)._ __ -..- _ . ... ..........

Potassium (K). ............ _ ...... .....

Sulfate(SO4). .......... ..................

Chloride (Cl)...... ..................

Fluoride (F)_. ___ ........... _ . ......

Nitrate (NOs) 7- 

Phosphate (PO*) __ .... . ..... _ ..... .

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° O) __ .

Noncarbonate hardness as OaOO3 -. ___

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° O). 

pH__... ...................................

Color..................... ..........

2.3

.24

.02

.3

.1

12

4.9

14

3.0

29

0

29

22

.1

1.1

.1

123

52

28

174 

6.7

35

4.0

.02

.01

.2

.0

23

3.3

11

2.2

36

0

34

20

.8

2.0

.0

127

72

42

204 

8.0

2

5.8

.62

.00

.2

.0

11

1.6

4.6

2.0

29

0

10

9.0

.1

1.5

.0

73

34

10

102 

6.9

32

4.0

.84

.00

.3

.0

3.6

1.4

4.4

1.7

13

0

5.6

8.5

.1

1.0

.1

47

16

6

56 

6.7

50

4.7

.06

.00

.1

.0

17

1.7

5.9

1.9

28

0

17

14

1.0

1.0

.0

88

48

26

131

8.2

5

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Radium (Ra) ____________ _ .. .

Uranium (U).__. .__.._...___.___... .......

28

.2

13

^ ^

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fornd]

Silver (Ag).-... ......-. .........

Boron (B)... ....... ................. ....

Barium (Ba). __ .. .................. ...

Beryllium (Be)..... _ .... _ .. ....... ...

Cobalt (Co). .......... ...........

Copper (Cu)._ ____________

Iron (Fe)--.-. ------ _ ....... .. _ . .

Lithium (Li)............... ......... .

Manganese (Mn) __ ..

Molybdenum (Mo).... ___ _ ..

Nickel (Ni)......._........... ....... .

Phosphorus (P).... _ ______ .

Lead (Pb)......_ ......... .. .. .

Rubidium (Rb) __ ______ _.

Tin (8n). ......... .. .

Strontium (Sr) _____ ....

Titanium (Ti). .......... ........

Vanadium (V) . ...

Zinc (Zn)..... ...........

<0.15

250

11

49

ND

ND

5.2

4.4

25

.31

11

ND

1.9

ND

3.7

5.0

ND

140

5.2

ND

ND

<0.10

270

12

32

ND

ND

1.3

3.7

150

.27

11

ND

2.0

ND

5.5

4.0

ND

64

3.5

ND

ND
LAKE PRINCE SYSTEM

Lake 

Burnt 

Mills

estern Branch Reservoir 

(proposed)

EXPLANATION

Treatment plant

a, 37th St.

b, Moores Bridges

X

River intake

Areas served by Norfolk 

water system

Norfolk city boundary

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 65. Water supplies and areas served by Norfolk, Va., water system. (Approved by local municipal water officials, 

February 1963.) List of areas served: 1, South Norfolk; 2, Euclid; 3, Rosemont; 4, London Bridge; 5, U.S. Naval Reservation; 

6, Oceana; 7, Virginia Beach; 8, Fort Story; 9, Dam Neck Mills (Coast Guard Station). Lake Smith System: A, Little 

Creek; B, Lake Whitehurst; C, Lake Smith; D, Lake Lawson; E, Lake Wright; F, Lake Taylor; G, North Landing Lake.

00
350 VIRGINIA

RICHMOND

(See fig. 66.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Richmond, 220,000; about 83,000 outside the city limits;

total, 303,000.

Source of supply: James River. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 31.1 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: Douglasdale Road filtration plant prechlorination, coagulation with

alum, sedimentation, addition of activated carbon, rapid sand filtration, postchlorination, ammoniation, adjustment of pH with lime, fluoridation, and

addition of copper sulfate.

Rated capacity of treatment plant: Douglasdale Road filtration plant, 66 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: 170 million gal. 

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 5.5.

Finished-water storage: 58 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 1.9.

Regular determinations at Douglasdale Road filtration plant, July 1959-June 1960:

Eaw water ____

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg^

41 

32

Max

66 

50

Min

19 

14

pH

Avg

7.1

8.7

Max

7.4 

9.1

Min

6.8

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

59

Max

65

Min

54

Turbidity

Avg

44 

.1

Max

274 

.1

Min

10 

.1
RICHMOND 351

Areas served by Richmond water system 

Richmond city boundary

Kanawha Canal

Douglasdale Road filtration plant

o

Settling basin

o 

Storage reservoir

S

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 66. Water supplies and areas served by Richmond, Va., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, February 1963.) Areas served by Richmond water 

system: 1, Contract area 1 (intermittently served); 2, Contract area A (HenricoCo. 

Sanitary District A); 3, Contract area 8; 4, Contract area 5 (Brookland, Sanitary 

District B); 5, Contract area 2; 6, Contract area 10; 7, Contract area 9; 8, Contract area 

7; 9, Byrd Airport area.
352 VIRGINIA

Analytical data Richmond

James River

100 1-16-62

R

Douglasd

100 1-16--62

F

ale Road filtra

0)

F

tion plant

W

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (Si02) - _ - ___

Lithium (Li). __ __ 

Sulfate (SOO 

Chloride (Cl). _ _ ____

Nitrate (NOs). 

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) .. . ......

pH... . . .................

Color. ______ __ _______ ...... . ...

Turbidity 

9.5

.01

.01

.0

.0

12

2.5

3.1

1.0

.1

41

0

7.6

4.0

.0

.8

70

40

6

06

7.3

5

8.9

.01

.01

.3

.0

16

2.9

3.7

1.3

.0

36

0

18

8.2

1.1

1.1

85

54

25

124

8.3

2

6.5

.07

.31

.16

26

5.6

48

6

40

14

1.6

153

73

8.7

5

0

5.0

.04

.10

.10

16

2.0

27

3

24

10

1.0

79

49

8.7

1

0

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Uranium (U) .... ....

<6.0 

<-l

.2

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)

Cobalt (Co)........ .........................

Nickel (Ni)

Lead (Pb)__. .............................

Tin (Sn)______ _ .........

Titanium (Ti) ..............................

Zinc (Zn). ._.... .....

<0.10

140

11

26

ND

ND

<.10

200

15

.42

11

ND

<1.0

ND

1.6

<1.0

ND

18

<-3

ND

ND

1 Maximum value of constituents in quarterly composite of water analyses by the city of Richmond 

collected between July 1960 to June 1961.

2 Minimum value of constituents in quarterly composite of water analyses by the city of Richmond 

collected between July 1960 to June 1961.
WASHINGTON

Seattle Spokane Taecma

SEATTLE

(See fig. 67.)

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Kirkland, Houghton, Normandy Park, Tukwila, and 25

water districts.

Population served: Seattle, 557,087; total, about 734,739. 

Source of supply: Cedar River and Tolt River. 

Lowest mean discharge: Cedar River near Landsburg, Wash., for 30-day period

in climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1950-59: 102 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 103 ogd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Lake Youngs purification plant: Ammoniation at first plant and ctlorination

at second plant, 1,000 feet down pipeline from first plant.

Secondary chlorination at all reservoirs, tanks, and standpipes in area served.

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Lake Youngs purification plant, 279 mgd.

Raw-water storage: Chester Morris Lake and Lake Youngs, 4,761 rrillion gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in

mgd): 46.

Finished-water storage: 385 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used

in mgd): 3.7.

Regular determinations at Seattle Water Department Laboratory:

Raw water. __________ _ _

Finished water ___ ___ ___.

Alkalinity 

as CaCOa 

(ppm)

Avg

26 

19

Max

39 

22

Min

18 

16

pH

Avg

7.4 

7. 45

Max

7.6 

7.60

Min

7.0 

7.30

Firdness 

as CaCOa 

(ppm)

Avg

20 

19

Max

30 

22

Min

14 

16

NOTE. Raw-water analyses by U.S. Oeol. Survey, July 1959 to June 1960; finished-water analyses by 

city of Seattle, two samples taken Oct. 25,1960, and April 3,1961.
354 WASHINGTON

Analytical data Seattle

Percent of supply. ____ . ______

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished .....

100 10-18-61

R

Cedar River

fi>

F

(J)

F

Lake Youngs 

purification 

plant

100 7-24-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiOi).... ........ .

Iron (Fe)____ ______________ ...

Calcium (Ca)_- ____ ______

Sodium (Na). ..... _ .... ___ ..

Potassium (K) ______ . ............

Bicarbonate (HCO3 ) __ _____ ..

Sulfate (SO«) ... _. __ ...... _ .....

Chloride (Cl)__ _ . ..... _ ....

Fluoride (F)... ______________

Nitrate (NO3) ___ - _ _ ...

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C)_ . 

Hardness as CaC03 . __ _____

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs- __

Specific conductance (micromhos at 

25° C)-...... .....................

pH... ...... ......................

Temperature ___________ ° F 

9.5

.05

7.0

.3

1.9

.3

26

0

2.4

.5

.0

.2

40 

19

0

47

7.4

5

47

12

.22

11

1.3

1.8

.5

39

0

2.4

2.0

.2

.6

49 

30

2

73

7.6

5

54

9.3

.00

5.5

.0

1.3

.0

18

0

1.2

.5

.0

.0

27 

14

0

37

7.0

0

42

10

.OC

6.5

1.4

1.6

.1

27

0

1.8

1.2

.1

.1

41

22

0

54

7.5

0

66

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, less than]

Beta activity _______________

Radium (Ra). ______________

Uranium (U). ______________

1.5

<.l

<.l

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not fourd]

Silver (Ag).... .........................

Aluminum (Al)._ ......................

Barium (Ba) _______________

Cobalt (Co)... -. . . .........

Chromium (Cr) ____________

Iron (Fe)._____ _________ . . .....

Lithium (Li)...........................

Manganese (Mn)____ _________

Molybdenum (Mo). _________

Nickel (Ni).. _ .. __ ..... _ ......

Phosphorus (P) ___________

Lead (Pb).... ........... . ...

Rubidium (Rb) . . ___ ... __ .

Tin (Sn). .............. ....

Strontium (Sr). __ . ______ . ..

Titanium (Ti),. .....................

Vanadium (V). _______

Zinc (Zn)____ ...............

0.05

7.0

7.0

3.1

ND

ND

ND

1.1

9 fl

9 fi

ND

ND

ND

1.1

ND

9 fi

.5

ND

ND

<0.06

11

8.3

5.7

ND

ND

.21

25

18

<.06

4.5

<-18

1.1

ND

.8

<-6

ND

8.3

<-6

<1.8

ND

i Maximum value of constituents in monthly analyses by the city of Seattle between July 1959 and June 

lyso.

* Minimum value of constituents in monthly analyses by the city of Seattle between July 1959 and June 

1960*
SEATTLE 355

/ Lake

Sammamish 

X

4 MILES 

_i

Lake Youngs 

purification plant

u-j~^- L,nKJK i ounys 

EXPLANATION

Areas served by the 

Seattle water system

Seattle city boundary

Future connection to 

Tolt River pipeline

New construction financed 

by 1961 bond issue

Cedar River-Lake Youngs pipelines 

Existing pipeline route

Tolt River pipeline

S 

Water analysis sampling site

FIGURE 67. Water supplies and areas served by Seattle, Wash., water system. (Approved 

by local municipal water officials, February 1963.) Water districts: 1, Yarrow; 14, Bryn 

Mawr; 20, Park; 25, Duwamish; 35, Foster; 38, Riverton Heights; 42, North City; 43, 

Riverton Heights; 45, White Center; 49, Burien; 57, unnamed; 58, Spring Glen; 61, White 

Center; 63, Lake Ridge; 69, Skyway; 77, unnamed; 78, Cedar River; 79, Kenmore; 81, 

Rose Hill; 85, Seahurst; 88, Skyway; 93, Mercer Island; 99, unnamed; 102, unnamed; 

107, Factoria. Cities and towns: A, Kirkland; B, Houghton; C, Tukwila; D, Normandy 

Park.
356 WASHINGTON

SPOKANE

Owership: Municipal.

Population served: Spokane, 181,608; about 1,000 in minor housing developments

adjacent to the city; total, about 182,600. 

Sources and percentages of supply:

Well Electric Pumping Station: Two wells, depth 45 feet, diameter 45 feet,

dug 1921-25, 45 percent of supply. 

Parkwater Pumping Station: Eight wells, depth 140 feet, diameter 6 inches,

dug 1948, 32 percent of supply. 

The following stations furnish 23 percent of supply:

Ray Street Pumping Station: Two wells, depth 75 feet, diameter 20

feet. 

Hoffman Avenue Pumping Station: Two wells, depth 235 feet, diameter

5 feet. 

Grace Avenue Pumping Station: One well, depth 124 feet, diameter

20 feet.

Baxter Pumping Station: Two wells, depth 126 feet, diameter 2 feet. 

Nevada Street Pumping Station: One well, depth 122 feet, diameter

21 feet. 

Central Avenue Pumping Station: One well, depth 272 feet, diameter

9 feet. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 68 mgd (U.S. Public

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment: Water chlorinated at all pumping stations. 

Finished-water storage: 89.9 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): 1.3.
SPOKANE 357

Analytical data Spokane

Percent of supply _ ______ ___ _ ____ _

Depth of well (feet). _ _ _ _ __

Diameter of well (inches) ________ _______

Date drilled. _. __ ___ _ ___ _ .__

Date of collection __ _____ ____ ________

Type of water: F, finished _ . _ _ __ _

Parkwater well 5

32

145

72

1948 7-26-61

F

Electrfc well 2

45

45

1921

7-26-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO_)___ _ __ __ _ __ _

Iron (Fe)_. _____ _. ____ _ ....

Calcium (Ca)______ _ _____ ______

Magnesium (Mg) ________ ___________

Sodium (Na) ___ ________________ ____

Potassium (K) __ _ ____ ___________ _

Bicarbonate (HCOs). ____ ________

Carbonate (CO3)___ _________ _____ __

Sulfate (SO4)-_-- ________ ". .....

Chloride (Cl) __________________________

Fluoride (F)__ _ __ _ ___ _ _____ __

Nitrate (NO3) _ __ ._- ._ . ... __

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) __ __.

Hardness as CaCO3 __. __ _ _ _______

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOs_ ____

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C)_ 

pH___________________________________

Color_____ ___ __ _____ __ _ __ _

Temperature _____ ___ ________ __°F__

12

.00

33

16

2.8

1.8

166

0

15

1.5

. 1

4.3

162

150

14

292 

8. 0

0

48

12

.00

34

16

3.0

1.9

168

0

14

2. 0

. 1

4.6

162

150

13

294 

7.9

0

48

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, lew than]

Beta activity __ ____ ______ ____ __ ____

Radium (Ra) __ ______ _ ______

Uranium (U) ____ ___ ____ ___ __ ____

3.1

< 1

3. 7

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag). ___________________________

Aluminum (Al) _ __ ___ _ _ _________ _

Boron (B)_ _ ___ ____ _ _____

Barium (Ba)______ __ __ _ _ ______ __

Beryllium (Be) _ _ _ ____ ____ _______

Cobalt (Co) __ _____ ___ __ _ _ _

Chromium (Cr)__ ___ _________ _______

Copper (Cu) _______ ___ _ _ ____ ______

Iron (Fe)________ _ _______ __ _ _

Lithium (Li)__ ____________

Manganese (Mn) _______ __ _____ ___ _ Molybdenum (Mo) ______

Nickel (Ni)___ ______

Phosphorus (P) _____ _ _____ _______

Lead(Pb).__ ___ __ ___ _ __

Rubidium (Rb) ______ _____ __ __ _

Tin (Sn)_____ _

Strontium (Sr)_____ _ _____

Titanium (Ti) ___ __ _ _ __ _ _____

Vanadium (V)__ __________

Zinc (Zn)__ _ _ ___

0.26 

28 

13 

31 

ND 

ND 

.62 

1.9 

12 

1.3 

ND 

2. 1 

<2. 6 

ND 

<2. 6 

ND 

ND 

72 

<2. 6 

ND 

ND

0.53 

89 

25 

95 

ND 

ND 

9.5 

11 

15 

2.5 

<5. 3 

2.4 

<5. 3 

ND 

11 

<5. 3 

ND 

100 

ND 

ND 

ND
358 WASHINGTON

TACOMA

Ownership: Municipal.

Population served: Total, 165,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Green River impounded, 77 percent; wells,

23 percent (1960). Construction of Eagle Gorge Dam has resulted in the

increased use of ground water. After construction activity ceases and the

river quality returns to normal, about 94 percent of the supply will be obtained

from the river and about 6 percent from wells. 

Auxiliary and emergency supplies: Fourteen wells, ranging in depth from 74 to

788 feet; average yield from wells, 3,590 gpm. 

Lowest mean discharge: Green River near Palmer, Wash., for 3C-day period in

climatic water years (April 1-March 31) 1951-59: 67.2 mgd. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 48.2 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment: McMillan treatment plant chlorination and ammcniation. Well

9A plant has a chlorinator on it. Other wells are pumped into the well pipe

system, and the water is chlorinated before going into main?. All finished

water resources have secondary chloiination facilities. 

Rated capacity of treatment plant: 72 mgd. 

Raw-water storage: Eagle Gorge Dam will provide for public supply a minimum

river flow of 71 mgd.

Finished-water storage: Reservoirs, 310 million gal; standpipes, 2.5 million gal. 

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used,

in mgd): 6.5.

Regular determinations at McMillan plant:

Finished water. . .........

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppml

Avg

18

Max

26

Min

14

pH

Avg

7.2 

7.2

Max

7.5 

8.0

Min

6.9 

6.6

Hardness 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

15

Max

22

Min

11

Turbidity

Avg

6 

0

Max

78 

3.5

Min

0.3 

0

NOTE. Raw-water analyses by U.S. Geol. Survey, July 1959-July 1961, with exception of turbidity, 

which was determined by city of Tacoma, January 3-November 20,1961; finished-water analyses by Bennetts Chemical Laboratories, May 2-November 29, 1961.
TACOMA

Analytical data Tacoma

359

Percent of supply ____ ________ __ ____ _

Type of water: F, finished _ _ ____ _____

Treatment plant

1-4-62

F

Treatment plant

94

12-6-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2) ___ ... _____ ___ . _

Iron (Fe)_ ______ _____ _._ __ _ _

Magnesium (Mg) ________ ___ _ _ ____

Sodium (Na)__ __ ______ ______________

Potassium (K) ___ ______ ___________ _

Bicarbonate (HCO3) ... ------ __ _ ___

Sulfate (SO4)-_---_ -------------------

Chloride (Cl) ____________________ _ _ ___

Fluoride (F)_____ ___ ___ ____ _ ____ _

Nitrate (NO3)-_- - - __._ _ ____ ____

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C). __ _

Hardness at CaCOs _ _ _ __________ ___

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCO3 _ _____

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C)_ 

pH.______. .__.__ ______________________

Color-. _______-__--______-___-.--___._

Temperature __ ________ ______ _ °F_.

13

.04

5. 0

.8

2. 3

. 1

18

0

3. 8

2.8

. 1

. 3

41

16

0

47 

6. 9

5

41

13

.01

4. 5

. 9

2. 7

. 3

18

0

2.8

2. 8

. 1

. 3

40

14

0

43 

7.0

5

41

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per lite~]

Radium (Ra) _______ _ ____ ___ __

23 

.2 

. 2

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag)__ _____ ___ _________ _ __

Boron (B)___ _ _ __ __ ____ __ -----

Barium (Ba) __ ___ _______ _ _ _______

Beryllium (Be) __ _ -_.____ __ _____ _

Cobalt (Co)___. __---_-__-_-____._______

Iron (Fe) ___ _ __ _____ ______

Lithium (Li).__ _ ___ _________

Manganese (Mn)_ __ ________ _____ __

Molybdenum (Mo)____ __ ____ __ __ __

Nickel (Ni) ____________________________

Phosphorus (P) ____________ ____ __ ___

Lead (Pb) _____________________________

Tin (Sn)_.-____________. _________ __.

Strontium (Sr)_____ ___ _ ___ ___ _ ___

Titanium (Ti)________________ ___ __

Zinc (Zn)___ _ ________ _____

<0. 05 

20 

6. 4 

1. 7 

ND 

ND 

<. 05 

4. 7 

35 

<. 05 

4.5 

ND 

ND 

ND 

<. 5 

ND 

ND 

2. 6 

. 9 

<1. 5 

ND
WISCONSIN

Madison Milwaukee

MADISON

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Maple Bluff and Shorewood Hills; about 4,400 peoph outside 

of the city are served.

Population served: Madison, 126,706; total, about 135,000.

Sources and percentages of supply: Nineteen deep wells, four of which are chlorinated, fluoridated, and pumped as a group at the Main Pumping Station.

These four wells furnish, on the average, about 25 percent of the total supply. 

The remaining 15 wells are chlorinated, fluoridated, and pumped as individual 

units. These 15 wells are scattered throughout the city and pumped into the 

distribution system; each well supplies mainly its surrounding arer. Some 

wells are pumped only during periods of high demand, and some are not pumped 

during the winter.

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 17 mgd (U.S. Public 

Health Service, 1962c).

Treatment:

Main Station group plant (Main Station, Dayton Street, Low Service 

Reservoir, and East Well): Chlorination and fluoridation as a group. 

Individual wells: Chlorination and fluoridation at each individual v^ell.

Rated capacity of pumping stations: Main station group plant, 5 mgd; Unit Well 6 

plant, 3.2 mgd; Unit Well 11 plant, 3.2 mgd; Unit Well 12 plant, 3.9 mgd.

Raw-water storage: 3.3 million gal.

Days of raw-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, in 

mgd): Less than 1.

Finished-water storage: About 9.4 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily water used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Remarks: The quality of the water from the various wells varies considerably.

3C1
362 WISCONSIN

Analytical data Madison

Date drilled __ ________ __

Main Station 

wells

oc

7«M

8-1-61

F

Unit well 6

OK

751

24

1938 8-1-61

F

Unit weU 11

OK

7*9

1956 8-1-61

F

Unit well 12

oc

986

24

1957 8-1-6

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2)_... ...

Iron(Fe). - - 

Sodium (Na) ____________ ....

Potassium (K)-- _____ .- .

Sulfate (SO*)... . . _ .... ... .

Chloride (Cl). ...... . 

Nitrate (NOs) 

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) .....

Specific conductance (micromhos at 

25° C). ..............................

pH_.. ... _

10 

.26 

.04 

60 

33 

4.0 

1.2 

335 

0 

18 

4.0 

.8 

.1 

299 

285 

10

528 

7.6 

1 

54

14 

.07 

.02 

64 

36 

3.1 

1.3 

360 

0 

18 

4.0 

1.2 

3.6 

343 

308 

12

580 

7.6 

1 

52

12 

.07 

.04 

48 

39 

3.1 

1.3 

340 

0 

7.6 

2.0 

.8 

.7 

285 

281 

2

509

7.8 

0 

50

11 

.02 

.04 

60 

32 

2.2 

1.0 

335 

0 

10 

1.0 

1.0 

.2 

286 

281 

6

498 

7.6 

1 

52

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter]

Uranium (U). .........................

28 

1.0 

.5

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Aluminum (Al) __________ .. .

Boron (B) _ ______

Barium (Ba) ___ ______ ....

Beryllium (Be). ____ .. __ .. _ ..

Cobalt (Co)...... ......................

Chromium (Or)-... ____ . . ......

Iron(Fe). _ .. _. _.._____

Lithium (Li). .... ____________

Manganese (Mn) ___ ____ ..

Nickel (Ni).. .. .............. ..

Phosphorus (P) _________ .....

Lead (Pb). ............................

Rubidium (Rb)_._ . . _ .. __ . . .

Tin(Sn) _ ............

Strontium (Sr) .........

Titanium (Tl)_ ______ __ .. .... ..

Vanadium (V).-- --

Zinc (Zn). ........ __ ..... .

49

91

30

ND

ND

5.8

3

/>

QOA

.74

AQ

ND

8

e

ND

7.4

ND

NDAQ

ND

ND

ND
WISCONSIN

MILWAUKEE

363

Ownership: Municipal.

Other areas served: Fox Point, Shorewood, West Allis, West Milwaukee, and 

Whitefish Bay; about 114,895 other people outside the city limits are served. 

(Fox Point and Whitefish Bay will soon have their own water plants.) 

Population served: Milwaukee, 741,324; total, about 867,084. 

Source of supply: Lake Michigan: the intake is about 5 miles north of Milwaukee

Harbor. 

Average amount of water used daily in system during 1962: 143 mgd (U.S.

Public Health Service, 1962c). 

Treatment:

Linnwood Avenue purification plant: Prechlorination, coagulation with alum 

sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, postchlorination, ammonir tion, and 

fluoridation. 

Howard Avenue purification plant: A new plant having a capacity of about

100 mgd is being built at Howard Avenue. 

Rated capacity of treatment plants: Linnwood Avenue purification p'ant, 200

mgd.

Finished-water storage: 99 million gal.

Days of finished-water storage (storage, in million gal/average daily wrter used, 

in mgd): Less than 1.

Regular determinations at Linnwood Avenue purification plant, 1960:

Raw water

Finished water

Alkalinity 

as CaCOs 

(ppm)

Avg

108 

98

Max

120 

106

Min

101 

90

pH

Avg

8.1 

7.5

Max

8.7 

7.9

Min

7.6 

7.0

Hardness 

as CaCO3 

(ppm)

Avg

131 

131

Max

138 

138

Min

128 

128

Tvrbidity

Avg

3.7 

.0

Max

38 

.2

Min

0.1 

.0
364 WISCONSIN

Analytical data Milwaukee

Percent of supply_____ ____ ___________

Date of collection _ _ _ ____ _________

Type of water: R, raw; F, finished _ _ ___

Lake Michigan

100

8-2-61

R

Linnwood Avenue 

purification plant

100

8-2-61

F

Chemical analyses

[In parts per million]

Silica (SiO2)____-__-_-___-_____-___-___-

Iron (Fe) __ _____ _ _ _. ___ __ __

Manganese (Mn) _ ___ _____ ______ __

Calcium (Ca) __ ______ _ ___ __ ___ _

Sodium (Na) ______ ___ _____ ___

Potassium (K) ____ _ ______ ___ ______

Bicarbonate (HCOs)---- _ __ _ _____ __

Carbonate (CO 3) ___ __ ___ _ ___ _ ____

Sulfate (SO4) _ _ __~_ 

Chloride (Cl)-_____-__--_______________.

Fluoride (F) _ _ _ _______ ___ __ _ _

Nitrate (NO3)____--___-_-______________

Dissolved solids (residue at 180° C) _ _ _ _ _

Hardness as CaCOs ___ ____ ___ __ _ _

Noncarbonate hardness as CaCO3 _ __ ___

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C)_ 

pH_----__--___---___-_-__________-_-_

Color______ _ ____ _ _ __ ____ ___ _

Temperature _ _ ___________ ____ °F__

2. 1

04

.00

35

10

4. 1

1.0

134

0

19

6.5

. 1

.4 .

159

129

18

258 

8.0

1

68

1.2

.01

.00

35

10

4.1

1. 0

122

0

27

8.5

.7

.3

162

129

28

267 

7.2

1

68

Radiochemical analyses

[Beta activity and radium in picocuries per liter; uranium in micrograms per liter; <, l«ss than, 

beta activity data from U.S. Public Health Service, 1962]

Maximum

Maximum beta activity, raw water, July 1, 

1961, to June 30, 1962_ _ _ _ ____ ._ _

Radium (Ra) __ _______ _______

Uranium (IT) ______ ___ _____

12

2.9

< 1

<. 1

Spectrographic analyses

[In micrograms per liter. <, less than; ND, looked for but not found]

Silver (Ag) 

Aluminum (Al)___ ___ _ ________ __ __

Boron (B)_ __ _---_-_-_-. _ .__ __ _

Beryllium (Be) _________ ______

Cobalt (Co) _ .__--_____-_____________-

Chromium (Cr) __ . _________ _ _____

Copper (Cu) __ __ __ ____ ___ ___.

Iron (Fe)_ ._ _ _ _ _ __ ___ ______

Lithium (Li) _ __ _______ __ _____ _

Molybdenum (Mo) _______ ___ _ _ _____

Nickel (Ni) ____________________________

Phosphorus (P)__ _ _____ _ _____ __ _

Lead (Pb) _--___--___-__________-_____.

Rubidium (Rb)____-___________ ______ _

Tin (Sn)_______________________________

Strontium (Sr) _ ____________ _ ____ ___

Titanium (Ti) _ ___ ___ _ ____ _____

Vanadium (V) _ _ _ ______ _________

Zinc (Zn)__ _ ____ _ _ __ __. _

<0. 24

38

29

36

ND

ND

3.6

57

26

.43

2.4

1. 1

4.0

ND

26

ND

ND

81

<2.4

ND

ND

<0. 25

150

30

37

ND

ND

35

59

18

.89

2.7

1.3

2. 5

ND

4.0

ND

ND

100

<2. 5

ND

ND

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; I964-O-735-717