LIBRARY COPY Water Resource^ to "AT 

of Lee County, 

Mississippi

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1899-B

Prepared in cooperation with the 

Tombigbee River Valley Water 

Management District

WATER RESOURCE DIVISION 

REPORTS SECTION

Rituin to Em. 132 A1

Water Resource^ COPY 

of Lee County, 

Mississippi

By B. E. WASSON and F. H. THOMSON

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1899-B

Prepared in cooperation with the 

Tombigbee River Valley Water 

Management District

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1970
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

WALTER J. HICKEL, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

William T. Pecora, Director

Library of Congress Catalog-Card No. 70-607328

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

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 35 cents (paper cover)
CONTENTS

Page

Glossary--....__._______..__________ -_.____-____ v

Abstract________________________________________________________ Bl

Introduction----. _______________________________________________ 1

Purpose and scope.---.------------------------ _____________ 1

Previous investigations.________________________________________ 2

Description of county----_----------------____---_--------_-_------ 4

Cultural character______-___-_-___-___-_---_-_-_-_------_______ 4

Drainage and topography_-_-__-_____-_-____-_--_-_-_-___-_-____ 4

Climate._____________________________________________________ 4

Geology. ________._ __ _ _ 6

Water problems.__________________________________________________ 10

Ground water.__________________________________________________ 10

Occurrence.__________________________________________________ 10

Quantity. ________________ ______ _ -__. 11

Water use__________--_-___-_____-_-------------___-_-_-__ 11

Aquifer characteristics------------------------------------- 14

Well yields...._____________________-______ 19

Relation of well yields to aquifer characteristics-__________ 19

Relation of well yields to well construction.______________ 20

Relation of well yields to static water level.______________ 27

Water levels and movement__________--_-____-_---__--__--__ 27

Quality___________________________________ 28

Potential of aquifers______-___-_________------_------_-______-_ 42

Surface water.____________________________________________________ 44

Source of streamflow____----------------_----_--__----------__- 44

Quantity.____________________________________________________ 45

Duration and frequency of low flow..------------------------ 45

Average flow and reservoirs----_--_-_-_------_-__---_---_--- 48

Flood hazard.________-_____--- ___ . __ 51

Quality_____________________________.______ 53

Chemical.---_------_-_---_-_-__--_-_-_-----------__------ 53

Sediment.----____--___-_-_-----_-_----_--_-_------------- 57

Water management considerations.--------.------------------------- 57

Use of multiple aquifers___-_-_-_______-------------_--------__- 57

Artificial recharge of aquifers.---._____________________________ 58

Use of reservoirs--_-_-_____---__-----_-__-_-_---------_------- 58

Channel losses below reservoirs.-----.---------------------.----- 59

Summary and conclusions--------------.------------------.-------- 60

Selected references____________________-__-_-__---____---__._-__-- 62

in
IV CONTENTS

ILLUSTEATIONS

Page 

FIGURE 1. Map showing selected well locations in Lee County._________ B3

2. Map of Lee County showing location, topographic-map coverage, and major drainage._______________________________ 5

3. Bar graph showing monthly average precipitation at Tupelo_. 5

4. Bar graph showing monthly average air temperature at Tupelo_ 6

5. Geologic block diagram._________________________________ 7

6. Geohydrologic section [A-A'] north-south through Tupelo___ 8

7. Geohydrologic section[B-B'] east-west through Tupelo__-___ 9

8. Maps showing contours on the tops of the Coffee Sand, Eutaw

Formation, Gordo Formation, and Paleozoic rocks.._______ 12

9. Map showing amount of ground-water use________________ 16

10. Graph showing theoretical time-drawdown relation for aquifers. _____________________________________________ 20

11. Hydrograph showing water-level declines in selected wells____ 29

12. Maps showing water-level contours for the Coffee Sand, Eutaw

Formation, and the Gordo Formation in 1900 ____________ 30

13. Maps showing water-level contours for the Coffee Sand, Eutaw

Formation, and the Gordo Formation in 1967_____________ 32

14. Maps showing dissolved-solids content of water in the Coffee

Sand, Eutaw Formation, and Gordo Formation.__________ 40

15. Duration curves of daily flow for selected streams.__________ 46

16. Location map of gaging stations, potential reservoir sites, and

flood-profile sections._________-__-_---__---------_----- 47

17. Flood profile along Mud and Town Creeks.__-----------__- 52

18. Flood profile along Kings Creek___-_-______-_--_-----____- 52

19. Map showing specific conductance of streams under low-flow

conditions, June 4, 1968-____________-___---_----------- 56

TABLES

Page 

TABLE 1. Ground water use at Tupelo in 1967_______________________ B14

2. Aquifer tests in or near Lee County._____________________ 18

3. Well descriptions.________________________------_-----___ 21

4. Chemical analyses of water from wells.._____--_-----_-_-_-_ 34

5. Duration of flow at daily-record gaging stations in or near Lee

County__________________________________ 49

6. Magnitude and frequency of annual low flow at daily-record

gaging stations in or near Lee County_ _________________ 50

7. Available water at potential reservoir sites in Lee County.___ 50

8. Chemical analysis of water from streams-__________________ 54

9. Summary of water resources at selected locations.___________ 61
GLOSSARY

Aquiclude. Rocks that will not transmit water fast enough to furnish an 

appreciable supply for a well or spring.

Aquifer. Rocks that contain and transmit water and thus will yield water 

to wells;

Artesian water. Ground water that is under sufficient pressure to rise above 

the level at which it is encountered by a well does not necessarily rise to or 

above the surface of the ground.

Coefficient of permeability (field). The rate of flow of water, at the prevailing 

water temperature, in gallons per day, through a cross-sectional area of 

1 square foot under a hydraulic gradient of 100 percent. Obtained by dividing 

coefficient of transmissibility by aquifer thickness.

Coefficient of storage (of an aquifer). The volume of water released from 

or taken into storage per unit surface area of the aquifer per unit change in 

water level (a dimensionless decimal fraction).

Coefficient of transmissibility. The rate of flow of water, at the prevailing 

water temperature, in gallons per day, through a vertical strip of the aquifer 

1 foot wide extending the full saturated thickness of the aquifer under a 

hydraulic gradient of 100 percent.

Dip. The largest acute angle that a rock stratum makes with a horizontal 

plane. Its direction is at a right angle to the direction of strike of the bed.

Dissolved solids. The amount of residue on evaporation to dryness does not 

coincide completely with the amount of original material in solution, but the 

term "residue" is generally used synonymously with dissolved solids. Residue 

on evaporation includes organic matter and some water of crystallization. Few 

industrial processes can tolerate water containing more than 1,000 mg/1 

dissolved solids.

Drawdown. The lowering of the water table or artesian water level caused by 

pumping.

Evapotranspiration. The process which returns water as vapor to the air either 

through direct evaporation or through transpiration by vegetation; no attempt 

is made to distinguish between the two.

Fluoride (F). Most natural water contains a little fluoride. U.S. Public Health 

Service drinking water standards recommend that fluoride concentrations 

not exceed 1.0 mg/1 in areas that have average maximum daily temperatures 

in the range experienced at Tupelo. Fluoride in large amounts may cause 

mottling of children's teeth; however, water having about 1 mg/1 of fluoride 

may substantially reduce tooth decay in children who have used the water 

during calcification of their teeth.

Hardness. In the development of a water supply, hardness is one of the most 

important single factors to be considered. It is caused principally by the 

calcium and magnesium in solution and is generally reported as the 

calcium carbonate equivalent. Hardness is usually recognized in water by the 

increased quantity of soap required to make a permanent lather. Water having 

ia hardness of 60 mg/1 or less is soft; 61-120 mg/1 is moderately hard; and more 

than 120 mg/1 is hard.
VI GLOSSARY

Hydraulic gradient. The difference in elevation of the water level at two 

points divided by the distance between the points.

Hydrogen-ion concentration (pH). The pH is a measure of the activity of 

'hydrogen ions in solution. A pH of 7.0 indicates a neutral solution. Values 

progressively lower than 7.0 denote increasing acidity, and those above 7.0 

denote increasing alkalinity. As the pH increases, the corrosiveness of the 

water normally decreases, although excessively alkaline water may be corrosive to some metal surfaces. The pH has an important bearing on the utility 

of the water for many industrial purposes.

Hydrologic cycle. A convenient term to denote the circulation of water from 

the sea, through the atmosphere, to the land; and thence, with many delays 

and short circuital, back to the sea.

Infiltration. The movement of water through the soil surface into the ground.

Iron (Fe). Iron is dissolved from practically all rocks and soils, and nearly 

all natural water contains some iron. Water having a low pH tends to be 

corrosive and may dissolve iron in objectionable quantities from pipes. When 

iron-bearing water is exposed to air, iron precipitates and forms an insoluble 

hydrated oxide which causes reddish-brown stains on fixtures and on clothing 

washed in iron-bearing water. In large amounts, iron imparts a taste and makes 

water unsuitable for manufacture of food, paper, ice, and other products 

used in food processing. U.S. Public Health Service standards set a limit of 

0.3 mg/1 Fe and 0.05 mg]l Mn in water used for interstate carriers. Iron can 

be removed by aeration, precipitation, and filtration; by precipitation during 

removal of hardness; or by ion exchange.

Permeability. The ability of a rock or earth material to transmit water in 

response to head differences.

Piezometric surface. The surface that everywhere coincides with the level to 

which the water from a given artesian aquifer will rise in wells.

Recharge. The processes by which water is added to an aquifer.

Runoff (average annual, in inches). The depth to which the drainage area 

would be covered if all the runoff for an average year were uniformly distributed on it.

Specific capacity (of a well). The discharge expressed as rate of yield per 

unit of drawdown; in this report it means the gallons per minute per foot of 

drawdown at the end of one day of pumping. The specific capacity of a 100- 

percent efficient well can be calculated if the transmissibility and storage 

coefficient are known.

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25°C). Specific conductance is a measure 

of the ability of water to conduct an electric current, and it furnishes a rough 

measure of the mineral content of the water. It gives no indication of the 

relative quantities of the different constituents in solution, but is useful in 

estimating total mineral content of water. Dissolved-solids content of water 

in Lee County is usually 0.55-0.75 of the specific-conductance reading.

Strike. The direction of the line formed by the intersection of a rock surface 

with a horizontal plane.

Water table. The upper surface of the zone of saturation except where that 

surface is formed by an impermeable body.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED

STATES

WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY

MISSISSIPPI

By B. E. WASSON AND F. H. THOMSON

ABSTRACT

Lee County has sufficient water-supply potential to meet foreseeable needs. 

Many sites having favorable topographic and geologic conditions are available 

for surface reservoir construction. The mean annual runoff exceeds 1,000 acrefeet of water for each square mile of drainage area. Wisely managed, the water 

resources of the county can support further economic growth in the area.

Water use in the Tupelo area, near the center of the county, was about 7 mgd 

(million gallons per day) in 1967. This was supplied by withdrawals from the 

Eutaw and Gordo Formations, the area's two major aquifers. In recent years 

the increased use of water has caused water levels to decline 3-5 feet annually 

near the center of this heavy withdrawal area. Withdrawal of ground water in 

the Tupelo area could probably be doubled, but loss of artesian conditions would 

result.

There is limited potential for artificial recharge of aquifers in Lee County. In 

the northeastern part of the county, additional recharge to the Coffee Sand 

could be induced by constructing reservoirs in the outcrop area. Transfer of 

water from the Coffee Sand to the underlying Eutaw Formation is already 

occurring through the many open-hole wells in the area. The feasibility of constructing recharge wells in the Eutaw and Gordo aquifers in the vicinity of 

Tupelo should be further investigated.

The natural quality of the water in the streams and aquifers of Lee County 

is generally good, and the water is suitable for domestic, industrial, and 

agricultural uses.

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This report discusses the findings of a 2-year investigation of the 

water resources of Lee County, Miss., made by the U.S. Geological 

Survey in cooperation with the Tombigbee Eiver Valley Water ManBl
B2 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

agement District. All sources of water supply in the county were 

appraised in order to provide water users and water managers with 

the information needed by them to make sound decisions concerning 

their water supplies and the water resources of the area. The study 

was undertaken because the community leaders recognized the need to 

locate and plan for the development of additional water supplies to 

meet the future needs of the area. Particular emphasis was given to 

analyzing the quantity of ground water available in the Tupelo area, 

where use by municipal and industrial systems is already high and 

where water-level declines have been greatest (fig. 1).

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Several reports on the natural resources of Lee County and surrounding areas of northeastern Mississippi have been primarily concerned with geology. The geologic reports most applicable to Lee 

County are "The Upper Cretaceous Deposits" (Stephenson and Monroe, 1940); "General Geology of the Mississippi Embayment" (Cushing and others, 1964); "Prentiss County Geology" (Parks, 1960); 

and "Lee County Mineral Resources" (Vestal, 1946).

Reports in which ground-water hydrology in Lee County has received more than cursory treatment are "Ground Water Resources of 

Mississippi" (Stephenson and others, 1928); "Public and Industrial 

"Water Supplies in a Part of Northern Mississippi" (Lang and Boswell, 1960); "Cretaceous Aquifers of Northeastern Mississippi" (Boswell, 1963); and "Cretaceous Aquifers in the Mississippi Embayment" 

(Boswell and others, 1965). In a report, "Available "Water for Industry Clay, Lowndes, Monroe, and Oktibbeha Counties, Mississippi" 

("Wasson and others, 1965), on the area south of Lee County, emphasis 

was placed on the quantity of water available. The most recent groundwater report, "Memorandum on the Ground-Water Resources of the 

Natchez Trace Parkway Headquarters Area, Lee County, Mississippi" 

(Thomson, 1967), describes in detail the aquifers available at that site.

Three reports contain information on Lee County surface water. 

These are "Low-Flow Measurements at Selected Sites on Streams in 

Mississippi" (Skelton, 1961), "Low-Flow Characteristics, Tombigbee 

River Basin, Mississippi" (Golden, 1962), and "Low-Flow Characteristics of Streams in the Mississippi Embayment in Mississippi and 

Alabama" (Speer and others, 1964). Records of stream-gaging stations in and near Lee County are included in the U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper series "Surface-Water Supply of the United 

States."
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B3

R. 6 E. R. 7 E.

9B,30B,65-67,75,7653 

78A,B,C,CJ «

FIGURE 1. Selected well locations in Lee County. (Wells are 

numbered independently within lettered grids.)

380-726 O 7C
B4 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

DESCRIPTION OF COUNTY 

CULTURAL CHARACTER

The population of Lee County was 40,589 in 1960, and the population 

of Tupelo was 17,221. Tupelo (fig. 2) is the largest town in Lee County 

and bordering counties and has a large trade area. Practically all 

industry in Lee County Lee is one of the most industrialized counties 

in the northern part of Mississippi is located near Tupelo along two 

railroads which traverse the county north-south and northwest-southeast. Tupelo is the hub of both rail and highway transportation in 

the area.

Agriculture supplements the industrial economy of Lee County. A 

large acreage of row crops, principally cotton, soybeans, and corn, 

is grown mostly in the creek bottoms. Livestock raising is important 

throughout the county. Forest covers much of the eastern part of Lee 

County, but forestry contributes much less to the economy than either 

row crops or livestock.

DRAINAGE AND TOPOGRAPHY

Lee County is in the headwater area of the Mobile River basin. 

Approximately three-fourths of the county is drained through the 

West Fork of the Tombigbee River by tributary streams that include 

Town, Coonewah, and Chiwapa Creeks (fig. 2). The remainder of the 

county is drained by streams tributary to the Tombigbee River upstream from its junction with the West Fork Tombigbee River. These 

streams include Twentymile, Mantachie, and Boguegaba Creeks.

Streams in the county generally have broad flood plains, most of 

which have been cleared and are under cultivation. The stream channels have been straightened and widened to reduce flooding and to 

prevent stream meandering. Small streams in the sandy eastern part 

of the county have narrow, steep-sided wooded valleys.

Elevations in Lee County range from 200 feet along Town Creek 

at the southern boundary to slightly more than 500 feet on a few hilltops near the northeast corner of the county. Relief ranges from 

gentle to moderate. The greatest relief is in the sand hills in the 

northeast quarter of the county and along a ridge line that runs 

northwest from Shannon in the southern part of the county. Topographic maps of the county are available (fig. 2) with either 10-foot or 

20-foot contour intervals.

CLIMATE

The county has a humid, subtropical climate. Precipitation is heaviest during winter and spring and lightest in autumn (fig. 3). Snow 

is not uncommon, but usually melts within a day or two. Droughts
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B5

45' 88°30'

89° 00'

15'

TROY-SOUTHEAST SHANNON

FIGURE 2. Location, topographic-map coverage, and major drainage of

Lee County.

OT 7

UJ

uj O 6 

0 Z

MONTHLY AVERA

PRECIPITATION, IN 1

D M^OJ171 - 

?*.-. ::;': :

Average annual precipitation 52.8 inches

lM-.';^

.", ' '.' ! V. '. ..;'.

'] ''-: v"':/or'"v 

'^*^ '&*.

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC

FIGURE 3. Monthly average precipitation at Tupelo.
B6 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

of 2-week duration often occur during late summer and autumn. Humidity frequently is above 85 percent.

The average annual air temperature is about 17°C (Celsius) (63°F), 

but temperatures during a normal year fluctuate between 11 °C 

(12°F) and 38°C (100°F). Average monthly temperature (fig. 4) 

ranges from 6°C (44°F) to28°C (82°F).

GEOLOGY

Unconsolidated and semiconsolidated beds of clay, shale, chalk, silt, 

sand, and gravel of Cretaceous age underlie the land surface of Lee 

County to depths of 400-1,100 feet. Underlying these strata are shale, 

sandstone, and limestone of Paleozoic age. The irregular contact between the beds of Cretaceous age and those of Paleozoic age dips 25-50 

feet per mile to the southwest (figs. 5, 8). The Cretaceous beds dip 

25-40 feet per mile to the west. The relative positions, depths, and 

characters of the sediments are shown in two geohydrologic sections 

of the county (figs. 6, 7). The principal aquifers are the Coffee Sand, 

Eutaw Formation, and Gordo Formation.

30

ul 25

cc

D

cc

UJW

KO

< W 1R UjU 15

l«

PS- 10

1-

z

o

2 5

n

-

i

"Average annual

" air temperature.

ISO::1":'!

4£ <:. :x$

*i::iil 1131

-|

-

-

-

-

-

::.: : '^>::-vo::S:

pllJlll

-

'V':ff ;.: .' '. - £ 

F.i"..^ 1 '::'-^

85

80

uJ

ac

0

i7°£|

l|

K X

60 <*

UJ in

<UJ

Wy, 

> Ul

"1 =

1-

z

0

2

40

39

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC

FIGUBE 4. Monthly average air temperature at Tupelo.
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B7

\

s

I

S

w

tirf
B8 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B9
BIO CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

WATER PROBLEMS

The principal water problems in Lee County are (1) decline of 

ground-water levels in the vicinity of Tupelo and (2) a general lack 

of dry-weather streamflow.

Ground-water levels have declined more than 150 feet at Tupelo 

since 1900. The rate of decline has increased in recent years because 

of increased pumping from the Eutaw and Gordo Formations, the 

only aquifers available at Tupelo.

Without storage, no stream in the county provides a year-round 

dependable water supply. All streams cease flowing during extreme 

droughts.

Flooding has been a problem in some areas in Lee County in the 

past, but recently-developed flood-control measures have greatly reduced this hazard.

Objectionable concentrations of iron in water from the Gordo Formation and fluoride in water from the Coffee Sand are problems in 

certain parts of the county. Water from many wells in the county is 

hard.

GROUND WATER

OCCURRENCE

All ground water pumped in Lee County is from beds of sand or 

gravel in the Coffee Sand, Eutaw Formation, or Gordo Formation. 

Ground water in Lee County occurs in the voids between grains of 

sand or gravel in the Cretaceous Formations and possibly in cracks 

in the weathered top of the hard Paleozoic rocks.

The Coffee Sand crops out in the eastern part of Lee County and 

dips gently to the west (fig. 8). It is slightly more than 200 feet 

thick in the northwestern part of the county. In the northern part 

of the county, beds of fine- to medium-grained sand constitute 

more than half of the Coffee Sand, but southward the unit contains 

progressively more silt, clay, shale, and chalk. South of Tupelo, the 

Coffee Sand loses its identity within the Selma Group (figs. 5, 6).

The Eutaw Formation is 250-290 feet thick in the central and 

southern parts of the county, but as thin as 200 feet in the northwestern 

part. Beds of fine- to medium-grained sand commonly account for more 

than half the thickness of the formation. The upper part of the Eutaw 

(Tombigbee Sand Member) usually consists of glauconitic finegrained sand which includes layers of clay or shale in places. Sands 

in the middle part of the Eutaw generally are coarser and less glauconitic than those in the upper part. The lower part of the Eutaw 

(McShan Formation) commonly contains coarser sand than the upper 

units. Thin beds of pea-size gravel occur at the base of the Eutaw in 

many places.
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI Bll

The top of the Eutaw Formation is easily identified in most wells by 

drilling speed and drill cuttings; it is also easy to identify on electrical logs (figs. 6, 7). The Eutaw (fig. 8) dips about 30 feet per mile 

to the west. The Mooreville Chalk, an aquiclude, overlies the Eutaw. 

The basal sands of the Eutaw are, in places, in contact with sand 

and gravel of the underlying Gordo Formation.

The Gordo Formation is about 300 feet thick along the south edge 

of the county but thins rapidly to the north; at Tupelo, it is about 

100 feet thick and in the northwestern part of the county it is only 

20-40 feet thick. The top of the Gordo usually consists of tough pink 

clay, which is an aquiclude between the Eutaw and Gordo aquifers. The 

aquifers in the Gordo may consist of coarse white sand but more often 

are chert gravel and sand. Gravel beds in the Gordo commonly compose more than half of the formation.

Few test holes have been drilled into the Paleozoic rocks in Lee 

County. Data indicate that the Paleozoic rocks underlying Lee County 

will not yield large quantities of water. Present information indicates 

that water in the Paleozoic rocks is highly mineralized, except that 

from the weathered zone just'beneath the Gordo Formation. Therefore, 

the top of the Paleozoic rocks may be considered the base of fresh water 

in Lee County (fig. 8).

Shallow alluvial deposits along some of the streams yield water by 

gravity drainage. These deposits contribute to base flow of streams, 

but they are too thin and narrow to be of importance as a source of 

water for wells.

QUANTITY

WATER USE

Total pumpage of ground water in Lee County is about 8 mgd (million gallons per day); all but about 1 mgd is used within 6 miles of 

Tupelo. Most early domestic water supplies in Lee County were from 

dug wells, springs, or cisterns. Ground-water levels in Lee County were 

generally unchanged until the first flowing wells were drilled about 

1870. By 1920, several hundred flowing wells had been constructed 

along the streams. Flowing and pumping rates have been changing 

constantly since the first deep wells were drilled. Heavy pumpage 

was started at Tupelo by the city, the U.S. Fish Hatchery, and the 

Tupelo Oil and Ice Co. after 1900. Pumpage at Tupelo averaged about 

1 mgd from 1900 to 1920, 2 mgd from 1920 to 1940, 3 mgd from 1940 

to 1950, 4 mgd from 1950 to 1960, 5.5 mgd from 1960 to 1965, and 7 

mgd in 1967. In 1967, the city of Tupelo pumped about 2 mgd from 

the Eutaw and 1 mgd from the Gordo. Industrial pumpage in Tupelo 

was 2.6 mgd from the Eutaw and 1.2 mgd from the Gordo (table 1).

380-726 0 70 3
B12 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

i- - en

"I

i- - en
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI Bl'3

oil*

Ml3

1

te 

! f

\* l

\ o

1Til

inl 

rrl

i r^ </i 

OOt'-

_o 

§ 

WO

 ooz-

 ooe1

 o 

j°

1

00 / - £ 1 

f- 

____ 

i - L. *

^ ^

20

£

^

1

a

So

b *Q

==?-

il

S5<J

\

 iH-

 § i--

CQ

1

f w f* \ O &
B14 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES 

TABLE 1. Ground-water use, in millions of gallons per day, at Tupelo in 1967

Pumpage by use Pumpage by source

Owner and well Industrial pui 

Municipal (self- Eutaw Gordo 

supplied)

City of Tupelo:

Q13 (West Main St.) .......... ....

H19 (Court St.)... .............

H28 (Lake St., East Tupelo) . . . 

H39 (North B roadway) .........

H40 (North Church)...........

H42 (Front St.)... .............

L2 (Elizabeth St.)..............

L4 (Warrior Trail). .............

L19 (Eason Blvd.)..............

Subtotal......................

Carnation Milk Co., H23-... ..........

Tupelo Oil and Ice Co., H27... ..........

Mid-South Packers, Inc., H29b, H30b, H65-67.. ..........................

Purnell's Pride, Inc., H72-74. .____.____

U.S. Fish Hatchery, L12, L101. .........

Pennsylvania Tire Co., L20, L21. .......

Subtotal...........................

Total.........................

0.5 .....

.1 .....

.1 .....

.5 .....

.5 .....

.1 .....

.2 .....

.5 .....

.5 .....

3.0 .....

3.0

......... 0.5 ....

......... .1 ....

......... .1 ....

... ... '.3

......... .5....

......... .2 ....

.. ...... '.3

......... 2.0

0.2 .2 ....

.2 .2 ....

1. 5 1. 3 

.5 .5....

.4 .4....

1.0 ..............

3. 8 2. 6

3. 8 4. 6

10.2

.1

1.2 

.5

1.0

.2

1.0

1.2

2.2

'otal 

tnpage

0.5

.1 

.1 

.5 

.5 

.1 

.2 

.5 

.5

3.0

.2 

.2

1.5 

.5 

.4 

1.0

3.8

6.8

i Estimate.

The Tupelo-Lee Industrial Park south of Verona, which started 

operations in 1962, is the second largest water-using locality in Lee 

County, but in 1967 the average use was only 0.22 mgd. Three wells 

having a total pumping capacity of about 2 mgd are screened in the 

lower part of the Eutaw. During 1967, pumpage at the park nearly 

doubled that of 1966, and water use probably will continue to increase 

for several years.

There are several small public water supplies in and near Lee 

County (fig. 9). Baldwyn (0.16 mgd) and Nettleton (0.09 mgd) are 

the largest of these water users; combined water use of the remaining 

public and industrial water facilities is about 0.3 mgd. Most public 

water supplies outside Tupelo obtain water from the Eutaw 

Formation.

Rural water use, mostly for domestic purposes and livestock, is 

estimated to be 1 mgd and is obtained from the Eutaw Formation and 

the Coffee Sand. This use is rather uniformly distributed over the 

county. Several rural public water-supply systems are being built and 

will replace many of the domestic water wells. The new public watersupply systems will centralize pumping at fewer wells, but may not 

substantially increase pumpage.

AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS

The coefficients of transmissibility and storage must be known to 

appraise the potential of an aquifer to yield water to a well, to a well
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISISIPPI B15

field, or to a group of well fields. (See Glossary for definitions of technical terms.) Simply stated, transmissibility is a measure of the ease 

with which water moves through a vertical section of an aquifer, and 

the storage coefficient is a measure of the volume of water taken from 

or added to storage in a column of the aquifer in response to waterlevel changes. Coefficients of transmissibility and storage can be calculated from measurements of water-level changes accompanying 

pumping of wells. Aquifer coefficients calculated in this manner theoretically reflect the hydraulic conditions in a large sample of the 

aquifer. Hence, transmissibility divided by aquifer thickness normally 

gives a reliable appraisal of an aquifer's coefficient of permeability.

The coefficient of permeability of an aquifer can also be estimated 

from the coarseness of the sand in drill cuttings, the resistance on electrical logs, and the results of pumping tests of the aquifer at other 

places. If the thickness of the aquifer is known and the coefficient of 

permeability can be estimated, the coefficient of transmissibility can 

be approximated. Transmissibility can be used to predict the performance of wells and the capacity of an aquifer to transmit water 

from areas of recharge to areas of discharge.

Thirty pumping tests made in or near Lee County (table 2) and 

other tests made in the counties to the south (Wasson and others, 1965) 

permit an appraisal of the potential of the aquifers to transmit and 

store water. Transmissibility values were determined for each test, but 

coefficients of storage were determined at only a few sites where suitable observation wells were available. All the aquifers tested were 

artesian. Coefficients of storage for tests in the area average about 

0.0002, which is indicative of artesian conditions. Coefficients of storage of water-table aquifers theoretically may be as high as 0.3.

For the 20 aquifer tests made in the Eutaw Formation, transmissibility values ranged from 1,500 to 17,000 gpd (gallons per day) per 

foot and averaged 8,000 gpd per foot. The coefficient of permeability 

for these tests ranged from 33 to 120 gpd per square foot and averaged 

80 gpd per square foot. Average coefficient of permeability values for 

tests made in a five-county area south of Lee County was about 100 

gpd per square foot for the Eutaw. Geologic correlations and aquifer 

testing indicate that the Eutaw is relatively uniform in thickness and 

composition in Lee County and surrounding areas. Only one of the 

20 wells used in the Eutaw tests was screened throughout the full 

thickness of the water-bearing sand, and the aquifer test using this well 

gave the highest transmissibility value of any of the tests. Several of 

the wells were open (not cased or screened) through 40-60 feet of the 

water-bearing sands, and transmissibility in these beds of sand ranged 

from 1,500 to 6,000 gpd per foot. Transmissibility of the full thickness probably ranges from 8,000 to 20,000 and averages 15,000 gpd 

per foot.
B16 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

R. 6 E.

N

R. 5 E

FIGURE 9. Ground-water use.
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B17

EXPLANATION

Ground-water use, in millions 

of gallons per day

0.1-0.5

0.01-0.1

o

New water system 

(not in operation in 1967)

FIGTJEE 9. Continued
B18 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

TABLE 2. Aquifer tests in or near Lee County

Well Owner

Produc- Specific Trans- PermeaAquifer tion of capacity missi- bility CoefflAquifer thickness well (gpm per bility (gpd per cient of

(ft) (gpm) ft at 24 (gpd per sq ft) storage

hrs) ft)

Lee County

A22a 

A22b 

B22 

G12 

H19

H33 

H39

H41 

H41a 

H42

H78a 

H78b 

H78c 

H79 

H80

L2 

L4

L18 

L19 

L21 

L41

N16 

014 

015 

028 

054

056

Cedar Hill Water Association. 

.....do.......................

City of Tupelo (Joyner Ave). 

City of Tupelo (old water .

plant). 

Natchez Trace Parkway. .-.. 

City of Tupelo (North 

Broadway) . 

Natchez Trace Parkway. ...

City of Tupelo (at new 

reservoir). 

Auburn Water Association. . 

.....do............. ........... 

.....do............. ..........

tion.

St.). 

City of Tupelo (South 

Green St.)

City of Tupelo (Eason St.).. 

Pennsylvania Tire Co. ......

Tupelo-Lee Industrial Park 

(north well) .

.....do.......................

(south well).

Gordo .. 

Eutaw. . 

Gordo .. 

Eutaw. . 

..do. .

..do..... EutawGordo. 

Gordo 

Eutaw. .

Gordo ...

Eutaw. . 

 do.....

Eutaw. . 

..do.....

..do.....

EutawGordo. 

Eutaw. . 

Gordo ... 

..do.....

Eutaw. . 

..do.....

Eutaw. . 

..do.....

...do.....

..do.. 

18 

40 

70 

140 

135

100 

140

80 

100 

60

100 

44 

39 

150 

90

190 

158

60 

60 

40 

107

90 

50+ 

75 

120 

100

40

24 

18 

225 

700 

235

34 

500

10 

100 

360

16 

13 

12 

24 

235

330 

630

10

515 

726 

585

9 

83 

253 

150

585

9

6 

.6 

5 

5.3 

5

1.7 

6.2

2.2 

2.4 

1.5

2.2 

.7 

.5 

1.5 

3.6

6.2 

17

1.5 

15 

5.1 

3.8

3

18 

2.3 

2.9 

4.4

.8

17,000 

4,000 

7,000 

12,000 

9,000

8,000 

16,000

6,300 

8,000 

5,000

5,000 

1,500 

1,000 

5,000 

9,000

17,000 

35,000

4,000 

35,000 

19,000 

11,000

7,000 

180,000 

6,000 

8,000 

11,000

2,000

1,000 ..........

100 ..........

100 ..........

85 ..........

70 0. 0004 

80 ..........

110 ..........

80 ..........

80 ..--.---

83 ..........

50 ..........

34 ..........

26 ..........

33 ..........

100 ..........

90 ..........

220 ..........

70 ..........

580 ..........

500 . 00003 

100 ..........

80 ..........

3,600 ..........

80 ..........

65 ..........

110 ..........

50 ..........

Itawamba County

G35 Dorsey Water Association... Eutaw.. 100 170 3. 9 10, 000 100

Prentiss County

J22 Town of Baldwyn...____Eutaw. 

J68 .....do _..---_-__....___......do....

50

80

300

236

3 

3.7

6,000

10,000

120

120

The Gordo Formation has a much wider range of transmissibility 

and permeability than the Eutaw Formation. Seven tests of wells 

screened in the Gordo ranged in transmissibility from 1,000 to 180,000 

gpd per foot. The 180,000 value was in the southern part of the county 

at Nettleton, where the formation is thickest. The other six tests were 

in the central and northern parts of the county and had an average 

transmissibility of 14,000 gpd per foot; the highest of these six transmissibilities was 35,000 gpd per foot. Transmissibility of the Gordo 

Formation probably ranges from 1,000 to 50,000 gpd per foot in the 

central and northern parts of Lee County and from 20,000 to 300,000 

gpd per foot in the southern third of the county.
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B19

No aquifer tests were made in the alluvial deposits along the streams, 

in the Coffee Sand, or in the Paleozoic rocks. The alluvial sediments 

are rather permeable at places but are not thick enough to be of importance as aquifers. The upper part of the Paleozoic rocks may be 

sufficiently permeable because of weathering, fractures, or character 

of the sedimentary rocks to yield small quantities of water to wells. 

The Coffee Sand is extensively used for domestic water supplies, but 

no large-capacity wells tap this aquifer system in Lee County. In the 

northern part of the county, beds of sand in the Coffee Sand may have 

an aggregate thickness of 100 feet, and permeability probably is as 

high as 100 gpd per square foot in beds of coarser sand. Southward, 

the beds become thinner and the sand finer, and south of Tupelo the 

permeability is so low that it is not possible to construct a domestic 

well in the aquifer.

WELL YIELDS

RELATION OF WELL YIELDS TO AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS

The coefficients of transmissibility and storage and the rate of discharge determine the water-level change caused by pumping a particular well. The effect of pumping is greatest in the pumped well, and 

the water-level decline is progressively less with increasing distance 

from it. Water-level decline increases with time, but at an everdecreasing rate.

A graph that relates drawdown effects to time, distance, and discharge for selected aquifer characteristics (fig. 10) is useful in planning pumping rates and well spacing. This graph is applicable to 

aquifers in the area; however, it should be used with caution, because 

all the limiting conditions set out for the theoretical model are seldom 

met (Wenzel, 1942).

If the transmissibility value for an artesian aquifer is divided by 

2,000, it provides an approximate value for the specific capacity to be 

expected of a fully efficient 12-inch-diameter well that penetrates the 

entire aquifer. Production of the well, in gallons per minute, divided 

by the theoretical specific capacity, in gallons per minute per foot of 

drawdown, gives the drawdown to be expected. The drawdown in a 

less than fully efficient well will be greater.

Based on aquifer transmissibility, the specific capacities of fully 

penetrating and properly-completed wells in the Eutaw would average about 7 gpm (gallons per minute) per foot of drawdown; specific 

capacities of wells in the Gordo would range from 0.5 to 25 in the 

central and northern parts of the county and would be as much as 

150 gpm per foot of drawdown on the south edge of Lee County.

380-726 O 70 1
B20 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

Pumping rate is 1,000 gpm. For

other rates the drawdown will

be proportional

Solid line represents drawdown 

at a distance of 500 feet; dashed

line, at 1,000 feet from pumped

well 

ris coefficient of transmissibility

in gpd per foot 

Coefficient of storage is assumed

to be 0.0001

I I I I I I I I

100 

TIME. IN DAYS

1000 3650

FIGTJBE 10. Theoretical time-drawdown relation for aquifers.

RELATION OF WELL YIELDS TO WELL CONSTRUCTION

Construction factors which affect well yield are diameter, length, 

size of openings, and percentage of open area of screen; diameter 

and length of casing; pump and motor capacity; pumping head; 

and development (washing) of aquifer next to screen (table 3). In an 

efficient well, the water flows freely from the aquifer to the inside of 

the well screen with little pressure drop. The correct screen and proper 

development insure an efficient well. The larger the diameter of the 

screen and the higher the percentage of aquifer screened, the higher 

the specific capacity of the well. Measuring the specific capacity is a 

better way of judging a well than measuring yield only. Specific capacities of several typical wells in Lee County may be found in table 

2, and theoretically possible specific capacities at several localities are 

given in table 9. Many wells in the county are fully efficient observed 

specific capacities equal the theoretically possible specific capacities.

The open-hole domestic wells common in Lee County usually are 

efficient, because there is no screen entrance loss. These open-hole wells 

are inexpensive, but they have disadvantages. Sand is sometimes 

drawn into the pump if the pumping rate is high, and the open sections may collapse and block off deeper water-bearing sand.
TABLE 3. Well descriptions

Well: See figure 1 for location of wells.

Elevation of land-surface datum: Altitude of land-surface datum at well, in feet

above mean sea level, interpolated from topographic maps. 

Well depth: All depths measured from land-surface datum depth of most wells was

reported by driller.

Well finish: O, o

Aquifer: CS, C

iijiddle part of 

and Gordo Fo

Water use: D, d

TT G! n £!

Well Owner (yr) of land depth depth 

surface (ft) (ft)

Wall

finish di

A5

A6

All

A16

A19

A21

A22a

A22b

Bll

B12

B19

B20

B21

B22

B23

B24

B28

B30

B33

B42

B43

Cl

C5

C12

C13

CIS

J. E. McGee. ..-..-...--....--..

O. B. Cartwright. . _ 

Gordon Robison. __ ....

.....do......... ...................

Hickey Randle _ ...............

--..-do..----------...--..-...--..

Cedar Hill Water Association .....

- .do.... 

Town of Guntown. ___ ... ....

----do.....----.-.. ........

Sportsman Club. __ . __ .. ....

Mrs. Weatherford ___ ....

Town of Guntown. ....

.... .do....... 

Murl Murphy. ---....-. _ --.....

Milton Messines- _---- - . 

Sportsman Club. __ .....

Mrs. L. J. Henry..... _ __. . 

C. C. Seay.----- ~ - 

Hurley Mnlone... ._____.___..____

Mrs. TomMauldin ____ . .....

V. M. Willie.. ....... ....

F. W. Roper-........... ......

Marcus Hassell ...................

Douglas Grissom...... __ ......

Zeke Childeus. ........... .....

.. 1948

- 1916

- 1949

.- 1962

.. 1936

.. 1967

 1967

.. 1909

.. 1945

.. 1961

.. 1960

- 1962

- 1965

.. 1962

.. 1960

- 1967

-. 1965

.. 1961

-. 1962

.. 1967

- 1942

- 1910

.. 1957

.. 1953

.. 1962

410

380

360

365

400

400

400

400

400

400

410

410

390

405

385

385

445

350

420

455

348

360

310

340

330

350

739

400 ....

525

200

650

99

669

572

400

500

420

411

520

591

200

189

420 ....

200 ....

460

429

278

360 ....

175 ....

240

247

260

335

280

21

400

21

649

552

60

250

390

134

289

526

40

44

197

212

42

52

22

46

0

0

O

O

O

O

p

p

0

O

s

O

s

s

0

O

s

0

0

O

0

0

0

0

O

O
TABLE 3. Well descriptions Contin

TT C! d Q

Well Owner 

No.

C19

D14

D16

D17

D18

D19

E4

E12

E14

E15

E21

E22

E27

F5

F6

F8

G5

G12

G13

G14

G15

G16

G20

G22

G23

G24

G26

G28

H9

M. L. Williams........ ......

D. W. Brace. ...............

J. E. Montgomery- . . ... 

Hermon Irvin __ __ .. ....

J. B. Hankings ___ ........

J. M. Long.. ___ ..........

Marley Long _ ___ ......

L. Q. Conlee __ .. .....

Town of Saltillo ............

J. W. Spicer.. __ ...... .....

V. C. Rogers ...... .......

Charles Brazer ______ ..

Bill Cherry. ................

C. Thompson ...............

Robert R. Posey ............

Tommy H. Rogers.. ........

N. J. Altom... ............. .

City of Tupelo.. ............

 .-do ... -.....

R. D. Brookshire... .......

M. T. Adams.... __ ... ....

S.Sheffield.... . __ .......

Alvin Vinson. ...............

Jack Warren .............

GusMoran.-.-. _ .. .......

Claude Duke. ....... ...... .

Red Scott...---.-.--.-.. _ .

Silas Cockran. _______ .

Pierce Grocery ......... ....

(yr) of land depth depth 

surface (ft) (ft)

....... 1966

....... 1906

....... 1963

....... 1963

....... 1963

....... 1961

....... 1939

....... 1909

....... 1963

....... 1960

....... 1963

....... 1963

....... 1961

....... 1966

 . 1967

....... 1967

....... 1905

....... 1964

....... 1949

....... 1909

....... 1902

....... 1960

....... 1961

....... 1962

....... 1962

..- 1959

----- 1962

....... 1961

. ... 1947

465

345

342

335

360

310

305

320

320

370

485

305

325

345

345

400

340

310

270

340

390

340

320

330

340

345

345

335

280

440

305

240

200

520

460

525 ....

400

643

560

440

380

460

220

216

280

147

556

643

159

310

580

200

550

621

620

200

500

335

181

100

22

30

40

191

30

472

200

147

202

208

22

21

42

20

450

463

20

30

560

22

235

21

30

20

162

69

Well

finish

O

0

0

0

O

0

O

O

S

0

o

0

o

0

0

0

o

S

S

o

S

S

o

o

0

0

0

0

o

diam

(
H10 

H15 

H19

H21 

H22 

H23 

H26

H27

H28

H29b

H30b

H33

H34

H35

H37

H39

H40

H41

H41a

H42

H44

H45 

H46

H47 

H50 H52 H53 H55 H59 H61 H62 

g64 

§65 H66 H67 

H69 

H70 

H72

Barber Milk Co.---------------------------

Blue Bell Manufacturing..-..---.-. 1966 

City of Tupelo-..--------------- 1919

_do_

.do1935

1945

Carnation Milk Co.- ------------- 1927

Tupelo Oil & Ice Co-.-.- ------ 1903

.....do- . - - 1926

City of Tupelo.------------- 1939

Mid-South Packing Co. -------- 1965

-..--do .------------------- 19f6

Natchez Trace Parkway ----------- 1966

-do- 1935

.do.

International Minerals Co.. ------ 1959

City of Tupelo.-----.------ 1961

---.do 1963

Natchez Tra ce Parkway..... 1966

.--do-...----.....-.-.------ .. 1966

City of Tupelo-------------------- 1P66

WTWVT.V., Inc.. 1962

James Newcomb________-- 1964

Charles Leslie--.-...------------ 1962

DougBuchanon.......-----...---- 1960

Tom Llewellyn. _.................. 1935

Bill Watts........ . .. 1963

Walter Duncan._ ....... ... 1965

Charles Maxwell......_------. 1965

W. W. Sparks 1962

Glenn Farrar................___ 1965

Hurley Cofl... ... . 1966

Charles Mears...__________ 1962

Mid-South Packing Co.. ___ - 1959

 .-do- .. 1962

 do..-. 1965

F. L. Bobo-- . 1961

Howard Conway..________ 1962

Purnells Pride Co.-... ._.__ 1959

300

290

275

300

280

265

270

270

270

280

275

315

330

325

275

310

340

325

325

280

330

283

300

300

320

415

350

330

282

300

296

306

275

275

270

280

310

270

386

437

450

450

430

385

325

450

380

517

654

492

400

400

478

630

655

580

490

562

450

380

260

260

325

460

300

300

360

460

260

350

510

520

521

420

408

500

284

368

140

370

370

30

160

317

455

614

450

20

20

418

387

433

560

426

510

80

63

21

21

20

253

42

38

64

167

20

42

105

220

211

90

36

200
TABLE 3. Well descriptions Conti

U*fc>.(jr.o

Well

No.

H73

H74

H75

H76

H77

H78a

H78b

H78c

H78d

H79

H80

J7

J8

J13

J20

J24

J25

J26

J27

J30a

J31a

K2

K13

K24

.

K29

K30

K37

£39

K41

K44

K50

K54

Owner

Purnells Pride Co __ ___---_._ .

.....do. -

Tupelo Reduction Co___ .......

 .do. 

North Lee Water Association.

Auburn Community Water Association.

.-..do-..--- ....................

. ...do..... .........................

.....do ...........................

Lake Piomingo ...... ...........

North Lee Water Association _ ....

A. V. White... .................. ....

...-do..............................

Mooreville School- ---.... _ .... ...

J. E. Gray.. .......................

Hoyle Estes __ . ..................

Lelua White................. _ ...

James M. Cosysou......... __ ....

Leo Keith.. .......................

Lawrence Edward.......... __ ..

Mooreville Water Association.. .....

Wages Brothers.... ___ . _ ......

Town of Verona _ ....... _ .......

T. E. Yancy...... ........... _ ...

Barber Milk Co. ___ ...........

H. L. Denton...... __ ... ___ .

Lamar Metcalf . __ ...............

Ray Purnell. ____ . _____ ...

D. L. Collum ......................

Dennis Cayson __ _ ... _ .......

Wade Snipes.. ............ ___ ...

H. Davenport.. ...................

Drilled

(yr)

1960

1963

1961

1956

1967

1967

1967

1967

1967

1967

1967

1953

1960

1961

1967

1966

1962

1967

1967

1967

1960

1945

1966

1966

1960

1961

1962

1962

1965

1966

of land

surface

270

270

270

280

290

370

370

370

370

410

286

420

420

405

400

370

410

341

422

375

450

312

352

294

345

370

300

330

310

305

305

330

depth

(ft)

500

504

540

540

596

398

480

526

370

400

400

160 .

262

350

320

304

320

224

320

332

350

605 .

522

400

491

680

540

600

427

480

600

515

depth

(ft)

200

200

300

460

42

42

420

500

330

168

320

28

216

35

23

22

22

33

42

330

467

40

451

640

20

26

22

243

29

253

finish

P

P

P

S

O

o

o

P

S

0

S

o

o

S

o

o

o

0

0

0

S

0

S

0

S

S

o

o

0

o

0

o

dia
L2 City ofTupelo..... 1952 260

L4 - _.do 1959 285

L12 U.S. Fish Hatchery................ 1959 260

L13 Town of Verona.....-.-....--...-.- 1949 321

L15 R. S. Gibson.-...-..--.......---. 1910 310

L17 Town of Plantersville.....-....-.-. 1964 322

L18 Jim Williams...........-........ 1966 340

L19 City of Tupelo..................... 1966 276

L20 Pennsylvinia Tire Co....-...-....- 1966 267

L21 ... do 1967 263

L22 Tombigbee State Park......... _. 1965 390

L25 John Cody......................... 1961 285

L27 Roy Partlow - - -- 1962 348

L28 A. B.Webb 1962 360

L30 Raymond Sampler..........-.-...- 1963 315

L33 Z.B.Williams..-.-.......-..- ... 1962 293

L37 Clyde Foster....................... 1965 305

L38 Charles Paynn. .......... 1962 280

L39 P. P. Davis.....-.-.--.-..-------- 1965 305

L40 Carl Kelly..... 1967 370

L41 Tupelo-Lee Industrial Park....... 1966 270

L43 Joe F. Bell . 1967 325

1/44 R. A. Kitchins 1944 295

L101 U.S. Fish Hatchery................ 1927 262

M10 Minnie Presley------------ 1963 321

Mil H.R.Morgan.............- -.... 1965 351

M12 Stewart Young. ................. 1962 360

M13 M.R. Partlow.......- .......... 1966 345

N14 John Lyle ---------------- 1896 305

N15 Jack Ivey-------------. ------ 1966 280

N16 Tom Dupree---.-------------_-- 1967 257

N19 H.W.Thompson.... . 1962 282

N20 Terry Helms . 1962 320

N21 Russel Parker . .. -. 1963 278

N22 Lynn McCrary __........... 1963 300

N27 Leroy Sullivan.- . . 1961 325

N30 MitchellSisk....... ............ 1961 335

N32 .....do 1966 272

N33 Jack Ethridge ................. 1960 260

N34 Straw Harris....................... 1961 260

N35 Billy Harper....................... 1966 310

N39 Buddy Spencer_........_____ 1967 350

O5 J.R.Johnson... . .. 1920 277

O13 John Dickerson.................... 1954 265

470

567

406

470

425

450

375

541

669

643

420

308

300

400

360

300

320

280

280

397

478

326

200

412

110

380

300

240

500

414

420

420

460

420

500

515

480

440

370

360

500

458

325

200

320

368

326

444

30

360

42

461

380

215

30

89

42

21

22

42

24

86

387

37

412

32

48

33

20

42

22

24

22

31

23

22

23

18

21

23

17

40

35
TABLE 3. Well descriptions Contin

TT a a si

Well Owner 

No.

014

O15

O16

O20

O22

O23

O26

O27

O28

O29

O30

O32

033

034

O35

043

047

O50

054

O56

P6

P10

Pll

P12

P14

P15

P16

P18

P19

P20

P21

Town of Nettleton----...----...

-...do ...... ...................

B. G. Coggin.... __ ..........

Town of Nettleton-- ___ ......

Town of Shannon __ ....... __ . Lawrence Harmon... _ . ....

Tupelo-Lee Industrial Park __ .

J. H. Homan Sr _ _ _____ ..

Town of Shannon _____ .......

Canary McMaster. ___ ___ ...

Edd McDuffe... ....... ..........

Richard Trice ....... __ -....

Ralph Earrey ________ _ .

Frank Watts,,. __ . _____ .

E. C.Jackson __ ------- ...

John L. Tate ___ __ ____

R. Rutherford __ -------

J. E. Cauthen _---.. -- _

Tupelo-Lee Industrial Park ..

Clinton Edge.. .................

T. W. Dabbs --,

Edd P. Burgess...------..---.-.

Porter Sullivan..-. ... 

--..do .. ........-. .

Houston Edwards. . 

Billy Capps .- - .

Doyle Young. ------ ..- ..

Bobby G. Estes _________ . G. H. Way caster. -------- .-.-....

Edd Burgess ___ ... ... .. _ .

Eugene Sullivan... _ ... _ .

Woll rioein VUnll

(yr) of land depth depth 

surface (ft) (ft)

... 1956

... 1938

... 1903

... 1955

... 1958

... 1962

... 1963

... 1964

... 1966

... 1962

... 1962

... 1962

... 1965

... 1963

... 1966

... 1963

... 1962

 1966

 1967

... 1953

... 1956

... 1950

... 1961

... 1962

... 1962

... 1962

... 1963

... 1965

.. 1966

266

266

225

262

253

272

272

260

276

275

222

282

265

280

298

262

295

265

257

272

325

286

256

258

355

300

318

275

270

300

275

612

282 ....

200 ....

515

485

325

502

386

515

314 ....

160

320

340

340

240

320

320

300

446

320

210

280

140 ....

16 ....

220

206

140

180

180

200

200

587

20

340

23

416

15

410

20

33

21

30

36

21

25

25

364

23

21

20

24

65

38

42

26

24

36

finish

S

S

o

o

s

o

s

o

s

o

0

o

0

o

0

o

0

o

s

o

0

0

o

o

o

0

o

0

0

o

o

dia
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B27 

RELATION OF WELL YIELDS TO STATIC WATER LEVEL

Although aquifer characteristics, well construction, and well development determine the specific capacity of a well, the available 

drawdown limits the pumping rate. Available drawdown is the distance between the static, or nonpumping, water level and the pump 

setting. In 1967, water levels in the Eutaw and Gordo Formations were 

sufficiently high that in no well was the water level drawn down to 

the top of the aquifer. Available drawdown limits the pumping rate 

of a well in as much as specific capacity multiplied by drawdown 

equals yield.

WATER LEVELS AND MOVEMENT

Artesian water levels in Lee County have been dropping since the 

first flowing artesian wells were drilled about 1870 (fig.ll). In the 

southern half of Lee County, original water levels in the Gordo Formation were probably slightly higher than water levels in the Eutaw 

Formation. In the northern half of the county, water levels in the 

two formations were probably about the same. The piezometric surfaces 

of the Eutaw and the Gordo originally stood slightly above the flood 

plains of the principal streams. In 1900, before heavy pumping began, 

water levels in the Eutaw and the Gordo declined from northeast to 

southwest (fig. 12), and therefore water movement was in that direction. The southward movement of water in these formations was 

caused by the decrease in elevation of the outcrop (recharge area) to 

the south. Elevations of streams in the Eutaw outcrop are more than 

100 feet higher northeast of Lee County than southeast of the county. 

In the past, the Eutaw Formation discharged water to the West Fork 

Tombigbee River, which is incised into the Eutaw outcrop southeast 

of Nettleton.

The higher elevation of the Coffee Sand outcrop in the north also 

resulted in ground-water movement from north to south (fig. 12). 

The outcrop of the Coffee Sand immediately north and west of Tupelo 

discharges water to streams, rather than being recharged (figs. 12,13). 

Comparison of water levels for 1900 and for 1967 (figs. 12,13) shows 

that the greatest water-level decline has been in the Tupelo area where 

pumpage has been the heaviest. During recent years, water levels in 

Tupelo have declined at the rate of 3-5 feet annually. Water levels 

in both the Eutaw and Gordo Formations have declined about 150 

feet below original levels. In downtown Tupelo, the water levels are 

150-170 feet below land surface (60-80 feet above the top of the Eutaw 

Formation, fig. 6).

380-726 O 70 5
B28 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

Water levels in the Eutaw and Gordo Formations slope toward 

Tupelo from all points in the county (fig. 13); therefore, water is 

moving toward Tupelo from all points except possibly the southwest 

corner of the county where the piezometric surface is nearly flat. 

Water levels and water quality in the Gordo Formation southwest of 

Tupelo are poorly defined, owing to lack of data.

In the northern and central parts of the county, Eutaw and Gordo 

water levels are at about the same elevation, which suggests that the 

two aquifer systems are hydraulically connected or that they have 

similar recharge and pumpage histories, or both. The aquiclude separating the two formations may not be continuous, and leakage between 

them may occur as long as water levels differ. The steepest hydraulic 

gradients (Glossary) in both the Eutaw and Gordo are between the 

recharge area north and east of Tupelo and the discharge area at 

Tupelo.

In Lee County water levels are higher in the Coffee Sand than in the 

Eutaw Formation; this fact and water-quality data indicate that water 

from the Coffee Sand is moving downward to the Eutaw Formation 

through the open-hole wells. This differential may also cause downward vertical leakage through the relatively thin aquicludes in the 

northern part of the county. Leakage from the Coffee Sand to the 

Eutaw continues south as far as the Coffee Sand is sufficiently permeable to yield water to the many open-hole wells.

The Eutaw and Gordo Formations are separated by an aquiclude 

that is thicker and more continuous in the southern part than in the 

northern part of Lee County. Leakage from shallow to deeper sands 

in the Eutaw, through open-holes and otherwise, is probably significant in the southeastern part of Lee County but insignificant in the 

southwestern part.

In the southern part of Lee County (fig. 13), hydraulic gradients are 

much lower in the Gordo than in the Eutaw. The lower gradients are 

a result of much higher transmissibility of the Gordo in that area. If 

equal amounts of water were pumped from the Gordo at Nettleton and 

at Tupelo, the hydraulic gradient around Nettleton would be much 

less than that at Tupelo because of the higher transmissibility.

QUALITY

Practically all ground water in Lee County meets the chemical quality needs of most water users, with little or no treatment; however, 

the chemical quality of water in the various aquifers is different 

(table 4).
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B29

I I I

NI 'aovjyns QNVH Monaa ao 3Aoav -i3A3i
B30 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

:l__
R. 6 E. R. 7 E.

S.

T. 

9 

S.

T. 

10 

S.

>

T. 

11 

S.

T rLLj

7 

S.

!J

Belden

0

^/Tup.

L

^^

Baldwyn0 

Guntown

oSaltillo

\

\

~S Mooi

dp |

\ Plant* 

VeronaN^

y

Shannon 

o

Nettletoi^

i^>

I

j

iville

X

raville |

L

GORDO FORMATION 

FIGURE 12. Water-level contours for the Coffee Sand, Eutaw Form
B32 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

 

§

s

1

1

X

1

J_>fi 

I-1

Q 

Z 

<

0)

UJ 

UJ

u.

u
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B33
B34 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

TABLE 4. Chemical analyses

[Analyses by U.S. Geological Survey.

USGS 

well

A5

Afi

All

A Ifi

A99n

Bll

B12

B19 

B20

B21

TJOO

B23

B24

TJOO

 poo

B42 /~t-|

C5 019

C13

CIS

C19

D14

D16

D17

D18

D19

E4

E12

E14

E15

E22

E27

F5

G5

G12

G14

G15

G16

G20

G22

G23

G24

G26

G28

H10

H15

H19

H23

H26

H27

H28

H30b

H33

H39

H40

H41

H41a

H42

H44

H45

H46

H47

H60

H52

Well 

depth 

(ft)

739

400

525

200

fifio

400

500

420 

411

520

591

200

189

460

460

49Q

OCA

175

240

247

260

440

305

240

200

520

460

525

400

543

550

380

460

220

147

556

159

310

580

200

550

621

620

200

500

386

437

450

385

325

450

380

654

492

630

655

580

490

562

450

380

260

260

325

460

Date of 

collection

3-3-60

2-16-67

3- 3-60

2-16-67

2-16-67

9-18-67

7- 8-14

11-24-58

4-12-62 

2-14-67

2-15-67

2-15-67

2-14-67

2-15-67

2-14-67

2-16-67

3- 1-67

2-14-67

3- 2-60

2-14-67

2-14-67

2-16-67

2-16-67

2-17-67

2-16-67

2-16-67

2-16-67

2-16-67

2-14-67

4-23-14

3- 1-60

2-14-67

2-15-67

2-14-67

2-14-67

3- 2-67

9- 5-19

4- 3- 7

9-22-19

9-22-19

3- 1-67

2-17-67

3- 1-67

3- 1-67

3- 1-67

2-17-67

2-17-67

2-21-67

7-19-60

4- 1-20

5-21-51 

5-21-51 

2-17-67

3-29-67

4- 4-67

9-23-19

3-28-67

3-28-67

3-29-67

10-20-65

3-27-67

3-29-67

7-22-66

8-16-66

3-27-67

2-13-67

2-14-67

3- 1-67

3- 1-67

2-13-67

3-23-67

Silica 

(SiOj)

12

10

22

4.9

12

13

15

12

25

14

17

24

12

5.5

30

17 

16 

12

27

10

11

12

10

12

11

12

Iron

(Fe)

0.15

.15

.47

.38

2.6

.11

.17

.14

.7

.85

.7

.16

.23

.33

.5

.6

.21

.18

.4

.3

.6 

.25

.5

.32

.23

.54

1.5

.9

.37

.37

Manganese 

(Mn)

0.1

.1 

.1

Calcium 

(Ca)

51

42

51

27

30

37

20

34

9.4

36

16

11

14

35

30

29 

33 

30

30

38

39

32

40

36

37

10

Magnesium 

(Mg)

12

8.5

11

5.4

4.8

7.7

2.9

8.5

5.6

6.8

5.6

3.8

1.2

7.4

4.8

5.6 

5.2 

4.6

4.8

8.5

7.7

6.1

9.3

8.0

6.7

1.2

Sodium 

(Na)

62

25

28

20

18

35

44

27

36

46 

45 

40

75

41

47

83

134

86

40

Potassium 

(K)

5.5

2.9

4.3

3.2

3.7

4.4

5.0

3.2

3 9

4.6 

7.0 

4.4

5.8

3.8

4.8

5.3

3.4

5.8

3.2

Bicarbonate 

(HCOs)

156

142

108

141

254

164

138

134

128

116

114

131

202

123

243

243

89

128

121

122 

104 

123

107

130

132

126

146

137

119

104

Carbonate 

(CO.)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

25

0

0

9

0

0

0

0 

0 

0

7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B35

of water from, wells 

Constituents are in mg/1]

Sulfate

(S04)

162 

6.2 

19 

10 

.4

8.0

8.9 

6.6

38 

6.6 

39 

19

5.6 

7.8 

6.7 

8.1 

16 

4.8

.2 

5.8

4.6

4.2 

7.2 

.0

8.0

Chloride 

(Cl)

21 

25 

35 

38 

42 

54 

6.0 

7.5 

17 

18 

32 

36 

4.2 

3.6 

8.8

16 

20 

.0 

55 

20 

25 

18 

12 

8.4 

15

34 

44

27 

50 

19 

15 

60 

20 

22 

35

9.4 

13 

76 

13 

11 

38 

22 

51 

71 

82 

14 

33 

19 

62 

61 

65 

71 

61 

64 

74 

60 

72 

50 

137 

79 

119 

75 

149 

63 

151 

16 

12 

20 

- 19 

13 

- 52

Fluoride 

(F)

0.6 

1.2 

.4 

.3 

.4 

.1

.3 

.0 

.3 

.0 

.1 

.2 

.3 

.4

.4 

.1

.2 

.1 

.1 

.1 

.1 

.1 

1.7

1

q

.7 

.7 

.5 

.3

.3 

.2 

.1 

.1 

.1

.1

1.4

.2 

2.4 

.3 

.4 

.3 

2.8 

.3 

.2 

.0

.0 

.0 

.2 

.1 

.1

.1 

.1 

.4

.0 

.2 

.2 

.3 

.0 

.3 

.3 

.9

.1 

.1

2.4 

.2

Nitrate 

(N03)

0.8 

.0 

.8 

1.8 

.0

.1

.1

.9 

.1 

1.2 

1.0

.6 

.8 

.2 

1.2 

.5 

.1

.5 

.0

1.5 

.1 

.1

.2

1.6

Boron 

(B)

0.6

Dissolved 

solids

Residue 

at 

180° C

235

249

412

229 

272 

185 

162

192

220

153 

161 

236

324 

253

297 

280

123

247 

240 

230 

240 

221

940

344

271

246 

388 

234 

364

140

Calculated

401 

218 

265 

170 

155

190

156 

226

251 

302

294

127 

221 

238 

238 

246 

218

000

339

252

245 

373 

231 

357

142

Hardness as 

CaCOs

Calcium, magnesium

48 

62 

81 

82 

176 

140

90 

95 

74 

82 

124 

93 

83 

64 

75 

82 

125 

97 

104 

114 

118 

85 

30 

50

130 

60 

66 

103

64 

120 

64 

58 

84

98 

118

39 

60 

50

100 

80 

53 

42 

40 

105

95 

104 

94 

100 

99

105 

101 

130 

129 

125 

105 

138 

123 

120 

79 

40 

48 

55 

30 

68

Noncarbonate

87 

24

0 

0

14

0

13

17

0 

13

0 

19 

0

23 

21

2

11

22

0

Sodium 

ad- c 

sorption 

ratio

0.9

1.4

Specific 

sonductance (micromhos at 25° 

C)

424 

439 

363 

388 

650 

414

281 

294 

316 

263 

348 

255 

2,227 

308 

289 

276 

278 

243 

278 

313 

300 

263 

358 

333

628 

480 

321 

381

240 

423 

260 

258 

326

251 

467

337 

508 

378

482 

501 

503 

312 

221 

436

405 

429 

415 

421 

448

446 

379 

657 

492 

600 

457 

707 

435 

686 

270 

222 

232 

250 

233 

299

pH

8.2 

8.1 

8.2 

8.0 

7.0 

7.8

7.8 

7.2 

8.2 

7.8 

7.3 

7.5 

3.0 

8.2 

7.8 

8.1 

7.6 

8.2 

8.0 

7.9 

7.8 

8.0 

8.2 

8.2

7.8 

8.2 

8.2 

8.0

7.9 

7.3 

7.6 

8.3 

8.1

i . 5

7.2

8.3 

8.1

7.9

7.8 

8.0 

8.2 

8.4 

7.1 

7.5

7.6 

7.7 

7.5 

7.9 

7.9

8.0 

7.8 

7.2 

7.1 

7.9 

7.3 

7.0 

7.6 

7.1 

8.2 

7.9

Q 0

7.4

7.2 

8.0

Temperature (°F)

61

62

61

61

65

68

69

64
B36 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

TABLE 4. Chemical analyses of 

[Analyses by U.S. Geological Survey.

USGS 

well

H53

H55

H59

H61

H62

H64

H65

H67

H69

H70

H72

H73

H74

H78a

H78b

H78c

J7

J8

J13

J20

J25

J26

J27

J31a

K2

K13

K24

K29

K30

K37

K39

K41

K44

K50

K54

L4

L12

L13

L15

L17

L18

L19

L21

L22

L25

L27

L28

L33

L37

L38

L39

L41

L101 

M10

Mil

M12

M13

N14

N15

N16

N19

N20

N21

N22

N27

N30

N32

N34

N35

O5

O13

O14

Well 

depth 

(ft)

300

300

360

460

260

350

510

521

420

408

500

500

504

398

480

526

160

262

350

320

320

224

320

350

605

522

400

491

680

540

600

427

480

600

515

567

406

470

425

450

375

541

643

420

308

300

400

300

320

280

280

478

412 

110

380

300

240

500

414

420

420

460

420

500

515

480

440

360

500

325

200

612

Date of 

collection

3-23-67

3-26-70

3-2-67

2-13-67

3- 1-67

3- 2-67

3-29-67

3-29-67

3-2-67

3- 2-67

4-3-67

4-3-67

4-3-67

6-15-67

6-26-67

6-20-67

9-13-56

3-22-67

2-15-67

2-15-67

3-22-67

3-22-67

3-22-67

12-13-67

2-21-67

6-10-60

3-22-67

12- 5-67

3-21-67

3-22-67

3-22-67

3- 3-67

3- 2-67

2-21-67

3-2-67

3-28-67

3- 2-67

7-22-58

9- 5-19

2-17-67

2-17-67

3-29-67

12- 7-67

2-21-67

3- 2-67

2-28-67

2-21-67

2-21-67

2-28-67

3- 2-67

2-28-67

4-18-67

7-19-61 

2-23-67

2-28-67

2-28-67

2-28-67

9-15-56

3-20-67

3-3-67

3-21-67

3-20-67

3-20-67

3-21-67

3-20-67

3-21-67

3-3-67

3-21-67

3-20-67

9-11-56

3-21-67

12- 2-54

Silica 

(SiOs)

12

15

14

5.8

12

12

11

4.1

35

13

14

9.5

9.8

14

11

7.0

Iron 

(Fe)

.54

.0

.8

.44

.46

.9

.81

.36

.0

.55

.22

.6

.23

.26

.13

1.90

.10

.1

10

Manganese 

(Mn)

.1

Calcium 

(Ca)

35

32

29

28

33

30

32

30

37

11

21

17

38

30

29

36

5.1

9.4

14

Magnesium 

(A.g)

6.0

4.6

3.8

2.4

5.6

5.4

5.4

4.9

7.7

2.3

3.1

1.8

7.1

5.6

3.8

4.5

2.8

2.2

3.4

Sodium

(Na)

48

2.5

28

31

54

50

59

70

52

34

34

76

63

134

44

73

45

5.2

Potassium 

(K)

3.8

4.6

4.8

3.0

6.4

3.3

4.6

5.4

5.3

3.4

3.1

5.8

3.6

4.2

3.9

3.8

3.6

3.8

Bicarbonate 

(HCO3)

131

123

126

124

126

124

124

123

130

69

121

103

130

119

121

132

120

106

62

Carbonate 

(C03)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

41

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B37

water from wells Continued 

Constituents are in mg/1]

Sulfate

(S04)

.8

36

5.4

6.4

4.2

2.8 

.0

.2

3.8 

7.6 

5.4 

6.2 

.6 

.0 

5.2

.4

5.0

-----

------

~~~5.~8 

"~8.~8

Chloride 

(CD

19 

18 

29 

34 

21 

20 

72 

74 

25 

8.0 

70 

40 

65 

24 

86 

142 

10 

9.4 

35 

21

9

O

25 

24 

33 

39 

85 

47 

80 

96 

41 

52 

67 

33 

33 

29 

102 

56 

92 

35 

28 

23 

128 

105 

42 

10 

30 

31 

35 

36 

33 

30 

87 

70 

16 

7.0

73

18 

58 

66 

35 

56 

56 

63 

51 

60 

47 

47 

62 

57 

28 

35 

5.0

Fluoride 

(F)

.1 

.1 

.3

.6 

.1 

.7 

.1 

.2 

.3 

1.0 

.1 

.2 

.2 

.0 

.1 

.1 

.3 

.1 

.2 

.1 

.1

.1 

.3

.0 

.1 

.0 

.3 

.1 

.2 

.1 

.2 

.1 

.2 

.2 

.3 

.2 

.2 

.3

.2 

.2 

.3 

.1 

.2 

.2 

.2 

.2 

.2 

.4 

.2 

.1 

.2 

.1 

.3

.1 

.0 

.6 

.7 

.2 

.1 

.3 

.1 

.2 

.3 

.2 

.3 

.2 

.2 

.3 

.1 

.3

Nitrate 

(N03)

.1

.7

.2

.0

.4

.1 

.1

.1

.1

.9

.1 

.4 

.1

.0 

.6

.1

1.4

1.1

1.1

Boron 

(B)

.3

Dissolved 

solids

Residue 

at 

180° C

253

187

177

182

267

252 

275

348

29i 

249 

160 

146 

323 

285 

182

235

229

160

86

Calculated

257

174

183

179

256

245 

270

285

266 

234 

168 

151 

329 

276 

193

235

209

147

SiHardness as 

CaCOs

Calcium, magnesium

52 

68 

78 

80 

50 

54 

108 

100 

63 

38 

102 

66 

86 

68 

112 

127 

99 

93 

88 

76 

112 

96 

70 

80 

40 

104 

31 

97 

102 

28 

56 

62 

26 

40 

27 

95 

100 

106

165 

50 

124 

98 

88 

64 

64 

74 

60 

144 

63 

59 

107 

109 

115 

134 

156 

110 

24 

54 

35 

40 

32 

52 

37 

25 

50 

37 

57 

38 

32 

145 

49

Noncarbonate

0

0

0

2

0 

0

0

18

0 

0

18 

0 

0

1

0

0

0

Sodium adsorption 

ratio

2.3

1.8

Specific 

conductance (micromhos at 25° 

C)

228 

281 

329 

322 

249 

248 

446 

425 

275 

205 

442 

328 

406 

282 

492 

652 

290 

324 

328 

299 

297 

311 

260 

321 

348 

474 

373 

474 

522 

350 

405 

418 

313 

353 

296 

536 

391 

487

300 

253 

634 

545 

344 

297 

291 

312 

309 

502 

286 

305 

500 

447 

270 

343 

518 

338 

384 

487 

311 

399 

398 

417 

396 

414 

370 

379 

411 

421 

270 

440 

136

pH

7.9 

7.9 

8.2 

8.0 

8.1 

8.0 

7.9 

8.0 

8.1 

8.1 

7.9 

7.9 

7.9

7.5

8.2 

7.8 

7.3 

8.1 

7.7 

7.6 

7.9 

7.5 

8.0 

7.9 

8.3 

7.2 

7.4 

8.4 

8.3 

7.3 

8.6 

8.6 

8.6 

7.4 

8.0 

8.0

7.1 

7.0 

7.4 

7.3

7.8 

8.3 

7.2 

7.2 

8.2 

7.7 

8.0 

8.3 

7.7 

7.2 

6.9 

7.8 

7.7 

7.8 

8.2 

8.0 

8.5 

8.2 

8.5 

8.3 

8.4 

7.3 

8.4 

7.7 

8.3 

8.5 

7.9 

8.0 

6.5

Temperature (°F)

66

17

67

18

67

19

65

64
B38 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

TABLE 4. Chemical analyses of 

[Analyses by U.S. Geological Survey.

TJSGS 

well

O15 

O20

O22

O23

O26

O28

O29

O32

O33

O34

O35

O43

O47

O50

O54

O56

P6

P10

P12

P14

P15

P16

P18

P19

P20

P21

Well 

depth 

(ft)

282 

515

485

325

502

515

314

320

340

340

240

320

320

300

446

320

210

280

16

220

206

140

180

180

200

200

Date of collection

6-18-58 

6-26-14

7-25-57

3-21-67

4-18^67

3-21-67

3-20-67

3-21-67

3- 2-67

3- 2-67

3-21-67

3-2-67

3-21-67

3-21-67

5- 7-67

4-19-67

5- 9-67

9-12-56

2-28-67

2-28-67

2-28-67

2-28-67

2-28-67

2-28-67

2-28-67

12- 5-67

2-28-67

2-28-67

Silica 

(SlOj)

20 

18

11

12

14

Iron

(Fe)

.11

.97

.4

.87

.10

16

.45

Manganese 

(Mn)

.10

Calcium 

(Ca)

50 

27

23

28

27

48

259

Magnesium

(Mg)

6.8 

4.2

4.6

5.8

5.5

9.2

31

Sodium 

(Na)

13

58

65

62

16

96

Potassium 

(K)

6.0

5.3

3.8

5.4

6.1

4.2

Bicarbonate 

(HCOs)

176 

124

116

121

120

137

234

Carbonate 

(C03)

0 

0

0

0

0

0

0

Two principles control the chemical quality of water in the coastalplain aquifers of Mississippi. The first is that, as water moves down the 

dip within any aquifer, its quality gradually changes: mineralization, 

pH, and temperature increase, and hardness decreases. At shallow 

depths, water in Lee County usually is a calcium bicarbonate type, has 

a low dissolved-solids content of 20--100 mg/1 (milligrams per liter), 

is soft to moderately hard (5-100 mg/1), has a low pH (5-7), and has 

a temperature about the same as the average annual air temperature 

(17°C). Down the dip, the type changes to sodium bicarbonate, pH increases to nearly 9, the dissolved solids increase to as much as 300 mg/1 

(fig. 14), hardness decreases to less than 25 mg/1 as CaCO3 , and temperature increases about 1°C for each 100 feet of depth.

The second principle concerning quality of water in coastal-plain 

aquifers of Mississippi is that with increasing depth (of wells at a 

locality) the water is more mineralized, has a higher pH, is softer, and 

is warmer. In the Tupelo area and in the part of the county northeast of 

Tupelo, water in successively deeper aquifers is more mineralized. 

Data indicate that water in the Paleozoic rocks is highly mineralized; 

the top of these rocks (fig. 8) is considered to be the base of fresh water 

(1,000 mg/1 of dissolved solids) in Lee County. However, the mineral-
WATEK RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B39

water from wells Continued 

Constituents are in mg/1]

Sulfate 

(BOO

34

8.5 

4.2

.0 

4.2

72

724

Chloride 

(Cl)

4.0 

10 

74 

33 

104 

88 

46 

32 

27 

41 

5.8

28 

35 

31 

29 

73 

31 

7.5 

9.4

30 

19 

6.2 

5.8 

11 

79 

45 

11 

15

Fluoride 

(F)

.0

.7 

.2 

.2 

.2 

.6 

.1 

.1 

.4 

.1

.2 

.1 

.2 

.1 

.2 

.2 

.1 

.1

.1

.0 

.2 

.3 

.1 

.0 

.1 

.1 

4

Nitrate 

(NOs)

.0 

.0

.9

.2 

.1

.9

.1

Boron 

(B)

Dissolved 

solids

Residue 

at 

180° C

217 

149 

228

273 

257

258

Calculated

221 

153

227

278 

263

227

1,290

Hardness as 

CaCOs

Calcium, 

magnesium

153

76 

45 

94 

90 

42 

34 

50 

38 

93 

50 

32 

40 

42 

95 

44 

113 

134 

99 

198 

100 

123 

140 

1,225

776 

129 

75

Noncarbonate

8

0

0 

0

45

584

Sodium adsorption 

ratio

Specific 

conductance (micromhos at 25° 

C)

362

441 

310 

539 

490 

352 

289 

291 

325 

280 

295 

279 

308 

309 

553 

304 

382 

345 

289 

491 

226 

257 

400 

2,550 

1,720 

379 

216

pH

7.4

8.0 

8.0 

7.3 

7.2 

8.3 

8.4 

8.2 

8.5 

8.0 

8.3 

9.0 

7.4 

8.2 

7.7 

8.2 

7.6 

7.7 

5.5 

7.8 

7.2 

7.2 

7.5 

7.0 

7.3 

8.0 

7.1

Temperature (°F)

64

66

ization part of the second principle does not hold among all aquifers 

in other parts of the county. In the northwestern part of the county, 

the water in the upper part of the Coffee Sand is more mineralized 

than that in the lower part of the Coffee Sand or that in the underlying Eutaw and Gordo Formations. In the southern part, the Eutaw 

is more mineralized than the Gordo. From north to south in eastern 

Lee County, the dissolved-solids content of water in the lower part of 

the Eutaw Formation is about 150 mg/1; however, dissolved solids in 

the Gordo decrease from about 150 mg/1 in the north to about 50 

mg/1 in the south (fig. 14).

Several factors may contribute to this change in quality-of-water 

relation between aquifers. In the northeastern part of the county, 

water may move from the Eutaw into the Gordo. The higher mineralization of water in the Gordo at Tupelo may be the result of leakage 

from underlying Paleozoic rock. Thickness and permeability of the 

Gordo increase to the south; water thus moves through the formation 

more easily, and this flushing action has resulted in less-mineralized 

water in the southern part of the aquifer (fig. 14).
COFFEE SAND 

(LOWER PART)

1 R. 6 E.I R. 7 E.

R. 5_§J ll BaldwynT

7 1 1

S.l /Guntowij^

,,-T/ '

ll

Nb h

X Belden

T

9

s.

r.

10

s.

T.

11

S.

X

"^>r

Saltillo

/

'

 LI Moor

/Tupelo |

J

Plante 

Verona °

Shannon

o

Nettleton

1 

eville

o

rsville

,. ._,^

J

>
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B41

~~ "" " ._ ^_ ^

I Baldwyn"

 *

LOI

ofL

H

U 

/

- r^ (/>

 ^

^/

' \

\

l__

^^ *

^K^K

___ 

f 5 L \

1 ^

&° i

i

«

oo/^|

^=J-^^^ 

^l*°*> t\v x

\1T%

r-fi-**-±

_A .

= 1

S

!

-^ ^

^TN^n

\ ^^^ 

\

|-°ot/) KO.OT ' H ° w i-: - </>

7

0

h

«

§ § w

"O -V * ' 

» c ~ $ z:

< T3 C H C

^ O a) o Q&

5 c

Q.

UJ

^ 3 c a.~ J p- o a |

"o-S SS o §! §"§

3 s £ " "a u

Z -« 

Z 

n

GORDO FORMATIC 

Gordo Formation. ion, and 

 5

1

rs

R

1

f

%

02

35

Q

o

1

.a

S

<§

I
B42 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

The principal water quality problems in the county are hardness, 

excessive iron and fluoride, and low pH. Hardness is as much as 100 

mg/1 in many parts of the aquifers, but is as low as 25 mg/1 in other 

parts. Iron is not a problem in the Coffee Sand or the Eutaw Formation, except in the outcrop areas; there the pH is usually low and 

the water may be corrosive to metals. Water in the Gordo, however, 

usually has objectionable concentrations of iron and a lower pH 

than water in the Eutaw at the same site. Excessive concentrations (as 

high as 2.8 mg/1) of fluoride (Glossary) occur in the upper part of 

the Coffee Sand.

It is difficult to determine which aquifer (or aquifers) yields water 

to most of the domestic wells in Lee County, because the wells generally are open holes that penetrate two or more aquifers. This difficulty 

also applies to the wells that are screened opposite two or more 

aquifers. Some open-hole wells are partially filled with sand and are 

shallower than the reported depth. In most wells, the differences in 

water levels between aquifers probably cause water to flow from one 

aquifer to another when the well is not being pumped; hence, when 

the well is pumped, the water may be a mixture which varies with time.

POTENTIAL OF AQUIFERS

The history of water-level declines and ground-water pumpage at 

Tupelo can be used to predict future water levels in response to specified pumping. Present water-level trends indicate that it will be 10- 

20 years before the water level in the Eutaw Formation (fig. 6) will 

be drawn down into the aquifer, except within a few hundred feet of 

pumping wells. This projection allows for a gradual increase of 2 or 3 

mgd of pumpage during the period. However, if pumpage from the 

Eutaw should be increased by a lump sum of 3 mgd, it would probably 

be less than 5 years until water levels would be drawn down into the 

aquifer in the areas of heaviest pumpage.

Dewatering of the upper part of the Eutaw will not be the end 

point of aquifer development. Wells screened in the lower part of the 

Eutaw will operate efficiently and will still draw water levels down 

far below the top of the Eutaw Formation. Dewatering of the aquifer 

will result in a change from artesian to water-table conditions. This 

change will result in a greatly increased coefficient of storage. The 

larger coefficient of storage will increase the specific capacity of wells; 

however, this will be partly offset by lower transmissibilities, which 

will result from less saturated thickness of the aquifer.

The above predictions assume that pumpage outside the Tupelo 

area will remain stable. Significant increases in pumpage, however, 

probably will occur in other areas of the county; these will lower 

water levels at Tupelo.
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B43

Future water-supply needs probably will be heaviest along the two 

railroads that cross the county. To simplify reference to this heavyuse area, we will think of it as a line running north and south across 

the county through Tupelo. The potential sustained yield of the Eutaw 

Formation along this line is about 9 mgd, assuming certain conditions. 

The conditions are (1) the average transmissibility of the Eutaw 

Formation is 15,000 gpd ped foot, (2) static water levels will be 

lowered to the top of the Eutaw Formation in the heavy-use belt, 

(3) no water is used on either side of this line, (4) the recharge area 

is 15 miles to the east, (5) static water levels in the pumping area are 

300 feet lower than in the recharge area, and (6) no leakage occurs 

between the Eutaw and the aquifers above or below.

Obviously, the condition that all pumpage be restricted to a narrow 

belt is not practical. However, the 9-mgd potential for the Eutaw 

would remain generally applicable if part of the pumpage were distributed over the county. The assumption that no leakage occurs between the Eutaw and other formations is known to be untrue, but the 

amount of leakage is not known. Leakage and the resulting potential 

for recharge are greater in the northern part of the county; in this 

area the potential sustained yield of the aquifer is greater than indicated by the 9-mgd yield calculated for the county.

Uniform distribution of the 9-mgd potential of the Eutaw along a 

north-south line through the county would give 0.3 mgd (210 gpm) 

per mile. Wells yielding 500 gpm each on a sustained basis would need 

to be about 2^ miles apart along the north-south line. The 500-gpm 

pumping rates would cause the water levels in the pumped well to be 

about 70 feet lower than the water levels in the area between the pumped wells. More wells and lower pumping rates could yield the same 

quantity and would cause less difference between pumping levels and 

areal water levels.

In Tupelo and to the north, the Gordo probably will yield less water 

than the Eutaw, but southward from Tupelo the capacity of the Gordo 

to yield water increases. Along the south edge of Lee County, the 

Gordo may yield 10 times as much water as the Eutaw, with equal 

water-level drawdown. At Shannon and Nettleton, the Gordo probably 

can yield as much as 100 gpm per foot of drawdown to fully penetrating efficient wells. Well yields of more than 1,000 gpm and well-field 

yields of several million gallons per day should be possible in this area. 

In places where the aquifer is most productive in the Tupelo area, 

specific capacities of properly constructed wells should be as much as 

20 gpm per foot of drawdown, and yields should 'be as much as 1,000 

gpm. However, most wells in this area will have much lower yields.

The potential of the Coffee Sand may approach that of the Eutaw
B44 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

in the northwestern part of the county. None of the other geologic 

units have significant water-supply development potential.

With increasing pumping time and rate, the amount of dissolved 

solids in water in the Eutaw and Gordo Formations will probably 

decrease in the eastern part of the county, which is between the recharge 

area and the heavily pumped areas. West of the heavily pumped 

areas, the amount of dissolved solids will remain stable or increase. 

Depending on the quantity and source, leakage from the Coffee Sand 

and from the Gordo Formation will also affect the water quality in 

the Eutaw.

The dissolved-solids content of water in the Gordo Formation at 

Tupelo is higher than at other places in the county. Leakage from the 

Paleozoic rocks to the Gordo Formation probably is not great; therefore, mineralization is likely to decrease with pumping. However, if 

the higher mineralization is the result of leakage rather than incomplete flushing, it probably will increase with an increase in pumping.

SURFACE WATER 

SOURCE OF STREAMFLOW

In Lee County, the greatest part of streamflow is the direct result 

of precipitation. Municipal and industrial waste water contribute to 

streamflow below Tupelo. Lee County streams are characterized by 

low base flow. As used in this report, base flow is the part of streamflow that is directly derived from ground-water sources.

The average annual precipitation in Lee County is approximately 

53 inches (fig. 3). The portion contributed directly to streamflow is 

the total amount minus that lost to evapotranspiration, soil moisture, 

ground-water recharge, and animal growth. There is no simple way 

to determine the exact amount of streamflow derived directly from 

precipitation, but during a normal year more than 80 percent of all 

Lee County streamflow will be derived from this source.

The base flow of a stream is affected primarily by basin size, topography, and the hydraulic nature of the material in contact with the 

stream. Other things being equal, streams with larger drainage areas 

have larger base flows. Also, the greater the topographic relief within 

a basin, the greater the base flow.

Within Lee County, the nature of the material over which the 

streams flow is probably the most significant factor in explaining the 

pattern of base flow. Generally, two conditions must be met if a stream 

is to have a strong base flow. First, the material the stream cuts through 

must contain water, which it does in Lee County. Second, the material 

must be capable of yielding water to the stream. The sand and chalk
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B45

at the surface in Lee County contain water; however, the sediments 

vary in the ease with which they release water.

The permeability of the chalk in western and southern Lee County 

(fig. 5) is low; therefore, little water is contributed to streams. Base 

flow in these areas is dependent upon the weathered soil above the 

chalk. The upper reaches of a few of the streams extend to sandy areas 

that support base flow. Chiwapa Creek extends the farthest into 

such an area and has the highest base flow of any Lee County stream.

Sand crops out in the northeast quarter of the county and along the 

east edge. Streams in these parts of the county have narrow valleys 

and generally small drainage areas. The sand hills support base flow 

in these streams, although at most places the dry-weather flow is small. 

Streams may cease flowing during extended dry periods owing primarily to the small drainage areas and the water demands of vegetation. All Lee County streams stop flowing during extended dry periods 

except where significant waste water is present to support flow.

To show how the nature of the surface material affects the flow of 

streams, flow-duration curves for continuous-record gaging stations 

in or near Lee County are presented in figure 15. The discharges have 

been divided by the drainage area in each case so that the effect of basin 

size is removed. This allows a direct comparison of flow characteristics 

of different streams. The locations of the gaging stations are shown in 

figure 16.

The sediments in the upstream basins of Euclautubba and Town 

Creeks are primarily chalk. Chiwapa Creek has its headwater area in 

sand hills, and the lower part of its basin is in chalk. West Fork 

Tombigbee Kiver is formed by Town and Chiwapa Creeks. Upstream 

from Fulton, the Tombigbee Kiver largely drains sand outcrop areas.

The flow-duration curve for the station on West Fork Tombigbee 

Kiver near Nettleton shows a slight bend to the right at the lower end, 

indicating higher sustained dry-weather flow. This flow is not entirely 

the result of base flow. The station was the only one studied that was 

found to be influenced by waste-water disposal, and this influence 

probably caused the effect noted.

QUANTITY

DURATION AND FREQUENCY OF LOW FLOW

Unlike the ground-water-reservoir conditions, which reflect seasonal 

variations slowly, natural streamflow conditions may change rapidly. 

Most Lee County streams may be described as "flashy." The stage of 

these streams can rise tens of feet in a few hours as a result of a storm 

and, within hours after the rain ends, return to nearly the level it was 

prior to the storm. This characteristic is particularly true of streams 

that have much of their drainage area in chalk terrane.
B46 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

100

10

UJ

at 

§

£ 

UJ 

0.

Q

Z

8 i.o u

V)

Of. 

UJ 

0.

e> o.i te.

o 

co

5

.01

2-4340

Oldtown Creek at Tupelo 

>rainage area = 112 sq mi

2-4310

\ Tombigbee River near Fulton 

\/Drainage area=605 sq mi

2-4365

We*t Fork, Tombigbee Rive

near Nettleton 

Drainage area=617 sq mi

L »

\

Chiwapa Creek at Shannon 

. . ^-Drainage area = 136 sq mi

2-4345

Euclautubba Creek at SaltilloDrainage area=19.7 sq ml \\

I I I I I I

0.5 1 2 5 10 20304050607080 90 95 989999.5 

PERCENTAGE OF TIME DISCHARGE EQUALED 

OR EXCEEDED THAT SHOWN

FIGURE 15. Duration curves of daily flow for selected streams.
EXPLANATION

Stream-gaging station 

and number

Miscellaneous surfacewater data-collection site

Potential water-supply 

reservoir site. Number 

refers to table 7

WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

R. 6 E. B. 7

B47

FIGURE 16. Location of gaging stations, potential reservoir sites, and floodprofile sections.
B48 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

Although it is impossible to say exactly when low-flow conditions 

will occur in an unregulated stream, it is possible to predict with 

reasonable accuracy the duration and probability of occurrence of a 

low-flow event. Three continuous record-gaging stations in Lee County 

and one just outside the county (fig. 16) have been operated for several 

years and the records from these stations have been statistically 

analyzed. Flow-duration and frequency data for each of these stations 

are presented in tables 5 and 6.

AVERAGE FLOW AND RESERVOIRS

With the exception of Chiwapa Creek, the mean annual runoff to 

Lee County streams is slightly more than 1,050 acre-feet of water for 

each square mile of drainage area. During very dry years the total 

runoff can be as little as 350 acre-feet per square mile, and during wet 

years more than 1,900 acre-feet can be expected for each square mile of 

drainage area.

Because the upper reaches of Chiwapa Creek are in an area of heavily wooded, sandy soil, the annual runoff for this stream is slightly less 

than that for other Lee County streams. The mean annual runoff in 

Chiwapa Creek is approximately 950 acre-feet per square mile of 

drainage area. The total runoff figures to be expected during dry and 

wet years for this stream are 300 and 1,750 acre-feet per square mile, 

respectively.

A reservoir loses water through evaporation, seepage, and plant 

growth. The total amount of water that may be withdrawn for use is 

therefore less than the total amount of water that the reservoir collects. 

If all water losses could be eliminated, the total amount of water that 

could be withdrawn from a reservoir would approach the mean annual 

runoff from the drainage basin (assuming that all runoff is stored in 

the reservoir, that the reservoir is filled prior to any withdrawal, and 

that the reservoir has sufficient capacity to carry its operation through 

dry years.) Since water losses cannot be completely eliminated, the 

true maximum yield of any reservoir is less than the mean annual 

runoff.

There are 27 potential water-supply reservoir sites in Lee County 

which merit further study (fig.16). The total amount of water that 

would be available at each of these sites is given in table 7.

Most of the sites shown are in areas where the relief is favorable 

to reservoir construction. Many sites are at points where tributary 

streams first enter the valleys of the larger streams into which they 

flow. These are sites which could be developed to provide irrigation 

water to crops grown on the relatively flat flood plains of the larger 

streams. A few of the sites have potential not only for water-supply 

development, but also for limited recreational development.
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B49

11 

«

IN" cfco"

OC^QO

coeo'tooo

rt" i-foo"

oooo optDThS

S5S8 T-l T-ltIN

OS O5 CPOO 10 oo 

tOTPCOrH

co S

INO

OSTh

co 'ootco oo 

oocooo

1O1O 

OOrHIO

oo 'if

oo 'co 

tS^T-lS

os
B50 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

TABLE 6. Magnitude and frequency of annual low flow at daily-record gaging

stations in or near Lee County 

[Data are adjusted to period April 1929-March 1958 on basis of relation to data at other gaging stations]

Station 

No.

2-4340 

2-4345 

2-4360 

2-4365

Station name

Town Creek at Tupelo ________

Euclautubba Creek at Saltillo.. .......

West Fork Tombigbee River near 

Nettleton.

Drainage 

area 

(sq mi)

112 

19.7 

136 

617

Annual low flow, in cubic 

Period feet per second, for indicated 

(consecutive recurrence interval, 

days) in years

7 

15 

30 

60 

120 

183

7 

15 

30 

60 

120 

183

7 

15 

30 

60 

120 

183

7 

15 

30 

60 

120 

183

TABLE 7. Available water at potential reservoir sites,

Site No. 

(see 

fig. 16)

il 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 18 

9 110 

11 »12 

113 

114 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27

Stream

Tulip Creek 

Smith Creek ____ ____ . ........

Drainage 

area 

(square 

miles)

5.8 

10.3 

5.1 

4.7

7.8

ao

7.3 

18.6 

278.0 

78.1 

22.4 ai

5.5 

10.2 

8.1 

7.9 

4.2 

1.3 

3.0 

3.5 

5.7 

4.7 

4.3 

5.3 

3.6 

1.6 

6.5

2

0.1 

.1 

.7 

1.4 

5.4 

14

0 

0 

0 

.3 

1.2 

3.4

3.3

4.6 ai

10 

22 

37

8.7 

11 

14 

24 

60 

126

Lee County

10

0 

0 

.1 

.2 

.5 

1.3

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

.2

.1

.2 

.7 

2.2 

5.2 

9.8

3.2 

3.8 

4.8 

7.0 

12 

23

Water available in thousands of acre-feet 

per year

Normal year

ai

10.8 

5.4 

4.9 

8.2 

6.3 

7.7 

19.5 

81.9 

29.5 

23.5 

6.4 

5.8 

10.7 

8.5 

8.3 

4.4 

1.4 

3.1 

3.7 

6.0 

4.9 

4.5 

5.6 

3.8 

1.7

as

Dry year Wet year

2.1 

3.9 

1.9 

1,8 

3.0 

2.2 

2.8 

7.1 

30.0 

10.7 

8.5 

2.3 

2.1 

3.9 

3.1 

3.0 

1.6 

.5 

1.1 

1.3 

2.1 

1.8 

1.6 

2.0 

1.3 

.6 

2.5

11.0 

19.6 

9.7 

8.9 

14.8 

11.4 

13.9 

35.3 

148.0 

53.4 

42.6 

11.6 

10.4 

19.4 

15.4 

15.0 

8.0 

2.5 

5.7 

6.6 

10.8 

8.9 

8.2 

10.0

as

3.0 

12.3

1 Site coincides with proposed Town Creek watershed reservoir site.

2 Approximate.
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B51 

FLOOD HAZARD

Wherever man utilizes land along natural stream channels, he faces 

the possibility of periodic flooding. Little can be done to prevent major 

floods, but flood damage can be reduced by recognizing tihe danger and 

by establishing an appropriate flood-control program. Commonly accepted measures for reducing flood damage include:

1. Evacuation of threatened area prior to flooding.

2. Construction of flood walls or enlargement of levees to confine 

floodflow to a predetermined channel.

3. Use of diversion channels or floodways to reduce floodflow past 

developed areas.

4. Construction of reservoirs to hold back portions of flood water 

and reduce peak flow.

5. Channel improvements to increase velocity of flow and thus

reduce peak stage.

Most flood-control projects involve a combination of one or more of 

these measures with a land-management program designed to reduce 

storm runoff.

Before a flood-control project can be designed to provide adequate 

protection for an area, it is necessary to know what the flood danger 

is. By studying past flood events, it is possible to estimate, within reasonable limits, the stage and discharge of future floods. Such an estimate ordinarily is based on the assumption that conditions such as 

climate, degree of urbanization, and type of land use will not vary in 

the future from what they have been in the past; however, by studying 

the effects that changing conditions have had in other areas, it may be 

possible to adjust the estimates of flood danger to allow for anticipated 

changes in the area for which the flood-control project is being 

considered.

In past years, floods on Lee County streams have caused extensive 

property damage and have been a threat to public health and safety. 

On the night of April 10-11, 1962, more than 7 inches of rain fell at 

Tupelo during an 8-hour period and produced a record-breaking flood 

on Kings Creek. The greatest flood of record on Town Creek occurred 

in March 1955. Profiles of the March 1955 flood along Town Creek and 

the April 1962 flood along Kings Creek have been developed for the 

Tupelo area (figs. IT, 18).

Additional flood information for Lee County streams is available 

in earlier U.S. Geological Survey reports (Neely, 1964, p. 78-89; 

Neely, 196T, p. 3 and 5; Wilson, 1964, p. 93). Flood-frequency curves 

may be used to estimate the magnitude and frequency of future floods 

at a few sites in Lee County (Wilson and Trotter, 1961). Estimates 

may not be reliable for regulated streams; very small drainage areas;
B52 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

Note: Recent construction 

and channel relocation 

has occurred in this read

ion 

in 

each

Confluence oMud an [Oldtown Creek

22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 64 

DISTANCE ALONG VALLEY, IN MILES-FROM MOUTH

FIGURE 17. Flood profile along Mud and Town Creeks274

272

270

268

LU 

Cfl

I 266

264

262

260

258

13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 

DISTANCE ALONG VALLEY, IN THOUSANDS OF FEET FROM MOUTH

FIGURE 18. Flood profile along Kings Oreek.
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B53

or sites near mouths of streams draining into larger streams where 

variable backwater effects may occur.

As it pertains to flood hazard, urban development is a "two-headed 

monster." As areas become urbanized, more and more targets for flood 

damage are erected. Lowlands, which may have been avoided because 

of flood danger during the early stages of urban growth, become too 

valuable to be left idle. More and more business places, homes, 

churches, and public and industrial works are constructed in locations 

where they may be within the reach of floodwaters. At the same time, 

roof, pavings, and changes in land use tend to increase the magnitude 

of floods, making additional areas susceptible to flood damage.

In recent years, growth in the Tupelo area has proceeded at an increasing rate. New industries have moved into the industrial areas 

along the railroads north and south of town. New roads have been constructed across and along the valley of Town, Mud, and Kings Creeks. 

The urban ?.rea has expanded farther into the upstream drainage basins of the major water courses. Many areas have been protected by 

constructing ring dikes and levees. All these activities have the potential to increase the flood hazard.

On the other hand, channel improvements have been made in the 

vicinity of Tupelo. Additional channel work and the construction of 

several flood-retention reservoirs are included in work plans developed 

by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (1963). When these plans are fully implemented, the lower flood 

peak stages should result in a substantial reduction in flood hazards at 

Tupelo.

QUALITY

CHEMICAL

The chemical quality of water in Lee County streams varies with 

location and with stream discharge. If it were not for the industrial 

and municipal waste which enters some streams, all water in Lee 

County streams could be classified chemically as good (table 8).

Figure 19 shows the specific conductance of stream water under lowflow conditions. Generally the streams that drain sandy areas have 

lower specific conductance values than streams that drain chalk outcrop areas.

When surface water is stored, some change in its quality is to be expected. Odor, taste, and color will be affected by any organic material 

left in the reservoir area; temperature extremes will be less variable; 

mineralization of the stored water will be more constant than that of 

the natural streamflow. These and other changes are discussed in recent 

references (Fair and Geyer, 1965; U.S. Public Health Service, 1965).
B54 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

yses xcept

00

H

I! CQ o «5eo g «

o °^ II

fil

llgP-T3

OB ft §

c

I

Creek near

1

sat 

S

TN

S

>Q

r-:

1

PSrf

 *

<3

01

to

>Q

<N

oo

N

t*. 

 *

r-l

01

r-J

IS

8o'

 * 

oo

<S 

7

!

Creek 1ati

i

o

09

2

|

i 

i

 8

o

Tishomingo

U9

e4

09 

2

as

NNKt-:

o eo

«S

S^ 

IS

S N

to^>

c5 '

e»i-i 

<S '

U5O 

ujoi

g§ 

8|

0001

^iiH

COPS

oi"5

to to

CJCJ

g§

§8<3 

r-l>Q

r-lt-l

Ot^» eSfei

<rf '

@S

22

£

3 

«

^

1

Enclantnbba

9

09

2

>Q

r~i

SPS

?!

2

g

c>

rf

N 

t-T

?; 

I

PS

PS

^

10-

oo

S

8

cs

o

01 

PS

sCO

s

i

>

\1

Oldtown Cre

S

2
2-4365. West Fork Tombigbee River near Ne

10-20-58 70

3- 4-59 260

6-24-59 152

9-4-62 22

2- 5-63 244

9-18-63 32

10-16-63 16

12-13-63 1,750

10-16-64 31

3-11-65 397

8-13-65 12

12- 5-67 429

3.0 0.14

1.0 .00

2.0 .00

4.7 .02

1.1 .06

8.4 .01

7.3 .02

20 .02

6.8 .01

7.3 .02

7. 7 .01

8.4 .02

54 4.7

44 2.6

54 4.1

41 1.6

41 2.3

54 3.7

51 4.5

28 1.2

44 3.2

49 1.8

47 3.1

49 2.1

15 0. 8

7. 8 1. 2

12 2.1

7. 6 3. 2

7. 8 1. 8

26 3.5

43 3.0

4.4 2.3

29 3.6

5.8 .8

32 4.1

6. 0 3. 9

172 17

120 25

162 21

116 14

106 27

152 29

165 14

82 13

132 17

131 23

119 22

135 18

16 0.1

9.2 .3

12 .4

13 .3

9.5 .3

36 .5

55 .6

4.7 .2

37 1.6

8.0 .5

51 2.2

11 .1

1 Iron in solution at time of analysis. 

2 Color data were obtained by comparing color of water sample to the platinum-cobalt scale.
B56 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

R. 6 E. R. 7 E.

EXPLANATION

R. 5 E

Sampling Site

Number is specific T. 

conductance, in 7 | 

micro mhos per c 

centimeter at 25° C

T.I

FIGURE 19. Specific conductance of streams under low-flow conditions,

June 4, 1968.
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B57

SEDIMENT

Every stream carries some suspended sediment; the amount transported by Lee County streams is relatively small. The average annual 

sediment discharge for streams draining the chalk outcrop area ranges 

from about 0.23 to nearly 0.75 acre-foot per square mile of drainage 

area. Areas under cultivation and areas having great relief have large 

sediment yields; pastureland and wooded areas have small yields.

The sediment yield of the sand hills of northeastern and eastern 

Lee County is not known. These hills, however, are generally wooded 

and probably produce less than 0.25 acre-foot of sediment annually 

per square mile of drainage area.

The largest part of the sediment load is transported as the streams 

rise in reponse to storm runoff. The peak sediment concentration is 

reached 3-5 hours ahead of the flood crest for all but the smallest 

streams. Virtually no suspended sediment is transported by flow which 

does not exceed the 50 percent flow-duration discharge.

WATER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Lee County has sufficient fresh water to meet future needs if it is 

efficiently managed; however, if -the present trends in usage are continued, this valuable resource may soon be in short supply in some parts 

of the county. Ground-water pumpage is so concentrated in the Tupelo 

area that water levels are declining at the rate of several feet per year, 

while nearby surface-water sources go unused. A large part of the 

industrial water pumpage is used once for cooling and then discharged 

as waste. Pollution of some streams makes the water unfit for use at 

points downstream.

A water-management program for Lee County must consider social 

and economic factors as well as hydrology. Many of the hydrologicdata requirements for the development of a water-management plan 

have been presented here, but more detailed information is required 

at specific locations.

In the course of the water-resources investigation in Lee County, 

some observations made were not important in appraising the water 

resources, but they may benefit city and county planners and others who 

may be concerned with the development of water supplies. Elaborations 

on some of these observations follow.

USE OF MULTIPLE AQUIFERS

Use of all aquifers available at a site should be considered in a watermanagement plan. Each aquifer should be evaluated by using such 

criteria as depth of aquifer, well yields, quality of water, water levels, 

and cost of well installation. These are some of the principal factors
B58 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

affecting the cost of delivering water of good quality. In some cases, 

one of these factors may outweigh all other considerations.

If the most suitable aquifer does not yield sufficient water for all 

needs, then less desirable aquifers must also be used. At Tupelo, water 

from the Eutaw Formation needs no treatment, but the Eutaw 

does not yield as much water as desired without excessive drawdown; 

therefore, the Gordo Formation is also tapped, even though water in 

the Gordo usually contains objectionable concentrations (more than 

0.3mg/l) of iron. Often a mixture of water from two or more sources 

provides adequate quantities and acceptable quality.

ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE OF AQUIFERS

No attempt at artificial recharge of aquifers has been made in or 

near Lee County; however, there is evidence that water is moving 

from one aquifer to another through the many uncased wells in the 

northeastern part of the county. Additional recharge may be feasible 

in this area through a system of small surface reservoirs designed to 

hold overland flow until it can be induced to enter the ground-water 

system by means of natural seepage and (or) a system of wells.

It may be feasible to partially recharge the Eutaw and Gordo 

aquifers in the vicinity of Tupelo with water that would otherwise 

be wasted. A large volume of the industrial water demand is for 

cooling, and in present practice this water is used once and discharged 

to the streams. If additional use cannot be found for this water, it 

might be returned to the aquifers through recharge wells.

Several methods of artificial recharge have been employed in various 

parts of the nation, and a great amount of literature is available on 

the subject (Todd, 1959). Determination of the best method for use 

in Lee County would require detailed study and field tests of local 

conditions.

USE OF RESERVOIRS

Surface-water reservoir sites are not a renewable resource. Within 

any area there exists a finite number of locations suitable for reservoir 

construction. The needs of the community should be carefully considered before any site is utilized, since the misuse of even one reservoir 

site could adversely affect the future water-resources development for 

a large area.

Reservoirs can be constructed to serve any one need or a combination of several varied needs. The potential uses for reservoirs in Lee 

County are for industrial, municipal, and irrigational water supply; 

recreation; low-flow augmentation; and flood control.

The use of a reservoir dictates the design and operation of the 

reservoir-control structure. A flood-control reservoir should be empty
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B59

prior to a storm so that the full capacity is available to reduce floodflow. By contrast, a water-supply reservoir should be full as much of 

the time as possible so that its entire capacity is available to meet 

any water demand.

In the operation of a recreation reservoir, it is desirable to maintain a nearly constant pool elevation as much of the time as possible. 

Little flood water is retained in such a reservoir, and little water is 

released during rainless periods.

Irrigation and low-flow augmentation are seasonal needs. Reservoirs 

designed to meet these needs may be full or empty during a large 

part of the year without affecting the usefulness of the structure 

so long as water is available during the time of need.

Despite the contradictions of design and operation, reservoirs may 

be built to meet more than one need. The usual design and pattern 

of operation of these reservoirs reflects a compromise between the 

various needs.

Both single-purpose and multiple-purpose reservoirs can claim certain ad vantages to their use. A single-purpose structure can more fully 

satisfy the needs of its designed use than can a multiple-purpose 

structure. The initial cost of such structures is also less. Multiplepurpose reservoirs are usually more adaptable to future water-development needs than single-purpose reservoirs.

CHANNEL LOSSES BELOW RESERVOIRS

A water-supply reservoir cannot always be constructed at the place 

where the water will be used. In this situation, some means of transporting the water to the user must be provided. If a reservoir is upstream from the point of use, it is often possible to use the natural 

stream channel to transport the water.

During extended dry periods, most Lee County streams cease flowing. The primary reason for this is the demand for water exerted by 

vegetal growth near the water course. This interception of the ground 

water before it reaches the stream reduces the base flow. Vegetation 

growing at the edge of a stream probably also obtains some water 

from the stream itself.

If a natural channel is used to transport water from a water-supply 

reservoir to a downstream user, vegetal growth near the channel 

should be controlled to minimize water losses. Evaporation from the 

surface of the stream will occur, but it is a minor loss.
B60 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

Lee County streams do not lose water to the ground-water system 

under normal conditions. The chalk areas are impermeable, and therefore significant seepage from the streams does not occur. In the sandy 

areas, the water table is higher than the stream surfaces, so water 

movement is toward and into the streams except during periods of 

flooding.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

All water supplies in Lee County are obtained from wells. Groundwater levels have declined 3-5 feet per year in the Tupelo area for 

many years and probably will continue to decline if the water use 

continues to increase as expected in the future. Water use in and near 

Tupelo in 1967 was about 7 mgd; about 4.5 mgd was pumped from 

the Eutaw Formation, and almost 2.5 mgd from the Gordo Formation. 

About 1 mgd was pumped in Lee County outside the Tupelo area, 

mostly from the Eutaw Formation. The quality of the water is best in 

the Eutaw Formation, but water in the Gordo Formation and Coffee 

Sand meets the needs of most users, with little or no treatment.

Full development of the aquifers in Tupelo might yield double the 

1967 withdrawal if no significant increases occur at other places in 

Lee County; however, water levels would decline into the aquifers 

and necessitate replacement or reworking of wells and pumping 

equipment.

Full ground-water development along a north-south line through 

Tupelo would produce a total of about 10 mgd in Tupelo. The northern 

segment of this line, Saltillo to Baldwyn, also would yield about 10 

mgd. Between Verona and Nettleton, the Eutaw Formation would 

yield 3 or 4 mgd and the Gordo Formation might yield more than 

20 mgd. Pumpage equal to the present use at Tupelo could be centered 

any place in Lee County, if there were no other withdrawals.

Surface reservoirs could be constructed at many sites in the county 

and may become important future sources of water in areas where 

water use is high. Although all streams in Lee County have been 

observed dry at some time, reservoirs on these streams could supply 

continuously much more water than could be obtained from the ground 

(table 9).

Artificial recharge of the aquifers should be considered in any longrange water management plan for Lee County.
TABLE 9. Summary of water resources at se

Ground water

Location

Belden ______ .

Saltillo.. . ... .

Shannon _ . __ ..

Elevation 

(ft)

400

340

400

400

260

325

320

325

270

300

Formations containing aquifers

Formation

Eutaw _ ... __ .

Eutaw

Depth to 

Depth to bottom 

top (ft) (ft)

0 

300 

500 

140 

440 

680 

0 

300 

530 

150 

420 

80 

350 

225 

465 

0 

260 

500 

285 

535 

230

470 

280 

520

200 

500 

540 

340 

680 

790 

200 

530 

580 

420 

550 

350 

610 

465 

635 

160 

500 

570 

535 

800 

470

620 

520 

750

Th

 Selected wells p 

(data for wells m 

may be found £ 

in tables 2, 3, 5) c 

(§

B43 

Cl

G26 

G23

B24 

Bll, B12, B19 

B22 

J13, J31a

O15, P18 

O14, O20 

L17, L18

E22, E27 

E14 

O22, O28

G12, H19, H28, 

L2 

H30b, H42, 

L19, L20 

K13, K29, L41, 

O26

leoretical 

wells; 

irobable 

Laximum 

specific 

apacity 

;pm per 

ft)

3?

5 

5 

2? 

7 

10 

3? 

7 

7 

5 

10 

7 

80 

7 

10 

2? 

7 

5 

8 

40? 

7

10 

8 

20?
B62 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES

SELECTED REFERENCES

Boswell, E. H., 1963, Cretaceous aquifers of northeastern Mississippi: Mississippi 

Board Water Commissioners Bull. 63-10, 202 p.

Boswell, E. H., Moore G. K., MacCarty, L. M., and others 1965. Cretaceous aquifers 

in the Mississippi embayment with discussions of quality of the water, by 

H. G. Jeffery : U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 448-C, 37 p.

Gushing, E. M., Boswell, E. H., and Hosman, R. L., 1964 General geology of the 

Mississippi embayment: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 448-B, 28 p.

Fair, G. M., and Geyer, J. C., 1965, Water supply and waste-water disposal: New 

York, John Wiley & 'Sons., Inc., 973 p.

Golden, H. G., 1962, Low-flow characteristics, Tombigbee River basin: Mississippi Board Water Commissioners Bull. 62-2, 32 p.

Hubbert, M. K, 1956, Darcy's law and the field equations of the flow of underground fluids: Am. Inst. Mining, Metall., Petroleum Engineers Trans., v. 

207, p. 222-239.

Lang, J. W., and Boswell, E. H., 1960, Public and industrial water supplies in a 

part of northern Mississippi: Mississippi Geol. Survey Bull. 90, 104 p.

Neely, B. L., Jr., 1964, Floods of 1962 in Mississippi: Mississippi Board Water 

Commissioners Bull. 64-0, 97 p.

 1967, Floods of 1963 in Mississippi: Mississippi Board Water Commissioners Bull. 67-2, 5 p.

Parks, W. S., 1960, Prentiss County geology: Mississippi State Geol. Survey 

Bull. 87,110 p.

Searcy, J. K., 1959, Flow-duration curves: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 

1542-A, 33 p.

Skelton, John, 1961, Low-flow measurements at selected sites on streams in 

Mississippi: Mississippi Board Water Commissioners Bull. 61-1, 135 p.

Speer, P. R,, Golden, H. G., Patterson, J. F., and others 1964, Low-flow characteristics of streams in the Mississippi embayment in Mississippi and Alabama with a section on quality of the water, by W. J. Welborne: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 448-1, 47 p.

Stephenson, L. W., Logan, W. N., and Waring, G. A., 1928. The ground-water 

resources of Mississippi, with discussions of the chemical character of ifche 

(waters, by C. S. Howard: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 576, 515 p.

Stephenson L. W., and Monroe, W. H., 1940, The Upper Cretaceous deposits: 

Mississippi State Geol. Survey Bull. 40,296 p.

Taylor, D. W., 1948, Fundamentals of soil mechanics: New York, John Wiley & 

Sons, Inc., p. 99-101.

Thomson, F. H., 1967, Memorandum on the ground-water resources of the Natchez 

Trace Parkway Headquarters area, Lee County, Mississippi: U.S. Geol. 

Survey open-file report, 22 p.

Todd, D. K., 1959, Annotated bibliography on artificial recharge of ground 

water through 1954: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1477, 115 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1963, Watershed work plan, Town Creek watershed Lee, Pontotoc, Union and Prentiss Counties, Mississippi: Soil Conserv. Service, 92 p.

U.S. Public Health Service, 1962, Drinking water standards: U.S. Public Health 

Service Pub. 956, 61 p.

 1965, Symposium on streamflow regulation for quality control: U.S. Public Health Service Pub. 999-WP-30,420 p.
WATER RESOURCES OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI B63

Vestal, F. E., 1946, Lee County mineral resources: Mississippi State Geol. Survey Bull. 63,135 p.

Wasson, B. E., Gdlden, H. G. and Gaydos, M. W., 1965, Available water for industry Clay, Lowndes, Monroe, and Oktibbeha Counties, Mississippi: Mississippi Research and Devel. Center Bull., 39 p.

Weuzel, L. K., 1942, Methods for determining permeability of water-bearing 

materials, with special reference to discharging-well methods: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 887,192 p.

Wilson, K. V., 1964, Floods of 1961 in Mississippi: Mississippi Board Water 

Commissioners Bull. 64-^r, 93 p.

Wilson, K. V., and Trotter, I. L., Jr., 1961, Floods in Mississippi magnitude and 

frequency: Mississippi State Highway Dept, 326 p.

US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970 O 380-726