Ground-Water Conditions 

in the Rincon and 

Mesilla Valleys and 

Adjacent Areas in 

New Mexico

By C. S. CONOVER

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1230

Prepared in cooperation with

the Elephant Butte Irrigation District

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1954
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Douglas McKay, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

W. E. Wrather, Director

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

Washington 25, D. C. - Price $1.50 (paper cover)
CONTENTS

Page

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

Introduction............................................................................................................................ 4

Purpose and scope of investigation................................................................................ 4

Previous investigations.................................................................................................... 5

Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. 7

Well-numbering system...................................................................................................... 8

Features of the area.............................................................................................................. 10

Location and general features........................................................................................ 10

Climate................................................................................................................................ 12

Topographic features........................................................................................................ 15

Rio Grande Project.......................................................................................................... 17

Geology.................................................................................................................................. 21

Character of sediments.................................................................................................... 22

Thickness of sediments.................................................................................................... 24

Occurrence of ground water in upland areas...................................................................... 27

Depth to water.................................................................................................................... 27

Movement and flow of ground water................................................................................ 31

Recharge of ground water................................................................................................ 37

Water conditions inthe Rincon.and Mesilla Valleys........................................................ 38

Surface water...................................................................................................................... 38

Available surface flow.................................................................................................. 38

Diversions to canals of Rio Grande project.............................................................. 40

Distribution of diversions............................................................................................ 40

Unit diversions.......................................................................................................... 41

Canal waste................................................................................................................ 41

Canal-seepage losses.............................................................................................. 42

Water delivered to farms.......................................................................................... 43

Flow of drains in Rincon and Mesilla Valleys.......................................................... 43

Relations of drain flow and diversions...................................................................... 45

Required water supply...................................................................................................... 50

Ground water in valley fill.............................................................................................. 52

Depth to water................................................................................................................ 52

Fluctuations of the water table.................................................................................. "58

Effect of irrigation.................................................................................................... 58

Effect of precipitation.............................................................................................. 64

Effect of transpiration.............................................................................................. 65

Source and movement of ground water........................................................................ 65

Direction of movement.............................................................................................. 65

Source of ground water.............................................................................................. 66

Seepage from the Rio Grande................................................................................ 66

Seepage from canals.............................................................................................. 73

Recharge from irrigation water............................................................................ 76

Recharge from precipitation................................................................................. 77

Discharge of ground water........................................................................................ 77

Chemical quality of water.................................................................................................... 79

General features................................................................................................................ 79

Variation of quality with depth........................................................................................ 82

Variation of quality areally.............................................................................................. 84

Quality of Las Graces water supply................................................................................ 88

Summary of quality of water.............................................................................................. 89

Hyd»ologic characteristics of water-bearing formation.................................................... 90

General conditions............................................................................................................ 90

Coefficient of transmissibility........................................................................................ 90

Methods of determining................................................................................................. 90

Pumping tests................................................................................................................ 92

Water-table gradients and flow of drains.................................................................... 96

Specific yield...................................................................................................................... 10 2

III
TV1V CONTENTS

Page

Ground-water development................................................................................................... 103

Previous development........................................................................................................ 103

Present development.......................................................................................................... 105

Domestic supplies.......................................................................................................... 105

Irrigation supplies.......................................................................................................... 107

Performance of existing wells..................................................................................... 107

Future development............................................................................................................ 110

Pumping of ground water.................................................................................................. 114

General conditions........................................................................................................ 114

Effect of pumping upon flow of drains........................................................................ 116

Supplemental pumping of ground water in a drought period...................................... 121

Pumping of ground water with a normal supply of surface water............................ 128

Cost of pumping'supplemental ground water.............................................................. 129

Recommended location of wells.................................................................................. 130

Recommendations for future studies.................................................................................... 132

Summary.................................................................................................................................. 133

Literature cited...................................................................................................................... 135

Records............................................. ..... ... ... ...... . .. .............. . ... .................... 136

Index........................................................................................................................................ 197

ILLUSTRATIONS

[All plates are in pocket]

Page

Plate 1. Map of Dona Ana County, N, Mex., showing contours on the water 

table, depth to water, and wells for which information was obtained, 1947.

2. Map of Rincon Valley, N. Mex., showing canals, drains, and wells 

for which information is given in well tables.

3. Map of Mesilla Valley, N. Mex,, showing canals, drains, Bureau of 

Reclamation auger holes, and wells for which information is given 

in well tables.

4. Profiles of water table in vicinity of Mesilla Park, N. Mex,

5. Map of Mesilla Valley, N. Mex., showing water-table contours and

depth to water in June 1917 prior to construction of drainage system.

6. Map of Mesilla Valley, N. Mex., showing water-table contours and

depth to water in summer of 1919 after construction of a part of the 

drainage system.

7. Map of Rincon Valley, N. Mex., showing water-table contours and 

depth to water in summer of 1919 and in 1926.

8. Water levels as measured monthly by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation 

in 11 auger holes in Mesilla Valley, N. Mex., showing seasonal and 

long-term changes.

9. Water-table contours showing seepage from Three Saints Lateral to

Anthony Drain. 

Figure 1. Map of southwestern part of New Mexico showing area covered by

report.................................................................................................................. H

2. Relation of reported net diversions to return drain flow in Rincon

Valley, N. Mex.................................................................................................. 46

3. Relation of reported net diversions to return drain flow in Mesilla

Valley, N. Mex. and Tex................................................................................ 47

4. Seasonal relations of gross headgate diversions and drain flow for

selected years, Rincon and Mesilla Valleys................................................ 48

5. Departures from average drain flow and diversions, Mesilla and

Rincon Valleys, 1930-46................................................................................ 49

6. Fluctuations of water level in three auger holes in Mesilla Valley,

and precipitation at State College............................................................ . 59

7. Fluctuations of water level in seven wells located in arroyo beds or 

in sediments above the valley floor of Rio Grande in Sierra and 

Dona Ana Counties, N. Mex............................................................. ...... 62

8. Flow of Rio Grande from Elephant Butte Dam to International Dam,

1917, 1918, and 1936................................................................................ 70

9. Water-table contours for July 1921 in the Hill area, New Mexico, showing 

seepage from Leasburg Canal and high water table prior to construction 

of Dona Ana Draia...................... . . 
CONTENTS

Page

Figure 10. Water-table contours for January and July 1922 in the Hill area, 

New Mexico, showing seepage from Leasburg Canal and lowering of water table during winter and by Dona Ana Drain...................... 75

11. Diagram for use in interpreting analyses of irrigation water.. .................... 80

12. Curves of recovery of water levels obtained from pumping tests

on five wells in Rincon and Mesilla Valleys.............................................. 93

13. Curves of recovery of water levels obtained from pumping tests on

two wells in Rincon and Mesilla Valleys.................................................... 94

14. Profiles of water table across Park Drain for selected times in 1947, 

as measured in auger holes in two lines about 3 miles south of 

Mesilla Park.................................................................................................... 98

15. Percentage of pumped water diverted from a drain or the river by a

pumped well in the Rincon or Mesilla Valleys.......................................... 118

TABLES

Page 

Table 1. Annual flow and depletion of the Rio Grande, 1930 46................................ 136

2. Releases from Caballo Reservoir, 1938-46.................................................... 137

3. Gross diversions from the Rio Grande, 1930-46............................................ 138

4. Acreage irrigated and distribution of diversions, 1930 46.......................... 138

5. Flow of the drains to the Rio Grande, 1930-46............................................ 141

6. Drillers' logs of wells........................................................................................ 143

7. Analyses of ground waters................................................................................ 152

8. Auger holes in Mesilla Valley.......................................................................... 154

9. Water levels in auger holes, 1947-48.............................................................. 155

10. Water levels in auger hole 23.2E.29.214, 1947-48........................................ 157

11. Water levels in wells i.i Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, 1946-48.................. 159

12. Records of large-diameter wells near or on the valley floor of the

Rio Grande...................................................................................................... 163

13. Records of wells located principally above the valley floor of the

Rio Grande..................................................................................................... 180

GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND

MESILLA VALLEYS AND ADJACENT AREAS

IN NEW MEXICO

By C. S. CONOVER

ABSTRACT

The Rio Grande in New Mexico winds through a succession of basins lying between 

isolated northward-trending mountain ranges constituting part of the Basin and Range 

physiographic province. The flood plain of the Rio Grande, in general, consists of wide 

and narrow sections corresponding to alternately soft and hard rocks traversed by the 

river. The Rincon and Mesilla Valleys are the two southernmost expanded flood plains 

of the Rio Grande in New Mexico and are parts of the Rio Grande project of the U. S. 

Bureau of Reclamation. Water for the project is stored at Elephant Butte Reservoir, 

which was constructed to equalize the flow of the river to the Rio Grande project because large variations occur in the natural flow. Caballo Dam, about 20 miles south of 

Elephant Butte Dam, permits control of irrigation water to the project after its use for 

generating electric power at Elephant Butte Dam.

After the heavy precipitation of 1941, Elephant Butte Reservoir filled to capacity, 

2,197,600 acre-feet, but drought conditions followed, and by early 1946 the reservoir 

contained less than a year's normal supply of water for the project. The Elephant Butte 

Irrigation District, the administrative control agency for the New Mexico part of the 

project desired to know whether it would be advisable to try to develop a supplemental 

ground-water supply for the district. The District and the U. S. Geological Survey signed 

a cooperative agreement whereby the Ground Water Branch of the Survey would make a 

ground-water study of the area to determine the feasibility of using ground water to supplement the present supply of surface water for irrigation in the district.

Below Elephant Butte Dam the Rio Grande flows westward for about 6 miles across 

the northern end of the Caballo Mountains, a fault-block mountain of pre-Cambrian, Paleozoic, and Cretaceous rocks dipping to the east. The river then turns south, following 

the western base of the mountains. The land rises gently west of the river in a series of 

pediment slopes toward the Black Range, which forms the Continental Divide. At the 

south end of the Caballo Mountains the river swings southeastward and crosses the 

northward-trending Jornada del Muerto, an intermountain basin, and its southern extension, La Mesa, the river being bounded on the east by the Dona Ana, Organ, and Franklin Mountains. These mountains consist largely of tilted Paleozoic sedimentary rocks on 

a basement of pre-Cambrian rocks, but they also contain Tertiary volcanic rocks. The 

bolsonlike troughs between the mountains east and west of the river are filled with Tertiary and Quaternary sands, silts, clays, and gravels, constituting a valley fill that belongs largely to the Santa Fe formation of Miocene and Pliocene age. Overlying this material and terrace gravels, basalt lava flows, and the flood-plain deposits of thelRio 

Grande, the latter forming the' smooth valley floor, generally bordered by steep bluffs, 

which may exceed 100 feet in height

Ground water occurs beneath the plains of La Mesa and Jornada del Muerto. Generally the water is unconfined-that is, water-table conditions exist. The map showing 

contours of the water table indicates that the ground water flows from La Mesa toward 

the valley rather than following a possible former course of the Rio Grande toward Mexico. The hydraulic gradient of the water table ranges from as little as 1.2 feet to the mile 

in the central part of La Mesa, where the aquifer is thick, to more than 100 feet to the 

mile on the steep slopes along the mountains, where the aquifer is relatively thin and 

the water is apparently upheld by the buried impermeable rocks of the mountains. The 

depth to water is generally greatest (more than 400 feet) in the central parts of the
2 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

plains, and least (less than 100 feet) toward the edges of the plains, near the mountains, 

and along the valleys. The ground water beneath the plains is recharged from precipitation upon the upland and mountainous areas. In the La Mesa area, the recharge is estimated to be about 0.02 inch of water per year. The average annual precipitation is a little 

less than 10 inches. The ground water from beneath the plains is discharged to the Rio 

Grande at a rate estimated to be less than 1 cubic foot a second per mile of valley, with 

that part in the Mesilla Valley approximating 40,000 acre-feet a year.

Water of the Rio Grande which generates hydroelectric power at Elephant Butte Dam is 

stored in Caballo Reservoir for irrigation use. Diversions from the Rio Grande to the irrigated lands of the district are made at Percha Dam in the Rincon Valley and at Leasburg 

and Mesilla Dams in the Mesilla Valley. A drainage system, consisting of 42 miles of 

open drains in the Rincon Valley and 226 miles in the Mesilla Valley, discharges return 

irrigation seepage to the Rio Grande.

The depth to the water table in the valley fill along the flood plain in the Rincon and 

Mesilla Valleys is generally less than 10 feet. The ground-water level rises during the 

irrigation season to a high level in late August and declines during the nonirrigation season to its lowest level in February or March. The water table, in general, slopes down the 

valley at a rate of about 4.5 feet to the mile, which is essentially the same as that of the 

valley floor. The ground water in the valley fill of the flood plain is recharged by infiltration of water applied to the land for irrigation, seepage from canals, seepage from certain stretches of the river, precipitation upon the flood plain, and ground-water flow from 

the mesas and other elevated areas. Recharge by direct infiltration of precipitation is, on 

the average, small.

Discharge of ground water in the valleys is essentially by seepage to the drains and 

parts of the river and by transpiration by plants in areas of high water table. Discharge 

of ground water in the project, as represented by the water returned to the river by the 

drains, is 249,400 acre-feet a year when a normal supply of surface water is available for 

irrigation. A quantity of ground water, which has not been exactly determined, is discharged directly to the river in certain stretches.

The coefficient of transmissibility of the alluvial deposits in the Rincon and Mesilla 

Valleys averages 75,000 gallons a day per foot, as determined from pumping tests on 7 

wells and from the relation between the accretion to 7 drains and the slope of the water 

table perpendicular to them.

Ground water obtained by pumping in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys does not represent 

an additional supply or new source of water to the project, but rather a change in method, 

time, and place of diversion of the supplies already available.

Sufficient water for irrigation can be obtained from wells throughout the major part of 

the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys. Wells will "sand up" and special well construction may 

be necessary to control it. Water for irrigation, generally in small amounts, can be obtained by drilling wells on the low bench lands that border the valley floor and in the 

arroyos cut in them. Some wells in these areas will have only small yields.

In 1946 the anticipated shortage of surface water gave impetus to the drilling of wells 

for irrigation water in the Mesilla and Rincon Valleys. The number of irrigation wells increased from 11 at the end of 1946 to about 56 at the end of 1947. By February 1948, 14 

additional wells had been constructed or were under construction.

Some of the lands now irrigated from wells do not have water rights under the Rio 

Grande project. There are about 15,000 acres of such lands on the flood plain and bordering higher land which could be irrigated by ground water. These lands, if developed, 

would ultimately utilize about 38,000 acre-feet of water annually on a basis of 2.5 acrefeet per acre.
GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 3

The writer concludes that in a hypothetical year having only 50 percent of a normal 

supply of surface water available for diversions, the project lands would require an additional acre-foot per acre of water from wells to assure successful irrigation of the 

crops. However, because of the reduction in flow of the drains caused by pumping and 

because of losses in distribution, the use of water from wells to supply this deficit 

would require pumping 2.42 acre-feet per acre, or 213,000 acre-feet a year for the 88,000 

acres of water-right land in New Mexico. Of the amount pumped, it is calculated that all 

but 63,000 acre-feet would be diverted from surface-water flow. If supplemental pumping 

were resorted to for 5 successive dry years, continued pumping would be necessary for 

3 to 4 years after a return to normal surface supply so as to permit bypassing of the required share of water to the El Paso district, awaiting the restoration of ground-water 

storage by recharge from surface water.

The total cost of pumping equipment and pumping of this supplemental water for a 

period of 5 years with about 50 percent of normal surface supply, such as has been recorded in the past at San Marcial gage above Elephant Butte Reservoir, would be approximately one-fifth of the resulting additional gross crop returns, on the basis of the average gross return per acre from 1937 to 1946.

Substitution of pumping of ground water for the usual winter releases of surface water 

for irrigation of a small percentage of the lands would result in a saving to the project of 

possibly 34,000 acre-feet of water annually if no water were allowed to bypass the project in the winter.

The chemical quality of the shallow ground water in the alluvium of the Rincon and 

Mesilla Valleys is slightly poorer than that of drain water but is satisfactory for most 

irrigation requirements. Comparatively good water is obtained on the surrounding high 

lands and in the arroyo beds.

As water pumped from wells in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys is not an additional or 

new supply but rather water that is normally intercepted by the project, continuing records should be kept of the amount of water pumped, of water-level measurements, and of 

the location and performance of the irrigation wells. Measurements of the flow of the 

drains should be made periodically and at enough points to determine the magnitude of 

the effect of pumping upon the flow of the drains.
4 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION

Prolonged drought conditions on the Rio Grande watershed during the preceding 5 years reduced surf ace-water storage so greatly that a serious water shortage seemed to impend in 1947, and 

became more serious in 1948, for the Rio Grande project of the 

Bureau of Reclamation. The annual supply of water allowable to 

the project under the terms of the Rio Grande Compact is 790,000 

acre-feet, including 60, 000 acre-feet required for delivery to 

Mexico. The total amount of water available to the project, including about 105,000 acre-feet of water stored in El Vado Reservoir and owed to the project, had dropped to about 465, 000 acrefeet by the second week of August 1947. The amount of stored water in Elephant Butte Reservoir August 12, 1947, was 317,000 

acre-feet, the lowest on record since operation of the reservoir 

beganin 1916, and 29 percent of the average from 1915 to 1947 for 

the last day in August. On the same date, the available 43,000 

acre-feet of stored water in Caballo Reservoir was about average. 

With another month of irrigation due in 1947, the carry-over water 

storage would be very small and unless very substantial replenishment occurred there would be insufficient water for irrigation 

in 1948. Rationing of water for the 1948 year was announced in 

August 1947. The initial allotment of water was set at 1 acre-foot 

per acre, subject to change if more water became available. In 

addition, no winter releases of water were to be made, and no 

water was to be delivered to lands lacking a full water right.

In 1946 the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, which comprises 

the valley lands of the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys of the Rio 

Grande in the New Mexico part of the Rio Grande project, anticipated a shortage of surface water because of the low stage of 

Elephant Butte Reservoir. One of the measures considered to 

relieve the impending shortage was the use of ground water for 

irrigation. Intelligent planning of the use of ground water required 

a knowledge of the ground-water conditions of the area. Accordingly, the district requested the U. S. Geological Survey to make a 

study of the possibilities of pumping ground water for irrigation, 

mainly from the standpoint of productiveness of wells and of the 

effect that the pumping of wells wouldhave upon the surface-water 

supply in the river and drains.

Field work, begun in 1946 by the author, consisted of obtaining 

available information concerning the wells in the valley, primarily wells that would produce sufficient water for irrigation and
INTRODUCTION 5

municipal supply. Pumping tests were made on a few wells to 

determine the hydrologic constants of the aquifer and the specific 

capacities of the wells. Considerable data on file at the U. S. 

Bureau of Reclamation, relative to the ground-water conditions in 

the valleys in the early years, were studied. These data consisted 

of measurements of depth to water in a number of auger holes over 

a period of years; depth-to-water maps of the Mesilla Valley prior 

to, and subsequent to, installation of the drains; profiles of the 

water table across various drains and across the entire valley; 

land classifications; records of surface-water diversions and 

applications and return flow of the drains in past years; annual 

project histories; and other related information.

In 1947, G. R. Chenot of the Geological Survey gathered data 

concerning wells on the upland mesa lands bordering the Mesilla 

Valley. He attempted to visit all known wells to determine their 

altitudes, measure the depth to water in them, and obtain other 

available data. Information concerning newly developed irrigation 

wells in the valleys was obtained-at intervals, and periodic measurements of water levels were made in a few observation wells in 

the valleys. Water samples for chemical analysis were collected 

from a number of wells in the valley and on the mesa lands.

In February 1947, 2 lines of auger holes were placed across 

the Park Drain on the Seale and Holt roads south of Mesilla Park 

in order to determine the relation between the slope of the water 

table and the accretion of ground water to the drain. Water levels 

were measured in these wells every 2 weeks by the Geological 

Survey, and the drain flow was measured every month by the 

Bureau of Reclamation. In the same month, an auger hole was installed at the shelter for weather instruments at the New Mexico 

College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts to obtain a daily record 

of the water level. Observations on this well have been made by 

those employed to record the weather observations.

The studies in Rincon and Mesilla Valleys were .made under the 

direction of A. N. Sayre, geologist in charge, Ground Water 

Branch, Water Resources Division of the U. S. Geological Survey, 

and under the immediate supervision of C. V. Theis, district geologist in charge of ground-water investigations inNew Mexico.

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

The earliest published report available on the ground-water conditions in the Mesilla Valley is that by Slichter (1905). At the time 

of his investigation considerable interest was exhibited in the pump-
D GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

ing of ground water from the valley fill as a means of supplementing the erratic flows of the Rio Grande. Slichter (1905, p. 13) investigated the underflow of the Rio Grande at the narrows above 

El Paso and determined that the underflow did not exceed 50 gallons a minute. A number of auger test holes were bored in a line 

across the valley on the east side of the river in the vicinity of 

Mesilla Park to determine the gradient of the water table and the 

changes caused byflows in the RioGrande. Slichter (1905, p. 27- 

29) determined that the greater part of the underflow was evidently derived from the river and that only a small amount possibly 

about 0. 5 cubic foot a second per mile along the valley was derived from the adjoining mesas. Data are given for pumping tests 

made upon 12 irrigation wells near Las Cruces and Berino. Specific capacities of the wells ranged from a minimum of 5. 8 to a 

maximum of 88.0 gallons a minute per foot of drawdown (Slichter, 

1905, p. 34).

Lee (1907) inhis report on the water resources of the RioGrande 

valley gave data on a number of wells in the Mesilla Valley, including 6 that had not been previously reported by Slichter. He 

discussed the quantity, source, and probable disposal of the ground 

water in the Mesilla Valley and concluded that the ground water 

was probably discharged by evaporation in the valley (Lee, 1907, 

p. 50). Although a few data indicated the possibility of groundwater flow into Mexico, Lee believed, because of the downcutting 

of the Rio Grande in 'the Mesilla Valley and the accumulation of 

surface water in the gravels of La Mesa, that the flow from La 

Mesa, should be toward the Rio Grande rather than away from it 

(Lee, 1907, p. 40, 50).

The rising water table in the Mesilla Valley caused by the increased dependable water supply after the beginning of operation 

of Elephant Butte Dam in 1916 made installation of drains necessary. Preparatory to the installation of drains, auger holes were 

installed throughout the valley by the Bureau of Reclamation and 

water-table maps were prepared from the measurements of the 

water level. The results of the ground-water observations were 

incorporated in the annual project histories of the Rio Grande 

project and in a drainage report by L. R. Fiock of the Bureau of 

Reclamation in February 1917.

Dunham( 1935) discussed the geology of the Organ Mountains and 

noted briefly the water conditions in a few of the mines.

The report of the Rio Grande joint investigation, 1936 to 1937, 

contains only casual mention of the ground-water conditions in the 

Mesilla Valley, except with respect to the quality of the drain and 

subsoil waters (National Resources Committee, 1938, p. 451). In
INTRODUCTION '

the report Kirk Bryan states that, because the lands west of the 

Rincon Valley are higher than the valley, the Rincon Valley must 

receive water from, rather than lose water to, the west. He also 

states that because the ground-water levels in La Mesa appear to 

be higher than the floor of the Mesilla Valley, the Mesilla Valley 

must receive ground water from La Mesa, and inasmuch as the 

enclosed basins south of La Mesa appear to have altitudes higher 

than the valley floor above El Paso, flow of ground water south to 

Mexico from La Mesa appears unlikely (National Resources Committee, 1938, p. 225).

Chemical analyses of the surface, drain, and subsoil waters of 

the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, sampled during the Rio Grande 

joint investigation, are contained in a report by Scofield (1938).

A reconnaissance investigation of the water supply for Las 

Cruces was made in September 1936 by C. V. Theis 1 of the Geological Survey. He concurred with the city officials of Las Cruces 

in locating the wells of the city on the mesa land to the east and 

believed it possible to obtain water of a better quality than that 

found in the valley.

A reconnaissance report was prepared by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics* on the possibility of obtaining water supplies 

for a settlement in the southern part of the Jornada del Muerto, 

east of the Dona Ana Mountains. The report included data on a 

few stock wells and stated that the depth to water was in excess 

of an economic pumping lift for irrigation.3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer acknowledges the cordial assistance of members of 

the Bureau of Reclamation who made available data concerning all 

aspects of the Rio Grande project, frequently spending a considerable amount of their time, especially L. R. Fiock, project manager, and W. F. Resch, acting superintendent of the Rio Grande 

project in El Paso. Mr. Resch also made many helpful comments. 

The writer's thanks are also due E. S. Mayfield, division engineer, 

Las Cruces division; Joe Carbine and Mr. Williams, watermasters 

for the Mesilla Valley, for general information, for monthly meas1Theis, C. V., 1936, Memorandum on water supplies at Las Cruces: U. S. Geol. Survey unpublished report, Albuquerque, N. Mex. , 9 p.

Bureau of Agriculture Economics, 1939, Reconnaissance report on possibilities for water 

facilities for the southern Jornada del Muerto, Dona Ana County, N. Mex., U. S. Dept. Agr., 

(unpublished), 14 p.

"Idem, p. 11, 12.
8 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

urements of the flow of the Del Rio Drain, and aid in finding irrigation wells; to M. B. Bonor, watermaster for the Rincon Valley, 

who helped in finding irrigation wells; and Mr. Sadler of the Las 

Crucesoffice for his help in obtaining data onfile. Nearly all the 

data in this report concerning irrigated acreages, diversions, 

drain flow, and water levels in past years were obtained from the 

Bureau of Reclamation.

Albert Curry, assistant director of the Agricultural Experiment 

Station at State College, gave permission and made arrangements 

for the pumping test on the college well and furnished valuable 

data pertinent to the irrigation wells of the college. Professor 

Overpeck also assisted in the pumping test and arranged for the 

daily observations in the auger hole at the weather-instruments 

shelter.

Grateful acknowledgment is especially due John L. Gregg, 

treasurer-manager of the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, 

who, from his detailed knowledge of the area, made many very 

helpful comments and suggestions throughout the study.

The well drillers were invariably helpful in supplying what information they had concerning wells, and the well owners and 

residents of the area were courteous and helpful; their assistance 

is appreciated.

WELL-NUMBERING SYSTEM

The system of numbering wells shown in this report is the same 

as that used in other parts of New Mexico. The system is based 

on the common designations of public land divisions, and by means 

of it the well number, in addition to designating the well, locates 

its position to the nearest 10-acre tract. The number is divided 

into four segments by periods. The first segment denotes the 

township north or south of the New Mexico base line, the second 

denotes the range east or west of the New Mexico principal meridian, and the third denotes the section. In a county such as Dona 

Ana County, where wells are situated both east and west of the 

principal meridian, and E is added to the second segment of the 

well number if the well is east of the principal meridian, but no 

letter is added if the well is west of the principal meridian. In 

counties in which no confusion can arise, the direction east or 

west of the meridian is not given.

The fourth segment of the number, which consists of 3 digits, 

denotes the particular 10-acre tract in which the well is situated. 

For this purpose, the section is divided into four quarters, numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4, in the normal reading order, for the north-
INTRODUCTION 9

west, northeast, southwest, and southeast quarters, respectively. 

The first digit of the fourth segment gives the quarter section, 

which is a tract of 160 acres. Similarly, the quarter section is 

divided into four 40-acre tracts numbered in the same manner, 

and the second digit denotes the 40-acre tract. Finally, the 40- 

acre tract is divided into four 10-acre tracts, and the third digit 

denotes the 10-acre tract. Thus, well 23. 2E. 29. 342 in Dona Ana 

County is in the NEteE^SW1/* sec. 29, T. 23 S., R. 2 E. If a 

well cannot be located accurately to a 10-acre tract, a zero is used 

as the third digit, and if it cannot be located accurately within a 40- 

acre tract, zeros are used for both the second and third digits. 

If the well cannot be located more closely than the section, the 

fourth segment of the well number is omitted. When it becomes 

possible to locate more accurately a well in whose number zeros 

have been used, the proper digit or digits are substituted for the 

zeros. Letters a, b, c, and d are added to the last segment to 

designate the second, third, fourth and suceeding wells listed in 

the same 10-acre tract.

The following diagram shows the method of numbering the tracts 

within a section:

Ill --(1

113

131

--(>:

133

311

112 

0) -

1,4 

fir LII

132

(0) -

134

312

- (310) -

313

331

--O:

333

314

r<v i*

332

JO) -

334

121 

-- (I,

123 »} 

141

-- (H

143

321

122 

20) -

124

142

10) --

144

322

- ( 320.) - -

323 

0] 

341

--(*

343

324

342

10) - -

344

211 212 

- (2 0) -

213 214 

 [2(

231 232

- (230) -

233 234

411 412

-- (410) -

413 4>4 

f4( L "

431 432

- (430) -1 

433 434

1 

221 | 222

- (220) -

223 224

241 242

-- (240)--

243 244

421 422

- (4201 ) -

423 424

*] 

441 442

- - (440)- - 

443 444

In the well tables, pages 163 to 195 of this report, the wells are 

arranged in numerical sequence of the well location number, wells 

east of the principal meridian in a township preceding those west 

of the meridian.
10 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

FEATURES OF THE AREA

LOCATION AND GENERAL FEATURES

The area covered by this report includes the valley lands of the 

Rincon and Mesilla Valleys in New Mexico and the adjacent mesa 

lands bordering, primarily, the Mesilla Valley.

The Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, in the south-central part of 

New Mexico, are two of the many widened parts of the Rio Grande 

valley that are separated by narrows and canyons in the eroded 

channel. The Rincon Valley lies north of the Mesilla Valley, in 

Sierra and Dona Ana Counties, N. Mex.; the Mesilla Valley is in 

Dona Ana County, N. Mex. and El Paso County, Tex. (See fig. 1 

and pis. 1-3.)

The largest community in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys is 

Las Cruces, N. Mex., 45 miles north of El Paso, Tex. It had an 

estimated population of 12, 000 in 1946, an increase of 43 percent 

from 8, 385 in 1940. The only other town of appreciable size is 

Hatch, about 36 miles north of Las Cruces, in the Rincon Valley. 

It had an estimated population of 1, 400 in 1946, an increase of 70 

percent from 822 in 1940. El Paso, in the El Paso Valley of the 

Rio Grande, is a nearby trade territory and tourist center with a 

population of about 109, 000. Across the Rio Grande from El Paso 

is Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Hot Springs (named Truth or Consequences in 1950), about 40 miles north of Hatch, had an estimated 

population of about 5, 000 in 1946. It is a trade territory and health 

and recreation resort. Various small settlements are distributed 

along the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, a few of which are Arrey, 

Derry, Garfield, Salem, and Rincon in the Rincon Valley, and 

Dona Ana, Mesilla, Mesilla Park, State College, San Miguel, La 

Mesa, Berino, La Union, Anthony, and Canutillo in the Mesilla 

Valley.

The New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts is at 

State College, about 2 miles southeast of Las Cruces. White Sands 

Military Proving Ground is on the east side of the Organ Mountains, 

about 20 miles east of Las Cruces.

The area is served by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway which runs along the Jornada del Muerto, east of the Caballo 

Mountains that flank the Rincon Valley on the east, and enters the 

Rincon Valley at Rincon about Smiles east of Hatch. From Rincon 

the main line extends southward in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys 

through Las Cruces to El Paso, and a branch line goes westward 

through Hatch to Deming. U. S. Highway 85 traverses the Rincon 

and Mesilla Valleys from the north through Hatch to Las Cruces
FEATURES OF THE AREA 11

« -*I / -*SANTA FEJ 

\ I ^Albuquerque j 

^fi t.R N A L I L L Oi '" 

VALE N C I A

S 0 C 0 R R 0

--~J

Elephant Butte \ LINCOLN 

Reservoir

0Silver Cify V

H I D A L G 0 

Figure 1. Map of southwestern part of New Mexico showing the area covered by the report.

317267 O - 55 - 2
12 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

and El Paso, and U. S. Highway 70 crosses the Mesilla Valley at 

Las Cruces. State Route 26 fromDeming enters the Rincon Valley 

at Hatch.

The main industry of the valleys is farming, with 68 percent of 

the crop acreage in 1946 in cotton, 19 percent in alfalfa, and 4 

percent in pecans. The pecan acreage is increasing. Some truck 

crops are grown quite successfully. Cantaloupes, chili, and onions 

each made up about 1 percent of the crop acreage in 1946. The 

total value of crop production for the Rio Grande project in 1946, 

in New Mexico and Texas, was $39, 463, 471 or $251.90 per acre, 

and in the New Mexico section alone was $20, 912, 574. Many cotton 

gins, 2 cottonseed-oil mills, and 2 canneries are located in the 

area, and plans for erection of an alfalfa mill are under way.

CLIMATE

The climate of Dona Ana County, N. Mex., typical of the climate 

of the arid to semiarid parts of southwestern United States, is 

characterized by clear and sunny days, large diurnal temperature 

ranges, low humidity, and scant rainfall.

Weather records maintained by the U. S. Weather Bureau at 

State College, south of Las Cruces, show a mean annual temperature of nearly 60 F. for the 89 years of record. The average 

maximum temperature for July is about 93 F. .and the average 

minimum, about 65 F. In January the average maximum temperature is 58 F. and the average minimum is 26 F. Large diurnal 

temperature changes are common, summer temperatures sometimes exceeding 100 F. during the day and falling below 60 F. at 

night. There is a long frost-free growing season of about 200 days 

a year.

The low average relative humidity of less than 50 percent is a 

factor in the high diurnal temperature changes and is also partly 

responsible for the high annual evaporation of nearly 100 inches.

The rainfall in the valleys is scant, greater amounts falling on 

the surrounding highlands that intercept the storms. The average 

annual rainfall at State College is 8. 68 inches and that at the Jornada Experimental Range on the mesa, northeast of Las Cruces, 

is 9. 60 inches. The higher peaks of the Organ and Franklin Mountains probably receive in excess of 15 inches a year. The distribution of precipitation during the year is such that more than half 

the yearly total normally falls in July, August, and September.
FEATURES OF THE AREA 13

This distribution of rainfall is advantageous for growing crops, 

but it is totally inadequate in amount and must be supplemented 

by irrigation.

Variation in the time and amount of precipitation causes a 

variation in the time and amount of irrigation water applied to 

crops and also a variation in the ground-water levels. Relation 

of the precipitation in 194-7 and part of 1948 to the water level, 

measured daily in three auger test holes, is shown in figure 6.

The following tables taken from reports of the U. S. Weather 

Bureau show data on precipitation at the Agricultural College, 

Hatch, and Caballo Dam from 1930 to 1948. The precipitation in 

1941 of 19. 60 inches at the Agricultural College was the greatest 

for the 89 years of record, exceeding the previous record in 1881 

by 4. 55 inches. The least annual rainfall was 3. 61 inches, in 1860.

Annual precipitation at stations in Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, N. Mex., 

1430-47

Year

1930 

1931 

1932 

1933 

1934 

1935 

1936 

1937 

1938 

1939 

1940 

1941 

1942 

1943 

1944 

1945 

1946 

1947

Agricultural 

College 

(Altitude, 3,863 feet)

Precipitation 

(inches)

6.88 

13.26 

8.83 

4.71 

4.62 

12.67 

9.50 

7.01 

9.27 

5.77 

9.22 

19.60 

9.80 

7.55 

9.77 

5.77 

7.14 

6.08

Departure 

from average

-1.80 

+4.58 

+.15 

-3,97 

-4.06 

+3.99 

+.82 

-1.67 

+.59 

-2.91 

+.54 

+10.92 

+1.12 

-1.13 

+1.09 

-2.91 

-1.54 

-2.60

Hatch 

(Altitude, 4, 042 feet)

Precipitation 

(inches)

16. 13

7.43 

8.57 

4.03 

8.20 

7.65 

7.09 

13.56 

10.15 

6.47 

18.22 

8.46 

7.63 

8.78 

4.58 

8.56

Caballo 

Dam

Precipitation 

(inches)

8.41 

6.97 

18.82 

8.30 

8.12 

9.92 

6.19 

5.57 

4.88
14 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 

Average monthly precipitation at Agricultural College, ,N. Mex.

January.................................................................................................. 0.32

February................................................................................................ .43

March................................................................................................... .32

April..................................................................................................... .22

May.........................................t........................................................... .30

June..................................................................................................... . 55

July..................................................................................................... 1.73

August.................................................................................................. 1.73

September............................................................................................. 1.35

October................................................................................................ '.70

November............................................................................................. .54

December............................................................................................. .49

Annual............................................................................................. 8. 68

Daily precipitation, in inches, at Agricultural College, N. Mex., 1947-48 

[No precipitation on days not shown]

Date Amount Date Amount Date Amount

1947 

Jan. 2

Feb. 

Mar.

Apr. 

May

June

9

10

22

23

26

17

18

0.09 

.07 

.47 

.02 

.46 

.05 

.36 

.12 

Trace 

.08 

.01 

.04 

.01 

.04 

.01 

.08 

.38

1947-Con. 

June 19

July 

Aug.

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov.

0.03 

.25 

.03 

.14 

.10 

.07 

.42

1.06 

.06 

.18 

228 

.07

Trace

Trace 

.06 

.26 

.15

Nov. 17 

18

Dec. 3 

31

1948

Jan. 28 

Feb. 4

5

6

12

25

26

27 

Mar. 18

30

31

0.07 

.06 

.18 

.32

.18 

.06 

.28 

.01 

.03 

.31 

.74 

Trace 

.02 

.03 

.11
FEATURES OF THE AREA 15

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES

Dona Ana County is traversed diagonally by the Rio Grande 

(see pi. 1), which flows in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, two 

of the many widened lowlands along the river. The valleys have 

relatively smooth alluvial floors ranging in width from a few 

hundred feet to a maximum of about Smiles in the vicinity of Las 

Cruces. The altitude of the Rincon Valley ranges from about 

4, 140 feet above sea level at Caballo Dam to 3, 974 feet at Leasburg Dam, a slope of about 4. 5 feet to the mile. Hatch, near the 

center of the valley, has an altitude of 4, 054 feet. The altitude 

of the Mesilla Valley ranges from 3, 974 feet above sea level at 

Leasburg Dam to 3, 720 feet at the El Paso station 4 miles northwest of El Paso, a slope also of about 4. 5 feet to the mile. Las 

Cruces, near the upper part of the valley, has an altitude of 

3, 897 feet.

The valleys are bordered by steep bluffs, about 50 to 100 feet 

high, of loosely cemented sand, silt, clay, and gravel. From the 

bluffs, gently inclined plains extend back to the mountain. The 

plainer mesa on the east side of Mesilla Valley that extends north 

from Las Cruces to San Marcial, a distance of about 100 miles, 

is called the Jornada del Muerto. It is nearly flat detrital plain, 

10 to 20 miles in width, between the San Andres Mountains on the 

east and the Caballo and Fra Cristobal Mountains on the west. It 

has no drainage lines except at the southern end, near the river, 

but numerous shallow depressions throughout its length catch 

storm waters and form temporary lakes. The Jornada del Muerto 

slopes southward about 4. 5 feet to the mile (Lee, 1907, p. 10) 

The altitude of the center of the plain, at the lowest point east of 

the Dona Ana Mountains, about 9 miles northeast of Las Cruces, 

is about 4, 290 feet, or 360 feet above the level of the Rio Grande 

to the west.

The plain west of the Mesilla Valley that extends southward 

from near Las Cruces into Mexico is known as La Mesa. It is 

similar to Jornada del Muerto in many respects. Its altitude at 

the northern end is approximately the same as that of the southern 

end of Jornada del Muerto, and the two formed a single plain previous to the excavation of the Mesilla Valley. La Mesahas a width 

of 20 miles or more and is undissected by erosion and devoid of 

surface drainage. It contains several broad, shallow depressions 

(Lee, 1907, p. 10). The slope of La Mesa is southward about 70 

feet in 30 miles, slightly more than 2 feet to the mile, or about 

half that of Jornada del Muerto. The altitude of La Mesa west of 

Black Mountain is about 4, 200 feet, or 375 feet above the level of 

the river to the east.
16 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

The Caballo Mountains parallel the Rincon Valley a few miles 

to the east and separate it from the Jornada del Muerto. West of 

the Rincon Valley the plains extend nearly to the Mimbres Mountains, about 20 miles distant. At the southern end of the Rincon 

Valley is Selden Canyon, which has been eroded into the igneous 

rocks that form the Sierra de las Uvas.

The northward-trending Organ Mountains, are about 15 miles 

east of Las Cruces. The highest peak is Organ Needle, 9,012 

feet above sea level. The Franklin Mountains extend south from 

the Organ Mountains to the Rio Grande at El Paso. The San Andres 

Mountains extend northward from the Organ Mountains about 70 

miles and flank the Jornada del Muerto on the east. (See pi. 1.)

The West Potrillo and East Potrillo Mountains, which reach an 

altitude of 5, 957 feet at Mount Riley, lie west of La Mesa and 

extend about 25 miles northward from the international boundary.

Other minor mountains are: the Picacho Mountain and Robledo 

Mountain, maximum altitude 5,876 feet, on the west side of "the 

Rio Grande and extending northward from the vicinity of Las Cruces 

to Leasburg Dam; Dona Ana Mountains, maximum altitude 5, 829 

feet, on the east side of Mesilla Valley north of Las Cruces; Tortugas Mountain, elevation 4, 912 feet, about 3 miles east of State 

College; and Black Mountain, about 6 miles west of Mesilla Valley 

in the vicinity of Chamberino. (See pi. 1.)

The Rio Grande flows southward from Truth or Consequences 

in Sierra County to the vicinity of the Sierra-Dona Ana County 

line, thence southeastward across -Dona Ana County to ElPaso, 

Tex. The flow of the Rio Grande in this area in summer is maintained principally by releases from Elephant Butte and Caballo 

Reservoirs and in the winter by return drainage flow. Prior to 

construction of Elephant Butte Dam the river was often dry for 

months at a time. Slichter (1905, p. 21) states that there was no 

water in the Rio Grande below El Paso for 9 months prior to August 

25, 1904.

Many tributaries enter the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys. Most 

are short arroyos that have been formed by storm runoff and 

carry water only for short periods after sudden, heavy showers, 

which occur principally during the summer. A few of the tributaries, particularly those that rise in the mountains west of the 

Rincon Valley, have large drainage areas, and have small perennial flows in their upper reaches. The small perennial flows do 

not reach the Rio Grande, either being diverted for irrigation or 

sinking underground shortly after leaving the mountains. Only a 

few large arroyos enter the Mesilla Valley, the principal ones 

entering from the east in the vicinity of Las Cruces. (See pis. 1-3.)
FEATURES OF THE AREA 17

There are a few springs in the area, particularly in the Organ 

Mountains. The best known is Radium Springs, a mineral hot 

spring at the head of the Mesilla Valley. A small spring, Derry 

warm springs, issues from the limestone bluff on the east side of 

the Rincon Valley about a mile north of the Sierra-Dona Ana County 

line. (See analyses, p.152, 153.)

RIO GRANDE PROJECT

The Rio Grande project of the Bureau of Reclamation includes 

most of the valley lands of the Rio Grande in New Mexico and Texas 

from Caballo Dam southward to a point about 40 miles below El 

Paso, a distance of about 130 miles. From Caballo Dam to Selden 

Canyon, a distance of about 30 miles, the Rio Grande flows in the 

Rincon Valley, which has a maximum width of about 2 miles. 

(See pi. 2.) Below Selden Canyon the valley floor widens into the 

Mesilla Valley, which extends about 55 miles southeastward to 

"The Pass, " 4 miles above El Paso. The Mesilla Valley is one 

of the larger widened areas along Rio Grande and has a width of 

about 5 miles near Las Cruces. (See pi. 3.) The El Paso Valley 

extends about 90 miles southward from El Paso and ranges in 

width from 4 to 6 miles, but only the upper 40 miles is included 

in the Rio Grande project.

The water for the Rio Grande project is stored in Elephant Butte 

Reservoir, which has a capacity of 2,197,600 acre-feet, and in 

Caballo Reservoir, which has a capacity of 345, 870 acre-feet, 

about 28 miles below Elephant Butte Dam. Water released from 

Caballo Reservoir is diverted from the Rio Grande to the canals 

in the Rincon Valley by the Percha Dam, about 2 miles below 

Caballo Dam; in the Mesilla Valley by the Leasburg Dam at the 

head of the valley and by the Mesilla Dam, about 5^ miles southwest of Las Cruces; and in the El Paso Valley by the American 

Dam, about 3 miles northwest of El Paso. Water for the Mexican 

side of the El Paso Valley, generally referred to as the Valle de 

Juarez, is diverted at the International Dam, about 2 miles below 

the American Dam.

Gaging stations, equipped with automatic water-stage recorders, 

are maintained at various points on the Rio Grande by theU. S. Bureau of Reclamation and by the International Boundary and Water 

Commission. The stations on the Rio Grande pertinent to this report 

areas follows: "Below Caballo Dam, " 0. 8 mile below Caballo Dam 

and 1. 5 miles above Percha Dam; "Leasburg Dam;" "El Paso station," above American Dam; and "below American Dam," 0.6 

mile below American Dam and 1. 5 miles above International Dam. 

The flow at the El Paso station since the beginning of operation of 

the American Dam, in June 1938, has been generally computed as
18 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

the sum of the flow at "below American Dam" and the diversions 

from the American Dam to the American canal. Prior to installation of the gage "below Caballo Dam, " in February 1938, records 

of flow were kept at Percha Dam. Small accretions to the river 

take place between the Caballo Dam gage and Percha Dam. Diversions into the Bonita Lateral from Caballo Dam, about 1, 000 to 

2,000 acre-feet per year, are not included in records at "below 

Caballo Dam" station.

An extensive system of open drains has been constructed, covering practically the whole area of the project. Water from 42 miles 

of drains in the Rincon Valley is discharged into the river above 

Leasburg Dam, and water from 226 miles of drains in the Mesilla 

Valley, except from two drains totaling 12 miles, is discharged 

into the river below Mesilla Dam to be diverted for reuse in the 

El Paso Valley portion of the project and in Mexico. (See pis. 2 

and 3.)

The total area of land irrigated in the Rio Grande project in 

1946 was 156,899 acres, of which 17, 000 acres was in the Rincon 

Valley, 83, 911 acres in the Mesilla Valley, and 55, 988 acres in 

the El Paso Valley. Of the irrigated land in the Rincon Valley, 

3, 087 acres was in Sierra County, and of that in the Mesilla Valley, 

10,812 acres was in Texas. The division of irrigated lands in the 

project amounted to 90, 099 acre sin New Mexico and 66, 800 acres 

in Texas.

Land that is "subject to construction charges" of the project is 

referred to as "SCC" land andcarries a full water right. The remainder of the area of land within the limits of irrigation from the 

canals is classified as suspended lands, rights-of-way,or excluded 

class 6 (permanently nonarable). The suspended lands are classified into nine categories dependent upon the conditions of the individual tracts. Prior to 1939 the SCC land in New Mexico was 

88, 000 acres. In 1939, by agreement between the irrigation districts and theU. S. Government, the area of SCC land in the project was increased by 3 percent in order that the collection of assessments, allowing for delinquencies, would equal that needed 

for payment of construction charges. The total SCC classified 

land inNew Mexicoin 1946 was 90, 623 acres, the total suspended 

land, 10, 985 acres, and the total excluded class-6 land, 547 acres.
FEATURES OF THE AREA 19

The classifications of the valley lands in 1947, as obtained 

from the Bureau of Reclamation, are given in the following table:

Classification of lands in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys in 1947

Classification

Land subject to construction charges......

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

Irrigated:1 

SCC land.....................................

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

New Mexico 

(acres)

90,616 

10,304

7,120

11,526

119,566

Texas 

(acres)

10,782 

857

1,175

1,017

13,831

Total 

(acres)

101,398 

11, 161

8,295

12, 543

133,397

96,089

5,635

101,724

1Irrigated land included in the total 133,397 acres above.

The classification is given for 1947 in preference to 1946 as the 

Bureau of Reclamation included in its compilation for 1947 some 

riverbed areas and additional right-of-way areas not previously 

reported. The total area of irrigated lands, suspended lands, and 

class-6 lands was essentially the same in 1947 as in 1946. Because of the inclusion of additional right-of-way and riverbed areas, 

the total area shown for New Mexico in!947 (about 120,000 acres), 

more nearly represents the total area of the New Mexico part of 

the flood plain of the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys than that given in 

1946 (about 112,000 acres). However, the figures for 1947 do not 

include some water-consuming valley lands that lie outside the 

boundaries of the irrigation district, such as the Selden Canyon 

area; areas outside the limits of the canal system; and other areas 

of rights-of-way and riverbeds not at present determined.

For comparative purposes and in order to get a more detailed 

picture of the areas of land having various classifications, the 

following table has been taken from table C of the report of the 

Rio Grande joint investigation (National Resources Committee, 

1938, p. 420-421).
20 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS. RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

3

rt

1

§ J3

60

0)

ts z

«

0)

60

a

3

!

^

'o

rt

§1

a

0)

 S

c 

,3

s-gg ijj

 *M rt rt *+-«

|S

- 0)

£J

1

£

o

g. w 

u ,2" >a w jJ-'S

« rt 0"§> i "« ""' ** '2 *S rt

"rt i ' "O

H § - a

2-o fc-o

^ rt£,S

V '

£28 rt 60 w

^ >

+3 <a rt 

0 rt Sf 

ti

ta " *

* is£ >

I*? ^

H "-

 8«

^a^

3 rt a^

f-i S rt rt

 *oo 

O I 1 

(N CO

coca

c- 1-

(N 00 

O><N 

O5CD

CD CO

CO CD

oocf

o o

CD i-l 

(N 0

co"i-T

o o>

CO

Ift Ift m tco o>

(N

rH 10 

ift CD 

(N CD

CD CO

OO c- 1-1

11

 * 0 Oi-l

I-l

(N O 

CD(N

CO i-l

C~ CSI

^* CD 

CO O

C- Ift 

CO i-l

Oi-l

(N (N

Butte 

District ion

/alley

S pi)

CD i-l 

00 0> 

ift -^

CO

 ^< 00 

CD CD

CO i-l

CO

i-l (N 

t- CD 

CO (N

in i-i

Ift CCSI ** £

i-l O

en N

«

o o>

CO O>

CO CO

I-l

CD Ift 

C00> in ^ co"

o^ o

(N O>

i-Ti-T i-i

ift O

-co co

C~ i-H

't O> 

O> (N 

CM CSI

i-l

CO CD 

CO CO 

(N CO

CO Ift in co

(N CD

CM O t- I-l

o oo 

oo n in co

coco

0»!-<

>- >> >

) (U <U

3 '"^3 ?3

» 6> £ S 

s 22

cco

 *

CSI

s

CO

CO 

CO

o>

CD

CO 

COtCSI

CSI I-l

CO

Cft t- 

<N

c- I-<

1-1 

CO

o

CO 

I-l

CO r-l

ift i-l 

O

o>

CO 

CN 

ift

i-l

O> 

CD 

Ift

CO

CO

ooI-l

o 1-1 I-l

1

£1

Ift 

en

CD

CD

I-l

1-1 g

^

Ift 

o

CD

0»

cto"

CO I-l

CO

CO

s(N

tCSI

CD * 

Cco"

00

o Ift

o

(N

O

s.

o 1-1

CO 

CO 

CD

i-l

CO 

CDto

CI-l 8

00<J>

(N

CO 

CO

CO

CO1-1

13

2

z<HM'

II
GEOLOGY 21

The areas included in the two foregoing tables are not strictly 

analogous because of the omission of various areas in the 1947 

tabulation as given above. A difference of about 5, 000 acres for 

the total valley acreage in New Mexico is evident. The total of 

138,000 acres probably is nearly equal to the area of the valley 

floor of the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys in New Mexico and Texas 

and is the maximum area from which water in the valleys can be 

transpired or evaporated to the atmosphere.

For the purpose of collection of charges, the lands in New Mexico 

are under the Elephant Butte Irrigation District and those in Texas 

under the El Paso County Water Improvement District. These 

districts are under contract with the United States to repay construction costs of the project and to advance funds for operation 

and maintenance of the irrigation system.

GEOLOGY

A detailed study of the geology of Dona Ana County was not made 

during the course of this investigation. The reader is referred to 

published reports on this area, the most complete and comprehensive of which is that by Dunham (1935). Included in the report by 

Dunham is a geologic map of Dona Ana County based on that by 

N. H. Darton as revised by Dunham. An account of the geology 

of the county by Dunham is also included. A general discussion on 

the geology of the RioGrande depression is given by Bryan (1938, 

p. 197-225). The geology of La Mesa is discussed briefly by 

Sayre (Sayre and Livingston, 1945).

The most important deposits of the area, with respect to the 

occurrence of ground water, are the unconsolidated and partly 

consolidated sediments of Tertiary and younger age that cover the 

major part of the county. The deposits consist of varying proportions of clay, silt, sand, and gravel that partly fill the deep rock 

troughs between the mountains. These deposits can be separated 

into the older, slightly consolidated sediments that make up the 

greater part of the fill underlying La Mesa and the Jornada del 

Muerto and the younger unconsolidated deposits locally mantling 

the underlying older deposits.

The older sediments are generally referred to as the Santa Fe 

formation and were probably deposited during late Tertiary(Miocene and Pliocene) time( Sayre, and Livingston, 1945 p. 37, 39; 

Dunham, 1935 p. 175, 176; Bryan, Kirk, 1938, p. 205). The ypunger 

sediments were deposited in the Quaternary period during the 

Pleistocene and Recent epochs (Sayre and Livingston, 1945, p. 37), 

and they overlie the Santa Fe formation as outwash fan deposits, 

mainly on the surface of La Mesa and the Jornada del Muerto, and as 

alluvium deposited by the river in the valleys during successive 

periods of scour and fill.
22 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

As the Santa Fe formation and the younger sediments were deposited and eroded from the same general rock formations by meandering streams and arroyos, they, as a consequence, have the 

same general character, and as they are nonfossiliferous it is 

not always possible to differentiate between them.

CHARACTER OF SEDIMENTS

The older, slightly consolidated deposits of the Rio Grande 

consist of alternate layers and lenses of variable thickness of clay, 

silt, sarid, and gravel. The lateral extent of the layers is likewise quite variable, and these thicken or pinch out in short distances. |In the Mesa well field in El Paso, individual beds of the 

bolson sediments found in 45 wells drilled at intervals of 300 feet 

in two lihes 300 feet apart could not be correlated between more

than 2 or 3 adjacent wells (Sayre and Livingston, 1945, p. 28).

1i

In wells 1, 3, and 5, of the city of Las Cruces, which are within a radius of about 150 feet, the available logs (see table 6, 

p.143) shbw very little correlation of individual beds. The lack of 

similarity in these wells is due, in part, to the fact that different 

drillers do not identify like formations alike. However, city wells 

3 and 5 were put down by the same driller, though an interval of 

about 9 years occurred between the drilling of the wells.

The available logs of three Agricultural College wells, 23. 2E. 

29. 243i 243b, and 243c (see table 6, p.143), which are within a 

radius of about 30 feet, show very little correlation, except possibly for the layer of fine sand at a depth of about 80 to 150 feet. 

The hard dark formation penetrated in well 23. 2E. 29. 243c from 

182 feet to 282 feet does not seem related to the sand, gravel, and 

clay at a corresponding depth in well 23. 2E. 29. 243.

The sediments that underlie the pediments west of the Rincon 

Valley, particularly those from near Arrey northward to Truth or 

Consequences, apparently contain clay layers that in places extend 

westward for several miles. Direct correlation of beds is lacking, 

but the artesian wells drilled in the floors of 3 tributaries to the 

Rio Grande from the west, Mud Springs Draw, Animas Creek, and 

Percha Creek , give indirect evidence of continuous clay layers. 

In the well of O. B. Dawson, 16.5.23.300 (see table 12, p. 1,64^ 

which is drilled in the floor of Percha Creek about 1. 5 miles west 

of Caballo Reservoir, flowing water is obtained at a depth of 160

4Murray, C. R. , (in preparation)Ground-water conditions in the nonthermal artesian water 

basin south of Hot Springs, Sierra County, N. Mex.: (New Mexico State Engineer bienn, rept.)
GEOLOGY 23

feet, the flow increasing with depth to the bottom of the well at 

226 feet. The clay layers may be more extensive in the tributaries 

than in'the pediments because of deposition of sediments by flood 

flows in the arroyos. However, evidence of some continuity of 

clay beds in the Santa Fe formation west of Arrey is given by the 

water level in well 17.5.10.442. This well was drilled on the 

pediment, about 100 feet from its edge, at an elevation of approximately 40 feet above the floor of the adjacent Montoya Arroyo. 

The water level in the well, which is uncased and 207 feet deep, 

is about 16 feet below the surface of the pediment and about 25 

feet above the floor of the adjacent arroyo.

The character of the Santa Fe formation is given by the drillers' 

logs in table 6 (p. 143 to 161) and by the following section (Sayre, and 

Livings ton, 1945, pp. 32, 33X

Section of La Mesa in railroad cut half a mile west of Anapra, Dona Ana County, N. Mex,

Sandy soil, reddish-buff, partly removed. Feet 

Caliche hard, dense, white, grading downward into very

fine.gray sand.......................................................... 7

Sand, light-gray, moderately fine, uncemented and containing some layers of gravel with igneous rock pebbles 

derived mostly from lava flows.................................... 5

Clay, brown, sandy....................................................... 1

Quartz sand, medium-grained, mixed with white pellets of

calcium carbonate..................................................... . 5

Sand, medium- to coarse-grained, salt-and-pepper colored 6 

Clay, brown to gray, sandy............................................ 2

Sand, crossbedded,, light-gray, medium- to coarsegrained, contains some coarse gravel.......................... 45

Sand, light-buff, fine-grained, massive, clayey, containing 

irregular lenses of clean sand. Near the base are numerous tubes of sand cemented with calcium carbonate......... 9

Sand, extremely fine-grained, gray, with layer of coarse

sand near middle....................................................... 14

Clay, gray, much disturbed and broken............................ 1.3

Sand, medium-grained, gray, containing near the base

laminated layers of alternating black and white sand........ 30

Sand, light-buff, clayey, crossbedded ............................ 1. 5

Sand, medium-grained, loose, gray............................... 6

Sand, buff to gray, fine-grained, crossbedded; contains

pellets of clay and caliche on the bedding planes............. 2. 5

Sand, mostly covered.................................................... 25

Clay, light-buff, and sandy clay...................................... 6

Sand, fine-grained, light-gray, crossbedded.................. 5

Clay, laminated, light-buff, and sandy clay...................... 2. 5
24 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Sand, fine-grained, gray, crossbedded.................... 3

Clay light-buff, massive.......................................... 2.

Sand, massive, fine-grained, cemented, yellowish-buff, 

grading into less-cemented gray sand near base and 

partly covered................................................... 30

Clay, chocolate-brown,and light-buff massive sandstone 

interbedded................ ..................................... 11

Sand, brown, crossbedded, partly covered................ 10

Clay, buff to chocolate-brown, silty......................... 9

234.8

The Pleistocene and Recent unconsolidated sediments in the 

valley are predominantly sand and gravel with some thin beds of 

sandy clay. They are generally very loose and cause trouble in 

wells by running into them.

THICKNESS OF SEDIMENTS

The maximum thickness of the sediments of the Santa Fe formation in Dona Ana County is not known, but unconsolidated sediments are reported in wells of depths as low as 1,330 feet. A 

few comparatively deep wells have been drilled. The deepest well 

reported is the oil test of the Picacho Oil and Gas Syndicate, 

23.1.15. 211, an abbreviated log of which is given in table 6 (p. 

143).This well was drilled on La Mesa, west of Las Cruces, about 

1 mile from an outcrop of rock that forms part of Picacho Mountain. The log apparently shows about 550(?) feet of Tertiary or 

younger sediments at this location.

Near the southern part of La Mesa the Southern Pacific Co. 

drilled a well (28.2E. 24. 110), at Strauss to 1,330 feet, entirely 

through unconsolidated sediments. The Lippincott well, 28. 3E. 

25., in the lower part of Mesilla Valley is reported to have been 

drilled inlimestolie at822 feet (Sayre and Livingston, 1945, p. 35).

The well of Edwin Parker, 21. 2E. 12. 222, on the Jornada del 

Muerto about midway between the San Andres and the Dona Ana 

Mountains was drilled to 631 feet. Limestones and sandstones 

predominate below 474 feet and the well ends in 80 feet of limestone. The limestone may be similar to the limestone that dips

westward beneath the sediments from the west side of the San Andres 

Mountains,

Valley-fill deposits west of the Rio Grande, north of the Rincon 

Valley, are believed by Murray 5 to extend to depths in excess of

'Murray; C. R., op. cit., p. 25.
GEOLOGY 2 5

2,100 feet, as shown by a well drilled to that depth in the Palomas 

River, about 10 miles north of Caballo Dam.

The well on the Stahman Farms, 24. IE. 1. Ill, in the Mesilla 

Valley near Mesilla, apparently was still in the Santa Fe formation at 331 feet.

The thickness of the flood-plain deposits of the Rio Grande constitutes an unsolved problem, according to Bryan. He states that 

in periods of high water the river is capable of transporting gravel 

that 'at ordinary times is unknown in the riverbed; thus the depth 

to gravel in the riverbed may be taken as a rough measure of the 

depth of scour in great floods. He states, "It seems probable 

that there is in the larger valleys [of the Rio Grande] from 100 

to 250 feet of relatively recent deposits of flood-plain type above 

the Santa Fe formation." (Bryan, 1938, p. 218.)

As the Mesilla Valley is constricted at both the upper and lower 

ends by consolidated rocks that are exposed, it seems logical that 

rock lies a't comparatively shallow depths in those areas. The 

well of Isaac Rhodes, 21. 1. 13. 323, at the upper end of the Mesilla 

Valley and at the edge of an arroyo on the east side of the valley, 

was drilled in "rock" from 93 feet to the bottom of the well at 

about 215 feet. This rock may be similar to the igneous rocks of 

the Dona Ana Mountains on the east and to those that crop out in 

the valley at Leasburg Dam about l| miles north of the well. 

"Rock" was reportedly struck at about 125 feet in the well of C. C. 

Rice, 21.1. 11.431, which is locate don the pediment at Fort Selden 

about 50 feet above the valley and about three-quarters of a mile 

south of the rock outcrop at Leasburg Dam. In the lower end of 

the Mesilla Valley, the maximum depth of the fill in the gorge of 

the Rio Grande at the narrows above El Paso has been shown by 

Slichter (1905, p. 1, fig. 2) to be not more than 86 feet.

The thickness of Quaternary fill near the central part of the 

Mesilla Valley, on the basis of the reported log of well 24. IE. 1. 

Ill, appears to be about 104 feet, as most of the gravel was encountered above this level. However, on the basis of gravel reported in the log of the railroad well atLas Cruces, 23. IE. 13. 244, 

the thickness of the Quaternary fill there appears to be about 220 

feet.

In the Rincon Valley, available well logs show that clay is present 

at comparatively shallow depths below the Quaternary alluvium. 

This clay, which is usually called "heavy red gumbo" or "joint 

clay" by the drillers, is reportedly dry and is thought by the drillers to have considerable thickness. According to Jeff Chandler, 

well driller at Mesilla Park, a well was drilled at Hatch in the
26 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

early years to a depth of 1,100 feet, and nothing but clay was 

found below about 80 feet. Water was obtained only in the sand 

and gravel above 80 feet. No substantiating data were obtained 

on this well. No other wells were reported drilled to this depth 

in the Rincon Valley. The drillers consider it useless to try to 

drill through this clay. As water is available in the shallow alluvium in sufficient quantities for all needs, the only incentive for 

drilling wells through the clay is the hope of obtaining water of 

better quality for domestic use. In the following table the wells 

for which data were obtained are listed in order downstream in 

the Rincon Valley showing the depth at which clay was found.

Reported depth to clay in wells for which data were obtained in Rincon Valley

Name

Welch......................

Black.......................

Black.......................

Boggs....... .................

Village of Hatch. ........

Well location 

no.

16. 5. 25. 343

17. 5. 24. 333

17.5.26.212

17.5.26.242

17.5.25.123

17. 5. 25. 134

17.4.31.111

17.4.30. 133a

18.4.9.130

18.4.17.312

18. 4. 34. 211

18. 4. 35. 231

18.4.35.310

18. 4. 35. 221

19.4.3.234

19.4.11.221

19.3.9.121a

19. 3. 10. 333

19.3.15.443

19.2.26.300

Total 

depth 

of well 

(feet)

1,52

101

68

88

59

64

71

97

100

70

245

68

230

214

68

74

70

69

53

150

Depth 

to 

clay 

(feet)

128

73

68

84

59

64

66

70

50

65

70

56

60

114

68

70

68

69

46

55

Reported description 

of clay

Soft red rock.

Red gumbo clay.

Clay.

Clay.

Joint clay.

Clay.

Red and white

clay with gray 

sand. 

Red and white

clay. 

Blue clay.

Clay.

Clay.

Clay.

Clay.

Red-brown clay.

Clay.

Heavy red clay.

Clay.

Clay.

Heavy red clay.

Red clay.

Drilling of most of the wells was stopped as soon as the drillers 

definitely recognized clay. A few wells were drilled deeper with 

the hope of going through the clay. The deepest well reported was 

that of Mr. Simms, which was drilled in clay from 70 to 245 feet, 

except for a rock about 2 feet thick at about 110 feet. Of the 20 

wells listed in the table, 18 reported clay at depths from 46 to 84 

feet. TheOsborn well, with clay at 128 feet, is located in the floor 

of Percha Creek about 40 feet above river level. With the exception 

of theOsborn, Powers, Plemmons, and Welch wells, all are located on the valley floor. The average depth to clay in the 16 wells 

on the valley floor is less than 70 feet. The thickness of the Quaternary alluvium in the Rincon Valley thus appears to be fairly 

uniform and somewhat thinner than in the Mesilla Valley.
GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 27

OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN UPLAND AREAS

In order to establish the depth to water and the direction of flow 

of the ground water under the upland area in Dona Ana County adjacent to the Mesilla Valley, as much information as possible on 

the existing wells was obtained by G. R. Chenotin 1947. The depth 

to water was measured in many wells and the altitude of each well 

was determined by use of the aneroid barometer and the U. S. 

Geological Survey topographic quadrangle maps. Other available 

information such as the depth of the well, productiveness, materials penetrated, and quality of the water, was obtained generally 

from the owners. Water samples for chemical analysis were obtained from various wells. Measured depths to water were checked 

against reported depths in order to judge the reliability of reported depths in wells where measurements were not possible.

Topographic quadrangle maps of the U. S. Geological Survey 

covering 15 minutes of latitude are available for all the area of 

Dona Ana County from the Mexican border northward to latitude 

32° 30' N. They have a contour interval of 25 feet, with the exception of the quadrangle maps between the Mexican border and latitude 32°00'N. and between longitude 106°30'.and 107°15'W., which 

have a contour interval of 10 feet. Vertical and horizontal control 

in the area covered by the quadrangle maps was excellent. The 

elevations of the wells north of the Dona Ana Mountains, on the 

Jornada del Muerto, were obtained by using an aneroid barometer 

and are subject to some error as the distance between bench marks 

and check points was great and resulted in a comparatively long 

time interval between readings. However, the elevations of sufficient check points were read on different days to eliminate any 

large errors.

The resulting ground-water contours are shown on the accompanying map, plate 1. In drawing the contours greatest reliance 

was naturally placed upon the wells in which the depth to water was 

measured. With these measured depths to water as controls, the 

contours were drawn for the other areas, the elevations of the 

water table being calculated from reported depths to water as 

guides, more reliance being placed upon some than others. The 

areas showing various depths to water were defined by subtraction 

of the ground-water contours from the ground-surf ace contours and 

are therefore as accurate as the water-table contours.

DEPTH TO WATER

The depth to water in the upland are as in Dona Ana County ranges 

from less than 25 feet to more than 400 feet. Generally the areas

317Z67 O - 55 - 3
28 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

of greatest depth to water, more than 300 feet, are in the relatively flat plains away from the mountain fronts, such as the La Mesa 

surface in T. 26 S., R. 1 W. The depth to water generally decreases toward the east side of the Jornada del Muerto and the 

west side of La Mesa, where the aquifer is relatively thin and the 

buried rocks of the mountains that form the floor of the aquifer 

rise, thus holding the water at a higher level than in areas farther 

from the mountains. The depth to water may therefore be very 

shallow in the arroyos along the mountain fronts where the deposit 

of alluvium is thin.

In the Jornada del Muerto, north of the Dona Ana Mountains, the 

depth to water ranges from 200 to 300 feet below the surface in 

the western half of the Jornada Experimental Range. A little farther east the depth to water apparently increases to between 300 

and 400 feet in a narrow north-south strip and then gradually decreases eastward toward the San Andres Mountains. Northwest 

of the Dona Ana Mountains the depth to water is about 200 feet and 

it decreases westward to less than 25 feet near the Rio Grande.

In the Jornada del Muerto, south of the Dona Ana Mountains and 

east of Las Cruces, the depth to water gradually increases from 

less than 25 feet at the eastern edge of the Mesilla Valley to more 

than 400 feet in a narrow north-south strip about 8 miles east of 

the valley. Farther eastward toward the Organ Mountains the 

depth to water decreases and is generally from 100 to 200 feet in 

the vicinity of Organ.

At the southeastern edge of the Sierra de las Uvas, west of the 

Mesilla Valley, the depth to water is less than 25 feet. Southeastward the depth to water gradually increases to more than 400 feet 

in a strip about 4 miles wide roughly paralleling the eastern side 

of the Aden and the Sleeping Lady Hills, and in an area of La Mesa 

west of Black Mountain near Af ton. Farther east the depth to water 

decreases to about 300 feet along the top of the bluff that parallels 

the western side of the Mesilla Valley. From the top of the bluff 

eastward to the valley, a distance of about 2 miles, the depth to 

water decreases rather abruptly from about 300 to less than 25 

feet.

The depth to water, as projected in some areas on the map 

(pi. 1), is probably greater than the thickness of the sedimentary 

deposits where masses of igneous rock occur at or near the surface. In such areas water will not be obtained if the rock is impermeable. Some wells on the Bissell ranch have been drilled to a 

depth greater than the indicated depth to water but have failed to obtain sufficient water for stock purposes. Some of the lavas near Af ton 

occur at the surface above the sediments (Sayre and Livingston, 

1945, p. 24). In this area water may be found below the lava at
OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN UPLAND AREAS 29

the indicated depth to water. If intrusive sills or other impermeable 

igneous rocks occur at the indicated depth to water, drilling below 

the impermeable beds will probably reach confined water, which 

will rise in the well to the indicated water level.

The well on the Corralitos ranch, 23.1. 32.330, which was drilled 

to 501 feet, reportedly penetrated an igneous flow or sill from 165 

to 320 feet, a sandstone from 320 to 430 feet, and a rust-colored 

sand from 430 to 501 feet. The estimated depth to water as reported was 350 feet but, as indicated on the map, is probably a 

little less than 400 feet. The Malpais well, 26.1. 16. 330, on the 

Braidfoot ranch was drilled in a sink in the lava to a depth of 445 

feet and reportedly reached water in sand and clay below the lava 

at 406 feet. The Aden station well of H. S. Bissell, 25. 3. 2. 220, 

on a small rise, reportedly was drilled through about 440 feet of 

red igneous rock to seeps of water yielding about 15 gallons a 

minute at 440 feet. The reported depth to water is 444 feet.

Other wells also have probably obtained water below lava, but 

data on many of the wells are scant.

Data on the depth to water obtained during this investigation 

differ from those reported by Lee (1907, p. 38-40). The following 

table gives the depths to water in various wells as reported by Lee 

and as collected from various sources during this investigation.

The difference in depth and water level as shown for well 29. IE. 

6.110 for early and present dates may possibly be due to comparing different wells in the same locality, or may be due to inaccurate 

reporting. Actual changes in water level may have occurred. The 

water levels show a rise from the time reported by Lee to later 

dates. The Lanark well 1 shows a fall in water level from 1899 to 

the time reported by Lee. On the data for this well one could postulate that water levels declined from early years to a low level in 

the year reported by Lee and then rose again. However, as all 

depths to water reported by Lee are lower than those obtained for 

the same wells from other sources, there may be a consistent 

error. It is not known how many, if any, of the depths to water 

reported by Lee were measured by him or were values reported 

to him. The apparent rise in water levels is greater than one would 

expect to find in static levels under a'n area such as La Mesa where 

the annual rainfall is small. It therefore appears that the reported 

values are somewhat unreliable.
Comparison of water levels in Dona Ana County, N. Mex., at different times 

Well 

location 

no.

21.2E.25.430a

...... Do.........

22.1.19.330

.......Do.........

on it? 11 ***}fi

.......Do.........

27 1 26 430

.......Do.........

OQ Ot? OA 1 1 fi

...... Do.........

98 9F 94. llfla

....... Do........

28.2E.24.110b

OQ OT? **1 **Afi

...... Do........

29. IE. 6. 110

...... Do........

29. IE. 8. 210

OQ IT? Q 91 A29 IE 8 21 Ob

Field 

name

Hawkins

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

Philiips Hoie

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

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

Noria well 1

Noria well 3

Owner 

or 

name

J. D. Isaacs.

W. F. Isaacs.

Mr. Hawkins.

H. S. Bissell.

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

J. B. Stabling.

Mrs. Annie Braidfoot.

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

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

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

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

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

Southern Pacific Co. 

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

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

Source 

of 

information

Lee, W. T. (1907. p. 38)

Owner and measurement.

Lee, W. T. (1907, p. 40)

Owner and measurement. 

Railroad log 3049. .........

Lee, W. T. (1907, p. 40)

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

Owner and measurement.

El Paso office file. .........

Railroad log 3085. .........

El Paso office file..........

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

Lee, W. T. (1907, p. 40)

R. A? Gardner. ............

Lee, W. T. (1907, p. 40)

........do......................
OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN UPLAND AREAS 31

MOVEMENT AND FLOW OF GROUND WATER

The contours of the water table on the accompanying map (pi. 

1) connect points of the water table having equal altitude. The 

direction of flow of the ground water is perpendicular to the contours, from higher to lower elevations. The flow of ground water 

in a homogeneous aquifer of constant width and thickness is proportional to the gradient or slope of the water table that is, to 

the spacing of the contours.

The general direction of flow of the ground water in the upland 

areas of Dona Ana County is from the higher elevations toward the 

lower along the Rio Grande. The movement of some of the ground 

water, however, is quite circuitous.

North of the Dona Ana Mountains, in the Jornada Experimental 

Range, ground water flows westward from the San Andres Mountains and is joined by ground water from the Jornada del Muerto 

to the north and from the eastern slope of the hills on the east side 

of the Rio Grande. This water is indicated as flowing through a 

gap north of the Dona Ana Mountains into the Rio Grande in the 

vicinity of Leasburg Dam, near Fort Selden.

A ground-water divide evidently occurs in the broad saddle 

formed between the Dona Ana Mountains and the San Andres Mountains, so that the ground water on the northern slope flows toward 

the Jornada Experimental Range and that on the southern slope 

flows to the river in the vicinity of Las Cruces. Ground water 

originating west of the Organ Mountains flows westward to the 

Mesilla Valley.

Ground water originating from runoff on the east side of the 

Sierra de las Uvas flows to La Mesa through the gap between 

Sleeping Lady mils and Rough and Ready mils, T. 22 S., R. 2 W., 

and through the gap between Sleeping Lady Hills and the Aden Hills, 

Tps. 23 and 24 S., R. 2 W. The ground-water contours suggest 

that a ground-water divide occurs in T. 21 S., R. 2 W., and a 

small part of the ground water on the east side of the Sierra de las 

Uvas may flow northeastward to the Rio Grande through alluvial 

fill in canyons and arroyos.

Ground water that originates to the west and south of Robledo 

Mountain in part finds its way to the Rio Grande in the vicinity of 

Las Cruces. A ground-water divide probably occurs between 

Robledo Mountain and the Rough and Ready Hills, about 4 miles to 

the west, and thus a small part of the ground water probably reaches 

the Rio Grande northward by way of Faulkner Canyon.
32 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Most of the ground water that originates from precipitation on 

La Mesa south of T. 23 S. and that which flows through the gap 

between the Sleeping Lady Hills and the Aden Hills flows southward 

on the west side of Black Mountain, where it is joined by ground 

water from the east slope of the Potrillo Mountains, and then moves 

eastward to enter the Rio Grande near Strauss.

Lee (1907, p. 39-40), on the basis of reported water levels in 

the wells owned by the railroad at Lanark and Noria on the La 

Mesa surface north of the Mexican boundary, stated that the water 

table sloped southward 20 feet in 12 miles or 1. 7 feet to the mile 

and presumably, therefore, ground water flowed southward from 

the Rio Grande and La Mesa to Mexico. Lee (p. 40-50) recognized 

that his meager data indicated a flow southward but, because of the 

downcutting of the river that formed the Mesilla Valley and the 

accumulation of water in the gravels of La Mesa, he believed that 

the underflow down the probable old channel of the river on La 

Mesa had been reversed and that the ground water flowed into the 

valley. As Slichter (1905, p. 9-13) had demonstrated that very 

little ground water escaped from the Mesilla Valley through the 

narrows at El Paso, Lee showed that the more probable escape 

of both the water moving from La Mesa to the valley and the water 

lost from the river in the valley was by evaporation in the valley.

Information gathered during this investigation confirms Lee's 

belief that ground water does not flow southward under La Mesa to 

Mexico but rather, from the Mexican boundary, between the East 

Potrillo Mountains and the Rio Grande, northward and eastward to 

the Rio Grande. Conflicting data gathered on various wells in this 

area do not indie ate that there is an appreciable change in the configuration of the water table, shown on plate 1.

The depths to water in the Lanark and Noria wells, as recorded 

in well logs obtained from the railroad, are 365 and 321 feet, respectively, and the altitudes of the wells, as reported by Lee, are 

4, 156 and 4, 114 feet, respectively. Thus the water table is shown 

as being 2 feet higher at Noria than at Lanark. If altitudes of 4,170 

and 4,124 feet at Lanark and Noria, as determined from the topographic quadrangles, are used with the depths to water as recorded in well logs obtained from the railroad, then the water table 

at Noria is 2 feet lower than at Lanark. Even if the data as reported by Lee, which show the water table 20 feet higher at Lanark 

than at Noria, are assumed to be correct, it. does not necessarily 

follow that the ground water flows southward, as a ground-water 

trough lies between Lanark and Noria. (See pi. 1.)

If the depth to water in the Herrington ranch well, 29. IE. 6.110, 

reported by Lee to be 350 feet, and that in the well at Noria, 29, 

IE. 8. 210, 358 feet, are considered correct, then alow spot is
OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN UPLAND AREAS 33

indicated in the contours of the water table that would shift the 

3, 800-foot contour to the west of Noria. However, the water level 

measured in 1947 in well 28. 2E. 31. 340 does not allow an appreciable change in the shape of the contours. It is probable that a 

ground-water divide occurs just south of the international boundary, in the area between the East Potrillo Mountains and the Cerro 

de Muleros, similar to that indicated in the vicinity of Mount Riley 

and Malpais sidings.

A ground-water divide occurs between the Sierra de las Uvas 

and the West Potrillo Mountains. West of R. 3 W. the ground 

water apparently flows westward into the topographic basin east 

of the Florida Mountains in Luna County, and thence southward 

east of Columbus, N. Mex., into Mexico.

The ground water west of the Rincon Valley in the area traversed 

by Placita Arroyo is shown as flowing toward the Rio Grande in 

the vicinity of Hatch. Wells in this upland surface are too widely scattered to indicate the exact slope of the water table or the 

exact direction of flow.

The water-table contours on the water-level map of Dona Ana 

County (pi. 1) show that the Rio Grande gains water in the Mesilla 

Valley from the upper part of the valley almost to Mesilla, loses 

water from Mesilla to Vado, and again gains water south of Vado, 

The contours were generally drawn through the corresponding 

riverbed elevations shown on the topographic maps, which may 

not be the altitude of the water table under the river. If the river 

water is not in direct contact with the water table, then the river 

must be perched and must lose water to the water table. In such 

a case, contours drawn to the river level would show a mound, 

and therefore indicate correctly that the river is losing water. In 

the section where the river is shown to be losing water the loss is 

probably to the paralleling drains, the true contours being inflected 

somewhat more sharply than can be shown on the scale of the map. 

The lessor gain in the river is discussed more fully in the section 

on sources of ground water in the valley fill.

The gradient of the water table under the upland surfaces ranges 

from about 1. 2 feet per mile in the trough of the water table under 

La Mesa to the west and south of Black Mountain to more than 100 

feet per mile on steep slopes along the mountains, such as on the 

east side of the Aden Hills and West Potrillo Mountains. The 

average slope of the water table in the Mesilla Valley, as shown 

by the water-table map of Dona Ana County from the 3, 900-foot 

contour north of Las Cruces to the 3,750-foot contour near the 

southern end of the valley, is about 4 feet to the mile, essentially 

the same as that of the river.
34 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

The range of gradients is due to various factors, which include 

width, thickness, and permeability of the formations, and the 

quantity of ground-water flow. The steep gradients along the slope s 

of the mountains are due primarily to the thinness of the waterbearing formation that lies upon the steep slopes of the relatively 

impermeable rocks that compose the mountains. The gradients in 

themselves do not indicate the volume of flow of the ground water.

The relatively steep gradient of the water table, about 30 feet 

to the mile, shown by the contours that extend from the southern 

end of Robledo Mountain southwest to the West Potrillo Mountains, 

may be caused by a connection underground of igneous or other 

relatively impermeable rock between the hills in this area, acting 

as a "ground-water dam, " water on the west thus being held at a 

higher level than that east of the hills. Southeastward the gradient 

flattens to about 13 feet to the mile between the 3, 800-and 3, 900- 

foot contours in T. 25 S., R. 1 W., and to about 1. 2 feet to the 

mile in the water-table trough west of Black Mountain.

The progressive flattening of the gradient of the water-table in 

the direction of flow from the gap between the Aden and Sleeping 

Lady Hills to the Rio Grande east of Strauss is caused by an increase in the width, thickness, or permeability of the saturated 

aquifer, by a decrease in amount of ground-water flow, or by a 

combination of these factors. Undoubtedly, the thickness of saturated sediments increases in the direction of flow. The saturated 

aquifer along the east side of the Aden and Sleeping Lady Hills is 

presumably thin, as the hills protrude through the sediments. The 

thickness of the sedimentary deposits of La Mesa is not known. 

Apparently the deepest well, the 1, 330-foot well at Strauss, penetrated only unconsolidated deposits (Sayre and Livingston, 1945, 

p. 35). The bolson deposits in the Hueco Bolson east of the Franklin Mountains seems to be at least 4, 000 feet thick (Sayre and 

Livingston, p. 33)..

The width of the saturated aquifer, however, does not increase 

but, instead, decreases from a width of about 12 miles east of the 

Aden Hills to about 3 miles in the ground-water trough west of 

Black Mountain. The sediments underlying the central portion of 

La Mesa may be more permeable than those along the slopes of 

the hills. This is probable if the central part of La Mesa is composed of sediments deposited by the Rio Grande, which flowed at 

one time through the Jornada del MuertoandLa Mesa, as postulated 

by Lee (1907, p. 22). Undoubtedly, the amount of ground-water 

flow does not decrease in the direction of flow as there is no area 

of surface discharge of the ground water. Instead, the amount of 

ground-water flow probably increases eastward because the groundwater trough also carries water from the east slope of the Potrillo 

Mountains.
OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN UPLAND AREAS 35

Therefore, the decrease in gradient of the water table from 

northwest to southeast across La Mesa is due to the increased 

thickness, and possibly to the increased permeability, of the saturated sediments, which more than offset the increase in amount 

and the decrease in width of flow of the ground water.

The amount of water flowing eastward from R. 1 E. to R. 2E. 

toward the Rio Grande, between the two 3, 800-foot contours south 

of Lanark, can be roughly calculated. Th6 average coefficient of 

transmissibility of the aquifer may be taken as 70, 000 gallons a 

day per mile of width of the aquifer for each foot per mile of slope 

of the water table, approximately equal to that of 73, 000 determined by the pumping test of Las Cruces city well 5 (p. 96 ). 

With a gradient of 1. 2 feet per mile and a width of about 9 miles, 

the ground-water flow to the Rio Grande in the vicinity of Strauss 

is of the order of 750, 000 gallons a day or 840 acre-feet a year, 

a small quantity.

The selected gradient of the water table, 1. 2 feet a mile, is an 

average from the 3, 800-foot to the 3, 775-foot contour and may be 

significantly smaller than the actual gradient at the section. The 

gradient of the water table in the Hueco Bolson, between the 

3, 700-foot and 3, 675-foot contours, east of the Franklin Mountains 

and northeast of El Paso, is 2.4 feetper mile (Sayre, and Livingston, 1945, pi. 2). The amount of precipitation on the Hueco Bolson 

is similar to that on La Mesa, and therefore approximately the 

same average unit amount of recharge probably reaches the water 

table in both areas. As the deposits are thick in both areas, the 

steeper gradient in the Hueco Bolson may be due to a lower average 

permeability of the formation than in La Mesa. However, the 

gradient of 2.4 feet a mile is small and is given for comparison 

with that determined in La Mesa. The coefficient of transmissibility used, 70, 000, is believed to be rather high as an average 

for the Santa Fe formation and would tend to offset the probable 

higher gradient, so that the amount of computed ground-water 

flow to the Rio Grande in the vicinity of Strauss would not be 

changed materially.

The annual flow of roughly 800 acre-feet of ground water to the 

Rio Grande in the vicinity of Strauss, if distributed equally across 

the 9-mile width of the section, would amount to an accretion to 

the river from the west of about 0.13 cubic foot a second per mile 

along the river.

The average gradient of the water table, along the trough in the 

water table under the central part of the plain northeast of Las 

Cruces, is about 20 feet to the mile. If the transmissibility of the 

sediments here is about the same as that determined for city well 

5, or about 70, 000 gallons a day per mile of width of the formation
36 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

with a gradient of 1 foot per mile, the flow toward the valley from 

northeast of Las Cruces would be about 1, 400, 000 gallons a day 

per mile of width of the aquifer, or about 2 cf s (cubic feet a second) 

per mile along the valley. However, the average transmissibility 

in this area is probably less than 70, 000, possibly not more than 

30,000, and the ground-water flow to the river from northeast of 

Las Cruces may be as little as 1 cfs per lineal mile. Slichter 

(1905, p. 27-29) in his study of the ground waters of the Rio Grande 

valley, determined in the vicinity of Mesilla Park that about 0. 5 

cfs was being contributed to the valley from the northeast for each 

lineal mile.

Flow to each mile of the Mesilla Valley from the remainder of 

the area east of the valley is expected to be less than that from 

northeast of Las Cruces because the aquifer is thinner. The amount 

of water entering each mile of valley from the east may be somewhat greater than that from the west as a result of the greater 

precipitation on the higher mountains. Arroyos from the highlands 

to the river are more definitely developed east of the valley than 

west. The gradient of the water table undermost of the area east 

of the river and south of Las Cruces is not known but may be 

slightly greater than that northeast of Las Cruces, because of the 

steepness of the surface from the Organ and Franklin Mountains. 

The overall average accretion to the valley from the highlands 

on the east is believed to be less than that northeast of Las Cruces 

and more than that west of the valley; it is estimated as about 0. 7 

cfs per mile along the valley.

The flow of the drainage ditches in the Mesilla Valley is composed of varying percentages of return irrigation water, canal 

seepage losses, and seepage from the river, in addition to some 

ground-water flow from the side mesas. Presumably, if diversions to the irrigated lands were stopped and there were no flow 

in the river, the resultant drain flow, if any, would be that contributed by ground water from the side mesas. Figure 3, which 

shows the relation of reported net diversions in the Mesilla Valley 

to water being returned to the river by the drains, indicates that 

with no diversions there would be approximately 5, 500 acre-feet 

a year of drain flow, equivalent to about 0.1 cfs per mile for 55 

miles along the valley. This figure necessarily is very rough as 

it was assumed that a linear relation existed between the diversions 

and drainflow, which may not be true. Also, the line in the figure 

is not determined exactly by the points plotted. This small quantity 

does not necessarily represent the total flow from the side mesas 

but probably only that part of the side flow that contributes to the 

drainage ditches, the balance being consumed by vegetation.

The total accretion of ground water to the valley from the highlands on both sides of the Mesilla Valley may therefore amount to
OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER IN UPLAND AREAS 37

less than 1 cfs per lineal mile,, less than 40,000 acre-feet a year 

for the 55 miles of valley. The accretion to the Rio Grande in the 

150 miles from Pena Blanca to San Marcial previously has been 

estimated as nearly 1 cfs per lineal mile (National Resources 

Committee, 1938, p. 291). The exactness of the value for accretion of ground water from the highlands to the Mesilla Valley is 

open to question, but the order of magnitude is believed to be 

right, and it shows the small amount of ground water reaching the 

valley from the side mesas.

RECHARGE OF GROUND WATER

The ground water in the upland areas of Dona Ana County is 

derived from precipitation upon the upland and mountainous areas. 

It seems probable that by far the larger part of the precipitation 

upon La Mesa evaporates and is transpired by plants and that very 

little reaches the water table. As most of the rainfall occurs in 

the form of showers during the summer when the ground surface 

is very hot and dry, the amount of evaporation is large, and whatever precipitation does get below the ground surface replenishes 

the soil moisture for use by plants. Only in wet years or periods 

of protracted wet spells can an appreciable quantity of water be 

expected to reach the water table from the surface of the plain. 

H. S. Bissell, of the Corralitos ranch, states that flood water has 

collected, at times, in the depression southwest of Robledo Mountain, east of Sleeping Lady Hills, forming a shallow lake from 4 

to 6 miles in length which lasts from about 1 month to as much as 

6 months before disappearing. This long time suggests that most 

of the water is lost by evaporation and little by downward percolation because of the clay bottom of the depression. The greater 

part of the recharge in the La Mesa area is probably from precipitation upon the various areas of lava exposed at the surface. 

A small part of the recharge also probably occurs along the mountain fronts where freshets discharge upon and sink into the plain. 

It is believed that in the HuecoBolson, east of the Franklin Mountains, very little recharge to the ground-water body occurs from 

precipitation upon the floor of the basin, which may collect in sinks, 

but rather that the major part of the recharge comes from precipitation in the area of gravels along the western edge of the bolson, 

along the east slope of the Franklin Mountains (Sayre and Livingston, 1945, p. 70-72).

The ground-water flow through an area is in approximate equilibrium with the average amount of recharge that contributes to 

the flow. The surface area contributing to the flow of about 800 

acre-feet a year in the section south of Lanark comprises roughly 

26 townships or 600, 000 acres. On this basis the average ground-
38 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

water accretion from precipitation on the area is less than 0. 02 

inch annually. This small quantity is what might be expected in 

this area where the annual rainfall is less than 10 inches.

The small amount of precipitation annually recharging the ground 

water in the La Mesa area, computed above, may be compared 

with an amount of 0. 05 to 0. 06 inch contributing annually to the 

ground-water supply of the High Plains in Texas where the average 

annual precipitation is about 17 inches. The recharge to the High 

Plains has been computed on the basis of an estimated natural 

ground-water discharge of 25, 000 to 30, 000 acre-feet a year from 

9,000 square miles of the High Plains (White, Broadhurst, and 

Lang, 1946, p. 391).

WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

In the Rinconand Mesilla Valleys surf ace and ground water are 

closely related. A change in the condition of one is reflected by a 

change in the other. The surface water and ground water are in 

approximate equilibrium, the level of the water table and the flow 

of the drainage ditches being controlled by the losses occurring 

from the surface supply. Normally the surface water is diverted 

to irrigate the land, and the seepage that occurs from the irrigated 

lands, canals, and the river reappears as return flow in the drains 

and is reused in the lower divisions of the project. Because of the 

physical connection between the surface and ground waters and 

because the water in the drains is part of the project water supply, 

it is not possible logically to discuss the ground-water conditions 

without also discussing those of the surface water.

SURFACE WATER

AVAILABLE SURFACE FLOW

To evaluate properly the effects upon the supply of surface water 

caused by pumping ground water in the Rinconand Mesilla Valleys 

and to arrive at the quantity of water that would have to be pumped 

for irrigation in case of a shortage of surf ace water, it is necessary 

to consider the quantity and the seasonal distribution as involved in 

the present exclusive use of surface water for irrigation.

The quantity of surface water released to the project has varied 

widely from year to year, dependent upon the amount of water in
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 39

storage in Elephant Butte Reservoir. Prior to the completion, in 

1938, of Caballo Dam, about 28 miles below Elephant Butte Dam, 

water released to the project was gaged at the station below Elephant Butte Dam. Since 1938, the water released to the project 

has been gaged at the station 0. 8 mile below Caballo Dam and 

about 1.5 miles above Percha Dam, the first diversion dam of the 

project. According to records obtained from the Bureau of Reclamation, there was an average annual accretion of about 27, 000 

acre-feet from 1925 to 1937, in the section of the river from Ele.- 

phant Butte Dam to Percha Dam. A seepage run (simultaneous or 

nearly simultaneous stream gagings made at many places to determine the extent of gains or losses and where they occur) made on 

the Rio Grande in November 1928 (New Mexico State Engineer, 

1928, p. 24) indicates an annual gain in flow by the river in this 

section of 35, 000 acre-feet, and a seepage run made by the State 

Engineer's office in February 1936 indicates an annual gain in 

flow of 32, 000 acre-feet. In order to include this gain in flow in 

the water supply of the project and to have records comparable to 

records of water released from Caballo, the data for flow of the 

Rio Grande at Percha Dam for years prior to 1938 has been used 

in this" report. The table on page 136 gives the annual flow from 

1930 to 1946 at Percha and Caballo Dams, at Leasburg Dam, and 

at the El Paso station along with the streamflow depletion between 

Percha and Leasburg Dams, corresponding to the Rincon Valley, 

and between Leasburg Dam and the El Paso station, corresponding 

to the Mesilla Valley.

The large flow in 1942 was caused by water discharging over the 

spillway of Elephant Butte Dam, the only time there has been such 

a discharge. The average annual flow below Caballo Dam from 

1930 to 1946, with the exception of the abnormal year of 1942, was 

794, 200 acre-feet. Of the water released, 60, 000 acre-feet per 

year is required by international treaty for delivery to Mexico; 

this leaves 734, 200 acre-feet minus losses plus return waste, 

drain flow, and arroyo accretions to be diverted for use in the 

project. The diversions from the Rio Grande into the Acequia 

Madre near Ciudad Juarez, for use in Mexico, have averaged 62, 500 

acre-feet during the period of record, 1938 to 1946 (International 

Boundary and Water Comm., 1946, p. 51) approximately equal to 

the required amount.

The monthly distributionof water released from Caballo Reservoir from 1938 to 1946 is given in the table on p. 137. The water 

releases for the 6 months from April through September account

6Bliss, J. H., 1936, Report on investigation of invisible gains and losses in the channel of 

the Rio Grande from Elephant Butte to El Paso, Tex. (unpublished), table 2, p. 8, February 

1936.
40 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

for about 84 percent of the demand on the reservoir, not taking 

into account the abnormal year of 1942. In each year except 1942 

the releases for May were smaller than those for April. This 

decrease in demand in May is characteristic of the project.

DIVERSIONS TO CANALS OF RIO GRANDE PROJECT

The gross annual diversion of water to the canals of the project 

varies annually, depending upon the release of water from storage. 

Table 3 on page 138 gives the annual diversions at Percha Dam, 

LeasburgDam, Mesilla Dam, to the El Paso Valley of the project, 

and to the Acequia Madre which serves the Valle de Juarez of 

Mexico. The water diverted at the Percha Dam to the Arrey Canal 

serves the Rincon Valley. The water diverted at the Leasburg 

Dam to the Leasburg Canal and at the Mesilla Dam to the East 

and West Side Canals serves the Mesilla Valley, the lower part of 

which is in Texas. Included as diversion at the Mesilla Dam is 

water wasted from the Leasburg Canal to the East Side Canal. 

Diversions to the Acequia Madre for the Valle de Juarez are made 

at the International Dam, and figures for these diversions are 

available only for the period since the beginning of operation of 

the American Dam in 1938.

A portion of the gross diversion in each valley is wasted back 

to the river or to the drainage ditches and is again diverted, along 

with the return drain water, by the next lower unit. This wastage 

in a normal year, as discussed in the following pages, is estimated for the period 1930 to 1946 as averaging about 24 percent 

of the gross annual diversion of 589, 300 acre-feet to the Rincon 

and Mesilla Valleys. The net annual diversion to the Rincon and 

Mesilla Valleys is therefore estimated as averaging 447, 900 acrefeet or 61 percent of the 734, 200 acre-feet released from storage 

from Caballo Dam and available to the project, and the gross annual 

diversion of 589, 300 acre-feet averages 74 percent of the release 

from reservoir storage.

DISTRIBUTION OF DIVERSIONS

The distribution of diversions, which include canal wastes 'and 

seepage losses, is important not only because the losses contribute to the ground-water body and eventually the flow of the drains 

but also because the losses must be known in order to determine 

the quantity of ground water that must be pumped for irrigation in 

a dry year.
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 41

Table 5 (p. 141 to 142) obtained from the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation gives the compilation of irrigated acreage and water distribution by years, 1930 to 1946, for each division of the Rio Grande 

project and for the project as a whole.

Figures for the irrigated acreage are compiled every year by 

the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation information furnished by the watermasters of each division and are believed to be reasonably accurate. The headgate diversions are the quantities measured at the 

heads of the main canals and are also reasonably accurate. Canal 

waste or return is unused diverted water that is returned to the 

river or wasted to the drains from the canals. This quantity is 

estimated daily by the ditch riders and is probably reported low. 

Water delivered to the farms is, in general, estimated by the 

ditch riders, a few deliveries during a year being measured with 

a current meter. It is believed that the reported deliveries are 

less than actual, as they are conservatively estimated quantities 

on which payment for water is based.

The acreage irrigated, as shown in the tables, has increased 

nearly every year for all divisions of the project, with the exception of the early 1930's, when economic conditions were poor, 

and in 1935, when there was an impending shortage of water. The 

total acreage irrigated in the project increased from 141,197 

acres in 1930 to 159, 899 acres in 1946. This increase was brought 

about mainly by gradual leveling of land formerly too rough to 

irrigate. The area supporting native vegetation probably has been 

reduced by this process.

UNIT DIVERSIONS

The average annual diversion of water from the river to the 

canals in the Mesilla and Rincon Valleys from 1930 to 1946 was 

about 6. 5 acre-feet per irrigated acre. The minimum annual diversion reported for the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys occurred in 1941 

with 4. 7 acre-feet per acre for the Rincon Valley, 4. 8 feet for the 

Leasburg division, and 5.4 feet for the Mesilla division.

CANAL WASTE

Canal waste or return is of an operational nature and can be reduced by careful attention to water schedules. It is reported that 

much of the wastage is due to cancellation of water orders by the 

farmers after the water has already been released from the dam 

and diverted to the canals. The minimum figure reported for 

annual canal waste in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys from 1930
42 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

to 1946 was 8 percent of the diversion, occurring in 1946 in the 

Leasburg division, and the maximum was 35 percent, occurring 

in 1930 and 1931 in the Rincon Valley and Leasburg division. In 

general, lower percentages for canal waste have been reported in 

the later years. The weighted average of the reported wastage for 

the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys is about 19 percent. As the reported canal wastage is probably low, the actual average canal 

wastage is estimated as about 24 percent of the gross headgate 

diversions of 6. 5 acre-feet per acre, or 1. 6 acre-feet per acre.

CANAL-SEEPAGE LOSSES

The canal and unaccounted-for losses, given in the tables (p. 

71 to 72 ), include seepage losses from the canals, evaporation 

from the water surface in the canals, transpiration by plants along 

the banks of the canals, and any other losses. The reported seepage losses are derived by subtracting from the diversions the 

estimates of the water wasted from the canals to the river or 

drains and the water delivered to the farms. As both the wastage 

and the deliveries are believed to be greater than reported, it is 

probable, therefore, that the actual seepage losses are lower 

than reported. The lowest figure reported for annual canal losses 

in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys from 1930 to 1946 was 26 percent, which occurred in 1937 and 1940 in the Leasburg division.

A seepage run was made in November 1923 by the Bureau of 

Reclamation upon the Leasburg Canal from Wasteway No. 1, about 

a mile below the Leasburg Dam station, to Elwood, a distance of 

11. 59 miles. The stretch of canal was divided into 5 sections in 

lengths ranging from 0. 7 mile to 4. 3 miles. The loss of water in 

the sections ranged from 0.7 cfs per mile to 2.2 cfs per mile, 

with an average loss for the whole distance of 1.2 cfs per mile. 

The total length of canals and laterals in the Leasburg system is 

115. Smiles. The total indicated loss of water, therefore, is about 

138 cfs, about 22 percent of the reported capacity (635 cfs) of the 

Leasburg Canal near its head.

The percentage of seepage loss from the canals is not constant, 

either for the whole of the canals or any part of them or for various 

quantities of flow. The actual quantity of wateriest by seepage is 

more nearly constant. Small quantities of flow will show, in general, a larger percentage of loss than large quantities of flow in 

the same canal. However, in a normal year the estimated canal 

seepage and unaccounted-for losses in the Rincon and Mesilla 

Valleys average about 20 percent of the gross headgate diversions 

of 6. 5 acre-feet per acre, or 1. 3 acre-feet per acre.
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 43 

WATER DELIVERED TO FARMS

The water delivered to the lands in the Rincon and Mesilla 

Valleys is the remainder of headgate diversions after accounting 

for canal wastage and seepage losses. Using the figures of 24 

percent for canal wastage and 20 percent for seepage loss to be 

deducted from headgate diversions in an average year, the water 

delivered to the lands in the past is 56 percent, which in an average 

year with headgate diversions of 6. 5 acre-feet per acre amounted 

to 3.6 acre-feet per acre of irrigated lands. In contrast, the reported average delivery of water to the land in the period from 

1930 to 1946 was only 2.8 acre-feet per acreor about 43 percent 

of the water diver ted from the river. The maximum reported percentage of the diversions delivered to the farms in any one year 

was 58 percent, in 1937 and 1940 in the Leasburg division. In 

general, larger percentages have been reported as delivered to 

the farms in later years.

A rough comparison of the estimated percentages of diversions 

delivered to the lands in the past, averaging about 56 percent, 

with what possibly could have been delivered under past conditions 

canbe made by combining the minimum quantities reported in any 

year for canal wastes and for canal losses in each division and 

assuming the remainder of the diversion to have been available 

for delivery to the farms. In the Rincon Valley, the minimum reported percentage for canal waste is 14, in 1946, and for canal 

losses 29, in 1939 and 1940, making a possible delivery to the 

lands of 57 percent. In the Leasburg division, the minimum reported percentage for canal waste is 8, in 1946, and for canal 

losses 26, in 1937 and 1940, making a possible delivery to the 

lands of 66 percent. In the Mesilla division, the minimum reported 

percentage for canal waste is 10, in 1946, and for canal losses 

30, in 1943, making a possible delivery to the farms of 60 percent. The average for the three divisions is 61 percent, compared 

with the estimated actual delivery of 56 percent.

FLOW OF DRAINS IN RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

The flow of the drains is directly related to the ground-water 

levels, which, in turn, are related to the amount and seasonal 

distribution of the surface-water supply. To show this relationship the seasonal variation of the drain flow must be known, as 

well as the total annual flow. Also, in order to determine the 

effect of pumping upon the drains it is necessary to determine the 

average gain in flow of the drains.

317Z67 O - 55 - 4
44 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Drains have been constructed in the Rincon, Mesilla, and El 

Paso Valleys to maintain the water table at a low level. In 1946 

there were about 42 miles of drains in the Rincon Valley and about 

226 miles of drains in the Mesilla Valley. The rate of flow in the 

drains is measured about three times a month with a current meter 

at the outlet of each drain, except the two short intercepting drains 

in the Mesilla Valley, the Santo Tomas and Montoya, totaling about 

8^ miles, which are not measured. The monthly and annual drain 

flow for the Rincon Valley and the Mesilla Valley, from 1930 to 

1946, aregivenin table Son pages 141, 142. On the average, about 

64 percent of the drain flow occurs in the 6 months from April 

through September, as contrasted with 84 percent of the release 

from storage in the same period. The average annual drain flow 

for the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys from 1930 to 1946 is 249,400 

acre-feet, or about 42 percent of the gross diversions and 52 percent of the gross diversions and 52 percent of the reported net 

diversions that is, gross diversions minus wastage to the Rincon 

and Mesilla Valleys in the same period.

The average return flow of the drains for the Rincon Valley is 50 

percent of the reported net diversion to that valley, and the return 

flow of the drains for the Mesilla Valley is 52 percent of the reported 

net diversions to that valley. The close agreement between the 

percentages of return flow of the drains for the 2 valleys indicates 

a similarity of conditions.

With a normal supply of surface water the average monthly gain 

in flow of the drains in cubic feet per second per mile of drain, in 

the Rincon Valley ranges from a minimum of about 0. 6 in January 

to a maximum of about 1. 7 in August, with an average of 1. 2 for 

the year; in the Mesilla Valley it ranges from a minimum of 0. 8 

in February to a maximum of 1. 9 in August, with an average of 

1. 3 for the year.

Average river depletions by Rincon and Mesilla Valleys 

[Based upon diversions less drain return flow, 1930-46, in thousands of acre-feet]

Average diversions to Rincon and Mesilla 

Valleys (p. 72 )

Average drain flow returned to

river (p. 72 )..................................

Average river depletions.......................

Depletions, percent of average 

reservoir releases to project 

of 734,200 acre-feet, (omitting 

abnormal release for 1942), p. 39.

589.3 (gross)

249.4

339.9

46

447. 9 (net)

249.4

198.5

27

The water in the drains is composed of varying percentages of 

waste from the canals, seepage from canals, return seepage from 

irrigated lands, seepage from the Rio Grande, and flow of groundwater from the mesa lands to the valley.
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 45

Wastage from the canals to the drains supposedly is not included 

in the measured flow of the drains, the practice being not to measure the flow when it contains waste water, as indicated by a change 

in color of the drainage water. However, as this is not always 

practicable, it is probable that the measured flow of the drains 

contains some waste water.

RELATIONS OF DRAIN FLOW AND DIVERSIONS

A relation is to be expected between the ground-water recharge, 

represented mainly by return of irrigation water, and the groundwater discharge, represented mainly by drain flow. Knowledge 

of the relation is necessary in order to show the direct connection 

existing between the available surface supply and the return drain 

flow and to ascertain the amount of drain flow to be expected in a 

year of decreased surface supply.

As all components of the ground-water recharge to the valley 

fill, except that from the mesa lands and from precipitation, vary 

seasonally and annually with theamount of surface water available, 

it is logical to expect a seasonal and annual variation of the drain 

flow.

The relation of drain flow to reported net diversions has been 

plotted for the Rincon and the Mesilla Valleys in figures 2 and 3. 

On this type of graph the points should fall along a line if a relation 

exists between the variables, the line being straight if a linear 

relation exists. The points show some scattering but in general 

fall along the straight lines given, which indicate a drain flow of 

about 50 percent of the net diversions in the Rincon Valley and the 

Mesilla Valley, essentially the same as computed previously 

(P. 44 ).

The scattering of the points is probably mainly due to inaccurate 

estimates of canal wastes and therefore inaccurate figures for net 

diversions. Varying amounts of waste water inadvertently included 

with measured drain flow and varying amounts of seepage directly 

from the river to the drains also may be responsible in part for 

the scattering.

Also plotted on figures 2 and 3 are graphs of the drain flow and 

net diversions, by years, for the Rincon and the Mesilla Valleys. 

These graphs show, in different form, the same relations as those 

shown in the scatter diagrams, increases and decreases in net 

annual diversions generally being accompanied by increases and 

decreases in the drain flow.
46 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

1930 1935 1940 1945

50

40

30

LU 

CC. 

O

<

o 

o 

o

* 20

10

1933

1932

'1931

1939.

I938 1930

1935-

T937 

*I936

 1944

, »I945 

1946

0 20 40 60 80 100 

REPORTED NET DIVERSION,IN 1000 ACRE-FEET

Figure 2. Relation of reported net diversions to return drain flow in Rincon Valley, N. Mex.
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

47

300

250 <

300

1930 1935 1940 1945

200

150

300

200

< 100

1941*

*I932 

*I930

100 200 300 400 500 

REPORTED NET DIVERSION, IN tOOO ACRE-FEET

600

Figure 3. Relation of reported net diversions to return drain flow inMesilla Valley, N. Mex.

and Tex.
48 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

RINCDN VALLEY

MESILLA VALLEY

Figure 4. Seasonal relations of gross headgate diversions and drain flow for selected years,

Rincon and Mesilla Valleys.

In order to show the seasonal relations between diversions and 

drain flow, the gross diversions and the drain flow have been 

plotted by months on figure 4 for the Rincon and the Mesilla Valleys 

for the years 1935, 1942, and 1944-46. The smallest diversion to 

the project occurred in 1935; the largest flow in the river occurred 

in 1942.

The close relations between the diversions and the flow in the 

drainage ditches is readily apparent. The characteristic decrease 

in diversions each May is reflected in the drain flow, generally a 

month later, as either a slight reduction or a slackening in the 

rate of increase of drain flow. The maximum diversions occur in 

either July o-r August as, generally, does the maximum drain 

flow. As this flow would continue to decline as long as there were 

no diversions or water in the river, the time of minimum drain 

flow would not necessarily be related only to the time of minimum 

diversions. The minimum drain flow occurs in February just before the effects of the February diversions are apparent. Diversions in February are followed by increases in the drain flow by 

March. Evidently there is a very little lag in seasonal effects 

between the diversions and the return drain flow.

In order to determine whether a long-termlag effect exists, of 

the order of a year or more, between diversions and drain flow, 

figure 5 was prepared by plotting the cumulative annual departures
DEPARTURES FROM AVERAGE, 

IN 1000 ACRE-FEET

CUMULATIVE DEPARTUR

II, + 

M ro _ r

300 O o 

3 O o O O O 

 1

1

/

/

(<Co \^ 

2 s^

o"

/

1 1 1

f

/

\

\

^

«

o'

\

/-

to

o"

»"
50 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

from the average during the period 1930 to 1946 for both the return flow in the drains and the gross diversion in the Rincon and 

the Mesilla Valleys. Upward-trending lines indicate above-average 

conditions; horizontal lines, normal conditions; and downwardtrending lines, below-average conditions. The graphs of drain 

flow and diversions for the Rincon Valley conform very closely 

except for 1945 and 1946, when an opposite trend between the two 

is indicated. No lag of the order of a year or more for the Rincon 

Valley is apparent.

The relation in the graphs for the Mesilla Valley is not so apparent. Below-average conditions of drain flow through 1938 are 

followed by above-average conditions. Diversions, on the other 

hand, show above-average conditions through 1934, followed by 

below-average conditions through 1943, after which above-average 

conditions again prevailed. It is possible that the above-average 

drain flow be ginning in!939 is related to the above-aver age diversions for a number of years preceding 1935, for which the beginning year is not known. If that is true, then the below-average 

diversions beginning in 1935 have not yet been reflected in the 

drain flow through 1946, a lag of at least 12 years. However, as 

the flow of the drains in the Mesilla Valley has shown a general 

increase from 1930 to 1944, theplotof cumulative departures does 

not show the relation that exists. Selection of a different figure 

for a base from which to compute departures from normal would 

result in a different graph.

The other graph, in figure 5, which shows only departures 

from average for the drain flow and the diversions for the Mesilla 

Valley, better portrays the relation and indicates little or no lag 

in the drain flow with an increase in the diversions, but possibly 

a lag of 1 or 2 years with a decrease in diversions.

REQUIRED WATER SUPPLY

In order to determine the amount of ground water that would be 

required for irrigation in a year with a shortage of surface water 

it is necessary to consider the quantity involved under the present 

conditions of irrigation with surface water exclusively.

During years of plentiful water supply the estimated average 

amount of water delivered to the lands of the project in the Rincon 

and Mesilla Valleys was 3.6 acre-feet per acre, 56 percent of 

that diverted. The minimum amount of water reported as delivered 

to -the land from 1930 to 1946 was 1.74 acre-feet per acre for the 

Rincon Valley and 2. 12 acre-feet per acre for the Mesilla Valley, 

amounts which are assumed to have been conservatively estimated 

as they represent only 23 and 29 percent, respectively, of the
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 51

water available for delivery. The maximum percentage of diverted 

water that was delivered to the lands from 1930 to 1946 occurred 

in 1940 and amounted to 51 percent, or 2. 78 acre-feet per acre, 

for the Rincon Valley and 5& percent, or 3. 12 acre-feet per acre, 

for the Mesilla Valley.

The unit consumptive use for crops is subject to a large variation 

in both actual and computed use. The unit consumptive use of 

cotton in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys for the ITryear period 

from 1919 to 1935 was estimated 2. 5 acre-feet per acre in the report of the Rio Grande joint investigation, with minimum of about 

2. 0 feet and a maximum of about 3. 0 feet. The unit consumptive 

use of alfalfa for the same period was estimated 4. 5 acre-feet 

per acre, with range from 4 feet to 5 feet. The estimated consumptive use of other crops ranged from a minimum of 1. 5 feet 

for grains to a maximum of 3. 0 feet for forage, with an average 

of about 2.0 feet (National Resources Committee, 1938, v. 1, p. 

382, 383). The acreage of cotton in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys 

in 1945 was 66,624, of alfalfa 21,864, and of other crops 11,060 

acres. The corresponding acreages in 1946 were 68,921 acres, 

19, 362 acres, and 12, 628 acres. Using the unit figures given above, 

the total consumptive use of crops in 1945 was about 288, 000 acrefeet and in 1946 about 285, 000 acre-feet. The average unit consumptive use for the total irrigated acreage in the Rincon and 

Mesilla Valleys in 1945 was therefore about 2.9 acre-feetper acre 

and in 1946 about 2. 8 acre-feet per acre. Precipitation probably 

furnished about 0.4 acre-foot per acre, leaving about 2.4 to 2.5 

acre-feet per acre supplied by irrigation.

Assuming that in the period 1930 to 1946 the average consumptive use of water for the irrigated lands was the same as in 1945, 

2. 5 acre-feet per acre in addition to the amount furnished directly 

by precipitation, the excess water delivered to the lands wasl. 1 

feet, about 30 percent of that delivered to the farms of 17 percent 

of the gross annual diversions of 6. 5 acre-feet per acre and 22 

percent of the estimated net annual diversion of 4. 9 acre-feet per 

acre. This return seepage of 1. 1 acre-feet per acre from the 

irrigated lands plus that of 1. 3 acre-feet per acre from the canals 

is about 37 percent of the gross or 49 percent of the estimated net 

diversion and is to be compared with the measured drain flow of 

42 percent of the gross diversion.

The difference of 5 percent between the computed and measured 

percentages of the gross diversion represented by the drain flow 

probably is made up in part of waste water that has been included 

in the measured drain flow, seepage directly from the river, and 

ground-water flow from the side mesas to the drains.
52 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

The amount of water applied to the lands in past years doubtless was more than actually necessary, even though irrigation of 

crops requires that an excess of water be applied. It is therefore 

assumed that an excess of about 30 percent of the consumptive use 

of 2. 5 feet, giving a total of 3. 3 feet of irrigation water, would be 

sufficient to grow a normal crop in the Rinconand Mesilla Valleys.

In a dry year with a shortage of surface water, canal waste could 

be reduced by careful attention to water schedules. The minimum 

reported percentage of canal wastage occurred in 1946 for each 

division and ranged from 8 percent in the Leasburg division to 14 

percent in the Rincon Valley. It seems reasonable, therefore, to 

assume that wastage could be reduced to 5 percent. This would be 

likely if a project pumping system were operated, in which case 

cancellation of water orders by the farmers could be handled quickly by stopping the necessary pumps. Of course, the canal waste 

water is not actually wasted, except that lost by evaporation, if 

used for irrigation of lands in a lower part of the valley. However, 

excessive wastage makes it necessary for the lower operating units 

to change their diversion schedule or in turn to waste the water.

Also, in a dry year the canal-seepage losses probably would be 

relatively higher thar^ the 20 percent in an average year, probably 

about 25 percent of the gross diversion. The delivery of water to 

the lands would therefore be about 70 percent of the surface-water 

diversion.

In ahypothetical year having 3. 25 acre-feet per acre or 50 percent of an average supply of surface water available for diversion, 

70 percent or 2.28 feet of water could be delivered to the farms, 

or about 70 percent of the 3. 3 feet believed necessary to raise a 

normal crop. Thus, in a year when the available surface supply 

was only 50 percent of the average, about 70 percent of the land 

probably could be irrigated with judicious use of water without 

pumping; or, as about two-thirds of the total acreage is planted to 

cotton, the main staple crop of the district, sufficient water would 

be available to water the entire cotton crop. This would be possible 

if every care in the distribution of the water were exerted by the 

farmers and ditch riders.

GROUND WATER IN VALLEY FILL 

DEPTH TO WATER

The depth to water in the Rinconand Mesilla Valleys in the early 

years prior to construction of Elephant Butte Dam was considerably 

greater than at present. The flow of the Rio Grande at that time
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 53

was unregulated and there were periods when there was no flow, 

of water. The amount of water applied to the lands was quite 

variable, large amounts being applied when available and none 

during periods when the river was dry. The amount of land irrigated in early years was relatively small, about 26, 229 acres in 

the Mesilla Valley and 4, 370 acres in the Rincon Valley in 1907 

(National Resources Committee, 1938, p. 75).

By 1914 the irrigated acreage had increased to about 45, 356 

acres in the Mesilla Valley and 6, 961 acres in the Rincon Valley 

(National Resources Committee, 1938, p. 75). The increase resulted partly from construction of the Leasburg diversion dam in 

1908 by the Bureau of Reclamation and partly from improvements 

in the distribution system. As a result of the increase in irrigated 

acreage, the water table rose.

The first water from the Elephant Butte Reservoir was made 

available to the project in 1915. The reservoir not only assured 

a more plentiful supply of water but also resulted in clear water 

being available, whereas formerly silt-laden water had been used. 

The clear water seeped more rapidly from the canals, and, as 

the clear water also drained faster from the irrigated lands, 

more water was applied to the lands. These conditions, described 

in the project histories of the Bureau of Reclamation, resulted in 

a rise of water level to alarming heights and caused abandonment 

of productive farmlands.

The change in water level is shown by the profiles of the water 

table in the vicinity of the State Agricultural College and westward to the river on plate 4, which has been taken from a similar 

diagram prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1927. The low 

water table shown in 1904 was taken from Slichter (1905, p. 26- 

27). The water level given for June 1917 ranged from nearly 6 

feet to as much as 12 feet above the level of 1904 and in some low 

spots was at the surface. Four years after construction of the 

drains the water table had been lowered 1 to 4 feet in the areas 

between the drains in the vicinity of the cross section, to the 

level given for June 1927.

The rise of the water table from 1904 to 1916 in the vicinity of 

Mesilla Park, in the locality of the cross section, is given in the 

following table obtained from the Bureau of Reclamation 7 .

7Fiock, L. R., 1917, Drainage report, Rio Grande project, U. S. Bur. Reclamation unpublished report. El Paso, Tex. , February 1917.
54 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 

Rise ot water table in vicinity of Mesilla Park, N. Mex., 1904-16

Year

1904

1915

1916

Average 

depth to water 

(feet)

11.5

7.0

5.7

Rise of water table

Period 

(feet)

4.5

1.3

Per year 

(feet)

0.4

1.3

The rise of the water table to within 4 feet of the ground surface in 33, 000 acres, representing 40 percent of the irrigable 

area south of T. 23 S., resulted in a reduction of irrigated land 

to 47,000 acres by November 1916 s .

As a result of the high water table in the Mesilla Valley, plans 

were made for the installation of open drains. In order to determine the depth to water and the configuration of the water table, 

preparatory to construction of the drains, the Bureau of Reclamation in the period 1913 to 1917 bored about 800 holes with hand 

augers in the Mesilla Valley. These holes were located on the 

east-west section lines across the valley at intervals of about a 

quarter of a mile, except on the east side of the river from a 

mile north of Berino to 2 miles south of Fort Fillmore, where 

additional holes were put in at quarter-mile intervals on eastwest lines midway between the section lines. Plate 5 is a watertable map prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1917 from 

measurements made in these holes in June 1917. The areas having 

various depths to water are indicated by shading. About 4 percent 

of the reported area had water standing on the surface, and more 

than 66 percent of the area had water within 4 feet of the surface. 

The sloughs and meanders of the old river beds are clearly shown 

by the pattern of the depth to water, particularly that of the water 

on the surface and ground water within 2 feet of the surface. At 

that time (1917) about 6 miles of the east drainage ditch had been 

completed. The effect of the lowering of the water table in the 

vicinity of the east drain is clearly shown.

The depth to water in the auger holes in the summer of 1919 is 

shown on the map prepared inSeptember 1919 by the U. S. Bureau 

of Reclamation. (See pi. 6.) The drains that had been constructed 

by that time are indicated on the map. The lowering of water level 

that occurred in the vicinity of the completed drains is apparent. 

The following table from the Bureau of Reclamation report9 shows 

the change in water levels that occurred in two districts from June

!?IS: L. R.: Siofwo Grande project history. 1919: Ch. 9, U. S. Bur. Redaction, 

El Paso, Tex. , January 1920.
Comparison of -depth to water in Mesilla Valley in drained part of the west side unit in Septembe

draining

[Note; Drainage construction was progressing through the above dis

La Union district

Depth to 

water 

(feet below 

land surface)

0 to 2.......................

2 to 4...... .................

4 to 6.......................

6 to 8.......................

Over 8......................

Total gross

Area affected by drains.... 

Total area in which water

Total area in which water 

is 6+ feet..................

1917, befor^ construction 

of drains

(acres)

175 

3,118 

11,027 

1 3,665

17,985 

0

14,320 

(*)

(percent)

1.0 

17.1 

61.4 

20.5

100 

0

79.5 

(3)

1919, area affected 

by drains

(acres)

6 

278 

628 

4,230 

5,799 

3,339

14, 280 

14,280

912 

9,138

(percent)

0.04 

1.95 

4.4 

29.6 

40.6 

23.4

100 

79.4

6.39 

64.01

19

(ac

(

^Includes everything over 4 feet, practically all between 4 and 6 feet. 

2Practically all in old riverbeds. 

'Practically none.
56 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

1917 to September 1919. In the La Union district, where 79 percent of the area had water at less than 4 feet in June 1917, only 

6 percent of the drained area had water at less than 4 feet in 

September 19i9. Similar conditions are shown for the upper west 

side district.

Additional overall lowering of the water level has occurred since 

September 1919. At that time only a part of the drainage system 

had been completed, and sufficient time had not elapsed for the 

water level to become stabilized. On the profile in plate 4 has 

been plotted the water level inSeptember 1919 as scaled from the 

water-table contours on the map, plate 6. At that time the Mesilla 

drainage ditch had been completed to a point a little less than a 

mile north of the line of the profile. As shown, the water level in 

the Mesilla Drain in September 1919 was practically the same as 

in June 1927, whereas water levels at some distance from the 

drain were higher in September 1919 than in June 1927. With two 

additional drains across the line of the profile and the 8 years of 

additional drainage, the water levels were lowered about 3 feet 

in areas between the drains.

A comparison of depths to water in a few of the auger holes, as 

measured in late August 1946 by the Bureau of Reclamation, with 

the depths to water as taken from the map for September 1919 are 

given in the following table. The designations of the wells are as 

shown on plate 3.

Changes in depth to water in Mesilla Valley, N. Mex., as measured in auger holes in late 

August 1946 and asdetermined from depth-to-water map of September 1919

Hole 

designation

5

6

9

15

16

17

23

27

37

40

46

Stahman

Duran

Mesquite

Sweet

Find

Vado

Anthony

head

Three

Saints

La Union

Depth to water 

(feet)

September 1919

1.8

2.0

2.5

4.2

6.0

6.0

4.0

2.5

4.2

3.8

4.1

2.0

4.5

4.5

3.8

3.7

3.9

5.0

3.8

3.0

August 1946

4.4

3.4

5.6

8.3

8.0

4.6

9.8

6.6

3.5

5.9

7.6

7.6

9.3

4.7

4.0

2.6

4.2

4.4

4.7

6.2

Ihange 

(feet)

-2.6

-1.4

-3.1

-4.1

-2.0

+1.4

-5.8

-4.1

+.7

-2.1

-3.5

-5.6

-4.8

-.2

-.2

+1.1

-.3

+.6

-.9

-3.2

Hole 

designation

32

33

Dunn

Bartlett

Liberty

Thalman

Bloomberg

Berino

Rice road

Opitz

Pool

Campbell

McKamey

Dairy farm

HighSchoo]

Anthony

West

Long well

Borderland

Wade

Depth to water 

(feet)

September 19191

6.0

5.7

8.2

8.5

7.8

8.0

5.8

5.0

6.5

3.3

7.0

4.0

3.9

7.0

8.0

5.3

6.0

5.3

7.8

August 1946

6.2

5.0

6.5

7.9

5.4

6.7

5.8

4.4

5.1

2.4

5.4

2.8

3.3

7.8

4.6

4.1

2.0

4.9

4.0

Change 

(feet)

-0.2

+ .7

+1.7

+.6

+2.4

+1.3

0

+.6

+1.4

+.9

+1.6

+1.2

+ .6

-.8

+3.4

+ 1.2

+4.0

+.4

+3.8

Average..................................... +1. 2

Affected significantly by drainage by 1919.
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 57

Only parts of the Mesilla Valley, particularly the lower half, 

had been affected by drainage by September 1919. Wells located 

in such areas are indicated in the table. The depth-to-water measurements given in the table are not as accurate as desired. The 

land surface near a well tends to change position, especially as 

there has been considerable leveling of the land since 1919. The 

depths to water taken from the map are subject to errors of as 

much as 2 feet; an error in location of a well, for instance, such 

as occurs in an area of rolling topography, may affect the determined depth to water by that amount. The map itself is subject to 

error at any particular spot. The time of observation for the 2 

years differs possibly by a month, which in itself may account for 

a difference of water level. With these factors in mind, it seems 

that tne water table in areas not yet affected by drainage in September 1919 had declinedby late August 1946 from2 to 6 feet, with 

a probable average of more than 2 feet, whereas the water table in 

areas affected by drainage in September 1919 was higher-in late 

August 1946 possibly by as much as a foot. This rise maybe 

partly due to a clogging of the drains or a decrease in the depth 

of the drains by filling with debris and, also, partly to the increase 

of irrigated land since 1919.

About 220 holes were bored with hand augers in 1917 and 1918 

in the Rincon Valley. Maps of the water table from a mile north 

of the Sierra County line to R. 2 W. were prepared by the U. S. 

Bureau of Reclamation from the measurements made in these 

wells, probably in 1919 prior to construction of the Garfield and 

Hatch Drains. The accompanying map, plate 7, was taken from 

the original maps which were drawn to a scale of 500 feet to an 

inch. The water table at that time ranged from land surface to 

more than 4 feet below land surface and was from 2 to 4 feet below land surface in a large part of the area. The lowering of 

water level that has takenplace since construction of the drainage 

system is not known, although it is probably similar to that which 

occurred in the Mesilla Valley.

The changes in water level in the Rincon Valley are given in the 

following table. The measurements for 6 of the wells are for 

August when the water table normally is near or at its seasonal 

high, and those for the other Swells are winter readings when the 

water table is near its seasonal low level. As the time of the 

water levels shown on the maps prepared in 1919 is not known, 

and as the seasonal range of water levels is about 4 feet, the 

changes shown in the table are not conclusive as to amount but indicate a probable drop of more than 2 feet from 1919 to 1947.

The water level in the Rincon Valley, in the area near the lower 

end of the Rincon Drain in 1926 after completion of the drain, is 

also shown on plate 7. In about half the area the depth to water 

was in excess of 4 feet.
58 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Changes in water level in Rincon Valley, N. Mex., as measured in wells in August 

and as determined from depth-to-water map of 1919

1947

Well location 

number

17. 4. 32. 112

17.4.31.111

18.4.5.214

18.4.17.312

18.4.17.411

19.3.10.333

19.3.10.432

19.3.9.121

19.3.15.443

Occupant of 

property

Painter

Luchini

Prater

Engler

Riggs

Cocks

Stotts

Hatch

Small wood

Depth to water 

(feet)

1919

2

4

6

4

3

5

6

2

1

August 1947

6.6

5.5

43.4

5.3

28.3

5.0

9.1

3.4

»5.6

Change 

(feet)

-4.6

-1.5

-7.4

-1.3

-5.3

0

-3.1

-1.4

-4.6

Average.....................................................................................................-3. 2

iFebruary 1948. 

2December 1947. 

SFebruary 1947.

FLUCTUATIONS OF THE WATER TABLE

Changes in water level in the Mesilla and Rincon Valleys are 

brought about by return of irrigation water, canal and river seepage losses, precipitation, transpiration and evaporation, and, in 

part, by changes in the level of the drains and the river. Daily, 

weekly, seasonal, and yearly changes in the water level are the 

net effect of all these factors.

EFFECT OF IRRIGATION

The lands are irrigated during the summer months, with about 

83 percent of the diversions from the Rio Grande occurring from 

April through September. Return seepage from irrigation and seepage from canals and the river all occur about the same time; the 

result is that water levels in the valleys and along the edges of the 

adjoining mesas are higher in late summer than in late winter. 

Figure 6 shows the fluctuations of water level as measured daily 

at 5 p. m. in an auger hole, 23. 2E. 29. 214, on the east edge of 

the valley in the northeast corner of a field at the weatherinstruments shelter of the Agricultural College. The field is a 

grass-covered athletic practice field that is irrigated about once 

a month. The times of irrigation, as noted by the local observer, 

are plotted at appropriate points on the graph. A major "peak" in 

the water level occurred about 1 day after each irrigation of the 

surrounding field. Weekly fluctuations are roughly indicated, and
1947

March April May June July 

to_____10 go

August September October 

10 eo____10 to_

1 I 1*1 I I I 

V 24.2E.SII4

24 2E.9.434 (S2335E)

z

LffL I I I I I 

Figure 6. Fluctuations of water level in three auger holes in Mesilla Valley, an
60 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

probably correspond to the times of irrigation of nearby lands. 

The low level was reached in late March and the high level 

except for a short-lived peak in June in early September. A 

nearly continuous rise occurred from March to September while 

water was being diverted to the canals.

Also plotted on figure 6 are graphs of water levels from measurements made every 2 weeks in 2 other auger holes. Well 24. 2E. 

9.434 is 2, 335 feet east of the Park Drain along the Seale road. 

Well 24. 2E. 8. 114 is 1, 783 feet west of the Park Drain along the 

Holt road, which is about a mile north of the Seale road. Irrigated 

fields are on both sides of the 2 roads.

The graphs for these two auger holes show marked summer 

highs like the preceding auger hole but differ from each other in 

their minor fluctuations. The smaller rises in water level in May 

than in April reflect the characteristic decrease in diversions to 

the valleys in May, which is also reflected in a decrease in drain 

flow, as indicated previously. The magnitude of the seasonal 

change in water level is dependent upon the location with respect 

to nearby drains, canals, and irrigated lands.

The Bureau of Reclamation has measured water levels at 

monthly intervals for a number of years in about 50 auger holes 

distributed over the Mesilla Valley, from about 7 miles south of 

Leasburg Dam to the southern edge of the valley. About 15 of 

these wells are so-called sample wells that were bored in 1936 

for the purpose of obtaining samples of ground water for chemical 

analysis during the time of theRioGrande joint investigation. The 

remaining holes were bored in 1924. The water levels have been 

measured roughly to the tenth of a foot by a "sounder" attached to 

the end of a metallic tape. The available records of water level 

in 11 of the auger holes are plotted in plate 8. In addition to the 

well location number, the number or name of the hole as designated 

by the Bureau of Reclamation is given; the holes are located on 

plate 3. Sample wells on plate 8 are designated by a number, enclosed in parentheses following the hole number or name, which 

corresponds to the number assigned during the Rio Grande joint 

investigation.

The water level in each auger hole indicates the yearly cycle, 

the high level occurring in late summer in response to return of 

water diverted from the canals, and the low level occurring in the 

late winter. The reduction in diversions that usually occurs in 

May of each year is generally reflected by a lowering of the water 

levels in the auger holes. However, as the time of measurement 

of the water levels has varied each month, this lowering of water
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 61

level is not always apparent. The detailed and long-term trend in 

water levels shown in each well is a net result of factors surrounding each well, such as a change in the amount of water 

applied to nearby lands, which in turn can be caused either by a 

change in type of crops grown or by a change of irrigation practices. As the valley is traversed by drains, the minimum level 

of the ground-water table at any point is controlled largely by the 

elevation of the bottom of nearby drains. As a drain gradually 

fills with debris over a period of years, the nearby water levels 

will rise until such time as the drain is cleaned. In the early 

years of the project a smaller proportion of the land was irrigated 

than in late years. Irrigation of new land near an auger hole 

causes a gradual rise in water level in that hole over a period of 

time until approximate equilibrium is again reached. None of the 

above factors is known concerning the area around a particular 

well.

The auger holes for which records through 1946 are available 

are shown on plate 3. Wells 32, 33, and 37 are on an east-west 

line east of Mesilla Dam, and their water levels are plotted on 

plate 8 to show that water levels in the same general area are 

affected differently. The graphs show a general agreement but 

differ in detail. Well 37 shows a greater seasonal change than 

wells 32 or 33, which may be partly due to seepage from the east 

side canal in the vicinity of well 37. There was a lowering of the 

water level in 1935 in all the wells coincident with reduceddiversionin that year, and a rise of water level in 1942 coincident with 

the increased diversion and river flow in that year. Minor fluctuations shown on the graph may be in part due to inaccuracies in 

measurement of the water levels.

If a true average water level could be obtained over the Mesilla 

Valley, it is probable that the average yearly levels would fluctuate with the annual diversion and the long-term trend in levels 

might show a slight rise because of increased irrigated acreage; 

this might be offset in some areas by a lowering of water levels 

resulting from the lowering of the riverbed by scouring.

Water levels were measured at about monthly intervals during 

1947 in approximately 18 wells, mostly irrigation wells, in the 

Rincon and Mesilla Valley sin order to observe the change in level 

throughout the year. A few of the observation wells are located in 

sedimentary deposits above the level of the alluvium in the valleys. 

Fluctuations of water level in 7 such wells are shown in figure 7.
62 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

1946 - 1947 1948 

JJASONDlJFMAMJJASONDJ FM

35131

Figure 7. Fluctuations of water level in seven wells located in arroyo beds or in sediments 

above the valley floor of the Rio Grande.
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 63

Well 17. 5.14. 231 belonging to Felix Lara, is an unused well near 

the northern end of the Rincon Valley on the south side of Montoya 

Arroyo, about 0. Smile west of the Arrey Canal which at this point 

follows the western edge of the valley floor. The water level in 

this well is about 10 feet above the water level in the river which 

is about l!/4 miles to the east. Wells 17. 5. 24. 233 and 17. 5. 26. 

242, belonging to E. W. Powers and C. L. Welch, are wells used 

for irrigation near the northern end of the Rincon Valley in Tierra 

Blanca Creek, above the valley floor and about 1, 500 feet west of 

an irrigation lateral. The water level in these three wells reached 

the low level for the year in April and the high level near the end 

of September. A slight reduction in the rate of rise of the water 

level in June or July seems related to the decrease in diversions 

in the valley in May. The trend of the water levels in these wells 

during the year is the same as that in the auger holes on the floor 

of the Mesilla Valley and shows the relation of the ground water 

under the adjoining mesas to that in the valleys.

The fluctuations of the water level in 2 unused wells at the State 

Agricultural College in Mesilla Valley are also given in figure?. 

The ground surface at these wells, 23. 2E. 29. 243band 23. 2E.29. 

243b (83 and 305 feet deep, respectively), is from 15 to 20 feet 

above the level of the valley. The times of the seasonal high and 

low water levels in these wells correspond to those in wells in the 

valley, and again indicate a close relation between the water in the 

valley and that under the adjoining higher lands. The altitude of 

the static water level in February 1947 was nearly the same in 

these 2 unused wells, from 0. 5 to 1.0 foot below the water level 

in the valley. Two domestic wells, 228 and 428 feet deep, are 

about 100 feet from the 2 unused wells. The water level in the 305- 

foot unused well seems to be influenced by pumping in the deep 

domestic wells. The upper water in the 305 foot unused well is 

cased off, only water near the bottom entering the well.

Wells 16.5.25.211 owned by the U. S. Government (Bureau of 

Reclamation) and 16.5.25.343 belonging to A. J. Osborn, are 

south of Caballo Dam and on ground above the level of the valley 

floor. Well 16. 5. 25. 211 is on the north side of the former channel 

of Percha Creek, about 1, 000 feet south of the dam, and well 16. 5 

25. 343 is on the south side of the former channel of Percha Creek 

on a line perpendicular to the dam through well 16. 5. 25. 211 and 

about 5, 800 feet south of the dam. Fluctuations in the water level 

in these two wells, shown in figure 7, seem related to the seepage 

from Caballo Reservoir, which varies with the reservoir level. 

The high level in the reservoir occurs each year in mid-March 

and the low level in mid-September.
64 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 

EFFECT OF PRECIPITATION

Precipitation in the Rinconand Mesilla Valleys causes changes 

in the water levels. The water table rises as the ground water is 

recharged from precipitation percolating downward and as a result of reduced transpiration by plants that normally get their 

water from the ground-water body. However, at times of precipitation, application of irrigation water to the lands is usually 

reduced or stopped. The effect of the reduced recharge from 

irrigation water probably more than offsets the effect of the slight 

recharge from light precipitation, and thus a lowering of the water 

level results. Precipitation in the Rincon and Me silla Valleys is 

small, amounting to only 6.08 inches in 1947 at State College 

(2. 60 inches below normal) and 4. 88 inches atCaballo Dam. The 

effect of precipitation on the water level is expected to be small 

except during moderate to heavy showers, when the precipitation 

that reaches the water table may offset the decrease in recharge 

from irrigation water. The moisture content of the soil at the 

time of precipitation influences the amount of precipitation that 

reaches the water table, showers on wet soil having a greater 

effect than those on dry soil. As the soil generally contains more 

moisture in the summer than in the winter because of irrigation 

and as more than half of the total annual precipitation occurs in 

July, August, and September, probably most of the recharge to 

the ground water from precipitation in the valley comes from 

showers in the summer.

The daily precipitation at State College in 1947 and part of 1948 

has been plotted on figure 6 along with the water levels measured 

daily, about 5 p. m. in the auger hole, 23. 2E. 29. 214, located 

beside the rain gage. Some showers during the summer caused 

rises in the water level, whereas others apparently had little 

effect or were accompanied by slightly lower levels resulting 

from reduced irrigation. Precipitation from August 20 to 23 

totaled 0. 52 inch and apparently did not affect the water table, 

whereas that from June 17 to 19, of 0. 49 inch, caused a rise of 

0. 16 foot in the water level in the auger hole. The heavy rains 

from August 13 to 18 totaled 1.65 inches, of which 1.06 inches 

fell on the 18th, and apparently caused a rise in the water level 

of 0. 23 foot. Comparatively heavy rains in the winter seemingly 

had little or no effect on the water level. Precipitation from 

November 13 to 18 of 0.60 inch caused only a slight temporary 

decrease in the rate of lowering of the water table. Heavy rains 

February 27 and 28, 1948, amounting to 1.05 inches, caused an 

apparent rise of water level of 0. 21 foot.
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 65 

EFFECT OF TRANSPIRATION

In areas of native vegetation where the water table is shallow, 

the water level shows a typical diurnal fluctuation, falling during 

the day and rising during the night. The fluctuation is small, 

generally less than two-tenths of a foot in most areas where such 

fluctuations have been investigated. The fall of the water level in 

the daytime is caused by the use of water by plants, producing an 

effect similar to a small pump. After sundown the transpiration 

from the plants becomes small or ceases and the water levels 

recover.

Fluctuations of water level in nine wells in the middle Rio Grande 

valley near Socorro, N. Mex., in groves of cottonwood, tornillo, 

and willow, and in saltgrass meadows, are given in the report of 

the Rio Grande joint investigation (Theis, 1938, p. 275-276). 

Records of fluctuations of water level due to transpiration in the 

Rincon and Me silla Valleys were not obtained but are believed to 

be similar to those in the middle Rio Grande valley.

SOURCE AND MOVEMENT OF GROUND WATER

Ground water is seldom stationary but nearly always moving 

from an area of recharge to an area of discharge. The direction 

of flow of the ground water gives an indication of the sources of 

recharge and areas of discharge. Because ground water flows 

down gradient, just as surface water does, altitudes of the water 

table determined at many places will show the direction of flow of 

the ground water, which is at right angles to the contours of the 

water table. A change of gradient of the water table is shown by 

a change in spacing of the-contours, and under natural conditions 

it indicates a change in velocity of the ground water brought about 

by a change in the amount of water flowing through the sediments 

under consideration, a change in the thickness or width of the 

formation, a change in the permeability of the aquifer 4 or a combination of changes in any of them.

DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT

The direction of movement of the ground water under the valley 

floor of the Rinc on and Me silla Valleys is indicated by the contours 

of the water table shown in plates 5-7. The general direction of 

flow is down the valleys. Superimposed on this general circulation 

of ground water are circulations of smaller scale such as, lateral 

flow into the drains in places, more or less directly from adjacent 

canals or the river flow from the bordering uplands, and, in
66 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

places, flow from or to the river. Plate 9, taken from a map 

prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation, shows a direct flow from 

the Three Saints lateral eastward to the Anthony Drain. Figures 

9 and 10 show direct flow in the vicinity of Hill from the Leasburg 

Canal to the Leasburg Drain.

In the Mesilla Valley in June 1917, the average gradient of the 

water table along the axis of the valley from the 3, 900-foot contour near the north end of the valley to the 3,710-foot contour 

near Montoya, a distance of about 42 miles, was about 4. 5 feet 

to the mile, the same as that of the ground surface. The gradient 

at any particular spot as determined from the spacing between 

10-foot contours on the map of the water table for June 1917 

ranged from as little as 3 feet to the mile, just north of Chamberino, to as much as 10 feet to the mile, just -north of Las 

Cruces. The gradient of the, water table as determined in September 1904 from a line of wells from Las Cruces to a point 

south of Mesilla, a distance of nearly 5 miles, was 4. 64 feet to 

the mile (Slichter, 1905, p. 24, 25).

It is believed that the average gradient of the water table down 

the valley at the present time is essentially the same as in 1917, 

the effect of the drains having been an overall lowering of the 

water table.

The gradient of the water table in 1919 in the Rincon Valley 

from the 4, 070-foot contour 1 mile north of the Dona Ana County 

line to the 3, 994-foot contour, a distance of about 16 miles, was 

about 4. 8 feet to the mile, essentially the same as that of the 

ground surface. (See pi. 7.)

SOURCE OF GROUND WATER

The ground water in the valley fill is derived from a number of 

sources, the quantity from each being generally indistinguishable. 

Water is derived from seepage from the river in various sections, 

seepage from the canals and laterals, seepage from irrigation 

water applied to the lands, ground-water flow from the bordering 

mesa lands, precipitation upon the valley floor and adjacent 

mesas, and a small amount from flash floods in the arroyos that 

discharge from the mesas to the valley.

SEEPAGE FROM THE RIO GRANDE

In several stretches the river loses water to the ground-water 

body, as indicated by the contour son the water table in the accompanying maps. Seepage from the river in the Mesilla Valley in
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 67

June 1917 is indicated at the Mesilla diversion dam between the 

3, 830-and 3,820-foot contours. (See pi. 5.) The seepage from 

this stretch may be due partly to raising of the river level by the 

diversion dam. A pronounced seepage loss from both sides of the 

river is indicated from Fort Fillmore to Mesquite between the 

3, 810- and the 3, 790-foot contours. Seepage from the river is also 

indicated in the vicinity of Montoya from the 3, 712-foot contour to 

below the 3,704-foot contour. Other isolated contours show seepage loss from the river. In some stretches, such as from opposite 

Chamberino to opposite Anthony between the 3, 758-foot contour 

and the 3, 740-foot contour, the river is shown to be gaining water. 

It is shown to be gaining water on the north side of the bend opposite Dona Ana and probably losing water from the south side. In 

June 1917, before construction of the drains, the river apparently 

was losing more water than it was gaining. This condition probably 

was responsible in part for the high water table.

InSeptember 1919, after construction of a number of the drains, 

the seepage loss from the river apparently increased, as evidenced 

by the steep water-table gradients from the river to the drains. 

(See pi. 6.) Increased seepage losses are especially apparent in 

areas where the drains, such as the Chamberino Drain, were 

constructed near the river. This seepage loss from the river induced by the drains does not mean an actual loss of water from 

the valley, as the drain water is discharged into the river farther 

down the valley.

The seepage loss from the river has been changed somewhat by 

the storage of water in Elephant Butte Reservoir. Previous to this 

storage, the river water that was used in the Rincon and Mesilla 

Valleys contained the usual load of silt, which during normal flows 

sealed the riverbed and canals to some extent. After release of 

clear reservoir water began in 1915, a greater amount of seepage 

occurred from the river and canals. This increased seepage loss 

was in part responsible for the rapid rise in ground-water levels 

that necessitated construction of the drains.

The clear water also has had a tendency to scour the riverbed. 

The scouring hasbeenhelped by the program of river rectification 

of the International Boundary and Water Commission, which has 

consisted of confining the river in a narrow channel and straightening or cutting off large bends of the riverbed. From 1917 to 

1932 the river from Percha Dam to Leasburg Dam was shortened 

about 2.93 miles and from Leasburg Dam to International Dam 

was shortened about 2.81 miles.10

10 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque district, 1947, Survey for flood control, Rio 

Grande and tributaries: v. 8, appendix F, Sedimentation, chart 87, Sept. 1, 1947.
68 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

The average annual degradation of the riverbed from 1917 to 

1932, from 1932 to 1941, and from 1941 to 1942 is given in the 

following table. The values were obtained by the U. S. Army 

Corps of Engineers by taking the average of the lowering at 1-mile 

intervals from profiles of the riverbed as prepared by the International Boundary and Water Commission. The profile in 1917 was 

of the water surface while, 2,000 cfs was being released from 

Elephant Butte Reservoir. The riverbed was assumed to be 1. 5 

feet below the water surface. The profiles of the riverbed for 

both 1941 and 1942 were taken in December of each year, before 

and after the large spill (maximum of 8, 000 cfs) from Elephant 

Butte Reservoir in early 1942. This large spill caused considerable 

scouring, as shown in the table. Complete data for the Rincon 

Valley for years succeeding 1932 are not available. Six cross 

sections of the river in the Rincon Valley, obtainedfrom the International Boundary and Water Commission, indicate a lowering of 

the riverbed from 1932 to 1943 from near Hatch southward. However, the cross sections are too few to show the conditions for all 

the valley. Reports of a few farmers indicate scouring in sections 

of the Rincon Valley comparable to that in the Mesilla Valley. 

Some lands bordering the river in the upper portion of the valley 

that formerly could be farmed without irrigation, because the water 

table was accessible to plant roots (the practice being called subirrigation), have not been suitable for farming in that way in the 

last few years because of the lowered water table.

Degradation of the bed of the Rio Grande, Percha Dam to Courchesne bridge, 1917 42

[U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque district, N. Mex. , Sept. I, 1947, Survey for 

flood control, Rio Grande and tributaries: v. 8, appendix?, Sedimentation, chart 87]

Section

Mesilla Dam to Courchesne bridge.....

Average annual degradation in feet

1917-1932

0.14. 

.11 

.07

1932-1941

0.07 

.10

1941-1942

0.95 

.40

Total

1917-1942

^.08 

3.28 

2.36

1 1917-1932.

The table shows an average degradation of the riverbed of more 

than 2 feet in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys from 1917 to 1942. 

However, greater scouring has taken place in the upper part of 

each valley. In the Rincon Valley practically all scouring from 

1917 to 1932 was north of the Haynor bridge, about 10 miles south 

of Hatch, where a maximum scouring of 7 feet was measured in 2 

sections. In the section from Leasburg Dam to Mesilla Dam all
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 69

the scouring took place above a point about 5 miles north of the 

Mesilla Dam, a maximum of 8. 0 feet from 1917 to 1942 occurring 

in the section 3 miles below Leasburg Dam. In the section from 

Mesilla Dam to Courchesne bridge, all the scouring from 1917 to 

1942 took place above Montoya, about 8 miles north of Courchesne 

bridge, a maximum of about 5 feet occurring about 9 miles below 

Mesilla Dam.

The probable effect of this degradation of the riverbed has been 

to reduce the seepage loss from the r.iver. However, the installation of drains in the valleys has tended to increase the seepage 

loss from the river, which may have offset the decrease due to 

the degradation of the river bed.

Very few seepage runs have been made on the Rio Grande below 

Elephant Butte. A seepage run in October 1913 (Follansbee, Follett, 

and Gray, 1915, p.687) showeda gain in 12cfsfrom Elephant Butte 

to Las Palomas, below Hot Springs (Truth or Consequences), a 

loss from there to Leasburg Dam, a slight gain from that locality 

to the present location of the Picacho flume, a loss to Mesquite, 

a slight gain to Berino, and no loss or gain from Berino to near 

El Paso. The total loss from Elephant Butte to near El Paso was 

59cfs. This seepage runwas considered not accurate (Follansbee, 

Follett, and Gray, p. 689). It was made before construction of any 

drains.

Seepage runs were made by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation in 

November 1917, January 1918, and February 1918. Figure 8, which 

has been taken from "Report on drainage results" by Fiock, U. S. 

Bureau of Reclamation, October 1919, shows the results of the 

three runs. The progressively smaller flow shown from November 

1917 to February 1918 is due to decreasing bank storage and return 

of water released for irrigation during the previous irrigation 

season. The seepage run in February was made after the gates at 

Elephant Butte Dam had been closed for 2 months and thus should 

be more indicative of natural losses and gains. The only drains 

constructed at that time were portions of the East and West Drains. 

The graph shows a general gain as far as Salem bridge, due south 

of Salem, a loss from there to Leasburg Dam, a small gain from 

Leasburg Dam to Picacho flume, a loss from Picacho flume to 

Anthony bridge, and a gain from there to Courchesne bridge. For 

the Mesilla Valley this is about the same as is indicated by the 

ground-water contours on the map of June 1917 (pi. 5). In February 

1918, an overall gain of about 14 cfs is indicated from south of 

Hot Springs (Truth or Consequences) to Courchesne bridge, consisting of a gain of 54 cfs to Salem bridge then a loss of about 40 

cfs.
70 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

^- osod fl

OQ uo|«je

MpiJS euseqojnoo

eBpug <uoi||UV y

/

^ /

A

i

\

* G

U03UI21 SOplJg /a

/)

\

§-5-

\

\

\ \

12,917 7vember to 

closed Eephant tes at

1 4,918to nuary 

opened Elephan ts at

bruary 125,918 to 

2anuary 

£ «

si a

g

.2

1 i

HMJO «« jo 6ui6oB ou

tuiMO^ 'Ja«a souio|0c

I »i/na tupi)0»ia V

(]N003S H3d 133J DI80D Nl
WATER CONDITIONS IN XIIE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 71

Seepage runs from Elephant Butte Dam to Courchesne bridge 

were made in January and February 1936 by the State Engineer's 

office . The average results of this run, as taken from table 2, 

(p. 8), of the report, are given in the following table and are also 

shown on figure 8.

Average invisible gains and losses in the channel of the Rio Grande horn Elephant Butte 

to El Paso, Tex., /an. 26-29, Feb. 1-3, 1936

River section

Elephant Butte Dam

Mescal Canyon

Above Hot Springs

Below Hot Springs

Above Palomas Creek

Below Palomas Creek

CaballoP. O.

Caballo Dam site

Percha Dam

Garfield flume

Below County line

Highway bridge, Hatch

Above Hatch drain

Selden Canyon

Leasburg Dam

Leasburg spillway

Picacho flume

Mesilla Dam

Mesquite bridge

Berino bridge

Vinton bridge

Country Club bridge

Courchesne bridge

Total

Distance

(miles)

0

2.0

5.7

9.9

15.3

16.4

24.4

29.0

31.3

36.5

42.4

51.1

56.9

69.0

75.9

78.4

87.4

99.7

106.5

115.9

124.9

132.7

140.0

140.0

Corrected gains and losses (cfs)

Section

-0.2

+7.9

+3.4

+2.0

+4.6

+6.0

+5.0

+3.3

+4.6

+5.6

-7.3

-1.2

-10.5

+.6

+.7

-2.4

-31.6

-16.1

-11.8

+8.3

-6.7

-14.7

-50.5

Per mile Stretches

-0. 101

+2.14

+.81

+.37

+4.18

+.75

+1.09

+1.43

+.88

+ .95

-.84

-.21

-.87

+.09

> +32. 0 +32. 0

>-

+10.2 §3

-8.2 g^

2

-18.4

+.28} _! 7 <|

-.271 * > 

-2.57 -31.6 rfrf

-2.37 -16.1 } -74. 3 -55 £

-1.26 -11.8 5

+.921

-.86} -13. ll

-2. Ol|

................... -50.5

Again of about 42 cfs is shown from Elephant Butte Dam to below the Sierra-Dona Ana County line and a loss of about 93cfs 

from thereto Courchesne bridge, giving a net loss of about 51 cfs 

from Elephant Butte Dam to Courchesne bridge. The seepage loss 

in the Rincon Valley was about 8 cfs, and in the Mesilla Valley 

about 74 cfs.

The seepage loss from the river is especially large from Picacho 

flume to Berino bridge. In this section the Del Rio Drain parallels 

the river on the east, emptying into the river about 2 miles above 

Berino bridge opposite Berino. Also in this section the upper half 

of the La Mesa Drain and the upper third of the Chamberino Drain 

parellel the river on the west. The average flow of the Del Rio 

Drain for February 1936 plus half that of the La Mesa Drain and 

one-third that of the Chamberino Drain is about 71 cfs, as compared with the measured seepage loss of the river in this section 

of about 60 cfs.

Bliss, J. H. , 1936, Report on investigation of invisible gains and losses in the channel of the 

Rio Grande from Elephant Butte to El Paso, Tex. , (unpublished), 15 pp. , February 1936.
72 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

The gain in flow of the river caused by seepage to the river in 

the stretch from Berino bridge to Vinton bridge is in the section 

where four drains empty into the river. This gain may be due to 

seepage from the drains near their river outlets, where the water 

table is probably high with respect to the water level in the river. 

The seepage gains and losses are not constant throughout the year 

but rather change seasonally and yearly in response to irrigation 

returns and other factors.

The long-term seepage loss or gain of water from or to the 

river in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys is determined by subtracting the sum of the diversions from the river plus the outflow 

at the lower end of the valley from the sum of the inflow at the 

head of the valley plus the return wastage and drain flow of the 

river. The resultant computed loss includes evaporation and 

transpiration, water that was picked up by the drains and returned 

to the river, and any changes in ground-water storage and net 

ground-water inflow or outflow from the valley. These factors, 

with the exception of the change in ground-water storage, also 

are factors in results obtained from a seepage run. As even a 

substantial change in ground-water storage such as the gain resulting from irrigation in the early years and the loss" resulting 

from installation of drains is small when averaged over a period 

of years, the two methods of computation are comparable. The 

following table shows the net loss in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys 

as determined from mean annual flows, diversions, and wastage 

in the two valleys from 1930 to 1946. The wastage was taken as 

24 percent of the diversions, determined previously in the section 

on operational aspects. The seepage loss for the Rincon Valley is 

indicated to be about 6 cfs and for the Mesilla Valley about 76 cfs, 

as compared with the losses of about 8 and 74 cfs, respectively, 

obtained in the seepage run of February 1936 a total of 82 cfs for 

both methods.

Average annual seepage loss from the Rio Grande in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys,

1930-46 Acre-feet

Rincon Valley: . (in,th°£%f?1 , s) 

Flow at Percha and Caballo Dams...................................................... . (+) °35.1

Diversions at Percha Dam............................................ . (') y.- °

Wastage (24 percent of diversions)................................... (+) 22 > *J

Return drain flow...................................................................- (+) 35. 4

Flow at Leasburg Dam................................ . ( ) °14- 2

Seepage loss......................................:.. ... * "

or 6. 2 cubic feet a second

Mesilla Valley:

Flow at Leasburg Dam....................................................... -.". (+) °£*- /

Diversions at Leasburg Dam.............................................."-.""""""""" (") ' J;

Diversions at Mesilla Dam................................................"....."""---" (") 31°- 6

Wastage (24 percent of div,ersions)..................................... . . (+) H9- 4

Return drain flow............?................................................. .."" (+) 214-°

Flow at El Paso Station.....^.................................................................... (-) 594. 5

Seepage loss...................................................................................... 55 - 6

or 76. 2 cubic feet a second
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 73

This seepage (invisible) loss does not mean that the valleys 

consume .or lose 60,000 acre-feet per year, but only that the 

river itself loses this amount, a part of which may be picked up 

by the drains discharged back into the river as visible flow. It 

indicates that on the whole the river replenishes theground-water 

body rather than that the ground water replenishes the river. 

This invisible seepage loss is the excess of losses over gains in 

the river and may be termed a net loss.

The gross loss of water from the river in the Rincon and 

Mesilla Valleys may be estimated as the total of losses shown 

for various stretches of the river in the seepage run of 1936, 

equal to 102. 3 cfs or about 74, 000 acre-feet a year.

The relation between the flow of the river and the position of 

the water table is shown by Slichter (1905; p. 26). The water 

level in an auger hole 0.4 mile east of the river, west of Mesilla 

Park, rose 1.6 feet from the 1st to the 9th of October when the 

greatest flood recorded over a period of 10 years occurred in the 

river on October 5, 1904. The total rise in water level in this 

well was nearly 5 feet from September 19, 1904, when the river 

was dry, to March 26, 1905, when observations ceased. The Rio 

Grande had a continuous flow from the time of the flood to the end 

of observations. In that period of time the rise in the water table 

was apparent for more than 2 miles from the river.

It is probable that in certain stretches the river is perched 

above the water table, in which case a variation in the flow of the 

river will not cause an apparent change in water levels in adjacent 

areas.

SEEPAGE FROM CANALS

The amount of seepage from the canals varies from section to 

section. In some stretches of the canals where the soil is tight 

only small amounts of water are lost; in others where the canal 

traverses sandy soil the losses are quite large. No data are 

available as to the relative losses in various sections of the 

canals. Along sections where the losses are especially large, the 

water table rose to such high levels in 1916 and 1917 that drains 

were necessary. The large amount of seepage from the canals 

can be inferred from the large number of drains that have been 

constructed parallel to the canals, as shown on the accompanying 

maps. (See pis. 2 and 3.) This condition is particularly apparent 

along the upper parts of the East Side and West Side Canals.

The construction of numerous spur drains to intercept the seepage from the canals has resulted in the presence of drains along 

both sides of some stretches of the canals.
74 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

ff-
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 75

317267 O - 55 - 6
76 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Figures 9 and 10 show the seepage from the Leasburg Canal in 

the vicinity of Hill. These maps, obtained from the Bureau of 

Reclamation, resulted from an investigation of seepage made to 

determine means of relieving the seeped (waterlogged) land east 

of the canal. Three sets of water-table contours are shown. 

Those for July 1921 cover the whole area and show the conditions 

that existed before construction of the Dona Ana Drain; those for 

January 1922 and July 1922 are based on data obtained after construction of this drain. The water-table contours show seepage 

of water from the Leasburg Canal, a greater gradient being indicated in the summer than in the winter.

Plate 9 shows the seepage from the Three Saints Lateral to the 

Anthony Drain in the vicinity of»Berino. The map was prepared 

by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1924 during an investigation of 

the seeped land along the river. The steep gradient of the water 

table from the canal to the drain and the slight gradient on the 

west side of the canal show that most of the drain water from the 

west in this area is derived from the canal.

Water levels in auger hole 16, located in the west toe of the Las 

Cruces Lateral on the north line of sec. 2, T. 23 S., R. IE., 

have been measured monthly since 1924 by the Bureau of Reclamation. The seasonal fluctuation of the water level, plotted on 

plate 8, is similar in time and magnitude to that in the other 

auger holes located in the valley away from laterals. On the basis 

of a comparable range of seasonal fluctuations in well 16 and in 

other auger holes some distance from canals, it seems that at 

this spot the seepage from the canal is about equal to that which 

would occur from irrigated land.

It has been estimated, in a previous section of the report, that 

the seepage and unaccounted-for losses from the canals and laterals average about 20 percent of the gross headgate diversions in 

a normal year, which is equivalent to about 118,000 acre-feet a 

year.

RECHARGE FROM IRRIGATION WATER

A portion of the ground water in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys 

is derived from irrigation waters applied to the lands in excess 

of the consumptive use of the crops. The amount of this excess 

varies with the practices of the individual farmer, the type of 

land, and the type of crops grown.

The interrelation of the ground water and irrigation waters has 

been discussed previously under "Fluctuations of the water table" 

and "Depth to water. " The seasonal high ground-water level
WATER CONDITIONS IN THE RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 77

occurs at the end of the irrigation season and the seasonal low 

water level occurs just before the initial diversions for the irrigation season.

The excess of irrigation water applied to the lands in an average year has been estimated (see p. ) to be about 17 percent of 

the gross annual diversions, or about 100, 000 acre-feet a year.

RECHARGE FROM PRECIPITATION

The amount of ground water in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys 

derived from rainfall upon the valley floor is probably small on 

the average. The normal annual precipitation at the Agricultural 

College is less than 9 inches, most of which occurs in the form 

of showers during the summer months when the evaporation and 

transpiration rates are high. Thus probably the greatest part is 

returned to the atmosphere. Some recharge to the ground water 

occurs from showers upon land that has been previously irrigated 

or from pools of rainwater that collect in shallow depressions. 

Also, some recharge occurs directly from precipitation in years 

of above-normal precipitation, such as in 1941 when the rainfall 

exceeded the average by more than 100 percent.

Precipitation results in cancellation of orders for irrigation 

water, which in turn results in a lowering of the water table. Thus, 

as stated previously, the net effect of a light precipitation upon the 

ground-water supply in the valleys is probably negative.

FigureS shows the water level for 1947 and part of 1948 in well 

23. 2E. 29. 214 as measured daily at 5:00 p. m. and the daily precipitation as recorded at the Agricultural College at'the same location. Heavy rains in mid-August 1947 and in late .February 1948 

apparently caused rises of more than 0.2 foot in the water table. 

Precipitation in the winter months generally had little effect upon 

the water table because of the dryness of the soil.

DISCHARGE OF GROUND WATER

Ground water is discharged from the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys 

by return drain flow to the river, by'direct seepage to .sections of 

the river, by evaporation from water surfaces of the drains and 

ground-water ponds, by transpiration by plants in areas of shallow 

water, and by ground-water flow leaving the lower end of the 

valleys.

The amount of ground water discharged by the drains is by far 

the largest, about 249,400 acre-feet a year in the Rincon and 

Mesilla Valleys. (See table 5, p. 141.)
78 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

The direct seepage to the river occurs in a few stretches where 

the water table is higher than the level of the water in the river. 

The seepage run made in February 1936, which was discussed oh 

pages 71-73, shows that the river gained 10.2 cfs from Percha 

Dam to below the Sierra-Dona Ana County line, 1.3 cfs from 

Selden Canyon to Leasburg spillway, and 8. 3 cfs from Berino 

bridge to Vinton bridge, a total invisible seepage gain of 19. 8 cfs 

or about 14, 000 acre-feet a year. The present amount gained by 

the river is probably greater, as the level of the riverbed has 

lowered somewhat since the seepage run was made. (See page 

68.)

The discharge of ground water by underflow at the lower ends 

of the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys is small. Slichter (1905, p. 

9, 13) in 1904 showed that the thickness of the alluvium in the 

narrows of the Rio Grande a few miles above El Paso probably 

does not exceed 86 feet and that the ground-water flow probably 

does not exceed 11, 200 cubic feet a day, or 94 acre-feet a year. 

The ground-water flow from the Selden Canyon, at the end of 

Rincon Valley, to the head of the Mesilla Valley is not known, 

but, because of the narrowness .between the rock walls of the 

canyon and the apparent thinness of the alluvium, the flow is probably small and may be about the same as that leaving the Mesilla 

Valley.

Water evaporates from the drains and the small area of groundwater pools at the surface. The evaporation of ground water that 

is discharged to the drains is not definitely known but, on the 

basis of about 270 miles of drains having a width of flow of about 

5 feet and an estimated annual evaporation of 4. 5 feet, (National 

Resources Committee, 1938, p. 91, table 80) it probably amounts 

to about 700 acre-feet a year in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys. 

The total area of ground-water pools at the surface in 1936 was 

determined as 51 acres in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys. (See 

table, p. 20 .) The ground-water discharge by evaporation from this 

area is therefore only about 230 acre-feet a year.

Transpiration of ground water by plants in areas of shallow 

depth to water may be roughly estimated from the area of native 

vegetation. The area of native vegetation is not definitely known 

but may be estimated as about 8, 400 acres, on the basis of the 

total acreage of the valleys less the area of irrigated lands, river 

and canal surfaces, riverbed rights-of-way, and towns. (See 

p. 115.) Some of the area of 8, 300 acres constituting the rightsof-way may be covered with native vegetation. If half the area of 

rights-of-way is assumed to be covered with native vegetation, 

the total area of native vegetation in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys 

is about 13, 000 acres. The total annual discharge of ground water 

by native vegetation in these valleys is, thus, about 40,000 acre-
CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER 79

feet a year, on the basis of an average consumptive use of 3. 5 

feet minus an estimated 0. 4 foot supplied by precipitation (National 

Resources Committee, 1938, p. 92, table 81).

CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER

GENERAL FEATURES

The chemical quality of ground water that is, the character 

and amount of dissolved mineral matter in the water is dependent upon its source, temperature, the chemical character of the 

water-bearing formation, and the length of time spent in flowing 

from the source to the point of sampling. Rainwater, which has 

only minor amounts of dissolved mineral matter, begins to dissolve mineral matter from the time it falls upon the ground. The 

part that remains on the ground as surface water generally dissolves less mineral matter than that which sinks underground to 

be in constant contact for long periods with the material composing 

the aquifer. Therefore, ground water generally contains a greater 

amount of dissolved mineral matter than natural surface water.

Use of water for irrigation results in loss of a part of the applied 

water to the atmosphere by transpiration and evaporation. This 

process increases the concentration of salts in the soil and in that 

part of the irrigation water that percolates to the ground-water 

body and then feeds the drains. As a result, the drain water has 

a higher concentration of dissolved salts than the surface water 

initially applied to the lands. Reuse of drain water again increases 

the concentration of dissolved salts in the remaining water. Therefore, an increase in dissolved salts in the irrigation waters is to 

be expected from the upper to the lower end of the project.

No definite limits can be set on the amount of various dissolved 

salts in water that will make water unsuitable for irrigation. The 

more dissolved solids a water contains, the less suitable it becomes for use as irrigation water. In general, the higher the 

concentration of salts in irrigation waters, the greater the excess 

of water that must be applied to the crops in order to keep the 

concentration of dissolved salts in the soil moisture within satisfactory limits. Certain crops are more tolerant of a high concentration of dissolved salts than others. Figure 11, from Wilcox 

(May 1948, p. 6), gives a classification of waters for use in irrigation. The electrical conductivity is the specific conductance of 

the water in micromhos at 25 C. The conductance is a relative 

measure of the concentration of dissolved solids, or, more specifically, of the total number of ions in the solution. A rough 

measure of the dissolved solids in a water can be obtained by 

multiplying the specific conductance in micromhos by 0.7, an 

average figure for waters of the Rio Grande.
80 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

100

DOUBTFUL

TO 

UNSUITABLE

PERMISSIBLE

TO 

DOUBTFUL

DOUBTFUL

TO 

UNSUITABLE

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

TOTAL CONCENTRATION AS ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY

3500

After Wilcox

Figure 11. Diagram for use in interpreting analyses of irrigation water.
CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER 81

The significance of the sodium percentage is due to the role of 

the basic or cation constituents in the exchange reactions that 

occur when water containing dissolved salts comes in contact with 

the soil. The use of irrigation water containing a high percentage 

of sodium tends to impair the physical condition of the soil whereas 

the use of water having a low percentage of sodium tends to maintain a good physical condition or to improve a poor physical condition that has been caused by the deflocculation of the clay fraction (Scofield, 1938, p. 5).

Thirty-four analyses of ground waters from 30 wells and 2 

springs in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys and adjacent high lands 

were made by the Quality of Water Branch of the U. S. Geological 

Survey during the present investigation. These and a few other 

analyses of water are reported in the table on pages 83, 86. 

Radium Springs is at Leasburg Dam and Derry warm springs is 

about a mile northeast of Derry. The wells have been separated 

in the table into those in the flood plain of the Rio Grande and 

those above the flood plain. This classification, adopted mainly 

to show the difference in the quality of water from the two sources, 

is not definite for a few wells, such as (22. IE. 33. 321), that are 

along the edges of the valley floor; they are on ground that is 

somewhat higher than that of the valley but they actually derive 

water from underflow of the valley.

According to the available analyses, the water obtained from 

wells above the flood plain of the valley generally has less dissolved 

solids but a higher percentage of sodium than water obtained from 

shallow wells in the valley floor. However, there are numerous 

exceptions to this.

The ground water above the valley floor may be subdivided 

generally by type into: that occurring under the mesa or high land 

surfaces; that under the arroyo beds; and that under land adjacent 

to the arroyos, which may be a mixture of the other two. The type 

of water obtained from beneath an arroyo bed is illustrated by the 

water obtained from TierraBlanca Creek near Arrey(in the wells 

of E. W. Powers and Mickey Plemmons), which is characterized 

by a small amount of fluoride and dissolved solids and a low percentage of sodium. Water from the mesas of the Santa Fe formation, as shown by the wells of A. J. Osborn (near Arrey), the 

Southern Pacific wells at Af ton and Strauss, and those of Mrs. Annie 

Braidfoot in the southern part of La Mesa area, is somewhat higher 

in fluoride, dissolved solids, and percent sodium than the water 

beneath the arroyo beds. The well of J. W. Daugherty, located
82 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

on the Jornada del Muerto east of Las Cruces in the Santa Fe formation, obtained particularly good water, similar to arroyo-bed 

water, with only 205 ppm of dissolved solids and a sodium percentage of 36.

The analyses of samples of water from the irrigation wells of 

Clyde Cowan and K. H. Walker indicate that the water is essentially the same as that found in the valley floor, as shown by the 

small amount of fluoride and the large amounts of calcium, magnesium, sulfate, chloride, and dissolved solids. These wells are 

close to the edge of the area of irrigated lands in the valley, on 

higher ground, and they probably derive a large parfof their water 

from the underflow of the valley. Water obtained from the valley 

fill along the Rio Grande is generally low in fluoride and rather 

high in calcium, sulfate, chloride, and dissolved solids, has a 

moderate percentage of sodium, and is hard.

The well of C. C. Rice is on the mesa beside the railroad at 

Fort Selden, about a mile south of Radium Springs and above the 

valley floor. It reportedly hit rock at about 125 feet. The water 

in this well contains 3,280 ppm of dissolved solids and 74 percent 

sodium and is similar to the water of Radium Springs. Analysis 

of the water of Selden Drain (p. 86) indicates that water with a 

high concentration of dissolved solids and a high percentage of 

sodium is entering the valley in this area.

VARIATION OF QUALITY WITH DEPTH

The quality of the water in any area varies considerably both 

laterally and vertically. Variation in the quality of water with 

depth is shown in the following table. The 3 wells of different 

depth owned by T. L. Simpson show very poor water at the shallow 

depth of 42 feet, containing 1,950 ppm of dissolved solids and 

having a hardness of 934 ppm, and comparatively good water at 

the depth of 242 feet, with 297 ppm of dissolved solids and a hardness of 170 ppm. The analyses of the water in the wells of Fay 

Sperry and the Las Cruces Country Club, which are about a quarter 

of a mile apart and above the valley floor of the Rio Grande, north 

of Las Cruces, indicate water of better quality at lower depths. 

The analyses of water as reported at different depths in the domestic well 3 of the State Agricultural College indicate progressively better water with depth to 401 feet. Analyses of water from 

wells in the vicinity of Mesilla Park also indicate better water at 

depth, particularly with respect to hardness. Analyses of water 

from wells in the vicinity of Berino indicate very little decrease 

in the dissolved solids but a slight decrease in hardness at depth.
CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER 83 

Change in quality of water with depth in localities in Mesilla Valley, N. Mex.

[Analyses by C. W. Botkin, Chemist, State Agricultural College, N. Mex., unless otherwise

indicated]

Location 

and

name

Date of collection Depth 

(ft)

Dissolved 

solids 

(ppm)

Hardness 

(ppm)

Northwest of Las Cruces, on valley floor

T. L. Simj 

Do...

Do

Aug. 13, 19471.. ........

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

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

42 

162 

242

1,950 

481 

297

934 

314 

170

North of Las Cruces, above valley floor

Do.............................

Las Cruces Country Club........

Do.............................

(upper water)

February 1929.............

AUR. 13, 19471 .. ..........

78* 

130

200

200

2,130 

720

473

411

565 

240

145

214

State College, above valley floor

(Total depth 428 feet)

1938......................... 64

73 

185 

230 

230 

300 

401 

401 

401

2,500

1,070 

732 

1,054 

810 

440 

2 510 

2 698 

370

350

300 

240 

350 

280 

145 

2200 

2 260 

150

Mesilla Park, on valley floor

H. B. Elmendorf.. ...............

Barker well........................

H. B. Elmendorf.................

Albert Archer.....................

Las Cruces Ice Co. ..............

Ray Langford.....................

August 1925..............

July 1929..............

July 1929..............

Oct. 1, 1925..............

Aug. 13.19471.. ..........

June 25, 1946..............

100

108

117

140

150

224

268

450.

824

430

528

670,

3285-

300

305

99fl

210

150

Berino

Do...........................

Do...........................

February 1928.............

April 1927.............

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

May 1927.............

40-

31

205

246

1,700

707

1,660

1,530

240

200

200

120

Analysis by U. S. Geological Survey. 

TSelore clearing well of drilling water. 

'Estimated from conductance.
84 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

The quality of the ground water in the area does not everywhere 

improve with depth. The present well of the Santa Fe Railway at 

Las Cruces was originally drilled to 251 feet in 1925 in search of 

water of a better quality than that obtained at a shallow depth. 

However, water of poorer quality was reportedly obtained and the 

well was filled back to 83 feet.

J. M. Taylor of White, Tex., reports that a well at his place 

in sec. 25, T. 28 S., R. 3 E., drilled to 300 feet in the valley 

floor near the lower end of the Mesilla Valley, obtained very poor 

water. He helped drill a number of wells in the same general area 

a number of years ago in search of water suitable for the town 

supply. All had poor water at lower depths, especially below 100 

feet.

Mr. Paul Harvey, owner of the waterworks of White, reports 

that he drilled 10 or 12 wells a few years ago and 11 wells in 1946, 

in search of water suitable for the town supply. The wells were 

drilled at various localities near the town, on and above the valley 

floor in the Texas portion of the Mesilla Valley. The only satisfactory water was found at the location of the present supply wells 

in sec. 35, T. 28 S., R. 3 E. The 8 present town wells are 130 

feet deep and are located between the bank of the Rio Grande, about 

200 to 800 feet to the west, and the Montoya Lateral to the east, 

an area not more than 1, 500 feet wide. Mr. Harvey reports that 

the wells end in a clay stratum and that poor water is found below 

the clay. It is probable that these wells obtain water from the 

river and from seepage from the lateral.

Sayre and Livingston (1945, p. 7) report that 2 test wells drilled 

in the Mesilla Valley, in search of a water supply for El Paso, 

yielded salty water. The Lippincott well, drilled to 1,074 feet in 

the Mesilla Valley by the city of El Paso, encountered water too 

highly mineralized for most purposes (Sayre and Livingston, 1945, 

p. 47, 106).

Slichter (1905, p. 11, 12) in his study of the underflow of the 

Rio Grande at the narrows at the lower end of the Mesilla Valley, 

found a definite increase in chloride and dissolved solids in the 

ground water to the observed depth of 60 feet. The dissolved solids 

increased from 1,690 ppm at a depth of 10 feet to 46,000 ppm at 

60 feet.

VARIATION OF QUALITY AREALLY

The quality of both surface and ground waters of the area included 

in the Rio Grande project varies areally, being generally best at 

the head of the project and becoming progressively poorer toward
CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER 85

the lower end. In the following table are given analyses of the 

surface water below Elephant Butte Dam, Leasburg Dam, and the 

El Paso gaging station, along with analyses of drain waters and 

individual samples from auger holes in the Mesilla and Rincon 

Valleys. These were taken from the detailed analyses reported 

in the Rio Grande joint investigation. The analyses given for the 

surface water at the three points on the Rio Grande are the average 

of .the monthly averages reported for 1936 and represent closely 

the average quality of the surface water in that year. The analyses 

reported for the drain water are an average of 10 samples taken 

in the period 1929 to 1936 and may represent the average quality 

of water of the drains better than the individual sample taken in 

1936. Except for the East Drain, however, the analyses show no 

large variation in quality with respect to time. Variation of the 

quality of water in the East Drain appears to be related to the 

change in amount of waste water present. The analyses given for 

the subsoil waters in the auger holes established for the Rio Grande 

joint investigation include only the one detailed analysis available 

for each hole, made in 1936. The one analysis for each hole probably does not represent the average quality of the subsoil waters 

at the hole but probably does give an indication of the relative 

quality areally in 1936 and gives some basis for comparison of the 

drain waters and the surface waters with the subsoil waters.

The water of the Rio Grande shows an increase in concentration 

of dissolved salts downstream from Elephant Butte to El Paso 

station. There is little change in the relative concentrations of 

the dissolved mineral constituents through the percent sodium 

shows a very slight increase.

The drain waters of the Rincon Valley seem to be nearly uniform 

in quality, all having, in 1936, higher concentrations of salts than 

the river above the Rincon Valley at Elephant Butte and below the 

valley at Leasburg Dam.

The waters of the various drains in the Mesilla Valley differ 

considerably in quality. The differences probably reflect to some 

extent the sources of waters in the various drains. In general the 

drain waters become more highly mineralized from the upper end 

of the valley to the lower end. However, the Selden Drain, at the 

upper end of the valley, has a higher concentration of dissolved 

solids and percent sodium than the water of the Rio Grande and of 

the Leasburg Drain to the south. Radium Springs (Selden Springs), 

in the valley just above Leasburg Dam, bring some highly mineralized ground water into the upper end of the Mesilla Valley and 

may form part of the accretion of the Selden Drain. The irrigation 

well of C. C. Rice at Fort Selden at the upper end of the valley, 

referred to previously, also has water of poor quality.
86 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 

Analyses of water in Rjncon and Mesilla Valleys, N. Mex.

[Schofield, Carl S. , 1938, Quality of water of the Rio Grande Basi/above Fort Quitman, Te 

U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 839, p. 23. 28,34,264,284-88]

Source of water

Rio Grande: 

Below Elephant Butte Dam.............

El Paso station............................

Drains: 

Rincon Valley: 

Garfield Drain, near outlet to river. 

Hatch Drain, near outlet to river.. 

Angostura Drain, near outlet to

Rincon Drain, near outlet to river.. 

Mesilla Valley: 

Selden Drain, near outlet to river... 

Leasburg Drain , above inlet to Del 

Rio Drain............................

Picacho Drain, above outlet to

Mesilla Drain, above inlet to Del

DelRioDrain, above outlet to 

river (includes flow of Leasburg

Chamberino Drain, above confluence with La Mesa Drain.......

La Mesa Drain, above confluence

East Drain, above confluence with

Anthony Drain, above confluence 

with East Drain.....................

Nemexas Drain, above confluence 

with West Drain....................

West Drain, above confluence

Montoya Drain, above outlet to

Auger holes: 

Rincon Valley: 

Garfield well(206) 18. 4. 8. 244.... 

Salem well (207) 18.4.35. 111.... 

Hatch well (208) 19. 3. 10. 334.... 

Tonuco well (209) 19. 2. 35. 422.. 

Mesilla Valley: 

Dona Ana well (223) 22. IE. 16.433 

Picacho well (224) 23. IE. 16. 444.. 

Mesilla well (225) 23. IE. 35. 211.. 

Santo Tomas well (226) 

24. 2E. 33. 124.......................

Chamberino well (227) 

26. 3E. 19. 113......................

Anthony well (228) 

26. 3E. 34. 444......................

La Union well (229) 

27. 3E. 16. 343......................

Montoya well(230)28.3E.26.142

Dissolved solids

Tons 

per 

acrefoot

0.79 

.95 

1.41

1.33 

1.33

1.05 

1.35

1.43 

1.01 

1.15 

1.30

1.26 

2.13 

1.13 

4.06 

2.34 

2.50 

1.61 

2.33

2.70 

2.10 

1.70 

2.13

1.50 

2.11 

2.06

1.47 

1.28 

3.24

5.07 

3.02

ppm

581 

699 

1,040

978 

978

773 

993

1,050 

743 

846 

956

927 

1,570 

832 

2,980 

1,720 

1,840 

1,180 

1,710

1,980 

1,540 

1,250 

1,570

1,100 

1,550 

1,520

1,080 

941 

2,380

3,730 

2,220

Percent 

sodium

43 

44 

53

44 

38

39

46

51 

42 

41 

46

45 

55 

47 

71 

61 

64 

58 

64

46 

30 

77 

33

49 

87 

43

39

38 

65

47 

77

Remarks

Average for 1936. 

Do. 

Do.

Average of 10 

analyses, 

1929-1936.

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do.

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do.

Aug. 12, 1936. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do.

Aug. 12, 1936. 

Do. 

Do.

Do. 

Do. 

Do.

Do. 

Do.
CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER 87

On the basis of quality, the waters of the remaining drains in 

the Mesilla Valley, except possibly the East Drain, which apparently 

has water of higher concentrations than found in the irrigation 

water, seem to be composed mainly of return irrigation water with 

some river seepage and canal wastes. There seems to be no definite relation between quality of the water and distance of the drains 

from the river. The drains that parallel the river and intercept 

the seepage from it may be called riverside drains, whereas those 

away from the river may be called interior drains. The water of 

the Del Rio Drain, which parallels the river and includes the flow 

of the interior drains, the Leasburg, Mesilla, and Park Drains, 

is comparatively good, having 927 ppm of dissolved solids and 45 

percent sodium. The water of the Chamberino Drain, which is 

predominantly a riverside drain, has a high concentration of dissolved salts, 1, 570 ppm, and 55 percent sodium, as compared to 

832 ppm dissolved solids and 47 percent sodium for water of the 

La Mesa Drain, which is partly a riverside and partly an interior 

drain, in the same general area. The West Drain, which parallels 

the western edge of the valley, has water of poorer quality, 1,180 

ppm of dissolved solids and 58 percent sodium, than that of the La 

Mesa Drain.

The drain in the Mesilla Valley that has water of the poorest 

quality appears to be the East Drain, which includes the flow of 

the Mesquite Drain. These drains parallel the east side of the 

valley from Anthony to a point north of Mesquite. The average 

concentration of dissolved salts in this water is 2,980 ppm with 

about 71 percent sodium. Waters of high sodium percentage are 

found in some of the wells on the side mesas, and it may be that 

water east of the valley toward the Franklin Mountains also has a 

high concentration, of dissolved solids and enters the drain, or 

that similar water occurs in the valley in this area and has not 

been completely flushed by excess irrigation water applied to the 

lands.

The individual water analyses for the shallow auger holes in the 

Mesilla Valley in 1936 show a higher concentration of dissolved 

solids than the water of the adjacent drains. The percentage of 

sodium in the water is variable, being less than 40 in 4 of the holes 

more than 60 in 4 of the holes, and between 40 and 60 for the remaining 4 holes. If these analyses are representative, the subsoil waters have a higher concentration of dissolved solids than the 

drain waters. This may be true, as the drain waters are a mixture 

of canal waste and river seepage along with the ground-water 

accretion of excess irrigation water applied to the lands. As none 

of these holes are located between a drain and the river, their 

water may represent more nearly the quality of the excess irrigation water applied to the land than do the waters of the drains.
88 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

The Anthony auger hole is located at the lower end of the East 

Drain, which has water of poor quality. Water from the Anthony 

hole also is of poor quality but apparently not as poor as that in 

the drain. As the hole is west of the drain it is not evident whether 

poorer water is entering the drain from the east or from other 

areas along the drain above the hole.

QUALITY OF LAS CRUCES WATER SUPPLY

The water supply of LasCruces prior to 1937 was obtained from 

2 wells, 75 and 100 feet deep, drilled in the valley floor. As water 

from these wells was very hard (hardness about 500 ppm) a new 

supply was developed east of the town, from wells drilled between 

2 arroyos on the pediment overlooking the valley. Water obtained 

from this source originally had less than half the hardness of the 

former supply. Additional wells have gradually been added at this 

new location to a total of 5 in 1947, all within a radius of about 

150 feet. Pumping of these wells has resulted in a lowering of the 

water level below that in the valley. The original water level is 

not definitely known but was probably slightly above that in the 

valley. The trough in the contours of the water table in the vicinity 

of the city wells, as shown on the water-table map of Dona Ana 

County (pi. 1), indicates that a lowering of at least 10 feet has 

probably occurred. This lowering will cause a greater proportion 

of the pumped water to be drawn from the valley and will eventually 

cause an increase in the hardness and dissolved solids of the city 

supply. The following tabulation of the quality of water of the city 

supply indicates that a slight increase in dissolved solids may have 

taken place at the present location, as shown by the analysis of the 

hydrant water in 1939 and .that from well 2 in 1948. Analyses in 

May 1947 and in March 1948 of the water from the new city well 5 

also show an increase in dissolved solids and hardness. These increases may indicate that a progressively greater part of the water 

in the wells is being drawn from the valley.

Change in chemical quality of city water supply of Las Cruces, N. Mex., 1918 43

[Note: Water supply prior to 1937 obtained from two wells, 75 and 100 feet deep, drilled on 

valleyfloor. Beginning in 1937, water obtainedfrom wells located on high ground east of city]

Source

Do................

Do................

Do................

Hydrant4 .............

City well 2..........

City well 5.......... 

Do................

Date

Aug. 15, 19181 ..............

19301 ...........................

1934 f?)1 ............... ........

May 11, 1939»...............

May 6 1942"

Mar. 25, 1948*.... ..........

May 6, 1947»................ 

Mar. 25, 1948s.............

Hardness 

(ppm)

501

485

527

210

160

248

441 

482

Total 

dissolved 

solids 

(ppm)

913

943

970

1,012

403

490

442

747 

770

Sodium 

(percent)

36

35

34

36

32

27

lAnalyzedby C. W. Botkin, chemist, State College, N. Mex. 

2Hydrant water at Pueblo Courts. 

'Analyzed by U. S. Geological Survey.
CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER 89

The concentration of dissolved solids in the new city well 5, 

more than 750 ppm, and hardness of more than 440 ppm approach 

the concentration of the waters in the valley in this area. Well 5 

when originally completed was screened from 262 to 285 feet but 

because of the small discharge, about 50 gallons a minute, the 

casing was later perforated from 210 to 250 feet. The poorer 

water is evidently entering the well at the higher level. The casing record for well 2 is not known but is presumedly about the 

same as for wells 1, 3, and 4, which have 20-foot screens set 

near the bottom of the wells, at about 300 feet.

SUMMARY OF QUALITY OF WATER

In conclusion, the quality of water obtained by wells of moderate 

depth in the valley floor is similar to that in the drains and somewhat poorer than river water. The dissolved solids in the ground 

water at moderate depths in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys may 

average about 1,000 ppm, with 35 to 50 percent sodium. This 

water is suitable for irrigation, although not as good as river 

water, being classed as good to permissible. (See fig. 11.) In 

general, deeper wells in the Mesilla Valley supply better water. 

One notable exception is in the lower end of the Mesilla Valley 

where the quality apparently becomes worse with depth. Some 

shallow waters in various areas are particularly poor. The quality 

of the water is evidently poorer at the lower ends of the Rincon 

and Mesilla Valleys than at the upper ends, except in the vicinity 

of Radium Springs.

The quality of water obtained by wells drilled in the Santa Fe 

formation flanking the valleys is generally potable, with dissolved 

solids of about 500 to 700 ppm and a hardness of generally less 

than 200 ppm. The sodium content is generally high, about 70 percent, and the fluoride in some localities is quite high, more than 

the 1. 5 ppm generally considered the safe limit for growing children to escape mottled teeth (Public Health Service, 1946, p. 371- 

384).

The best water in the area, with respect to dissolved mineral 

matter, apparently occurs under the arroyo beds where the comparatively fresh flood waters from the hills and the mesas sink 

into the ground. This water probably contains, on the average, 

less than 300 ppm of dissolved solids, less than 200 ppm hardness, 

and only minor amounts of fluoride.

The source of the comparatively good water at depth in many 

localities of the Mesilla Valley is probably the side inflow from
90 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

the bordering mesas. This may be particularly true at the outlets 

to the arroyos, which at various times have flooded and built alluvial fans extending into the valley. These fans may have thin clay 

lenses extending from the arroyo mouth into the valley under which 

fresher water may have been stored.

HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER-BEARING FORMATION

GENERAL CONDITIONS

In order to properly evaluate the amount of flow of underground 

water and the long-term effects of pumping, two important hydrologic characteristics of an aquifer, the coefficients of transmissibility and storage, must be known. The storage coefficient under 

water-table conditions is approximately equal to the specific yield.

The ease with which water moves through an aquifer depends 

upon the interconnection and size of the pore spaces and to some 

extent upon the temperature of the water. The coefficient of transmissibility, which expresses the rate of flow, is defined as the 

quantity of water in gallons a day that will percolate under the prevailing temperature through a vertical strip of the aquifer 1 foot 

wide, oriented perpendicular to the direction of flow of the water, 

under a unit hydraulic gradient.

Not all the water stored in an aquifer is available to wells. Only 

a portion of the water filling the pore spaces will drain out under 

the action of gravity. The specific yield of an aquifer is a measure 

of the ability of the aquifer to release water to wells under the 

action of gravity. It is defined as the ratio, expressed as a percentage, between the volume of water that a saturated aquifer would 

yield by gravity and its own volume. As not all the water drains 

from the aquifer, the specific yield is somewhat less than the 

porosity of an aquifer. The larger the size of the pore spaces the 

larger the specific yield. Clay has a large porosity but a very 

small specific yield as a result of the minute size of the pore 

spaces. If the specific yield of an aquifer were 25 percent, then a 

decline of water level of 1 foot would represent a quantity of water 

of a depth of 0. 25 -foot distributed over the area of the aquifer.

COEFFICIENT OF TRANSMISSIBILITY 

METHODS OF DETERMINING

The coefficient of transmissibility can be determined either in 

the laboratory or in the field by computations based on the rate of 

discharge of the water in relation of the gradients. Exact determination of the coefficient is difficult; of the several known methods, 

the two used in this investigation as described below.
HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER-BEARING FORMATION 91

One of the field methods of determining the coefficient of tuansmissibility is that developed by Theis (1935, p. 522), which consists of pumping a well at a constant rate for a period of time and 

noting the rate of recovery of the water level in the well after 

pumping has ceased. The coefficient of transmissibility is then 

computed by means of the following formula:

T = (264 Q/s') log 1Q 

in which

T=coefficient of transmissibility, defined above. 

@=discharge rate of well, gallons per minute, 

s'^residual drawdown in well at time t', in feet. 

t -time since pumping started. 

t* =time since pumping stopped.

If the pump has been operated for periods previous to the period 

of pumping immediately preceding the measurement of recovery of 

water level, then these previous periods of pumping can be taken 

into account by modifying the formula as follows:

T - 264 «?/. ) Iog 10 *\ '** '3.-"t". 

i ^ fi

in which tr tr t 3, tn = time since the beginning of previous periods

of pumping 

arid t^.tj, *3Vn ' = time since the end of previous periods of pumping

Theoretically, the equation applies only to an aquifer of infinite 

areal extent that is composed entirely of homogeneous sediments, 

in which a well penetrates the entire thickness of the aquifer, and 

in which the coefficient of transmissibility is constant at all times 

and places.

In practice almost none of these conditions is completely fulfilled. However, in most aquifers the departures from the theoretical conditions are small enough to allow use of the formula to 

obtain workable results.

As the aquifer in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys is composed of 

sediment deposited by a meandering stream, the deposit is not 

homogeneous in either vertical or horizontal extent and therefore 

the coefficient of transmissibility will vary from locality to locality, 

even within a short distance. This necessitates the determination 

of the coefficient of transmissibility at as many points as feasible. 

No aquifer is of infinite areal extent; however, the horizontal extent 

of an aquifer can usually be considered as infinite for short periods 

of pumping. Failure of wells to penetrate the full thickness of the 

aquifer causes some error but this error is considered to be small 

so long as the drawdown is not too large a percentage of the saturated formation penetrated by the well and the well casing is perforated at all water-bearing formations.

317267 O - 55 - 7
92 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

The rate of accretion of ground water to a drain is dependent 

upon the coefficient of transmissibility of the aquifer and the slope 

of the water table to or from the drain. Given the rate of gain in 

flow of a drain in cubic feet per second per mile and the sum of 

the average gradients of the water table to each side of the drain, 

expressed as a decimal, the transmissibility of the aquifer can be 

determined from the following formula:

Gain in flow x 122

T

2 Gradient

Gradients of the water table to the drain are considered positive; 

those away from the drain are negative. Gradients must be selected 

where the water table has a nearly constant slope, far enough from 

the drain to be uninfluenced by the sharp change in slope of the 

water table that occurs near the drain. (See fig. 14.) Also, water 

must not be added to the water table between the drain and the 

points of measurement of the slopes.

In practice, determination of the coefficient of transmissibility 

from any individual set of measurements is subject to error because of addition to the ground water by return irrigation water at 

points between the drain and the wells used for measurement. An 

average of the values determined at monthly intervals for a period 

of a year would probably approach the correct value for the coefficient of transmissibility.

PUMPING TESTS

The coefficient of transmissibility was determined by the Theis 

method (p. 91) by noting the recovery of water levels in 4 wells 

on the floors of the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, and in 3 wells on 

the higher lands bordering the valleys. The curves of the recovery 

of the water level obtained from the 7 wells are given in figures 

12 and 13.

The irrigation well of B. S. Thurman, in the Rincon Valley, sec. 

4, T. 19 S., R. 3 W., located in the valley bottom about 1, 500 

feet north of the river and about 300 feet south of the bluff of the 

mesa, was pumped at the rate of about 660 gpm for 4 days, after 

which the rate of recovery of the water level was measured. This 

well is only 52 feet deep and reportedly ends in a gravel bed. The 

maximum drawdown was 8. 9 feet, 13. 5 feet below the land surface 

at the end of the 4 days' pumping. The coefficient of transmissibility 

as determined from the recovery rate of the water level was 136, 000 

gpd per foot. It is probable that if the well had been deeper a 

slightly larger value for the coefficient of transmissibility might 

have been determined. However, the value determined is high and 

is probably representative of the unconsolidated riverbed deposits.
HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER-BEARING FORMATION 93

23.2E. 8.434 

City of Los Cruces

i.OO 2.00

RESIDUAL DRAWDOWN, IN FEET

3.00

Figure 12. Curves of recovery of water levels obtained by pumping tests on five wells in

Rincon and Mesilla Valleys.
94 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

23. IE. 13.244 

AT. and S.F. RR

Lloyd Welch

.2 .3 .4 .5 

RESIDUAL DRAWDOWN, IN FEET

Figure 13. Curves of recovery of water levels obtained from pumping tests on two wells in

Rincon and Mesilla Valleys.
IIYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER-BEARING FORMATION 95

The irrigation well of Ben Luchini, also in the valley bottom of 

the Rincon Valley, sec. 31, T. 17 S., R. 4 W., about 1,000 feet 

east of the river, was pumped for about 9 hours with a discharge 

of about 1, 000 gpm and a drawdown of about 14 feet. The well had 

been pumped on previous days also.. The coefficient of transmissibility determined from the recovery of the water level was 167,000 

gpd per foot, which is quite high.

The water supply well of the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad at Las Cruces was pumped for 15 hours at an average rate of 

about 64 gpm with a drawdown of 3. 9 feet. This well at present is 

reported to be 83 feet deep but originally it was drilled to 251 feet. 

The coefficient of transmissibility was determined as 91,000 gpd 

per foot. This value may be slightly lower than actual, as it is 

probable that the sediments were not completely drained because 

of the small drawdown. However, the value determined is probably of the right order of magnitude for the sediments. The low 

specific capacity of this well compared with the high coefficient of 

transmissibility suggests that the perforations in the well casing 

are encrusted, causing a large entrance loss of head of the water.

The irrigation well of the State College, 23. 2E. 29.143, located 

on the valley floor, was pumped for 24 hours at an average rate of 

1,270 gpm with a drawdown of 13 feet, to 26 feet below the land 

surface. The well was reportedly drilled to 50 feet. The value of 

the coefficient of transmissibility determined from the recovery 

of the water level was 116,000 gpd per foot. As the drawdown in 

this well was a large percentage of the depth of the well, it may 

be that the actual value of the coefficient of transmissibility is 

slightly higher. However, as stated for the other wells, the value 

obtained is high and is what might be expected for the sediments.

The irrigation well of A. J. Osborn in sec. 14, T. 17 S., R. 5 

W., was pumped at 250 gpm for about 7 hours with a drawdown of 

about 23 feet from the static level of 60 feet. This well is near the 

northern end of the Rincon Valley, on the north side of Montoya 

Arroyo above the valley floor. The value obtained for the coefficient 

of transmissibility was about 13, 000 gpd per foot. However, this 

figure may not be correct because recovery of the water level did 

notconform to theory, the curve obtained being composed of essentially 3 straight segments. (See fig. 10.) Other portions of the 

recovery curve yielded values of 22,000 and 51,000 for the coefficient of transmissibility. It is evident, though, that the formation 

is less permeable than that of the valley floor.

Another irrigation well above the valley floor, belonging to Lloyd 

Welch, was pumped at 700 gpm for 10 hours with a drawdown of
96 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

9 feet. This well is on the south side of Tierra Blanca Creek in 

sec. 26, T. 17 S., R. 5 W., about 2 miles south of the Osborn 

well. The coefficient of transmissibility obtained from the recovery of the water level was 298,000 gpd per foot, which is very 

high. This well reportedly penetrated 43 feet of good gravel below the water level in a total depth of 88 feet, which may account 

for the high value obtained on this short test. It is probable, had 

the pump been operated for a longer time, the effect of the pumping would have reached beyond the extent of the gravel stringer 

and a smaller value of the coefficient of transmissibility would 

have been obtained.

The new city well 5 of Las Cruces, drilled to 300 feet, was 

pumped for 3| days at 250 gpm. The maximum drawdown of water 

level was about 12 feet below the static level of about 186 feet below land surface. The value of the coefficient of transmissibility 

as determined from the recovery of the water level was 73,000 gpd 

per foot. This well is located on the bluff east of Las Cruces, out 

of the valley, in sediments of the Santa Fe formation. The value 

of the coefficient of transmissibility determined from this well is 

possibly higher than the average for the bordering mesas.

The following table summarizes the figures of the coefficient of 

transmissibility determined from pumping tests on the wells.

Coefficients of transmissibility determined from pumping tests on wells in the Rincon

and Mesilla Valleys

Well location 

number Name of owner

Discharge 

(gpm)

Drawdown 

(ft)

Specific

capacity 

(gpm

per ft)

Coefficient

of 

transmissibility

(gpd per ft)

17.4.31.111

19.3.4.331

23. IE. 13.244

23. 2E. 29. 143

Jen Luchini

J. S. Thurman

A. T. & S. F. Ry.

New Mexico College of A.& M. A.

1.000

660

64

1,270

14

9

4

13

71

73

16

98

167,000

136,000

91,000

116,000

Above valley floor

17.5.14.212

17.5.26.242

23. 2E. 8. 434

A. J. Osborn

Lloyd Welch

Zity of Las Cruces

250

700

250

23

9

12

11

78

21

13,000

298,000

73.000

WATER-TABLE GRADIENTS AND FLOW OF DRAINS

The coefficient of transmissibility was determined also by correlation of the slopes of the water table to a few drains and the 

flow of the drains, in order to have an independent check upon the
HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER-BEARING FORMATION 97

coefficients of transmissibility determined from the pumping tests 

on wells.

Two lines of auger holes were installed in February 1947 across 

the Park Drain, along Holt and Seale roads about 5 miles south of 

Las Cruces, extending about 1, 800 feet to 2,900 feet from both 

sides of the drain. Water-level measurements were made at intervals of 2 weeks in the auger holes and the gain in flow of the 

drain between the 2 hole lines was measured every month by 

Mr. Williams or Mr. Carbine of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

Values of the coefficient of transmissibility were determined every 

month by using the gradient of the water table determined from the 

measurements made on the auger holes within a few days of the 

measurement of the gain in flow of the drain in that section. If 

conditions were ideal, that is, if equilibrium of the water table 

and the drain were established and all measurements were accurate, 

it would be expected that the coefficient of transmissibility determined every month would be the same. However, application of 

irrigation water to the lands during the growing season results in 

an unstable condition not only between the water table and the drain 

but of the water table at the points of observation. The result is a 

range of figures for the coefficient of transmissibility determined 

every month. An average of the figures for 12 months, a full cycle, 

is expected to approach the true magnitude of the coefficient of 

transmissibility. The figures are given in the following table along 

with the water-table gradients on each side of the drain and the 

gain in flow of the drain between the 2 hole lines, which has been 

converted to accretion per mile as the 2 hole lines are 6, 800 feet 

apart. Also, as the southern auger hole line is not perpendicular 

to the drain, the gradients on this line have been multiplied by 

1.765 to convert the figures to a gradient perpendicular to the 

drain. The elevations of the water level are in feet above the 

3, 800-foot level of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation datum. The 

hole numbers indicate the distances of the auger holes from the 

drain, in feet. The slope of the water table to the drain for several 

months is given in figure 14. The magnitudes of the coefficient of 

transmissibility obtained for each month ranged from 52, 500 to 

116, 000 with an average of 76, 000 gpd per foot.

The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation at various times has made 

studies of the drainage conditions in local areas. The studies included establishment of lines of auger holes across certain stretches 

of the drains. These studies were made a number of years ago, 

and not all the data are available. Measurements of water-table 

elevations in holes as shown on water-table profiles across 6 

drains were complete enough to be of some use in determining the 

coefficient of transmissibilities. The location of some of the auger-
98 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

wnivo N0iivw\no3a do nvsana-sn SAOSV '133d NI ' asivw JO NOIIVASHS
Computation of coefficients of transmissibility determined from gain in flow of Park Drain and w

Seale roads across Park Drain, about 3 miles south of M

[Gradients on south line have been corrected by multiplying by 1. 765 to corr

No. of

computation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Water-table gradient to drain and date of measurements

Date

1947

Feb. 14

Mar. 14

Apr. 11

May 23

June 19

Aug. 1

Sept. 12

Oct. 24

Nov. 21

1948

Jan. 2

Feb. 13

Holes west of the drain

Holes 

N1783W

and

S2916W

Holes 

N358W

and

S441W

Elevation of

water table

(feet above datum)

15.86

12.27

15.68

11.95

17.11

12.77

17.63

13.93

17.92

14.30

19.20

15.48

18.86

16.40

17.72

114. 80

17.17

14.06

16.57

13.07

16. 13(?)

12.28

14.83

10.47

14.75

10.35

15.36

11.19

15.73

11.57

15.84

11.86

16.55

12.50

16.43

12.61

15.89

11.58

15.71

11.30

15.28

10.89

15.03

10.54

Gradient

to

drain

0.00072

.00128

. 00065

.00114

.00123

.00112

. 00133

.00168

. 00146

. 00174

.00186

.00212

.00171

. 00270

.00128

. 00230

.00116

. 00197

.00091

.00155

.00077

. 00124

Holes east of the drain

Holes 

N2817E

and

S2335E

Holes 

N557E

and

S565E

Elevation of

water table

(feet above datum)

17.07

10.89

16.82

10.61

17.69

12.08

18.16

13.95

18.34

14.71

19.90

14.60

19.47

13.92

18.67

12.25

18.17

12. 85(?)

17.53

11.38 , 17.09

10.85

15.39

10.20

15.28

10.10

16.18

10.81

16.46

11.74

16.69

12.07

17.66

12.53

16.39

12.19

16.73

11.18

16.28

10.96

15.85

10.64

15.58

10.28

Gradient

to

drain

0.0007

. 000

. 0006

.0005

.0006

.0012

.0007

.0022

.0007

. 002

. 0010

. 0020

.0013

.0017

. 0008

.0010

. 000

. 001

.0007

. 0007

.0006

.0005

Average..........................................................» 

1 Estimated.
100 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

hole lines along the drains was not given. Some profile shad only 

a few holes, whereas others had as many as 18 across the drain 

in question. The gain in flow of the drain was no-t given in any 

case. To determine the water-table gradients the change in water 

level in a distance on each side of a drain on each auger-hole line 

was noted. All the gradients for the cross sections of a particular 

drain were then averaged and doubled. The average gain in flow 

of the drain through the section of the auger-hole lines was assumed to be equal to the average accretion of the drain as a whole 

for the particular month. The coefficients of transmissibility so 

obtained are of course subject to many errors but should show the 

magnitudes to be expected.

By using water-table gradients obtained from 4 auger-hole lines 

across the Rincon Drain, covering a distance of 4, 430 feet along 

the drain, for an unknown month in 1926 and the mean accretion 

per mile for the total length of the drain for 1926, a mean coefficient of transmissibility of 96, 000 gpd per foot was obtained. The 

coefficient of transmissibility determined from using the month 

having the minimum accretion to the drain was 64, 000 and that for 

the month having the maximum accretion was 134, 000.

Water-table gradients were available for 18 auger-hole lines, 

established in July 1930, that extended eastward from the drain to 

the river along nearly the entire length of the Picacho Drain, 

Gradients to the west of the drain were not given but as the drain 

is mainly a riverside drain and probably receives most of its seepage from the river to the east, the gradients on the west side were 

assumed as being 0. 4 of those on the east side. By using the average accretion per mile of the drain for its total length for July 

1930, a coefficient of transmissibility of 77,000 gpd per foot was 

obtained.

The average of water-table gradients for May and August 1927 

was obtained on nine auger-hole lines extending on both sides of the 

West Drain. By using the average accretion of the West Drain for 

its total length, for the months May through August 1927, a coefficient of transmissibility of 135, 000 gpd per foot was obtained.

Water-table gradients for July 1930 were obtained for 9 augerhole lines across the lower portion of the Del Rio Drain near 

Mesquite, 6 lines of which extended on both sides of the drain. 

By using the average gain in flow of the Del Rio Drain for its full 

length for July 1930, 2. 8 cfs per mile, a coefficient of transmissibility of 60, 000 gpd per foot was obtained.
IIYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER-BEARING FORMATION 101

The total length of the Del Rio Drain includes about 11 miles of 

the Park Drain, an interior drain. The average gain in flow of the 

Park Drain is undoubtedly less than that of the Del Rio Drain, 

which parallels the river. If it is assumed that the accretion of 

the Park Drain is about the same as that of the MesillaDrain, also an interior drain, which for July 1930 was 0.8 cfs per mile, 

then a correction of 9 cfs is to be subtracted from the flow of the 

Del Rio Drain. The flow of the Del Rio Drain is then about 81 cfs 

for 27 miles or a gain in flow of about 3. 0 cfs per mile. The coefficient of transmissibility, using this value of the accretion, is 

64,000 gpd per foot, not essentially different from the 60,000 

obtained above.

Water-table gradients were obtained for July 1930 for 7 augerhole lines along the Mesquite Drain extending west from the drain, 

north of the town of Mesquite. Gradients east of the drain were 

estimated and the average gain in flow per mile of the East Drain, 

into which the Mesquite Drain empties, for the month of July 1930 

was used. The coefficient of transmissibility so obtained was 

47, 000 gpd per foot, which is not reliable because of the large 

number of assumptions used.

Water-table gradients were obtained for July 1930 for 11 augerhole lines that extended west toward the river along the lower 2^ 

miles of the Anthony Drain. Gradients east of the drain were estimated and the average gain in flow of the drain for its full length 

for the month of July 1930 was used. The value of the coefficient 

of transmissibility obtained was about 54, 000 gpd per foot.

The coefficients of transmissibility obtained from the profiles 

are given in the following table. Part of the variance in the coefficients is due to assuming that the water-table gradients obtained 

were representative of the drain as a whole or that the average 

accretion for the drain as a whole was equal to that through the 

stretch covered by the auger-hole lines; in a few cases it is due to 

estimation of the gradients on one side of the drain. As these 

drains are in widely separated parts of the valleys, a range in 

values of the coefficient of transmissibility is to be expected from 

the nature of the sediments.

The coefficients of transmissibility obtained by correlation of 

water-table gradients to several drains with accretion to the drains 

are somewhat less than those obtained from the pumping tests. This 

may be caused by the stratification of the sediments, which would 

reduce the depth of the effect of the drains. Because the coefficient 

of transmissibility is the product of the thickness of the aquifer and
102 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Coefficients of transmissibility determined front auger-hole profiles across various 

drains in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys

Drain

West..............

Length of

drain 

(miles)l

6.5 

7.3 

28.3 

237.7 

«22.8 

7.9

section 

(miles)

0.8 

5.3 

2 

3 

2.5 

2.5

Doub.le 

average 

gradient

0.0022 

.0030 

.0019 

.0057 

.0031 

.0025

Accretion to drain 

(cfs per mile)

1.75 

1.90 

2.1 

2.8 

3 1.2 

1.1

Coefficient of 

transmissibility 

(gpd per ft)

96,000 

77,000 

135,000 

60,000 

47,000 

54,000

........................................................................................... 78,000

Length at time of measurement of water-table profile. 

Includes Park Drain, an interior drain, 

3East and Mesquite Drains.

the permeability of the aquifer, the resulting value obtained from 

the drains might be expected to be lower than that obtained from 

wells. Also, the coefficient of transmissibility obtained from the 

drains is a transverse transmissibility, across the valley, which 

perhaps is less than the transmissibility along the valley.

It seems probable that the average coefficient of transmissibility 

for the alluvial valley fill as a whole can be taken as 75,000 gpd 

per foot. On the basis of the poor performance of wells on the 

higher lands bordering the valley as compared with those in the 

valley and pumping tests on wells in the Santa Fe formation in this 

and other areas, it appears that the coefficient of transmissibility 

of the higher lands bordering the valley is less than half that of the 

alluvium in the valley and probably does not exceed 30,000.

SPECIFIC YIELD

The specific yield of an aquifer, defined on page 90, is a measure of the ability of the aquifer to release water to wells under the 

action of gravity and is difficult to determine either in the field or 

in the laboratory. Determination depends upon many factors that 

cannot be readily evaluated. The percentage of water in an aquifer 

that can be drained by gravity depends not upon the amount of pore 

space but upon the size of the connecting pore spaces. Also, the 

amount of water drained is dependent upon the length of time drainage takes place. In well-sorted sands the porosity is fairly large, 

possibly approaching 50 percent, and a large percentage of the 

available water would drain out, under the force of gravity, in a
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 103

short time. However, it is problematical when complete drainage 

would take place probably a matter of years. The longer drainage takes place, the greater the volume of water recovered from 

a given volume of an aquifer. Owing to the effect of capillarity, 

a lowering of the water table by a short period of pumping represents less extraction of water from the sediments than would 

occur from an equal lowering of water level by a long period of 

pumping.

In well-sorted gravels, which have a porosity about equal to 

that of sand, the percentage of water draining out in a short time 

would be larger than for sand. Clays in general have a high porosity but because of the small size of the grains and pores the capillary forces are large and the amount of water that will drain by 

gravity may be negligible.

The alluvial fill of the Mesilla and Rincon Valleys is variable 

and consists of mixtures of sand, gravel, silt, and sandy clay, 

as well as some lenses of well-sorted gravel or sand. The specific 

yield of such sediments also would be variable.

The specific yield of eight various sands tested by Hazen 

(Meinzer, 1923, p. 54) ranged from 23 to 37 percent. The specific 

yield for 36 samples from the fill of major stream valleys of San 

Diego County, Calif., was estimated by Lee (Meinzer, 1923, p. 

60) as between 33 to 37 percent by volume, with a practical value 

of between 20 and 25 percent.

Probably a specific yield of about 25 percent would bean average 

for the valley fill as a whole in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys.

GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT

PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT

Pumping of ground water from wells for irrigation in the Mesilla 

Valley is not new but, as indicated by Follett, was practiced as 

long ago as about 1896 by a man named Schiller, who irrigated 

about 800 acres that had been formerly served by the Dona Ana 

ditch (National Resources Committee, 1938, v. 1, p. 312).

The variable nature of the flow of the Rio Grande in the years 

prior to construction of Elephant Butte Dam caused much crop 

loss and induced a number of farmers to. ins tall irrigation wells in 

order to have a dependable water supply. Slichter (1905, p. 51- 

73) gave data on 10 irrigation wells in 1904 in the vicinity of Las
104 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Cruces and Mesilla Park and 3 near Berino. The construction of 

the wells and the pumping equipment ranged from poor to good. 

All pumps but 1 were of the horizontal centrifugal type, set in open 

pits about at the water level. The diameters of the wells ranged 

from 5 5/8 inches to 12 inches, only 2 being more than 10 inches, 

The wells ranged from 48 to 75 feet in depth and had from 8 to 18 

feet of strainer in the bottoms. The measured discharge of the 

wells ranged from 131 to 1,000 gpm with specific capacities of 

about 6 to 88 gpm per foot of drawdown. The first irrigation wells 

were the 2 of the Agricultural College at Mesilla Park (Slichter, 

1905, p. 22). These 2 wells were each 48 feet in depth, of good 

construction, and equipped with good motors and pumps. The 6- 

inch well produced 800 gpm and the 12-inch well 1,000 gpm, the 

latter with a specific capacity of 88 gpm per foot of drawdown.

Lee (1907, p. 41-47) gave data on additional wells in the Mesilla 

Valley. Nine of these wells, ranging in depth from 51 to 197 feet, 

were of moderate to large capacity and discharged from 130 to 

1,500 gpm.

A 12-inch well of the Agricultural College located on the Horticultural farm near Mesilla Park was drilled in 1905 to 62 feet and an 

18 foot strainer was placed in the bottom. The pump discharged 

1,000 gallons a minute. This well eventually filled with sand and 

was replaced by a new well, Horticulture well 2, about 75 feet to 

the southwest. This newer well was not successful as the maximum 

discharge was only about 250 gpm. In 1935 another well, Horticulture well 3, was drilled about 2 feet from the original location 

of Horticulture well 1. Well 3 was successful and discharged about 

1,100 gpm (New Mexico Agr. Exper. Sta. 1934-35, p. 53-38). 

However, this well also gradually filled with sand until by November 

1946 the sustained discharge was only about 250 gpm.

The 6-inch well of the Agricultural College, described above, 

known as Irrigation Department Well 1, was replaced about 1915 

by a new well, Irrigation Department Well 2, about 40 feet west of 

well 1. Well 2, 12 inches in diameter below the pit and only 43 

feet deep, discharged 1,400 gpm. Well 2 also filled with sand and 

was in turn replaced in 1935 by Irrigation Department Well 3, 

about 35 feet north of well 1. Well 3 initially was a poor well but 

after about 2 weeks of development of the well its discharge increased to a maximum of 1,625 gpm. This well is still in use at 

the present time, and a pumping test of it is described in another 

section of this report.

An irrigation well of the old Shalam Colony is described by Lee 

(1907, p. 45). This well consisted of a circular pit 18 feet in
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 105

diameter to a depth of 30 feet, with the sides and bottom cemented. 

Five wells were drilled in the bottom of the pit, of which 3 were 

6 inches in diameter and drilled to a depth of 90 feet, 1 was 12 

inches in diameter, drilled to 90 feet, and the other was 6 inches 

in diameter, drilled to 197 feet. The pump discharged 1, 500 gpm 

with a drawdown in the pit of 18 feet. This well, now owned by 

Rudolf Garcia, is still in existence. In November 1947 a turbine 

pump was installed and reportedly pumped 1,000 gpm with a drawdown of 16 feet. The well is in the northwest corner of the NE^/4 

sec. 21, T. 22 S., R. IE., about 400 feet west of U. S. Highway 

85.

A well, known as the Mesa Pumping Plant, was drilled about 

1908 at the Agricultural College, on the low bench on the east side 

of the river. A concrete-lined circular pit was dug to water at 70 

feet and a 12-inch hole sunk an additional 31 feet, which penetrated 

fine gravel for 12 feet and below this very fine sand. A 20-foot 

strainer was inserted into the bottom of the well. The discharge 

of the well was 354 gpm with an estimated specific capacity of 

about 16 gpm per foot of drawdown, as computed from the water 

horsepower reported (Fleming and Stoneking, 1909, p. 31. 32). 

This well is still in existence and because of its relatively poor 

water, as compared to that from the newer college wells, is used 

primarily for filling the swimming pool at the college.

Many of these older wells were of small capacity. However, the 

type of pumps and motors, the comparatively shallow depths, and 

the small length of strainer in many of the wells suggest that the 

small discharges were due principally to the well construction and 

equipment rather than to formations with low permeability. Many 

of the wells when pumped tended to fill with running sand.

PRESENT DEVELOPMENT 

DOMESTIC SUPPLIES

The principal use of ground water in the Rincon and Mesilla 

Valleys at the present is for domestic purposes. The entire 

population of the area depends upon ground water for domestic 

supply, nearly all of which is obtained from wells drilled in the 

valley fill.

The city of Las Cruces obtains water for the municipal supply 

from 6 wells drilled upon the edge of the mesa east of the city. The 

production of these wells, when pumped individually, ranges from 

about 200 to about 300 gpm per well. All 6 wells are located close 

to a 2,885,000-gallon reservoir. Because of the close spacing of
106 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

the wells, which results in mutual interference of the pumping 

effects, the total output with all 6 pumps operating is estimated 

to be not more than 1,200 gpm or 1,728,000 gpd. Before the 

addition of the last 2 wells in 1947, the consumption of water during 

the summer was such that the 4 wells were operated continuously 

during the day and 3 during the night. The maximum daily consumption in 1946 and 1947 is therefore estimated to have been 

about 1, 000, 000 gallons, and the annual pumpage about 300, 000, 000 

gallons.

The village of Hatch obtains its water supply from a group of 

springs about 8 miles southwest of the town, in Spring Canyon 

Arroyo. The town has a well, for emergency use, drilled near the 

river levee. The maximum water consumption of the town is reported to be about 45, 000 gallons a day, with an average of about 

500, 000 gallons a month.

Mesilla Park is furnished water by a privately-owned system 

consisting of 4 wells. The daily consumption is estimated by 

Mr. Archer, the owner, as about 10,000 gallons.

The New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts at 

State College, east of Mesilla Park, obtains its water supply from 

two wells drilled at the college above the level of the valley floor. 

Another well is used for emergencies and for filling the swimming 

pool. Anew well for domestic use, drilled in 1947, is not at present 

equipped with a pump.

Residents of Rincon are furnished water by the Santa Fe Railway, 

obtained from a well drilled on the south side of Rincon Arroyo, 

about 3 miles northeast of Rincon. The discharge of the well is 

estimated as 170 gpm on the basis of the rate of filling of the water 

tank at Rincon. The daily use of water is about 67,000 gallons by 

the railroad and about 5, 000 gallons by the town.

Residents of the valleys not served by one of the above domesticsupply systems generally obtain their domestic water from individual wells at their homes. These private wells range from shallow 

dug or driven wells equipped with buckets or pitcher pumps to 

jetted wells more than 300 feet in depth. Most of the jetted wells 

have casing 3 inches in diameter, with no perforations and draw 

their water from the lower end of the casing, which usually is set 

at the top of a gravel or coarse sand deposit immediately below a 

clay lens. The deeper wells generally have been drilled to seek 

water of a better quality than that near the surface. Some wells 

that were intended to be drilled to only shallow depths for good 

water were reportedly drilled deeper before a coarse sand or 

gravel deposit was encountered below a suitable clay lens. If 

wells of this type end in fine sand, the sand may partly fill the
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 107

casing when the well is pumped, resulting in reduced yield. Many 

of the domestic wells are equipped with small automatic pressure 

pumps.

IRRIGATION SUPPLIES

Development of irrigation wells was quite rapid in 1947 and 1948 

as a result of the anticipated shortage of surface water. At the 

end of 1946 about 11 irrigation wells were in operation in the Rincon 

and Mesilla Valleys, 5 of which had been in operation for a number 

of years. By the end of 1947 about 45 additional wells has been 

drilled for irrigation and other wells were in the process of being 

drilled. However, not all the new wells were equipped with pumps 

and a few, undoubtedly, will prove unsuccessful. About 70 wells 

drilled in the Mesilla and Rincon Valleys by February 1948 apparently had or would have sufficient water for irrigation.

Twelve of the irrigation wells drilled and equipped with pumps 

by the end of 1947 are on the side slopes of the valleys, above the 

level of the valley floor and present canal system. Eleven of these 

wells of which 9 were drilled in 1946 and 1947, are in the Rincon 

Valley, and the other 2 are in Mesilla Valley.

Owing to the anticipated shortage of surface water in 1948, normal 

winter releases of surface water were suspended from the end of 

the growing season in 1947 to the beginning of the growing season 

in 1948. No surface water was to be delivered in 1948 to lands 

classified as suspended, and only 2 acre-feet per acre was to be 

allowed initially on the classified lands. Because of these waterconservation measures, many irrigation wells were drilled to 

serve tracts of land devoted to truck crops that require winter 

irrigation and to tracts classified as suspended. However, irrigation wells have been drilled also on SCC classified lands (p. 18) 

as a crop-insurance measure in the event of a shortage of surface 

water.

PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING WELLS

The discharge of a well, other things being equal, is dependent 

upon the size and condition of the pump and its speed, which in 

turn is dependent upon the amount of power available. A pump discharging only a few gallons a minute does not in itself indicate 

whether the well is a poor well or a good well. In order to make a 

comparison between wells the specific capacities are usually given, 

expressed in gallons a minute per foot of drawdown. For a particular well this value is generally regarded as nearly constant for 

reasonable values of drawdown. For cased wells the specific

317E67 O - 55 - 8
108 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

capacity depends to some extent upon the perforations in the casing. 

If they become plugged or are insufficient in total area a low specific 

capacity may be indicated even though the aquifer is highly 

permeable.

The ultimate yield of and drawdown of water level in most of the 

wells can be inferred from the hydrologic characteristics of the 

 aquifer, the coefficient of transmissibility, and the specific yield. 

Based on results of pumping tests and correlation of drain flow 

with ground-water gradients, the average coefficient of transmissibility for the Rinconand Mesilla Valleys is estimated to be 75, 000 

gpd per foot. In other areas of New Mexico where irrigation from 

wells is done successfully the average coefficient of transmissibility 

ranges from about 50,000 to about 100,000. In addition to the 

favorable coefficient of transmissibility, the water is quite shallow 

under the valley floor of the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys as compared with depths to water of 30 to more than 100 feet in other 

areas in New Mexico where ground water is pumped.

Reliable information on some of the present irrigation wells in 

the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys is lacking, particularly of those 

that had not been equipped with pumps by the time field work on 

this investigation had ended. Of 9 wells in the Rincon Valley floor 

equipped with pumps, the discharges, either measured or reported, 

range from 250 to 1,000 gpm. The specific capacities of 5 of the 

wells range from 57 to 96 and average about 70 gpm per foot of 

drawdown, values which indicate good irrigation wells.

In addition to the irrigation wells in the valley floor in the Rincon 

Valley, about 15 wells have been drilled on the alluvial fans of the 

arroyos west of the valley, 12 of which are equipped with pumps. 

The discharges of 11 of these wells, either measured or reported, 

range from 250 to 850 gpm and the specific capacities of 10 of them 

range from 11 to 100 and average about 50 gpm per foot of drawdown.

Two wells above the valley floor in the Rincon Valley, drilled 

by Mr. Osborn for irrigation, were unsuccessful. Well 16. 5. 25. 

341, in the alluvial fan of Percha Creek, produced only about 125 

gpm with a drawdown almost to the bottom of the well. Well 

17. 5. 10.442, on top of the bluff of the Santa Fe formation overlooking Montoya Arroyo, obtained only a small quantity of water, 

which was under sufficient pressure to rise to about 30 feet above 

the adjacent arroyo bed.

In the Mesilla Valley, by the end of 1947, there were about 24 

irrigation wells on the valley floor and 2 on the alluvial slopes 

above the valley floor that were equipped with pumps. Also completed were 4 wells on the valley floor and 3 above the valley
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 109

floor that were drilled for irrigation but not equipped with pumps. 

In addition, there were other wells in the process of being drilled. 

Only 4 of these 33 wells were in existence prior to 1947, and 1 of 

the new wells, on the horticultural farm of the State College, is a 

replacement of a previous irrigation Well.

As most of the irrigation wells in the Mesilla Valley are quite 

recent, their performance characteristics are not generally known. 

This is especially true of the drawdown of the water level when the 

wells are being pumped. The reported discharge from 16 of the 

wells on the valley floor range from about 600 to more than 2, 000 

gpm, with reported specific capacities for 8 of the wells ranging 

from less than 20 to about 60 gpm per foot of drawdown. The discharge measured for 2 wells were 1,100 and 1,270 gpm, with 

specific capacities of about 25 and 97.

As tractors furnish power for many of the wells at the present 

time, it is probable that the pumps are not being operated at 

capacity. Continued use of the wells generally results in an increase,d capacity as the fine sand from the formation around the 

well is removed. Running sand tends to fill the wells and causes 

the ground surface to cave. In order to keep the sand from filling 

the wells, constant pumping of the wells during development should 

be continued as long as the water contains sand. In addition to this 

trouble with sand, the inadequate perforations in some wells become plugged with fine gravel and sand.

The T. L. Simpson irrigation well furnishes an example of the 

effect of sand running into a well and of inadequate or clogged perforations. The well was drilled to a depth of 80 feet and the lower 

20 feet of the casing was perforated with a Mill's knife. Large 

gravel was penetrated from 55 to 80 feet. Initially the pump discharged a maximum of about 800 gpm when the water level was 

drawn to the bottom of the pump suction pipe at about 60 feet. After 

cleaning out 10 feet of sand and gravel that had come into the well 

and reperforating the casing, the discharge of the pump was increased to 1,200 gpm with a smaller drawdown.

In order to reduce caving of the ground surf ace around the well, 

many wells are not drilled larger in diameter than the casing. 

The annular space between the hole and the casing is then filled 

with gravel, which fills the cavity that is formed by removal of the 

sand when the well is pumped. So far as the long-term yield of 

the well is concerned, gravel packing does not increase the discharge of the well. The ultimate production of a well is dependent 

upon the permeability of the formation surrounding the well at a 

distance and cannot be changed by the addition of the gravel.
GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Packing together of the gravel and sand and filling of the perforations by the mixed gravel and sand may cause the permeability 

around the well to be lower than that of the sand alone and may 

actually decrease the discharge of the well at a given drawdown. 

Wells that can be developed by removal of the sand without caving 

of the ground surface and without the gravel will be as productive, 

if not more so, than if gravel is used. If a large amount of gravel 

is used, if the perforations of the casing remain open, and if the 

porosity of the gravel is not reduced by the sand, the gravel serves 

to enlarge the effective diameter of the well, decreasing friction 

and consequently increasing its specific capacity. Gravel of a 

single size has a high porosity and is to be preferred to gravel of 

mixed sizes, which packs -tighter and results in a lower porosity.

Performances of the present irrigation wells indicate that successful wells can be obtained nearly everywhere on the valley 

floor of the Rinconand Mesilla Valleys, provided that proper drilling and development methods are used to care for the large amounts 

of fine running sand. Reports of drillers suggest that more fine 

sand may be found in the lower part of the Mesilla Valley than in 

the remainder of the valley. Wells in the Selden Canyon area of 

the Rincon Valley and in the extreme upper part of the Mesilla 

Valley will be near mountain masses which delimit the sediments 

supplying water to the wells and result in comparatively large 

drawdowns after a period of time.

Irrigation wells on the alluvial slopes above the valley floor 

generally will be successful, although the capacity of most such 

wells will be smaller than that of wells in the Quaternary alluvial 

fill of the valley. Some attempts to obtain wells on the alluvial 

slopes will fail because of the local predominance of clay and fine 

sand mixed. Some difference is to be expected in the permeability 

of the undisturbed Santa Fe formation that forms the bluff along the 

valley and of the alluvial fans, slopes, and arroyo deposits formed 

from the erosion of the Santa Fe formation. However, no definite 

difference in the yield of wells drilled in these deposits has been 

noticed, good and poor wells having been completed in both the undisturbed and the reworked deposits.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

The extent to which irrigation from wells will be practiced in 

the future is dependent in large measure on whether surfacewater supplies for the project lands continue to be insufficient. 

It is also dependent on whether farm prices conductive to development of new lands continue in effect. The present average farm 

cash return is at an all-time high, with indications that favorable 

conditions will continue for some time.
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 111

Even if sufficient surface water becomes available for the project lands, including those classified as suspended, the incentive 

for development of irrigation wells on high lands bordering the 

valley will remain. The initial cost of such land is comparatively 

small and its economic development probably can compete favorably with that of the project lands.

The acreage of land that can be irrigated by surface water in the 

Rincon and Mesilla Valleys has reached the maximum possible, 

being limited primarily by the amount of water available. In general 

less than one-third of the suspended land has been given water each 

year. It is supposed that in a dry year this part of the suspended 

land, about 4, 600 acres in 1946, would not be allowed to have water. 

Therefore in such a dry year, when even land having a full water 

right might not have a full supply of water, there would be a tendency for farmers who have large tracts of suspended land to install pumps. This might also occur where an acreage of suspended 

land is being farmed in conjunction with land having a water right. 

A small tract of suspended land probably would not be irrigated in 

a dry year as in general it would not be economically feasible to 

install an irrigation well and pump on a tract of less than 20 acres. 

If there happened to be a few such small tracts adjoining each other 

it is possible that the owners might put down a cooperative well.

In 1946 there were 135 tracts of 20 acres or more of suspended 

land of all classifications in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, including the Texas portion of Mesilla Valley, with a total area of 

5, 822 acres, as given in the following table. This might be an 

indication of the maximum area of suspended land upon which wells 

would be drilled for irrigation. This area of 5, 822 acres is slightly 

more than the 4, 606 acres of suspended land reportedly irrigated 

with surface water in 1946, although not necessarily comprising 

the same tracts of land. The suspended land irrigated in 1946 was 

mainly land classified as seeped (waterlogged).

In addition to suspended land in the valleys that might be irrigated 

with ground water, a large part of which is now irrigated by surface water, new land susceptible to ground-water irrigation is 

available that is not now being farmed. This additional land is not 

now being farmed. This additional land is not within the area served 

by canals and some of it is located outside the boundaries of the 

Elephant Butte Irrigation District. The results of a reconnaissance 

survey by G. R. Chenot include the estimated maximum acreages 

of land that might be susceptible to irrigation by water from wells.
Tracts (20 acres or more) of land classified as suspended and irrigated suspended land in Rinc

[From records of U. S. Bureau of Reclamatio

Rincon Valley.... 

Mesilla Valley...

Classification

High

No. 

of 

tracts

1 

2

3

Acres

91 

83

174

Sandy

No. 

of 

tracts

2

6

8

Acres

61 

214

275

Overflow

No. 

of 

tracts

13 

12

25

Acres

743 

379

1,122

Seeped

No. 

of 

tracts

14 

48

62

Acres

925 

1,914

2,839

Poor soil

No. 

of 

tracts

1 

13

14

Acres

24 

436

460

No

of 

trac
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 113

The acreages, given in the following table, have been divided into 

areas inside and outside the boundary of the Elephant Butte Irrigation District.

Estimated acreage of new land inside and outside the boundaries of the Elephant Dutte 

Irrigation District that might be susceptible to irrigation by ground water

Mesilla Valley (N. Mex. )....................

Mesilla Valley (Tex. ).........................

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

Inside 

(acres)

900

2,000

2,900

Outside 

(acres)

4,700

4,700

900

10,300

Total 

(acres)

5.600

6,700

900

13,200

The area in the Rincon Valley susceptible to ground-water irrigation was determined by sketching, in the field, the lands that 

were fairly smooth, not cut by large arroyos, not too rocky, and 

with gentle slopes. The valley sheets of the Bureau of Reclamation, 

to the scale of 1 inch to 2, 000 feet, were used as a base for sketching. None of these lands were on the higher mesa land; practically 

all were in arroyo deposits.

The area of land in the Mesilla Valley susceptible to groundwater irrigation was sketched upon the standard U. S. Geological 

Survey topographic maps, which had a scale of 1:62, 500, about 1 

inch to the mile, with a contour interval of 25 feet. The lands were 

limited to those having an altitude of not more than 100 feet above 

the river. Lands included were those with gentle slopes that were 

fairly smooth, not too rocky, and not cut by large arroyos. Most 

of the favorable land was located on the east side of the river on 

the low benches and below the upper mesa surface.

These acreages of land suitable for ground-water irrigation are 

gross or maximum figures and would be reduced by the areas 

needed for roads and other improvements, areas having land not 

suitable for farming, and areas in which successful wells could 

not be obtained. Some areas of rough lands or lands having a large 

slope probably could be leveled and terraced with the large earthmoving machinery now available.

It seems probable that about 15, 000 acres of suspended and new 

land might eventually be irrigated with ground water, provided 

that conditions remain favorable for such development. If. such 

development occurred, the minimum amount of water consumed 

annually on these lands would be about 38, 000 acre-feet, on the 

basis of 2. 5 acre-feet per acre. As a large part of these lands is 

on the higher ground along the edges of the valley, only a part of 

this water at the outset would be diverted from the drains or the
GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

river. However, as all the ground water in the valleys and mesas 

is connected with and contributes to the flow of the drains, any 

pumping must eventually mean a decrease in drain flow, in the 

long run equal to the amount that had been pumped, less any return 

of irrigation water and any small amount saved by reduction of 

evapotranspiration losses.

PUMPING OF GROUND WATER 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

Pumping a well re suits at first in lowering the water level in the 

well and in the aquifer immediately surrounding the well, forming 

the so-called cone of depression in the water table. The rate of 

lowering of the water level is initially rapid but gradually slackens 

as time goes on. The drawdown at any particular time is dependent 

upon the rate and length of pumping and the hydrologic characteristics of the aquifer. In time, lowering of the water level occurs 

at greater and greater distances from the pumped well, the area 

affected continually expanding but at a diminishing rate. Stability 

of the cone of depression is not attained, until an area of rejected 

recharge or an area of ground-water discharge is reached.

In many localities, areas of rejected recharge and ground-water 

discharge either do not exist or are at such great distances that 

water pumped must betaken from storage for years, with a consequent continual lowering of the water table. All water pumped from 

wells is balanced by a loss of water somewhere in the groundwater system, commonly from the amount stored underground or 

from the amount seeping out of the aquifer; often in humid regions, 

but less commonly in arid regions, the ground-water pumpage is 

compensated for by a reduction in the discharge to streams in recharge areas (rejected recharge) that occurs because the aquifer 

is full.

Areas of ground-water discharge in the Rincon and Mesilla 

Valleys are the drainage ditches, where lowering of the water 

table would result in a decrease in the accretion of the drains, and 

the relatively small areas of waterlogged (seeped) land where a 

lowering of the water table would decrease the evaporation and 

transpiration of the ground water. Also, in sections of the river 

where the river level is below the level of the ground water, a 

lowering of the water table would result in a decrease of the accretion to the river, such as would occur with a drain.

Areas of rejected recharge are sections of the river where the 

water level in the river is above and in direct contact with the 

ground water. A lowering of the water table in such areas would 

induce a larger amount of water to seep from the river.
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 115

The increased seepage from the river to the aquifer and the decreased drain,flow and return seepage to the river that would result from the pumping would not make more water available to the 

project as a whole but, instead, would divert to the pumps water 

that would otherwise be available as surface supply lower down 

the valley. However, any water saved by pumping that is now lost 

by evapotranspiration in the waterlogged areas would result in an 

actual increase in water supply for beneficial use in the project. 

Unfortunately, the amount of water saved from transpiration would 

be small, as only 5,135 acres within the boundaries of the Elephant 

Butte Irrigation District in the Rinconand Mesilla Valleys in 1946 

was classified as seeped. Part of this seeped land is already 

farmed, and part of it is in areas distant from likely sites for wells, 

or near the river or outlets of the drains, where a substantial 

lowering of the water table would be unlikely. Transpiration by 

plants in rights-of-way along the banks of canals, laterals, drains, 

or the river could not be reduced significantly by a lowering of the 

water table.

Additional suspended land classified as rough, sandhill, alkali, 

poor-soil, isolated, and overflow totaling 5, 483 acres may have 

sufficient native vegetation transpiring water, so that a lowering 

of the water table would save water. However, of the 10,985 acres 

of land classified as suspended, 4, 606 acres (mainly that classified as seeped), was farmed in 1946.

An indication as to the area of land from which water is transpired to such an extent that some might be saved by a lowering of 

the water table can be gained from the tables on pages 19 and 20. 

Areas in which a lowering of the water table would not result in a 

reduction of transpiration, such as rights-of-way, cities, and 

irrigated land, or areas in which a lowering of the water table is 

not possible, such as the river bed between levees and river and 

canal surfaces, are listed in the following classification. The area 

for cities had been increased from 1,633 acres, shown for 1936, 

to an estimated 2, 000 acres to take into account the growth of the 

residential areas.

Classification of type oi area

Cities (1947 estimate).....................................,

Irrigated (1947)........ ......................................

Rights-of-way (1947)......................................

River bed, between levees (1947)......................

Total classified area...................................

Acres

2,000

101,700

8,300

6,700

11,200

Acres

129 900

............. 8,400

.............138,300
116 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

The dif fere nee between the total valley area and the areas named, 

that is,8, 400 acres, is presumably the maximum area under which 

a lowering of the water table might effect a reduction in transpiration losses, provided that this area had native vegetation 

dependent upon shallow ground water. There may be some duplication in the areas of "river and canal surfaces" and "river bed 

between levees," but as some additional right-of-way areas have 

not been determined the inconsistencies may be balanced. As not 

all the area of 8, 400 acres would be located where the effects of 

pumping would be appreciable and as not. all the transpiration from 

favorably located areas could be stopped, probably a few thousand 

acre-feet of ground water in the areas of transpiration could be 

salvaged by lowering the water table.

The effect of continuous pumping upon the water table is shown 

in the vicinity of Las Cruces by the displacement of the watertable contours around the city wells, the college wells, and to 

some extent around the Country Club well. (See pi. 1.) These wells 

are located on the higher lands east of the valley, in T. 23 S., R. 

2 E. The Country Club well is the southeasternmost well shown 

in sec. 6, the 6 city wells are in a small group in sees. 8 and 17, 

and the 2 used college wells plus 2 unused new wells are in a small 

cluster in sec. 29. The cone of depression shown by the contours 

of the water table around the city wells is quite apparent and indicates a lowering of the water table of at least 10 feet and possibly 

as much as 15 feet from the probable original level given by projected contours of the water table over the area affected. Small 

cones of depression are indicated around the Country Club and 

college wells, with a lowering of the water table of possibly 5 feet.

EFFECT OF PUMPING UPON FLOW OF DRAINS

The effect of pumping a well upon the flow of a drain or a river 

that is in direct connection with the water table can be evaluated 

theoretically with the aid of the following formula developed by 

Theis (1941, p. 736).

'ir/2

in which 

P= percentage of the pumped water taken from a river or a drain.

a = distance from well to river or drain, in feet.

S = specific yield.

T = coefficient of transmissibility.

t =time since well began pumping, in days.
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 117

In the development of this equation a number of simplifying 

assumptions were made. The aquifer is considered to be homogeneous and isotropic. The coefficient of transmissibility of the 

aquifer is considered constant, which for thick alluvial aquifers 

may be approximately true. The course of the river or drain is 

idealized as a straight line. The ground water is assumed to be in 

free communication with the stream or drain; that is, the stream 

bed is not so heavily silted as to offer appreciably more resistance 

to the movement of ground water than would normally occur in the 

aquifer. This assumption may not be true for certain sections of 

a river but would be true in the case of open drains. It is also 

assumed that the stream or drain maintains a flow past the pumped 

area and that the level of the water in the stream or drain is not 

changed significantly because of the pumping.

It can be shown from the equation (Theis, 1941, p. 736) that 

more than half the effect upon the stream or drain resulting from 

the pumping of a well occurs between a point upstream from the 

well at a distance equal to that of the well from the stream and a 

point downstream the same distance. At greater distances up or 

down the stream or drain the effects of the pump rapidly diminish. 

Therefore, if the stream or drain retains an approximately straight 

line past the pump for distances of more than twice that of the 

pump from the stream or drain, the equation will give usable 

results.

The results will be affected significantly if the lowering of the 

water level from pumping reduces the amount of transpiration 

from the aquifer or if the effects of the pumping reach the limits 

of the aquifer. This last condition will occur in the Rincon Valley 

from Hatch northward, where the valley is flanked on the east by 

the Caballo Mountains, and in the Selden Canyon area where the 

aquifer is shallow and .is flanked on the east and west by mountain 

masses of the Sierra de las Uvas. The Mesilla Valley is flanked, 

in general, by sediments having a lower coefficient of transmissibility than that of the valley deposits. When the effect of the pumping 

reaches the limits of an aquifer or reaches an aquifer where the 

coefficient of transmissibility is less than in the aquifer being 

pumped, the rate of decline of the water level caused by the pumping 

will increase.

The theoretical effect of a pumping well upon the flow of the 

river or a, drain in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys is shown on 

figure 15, which has been computed from the formula by using the 

average coefficient of transmissibility of 75,000 and a specific 

yield of 25 percent for the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys. The percentage of the pumped water diverted by a single well from the flow 

of a stream or drain is obtained from the graph by the value of the
118 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

V \NI

\\

\

\N

\\

\Y

\\

\

\

VT , AAX

XAA \\

TV

X

X

\\

^

r^v

umjp jo JOAIJ 01

o o §80 oo 

o o o X o g S

i" i T T T T T\

>x

\ \

V \ X v\

VA

ld=0. 0 S4>.

* »^ 

s Ik'-

all

 -». ^*.- g C

"V Mfii

r s????* 1 :

X

s

NIVMQ dO M3AIH 01 113* WOHd 'S31IW Nt'(0)30NViSIQ

s--

-!r

Je-

" §2-

-H to
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 119

sloping line determined by the intersection of a horizontal line at 

the distance of the well from the stream or a drain and a vertical 

line at the time since pumping started. The residual effect of a 

pumped well after pumping stops can be determined by the difference in effect caused by a well pumping continuously from the time 

of start to the time in question and a recharge well pumping from 

the time of actual stop to the time in question.

This diagram shows that if a well in the Rincon or Mesilla Valleys 

were located a quarter of a mile from a drain the flow of the drain 

would be reduced after 3 months of continuous pumping by 63 percent of the pumping rate, after 6 months by 73 percent of the 

pumping rate, and after 1 year by 81 percent of the pumping rate. 

After 6 months of continuous pumping the flow of a drain would be 

reduced by 88 percent of the pumping rate for a well located an 

eighth of a mile from the drain, 73 percent for a well located a 

quarter of a mile from the drain, 50 percent by a well located half 

a mile from a drain, and 18 percent by a well located 1 mile from 

a drain. Within 12 days 50 percent of the water pumped by a well 

located an eighth of a mile from a drain would be diverted from the 

drain/but it would take about 2 years for a well located 1 mile 

from a drain to have the same effect. If a well located a quarter 

of a mile from a drain were pumped for 6 months and then stopped, 

the drain would still be losing water 1 year after the start of 

pumping, or its accretion would be reduced, at 8 percent of the 

pumping rate.

As evident from the formula and the graph, if the distance from 

the well to a drain is doubled the time necessary for the same 

effect upon the drain is four times as long; that is, for the same 

effect, the time varies as the square of the distance.

The effect of pumping upon the flow of a stream or a drain, in 

which the water is in free communication with the ground water, 

will be evidenced initially either by a decrease in the accretion of 

ground water by a gaining stream or drain, or by an increase in 

the rate of loss of water from a losing stream or drain. With 

continued pumping, in the case of a gaining drain or stream, the 

gradient of the water table would be reversed and the drain or 

stream would lose water in the section affected and finally in either 

case, if the pumping rate were great enough, the stream or drain 

would be dried in that section.

In order to dry the drains, the pumping effect per mile of drain 

must be at least equal to the accretion of the drain per mile. The 

average drainflow accretion under the present conditions of an 

average surface supply of water is about 0. 8 cfs per mile in the 

late winter months, increasing to almost 2 cfs per mile in the late 

summer, with a maximum range from about 0. 5 to 2. 5 cfs per.
120 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

mile based upon the total lengths of the drains. Certain stretches 

will probably show greater or less accretion than this. Wells 

placed a quarter of a mile from a drain at 1-mile intervals, each 

pumping continuously at the rate of 3 cfs, theoretically would dry 

a drain in the summer under the present conditions of drain flow 

after about 4 months of pumping. In a year with less than the 

average supply of surface water, the flow of the drains would be 

less than normal and the amount of pumping required to dry the 

drains would be less.

The theoretical effect of the pumping of a well upon the flow of 

a drain is possibly somewhat greater than would actually occur at 

any particular time because of clay layers that extend under the 

drains, which might introduce a lag in the effects of pumping from 

wells that extend below the clay layers.

If a well were located between drains or between a drain and the 

river, the total depletion of their flow after any given period of 

pumping from the well would be greater than if only one drain were 

involved. As the ultimate effect is the same, locating a well between 

drains only speeds up the effect of the pumping. This accelerated 

effect of the pumping probably would offset the possible lag caused 

by the stratification of the aquifer.

The maximum practical distance that a well can be located from 

a drain or the river in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys is about a 

mile because of the narrowness of the valleys and the numerous 

drains. At the northern end of the Rincon Valley in the vicinity of 

Arrey, where there are no drains, a well on the valley floor could 

be as far as a mile from the river. Also, near Salem the maximum 

distance from a drain that a well on the valley floor could be located 

is about a mile. In the remainder of the Rincon Valley the maximum 

distance from either the river or a drain is less than a mile, in 

general being closer to half a mile, and fora large number of wells 

the average distance probably would be between a quarter and half 

a mile. In some areas it would be necessary to locate a well near 

a canal in order to be at a maximum distance from the river or a 

drain.

In the Mesilla Valley, where drains are more numerous than in 

the Rincon Valley, practically the only area where wells on the 

valley floor could be more than a mile from the river or a drain is 

in Las Cruces. The maze of drains in the rest of the valley precludes locating a well much more than half a mile from the river 

or a drain and then the well might be near a canal. Also, in most 

of the valley a well'would be situated between two drains or a drain 

and the river, which would increase the total effect of pumping at
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 121

any particular time over that upon one drain. For a number of 

wells the average distance to the river or a drain probably would 

be between a quarter and half a mile, and many of the wells would 

be between two drains or between a drain and the river.

As the flow of the drains is derived principally from return 

seepage from irrigated lands and from canals and as interception 

of this seepage by a well results in a decrease in flow of the drains 

such interception does not reduce the ultimate effect of the pumping 

upon the flow of the drain.

SUPPLEMENTAL PUMPING OF GROUND WATER IN A DROUGHT PERIOD

Under the present conditions in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys 

the surface and ground waters are in approximate equilibrium. 

The surface water is diverted throughout the year to the canals 

and irrigated land and a certain percentage that is not lost by 

evaporation and transpiration seeps underground and returns to 

the river directly or by drain flow for reuse in the next lower 

irrigation division. The drain flow, as stated before, is composed 

almost entirely of return diversions and seepage of river water 

but it contains a small amount of ground-water flow from the side 

mesas. The drain flow is not waste water insofar as the next lower 

irrigation unit is concerned but instead is counted upon as a part 

of the water supply of the project. Thus, no water is wasted in 

the project except by transpiration and evaporation the total 

amount of which is increased if water is used carelessly and for 

the small quantity that bypasses the lower unit, especially during 

the winter.

Pumping of ground water for supplemental use does not represent 

an additional supply or new source of water but rather a change in 

in method, time and place of diversion of available supplies.

The pumping effect of one well upon a drain has been discussed 

in another paragraph. The remaining water pumped that is not 

diverted from the drains or the river or saved from evapotranspiration at any particular time is taken from storage. As seen 

from the graph, figure 15, the percentage of water taken from 

storage in the case of a single well pumping for 6 months at a 

distance of a quarter of a mile from a drain is only about 27 percent. Thus on a short-term basis of 1 year, only about a quarter 

of the water pumped is taken from storage and represents water 

not otherwise available during that year.

Thus, on a year-to-year basis, the net gain of water to the 

district is that quantity of water pumped in excess of the decrease 

in normal drain flow caused by the pumping. This net gain of water
122 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, felNCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

is water taken mainly from storage, that is, borrowed from the 

ground-water supply. This borrowed water must be replaced in 

future years if the flow of the drains is to return to normal.

If in future years no excess surface water is available to the 

project to raise the ground-water level to the nonpumping stage, 

then pumping must be continued, even in a year of normal water 

supply, unless the pumped water is used more efficiently than 

surface water, in which case the total amount needed would be 

less and the debt to ground-water storage could gradually be 

reduced.

The economy of a supplemental pumping project in the Elephant 

Butte Irrigation District depends upon the quantity of water that 

must be pumped. This in-turn depends upon how the gravity water 

in the Rio Grande project is distributed to the various valleys, 

what economies could be effected in its distribution, and what 

salvage of water would occur by reason of the lowered water table 

in a dry year. The distribution Of surface water might be in proportion to the average diversions, or to the average river depletions. It might be assumed that pumping would be done in the El 

Paso district also, which would save some water that would otherwise drain from the land, and thus provide more water for the 

project; or it might be assumed that the El Paso district would not 

install pumps also, in which case the Elephant Butte district might 

be regarded as having an obligation not to interfere with the deliveries of water to the lower district. Some water would be saved 

from evaporation by drying of the drains and by lowering of the 

water table in waterlogged areas.

For the purpose of this study it is assumed that direct canal 

waste would be largely eliminated throughout the project and that 

the Elephant Butte district has no obligation to the lower district 

to continue this direct loss. It is assumed also that an obligation 

does exist to continue to deliver the average proportionate drain 

flow, which is taken to be 40 percent of the gross diversions.

As stated on page 52, in a hypothetical year in which the surface supply of water available for diversions is only half the 

average, it is believed that 2. 28 feet of water could be delivered 

to the farms, or about 1 foot less than that needed for successful 

irrigation of the crops. If the additional foot of water were supplied by pumping ground water into the canals, some loss of the 

pumped water would occur, owing to waste and to seepage from the 

canals. Owing to closer control of the pumps and to the shorter 

distance that the pumped water would travel in the canals as compared with surface water, a wastage of 3 percent and a seepage loss 

of It percent of the pumped water maybe assumed. This combined
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 123

loss of about 20 percent is compared with a probable minimum of 

30 percent for gravity water. Every additional acre-foot of pumped 

water delivered to the farms, therefore, would necessitate pumping 

about 1. 25 acre-feet.

However, pumping of wells would diminish the drain flow. This 

decrease in drainflow presumably would necessitate a corresponding decrease in the allowable diversions for the Elephant Butte 

Irrigation District.

The narrowness of the valleys and the large number of drains 

preclude locating pumps very far from either the drains or the 

river. If a large number of pumps were installed, as would be 

necessary for a district pumping system, the average distance 

from a drain would be about a quarter of a mile, and it is expected 

that the drains would be dried during the first summer of pumping 

if only a small gravity water supply were available. The amount 

of the drain flow in an average year is about 42 percent of the gross 

diversions. In a dry year, with less excess water applied to the 

lands, the drain flow is expected to be less, probably about 40 percent of the diversions. In an assumed dry year when only 50 percent of a normal gravity-water supply were available, 3. 25 acrefeet per acre would be diverted in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, 

of which40 percent would be returned to the system as drain flow, 

leaving a total diversion used within these valleys of 1. 95 feet. If 

a pumping system were installed and the drains were dried, presumably 1. 95 feet would be the justifiable diversion to these valleys. 

It has been assumed that, in a dry year, 3. 3 acre-feet of water per 

acre is needed for a full crop, that 30 percent of the surface water 

diverted would be lost, largely by seepage from the canals, and 

that about 20 percent of the pumped water would be lost by seepage 

and waste from the canals. Therefore,

3. 3 « 1. 95 x 0. 7 + pumped water x 0. 8; 

therefore,

pumped water = 2. 42 acre-feet per acre.

Thus, in order to make up the deficiency of 1 acre-foot per acre 

that would result from gravity irrigation alone in the assumed dry 

year, it would be necessary to pump about 2. 42 acre-feet per acre. 

This is the minimum amount with judicious use of water. If canal 

wastage w.ere higher and the water were inefficiently used on the 

land this amount would not be sufficient.

As there are water rights for about 88, 000 acres of land in the 

New Mexico part of the project, the total pumpage of water would 

be about 213,000 acre-feet and the total surface water diverted 

about 172, 000 acre-feet.

317267 O - 55 - 9
124 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

The amount of water pumped from storage in the ground would 

be the difference between the amount actually used by the crops, 

assumed to be 2. 5 acre-feet per acre, and the amount diverted 

from the river, 1.95 acre-feet per acre, plus evaporation and 

waste from the canal. The latter has been estimated as 3 percent 

of the pumped water or 0. 07 acre-foot per acre and 5 percent of 

the gravity water or 0.10 acre-foot per acre, making the water 

pumped from storage 0. 72 acre-foot per acre per year.

Viewed in another way, the amount of water pumped from ^storage 

would equal the difference between the total water pumped and that 

part of the pumped and surface water that would return to the water 

table. This amount from storage, all quantities being given in 

acre-feet per acre, would be: the total amount pumped, 2. 42, less 

the pumped water lost by seepage from the canals, 17 percent 

(see p. 122) or 0.41, less the gravity water lost by seepage from 

the canals, 25 percent (see p. 52 ) of that diverted, 0.49, less the 

difference between the water applied to the land, 3. 3, and the 

consumptive use 2. 5, or 0. 8. The amount of water pumped from 

storage in 1 year would therefore be 0. 72 acre-foot per acre irrigated, or 63, 360 acre-feet for the 88,000 acres in the Elephant 

Butte Irrigation District. The amount of water returned underground by seepage from the canals and from the irrigated lands 

would be 1. 70 acre-feet per acre or 39 percent of the total diversions and pumpage of about 4. 4 acre-feet per acre.

The period of drought during which supplemental pumped water 

might be needed is, of course, a matter of conjecture. A short 

period of pumping would be relatively costly. The flow of the Rio 

Grande at San Marcial above Elephant Butte Dam, at the head of 

the Rio Grande project, averaged only 697 cfs in the 5-year period 

1898 to 1902, inclusive, 46 percent of the 52-year average of 

1,530 cfs (International Boundary and Water Commission, 1946, 

p. 4). During a period of drought the lake level at Elephant Butte 

and Caballo Dams would be low and there would be less evaporation 

loss than under average conditions. This reduced evaporation loss, 

plus what water there was in storage at the beginning of the drought, 

would temper the actual decrease in flow of the Rio Grande. Without extensive study it appears, therefore, that a 5-year drought 

period in which only half the normal supply of water would be 

available for diversions is about the longest that could reasonably 

be expected.

If pumping were done for 5 such dry years the total pumpage 

from storage would be about 316,800 acre-feet, neglecting water 

saved from evaporation or transpiration, in waterlogged areas. 

This amount of ground water would have to be replaced before the 

flow of the drains would return to normal.
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 125

As the drains would have been dried by the pumping, the diversions to the district in a year of average surface-water supply 

following a period of 5 years of pumping possibly would be reduced 

by the amount that the drains would normally flow, or 42 percent 

of the diversions. The actual diversion would then be 6.5- 

(0. 42 x 6. 5) = 3. 77 feet. This amount would make 2. 64 feet available for delivery to the farms, thus requiring additional pumping 

of ground water to make up the difference to the 3. 3 feet believed 

necessary for delivery to the farms. The amount of ground water 

that would have to be pumped would be

3. 30 = 3. 77 x 0. 7 + pumped water x 0. 8; 

therefore,

pumped water - 0. 83 acre-feet per acre.

The amount of water that would seep to the water table in this 

year would equal the seepage losses of pumped, and surface water 

from the canals plus the seepage return of excess water above the 

consumptive use delivered to the farms, and would be

(0. 83x0. 17)+ (3. 77x0. 25) + (3. 30-2. 50)= 1. 88 acre-feet per acre.

The payment or reduction of the ground-water debt would be the 

returnseepage in excess of thepumpage, or 1. 05 feet. The number 

of years required, while pumping 0. 83 acre-foot per acre, to pay 

off the debt would be 5 x 0. 72/1. 05 = 3. 4 years.

The available surface-water diversions without pumping in the 

fourth year of average surface supply, following the assumed 5 

years of pumping, would be less than the average by the amount of 

water that would have to be bypassed to the lower district to make 

up for the reduction in average drain flow resulting from the remaining effects of the pumping. The amount of bypassed water, x, 

plus the actual drain flow, .7, must be equal to the average drain 

return flow of 2.73 feet (0.42 x 6. 5) in a year of average diversions. 

The actual drain return flow would be equal to 42 percent of the 

actual diversions reduced by the remaining ground-water debt. The 

remaining debt would be (5 x 0. 72) -(3x1. 05) = 0. 45 foot. 

Therefore:

x + 7 - 2.73

and y - (6. 50 -x ) 0. 42 - 0. 45; 

therefore: x . 0. 78 

and the actual diversion would be:

6. 50-0.78 = 5.72 feet.

The water schedule for the 5 ye'ars of about 50-percent average 

surface supply followed by 5 years of average surface-water supply 

is given in the following table:
126 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Comparison of irrigation water available as diversions to the canals of the Elephant 

Butte Irrigation District, for 5 years of 50-percent average surface supply followed 

by a period of average surface supply

[Acre-feet per acre]

Year of irrigation

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

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

3........................................

4........................................

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

6........................................

7........................................

8........................................

9........................................

10................... .....................

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

With supplemental 

pumping

Pumped 

water

2.42 

2.42 

2.42 

2.42 

2.42 

.83 

.83 

.83 

.00 

.00

14.59

Surface 

water

1.95 

1.95 

1.95 

1.95 

1.95 

3.77 

3.77 

3.77 

5.72 

6.50

33.28

Without supplemental 

pumping

Surface 

water

3.25 

3.25 

3.25 

3.25 

3.25 

6.50 

6.50 

6.50 

6.50 

6.50

48.75

Little net water can be gained to the Rio Grande project as a 

whole by pumping ground water in the Elephant Butte district, and 

the total amount of water received by the Elephant Butte district 

under a pumping system is practically no more than would be 

obtained from surface supplies, if the customary interest of the 

El Paso district is preserved. The reason for this is, of course, 

that the drain water is used again in the project and the district 

has been assumed to be responsible for any decrease of the flow 

of the drains resulting from pumping.

The ground-water debt could be repaid by efficient use of water 

in 4 years of average water supply. If water were wasted^it would 

not be possible to repay the ground-water debt and pumping probably would have to be continued for years.

As indicated previously (p. 44), Rincon and Mesilla Valleys 

customarily use about 46 percent of the total reservoir releases 

in a year of average surface supply. In the assumed drought period 

of 5 years the surface water available for diversions was considered 

as 50 percent of the average. The average diversion to the El Paso 

division has been 395,400 acre-feet, and therefore in such adry 

year presumably 197, 700 acre-feet should be available for diversion to the El Paso Valley. The reservoir releases in a year 

should be equal to the sum of all diversions minus the return drain 

flow, disregarding any nonbeneficial evaporation and transpiration 

losses and any undiverted water that might bypass the El Paso 

Valley. As the return drain flow from the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys 

would be zero if extensive pumping were done, the reservoir releases 

would be 88, 000 x 1. 95 + 197, 700 - 369, 000 acre-feet. The depletion of reservoir releases by the Elephant Butte Irrigation District
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 127

for any of the first 5 years of pumping is then 46 percent, which, 

disregarding canal wastes, is the same reservoir depletion as in 

an average year. In the sixth, seventh, and eighth years, the 

drains still being dry, the depletion of reservoir releases would 

be about 45 percent. This shows that the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys 

would be getting their usual share of the reservoir releases.

In the analysis it was assumed that the drains would be dry during all the first year, whereas actually they would not be dry until 

near the end of the first pumping season and a small amount of water might flow during the first winter. Therefore, during the first 

summer it is probable that a smaller amount of water would need to 

be pumped. Also, it has been assumed that all the ground water taken from storage would be derived from the lowering of the water 

table under only the irrigated area of the valley. Actually, the effects of pumping would be somewhat smaller in the valley area, as 

the cone of depression would extend away from the valley, under 

the mesas. As the irrigation water is applied to lands near the 

drains, it is possible that water in the drains would begin to flow 

in the eighth year, or earlier, even though all the ground-water 

debt had not been repaid. The district would benefit by this lag, 

which would spread the repayment of the ground-water debt over 

a longer period of time than was assumed. A small amount of the 

pumped water probably would not be taken from storage but would 

be salvaged from areas of transpiration by the lowering of the 

water level. This salvaged water would be a net gain of usable 

water and would reduce the calculated pumpage from storage.

Pumping of ground water in the valley by individual farmers 

would, of course, have the same effect upon the flow of the drains 

as would pumping by the Elephant Butte Irrigation District. And 

water pumped onto the land from ground-water storage that does 

not return to the ground-water body would be water lost to the 

project, even though a gain of water might accrue to an individual 

farm. It is probable that in a dry year enough farmers would install wells and pumps so that the flow of the drains would be reduced markedly or, in some sections, even be stopped entirely. 

If in a dry year such a reduction of normal drain flow occurred 

through installation of individual pumps, and if the El Paso division 

received its accustomed share of the reservoir water, diversions 

to the Elephant Butte Irrigation District would have to be reduced 

by a like amount. Any such reduction in diversions would work a 

hardship on the farmers who had not installed pumps, provided 

that the available surface water was distributed equally. If it were 

desired to maintain the delivery of the same amount of water to the 

farms not having pumps as they would have received had there been 

no pumping, then it would be necessary to reduce the delivery of 

water to the farms having pumps. This would be the condition 

during years of a shortage of surface water. Pumping by individuals 

during years of a normal supply is discussed in the following pages.
128 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS 

PUMPING OF GROUND WATER WITH A NORMAL SUPPLY OF SURFACE WATER

Pumping of ground water in a year of normal supply of surface 

water might be practiced by individuals upon project lands for 

various reasons. A farmer who has a pump would have water 

available at times convenient to himself. And, in years when 

water was rationed, even though an adequate amount would be 

available, he would be able to pump additional water to satisfy his 

requirements. However, as pumped water would be an additional 

cost for water, it is not expected that pumping would be prevalent 

on project lands in years of normal supply of gravity water.

As the production of crops requires a certain amount of water 

and as there would be adequate surface water available for all 

crops in a normal year, the use of ground water for supplemental 

purposes on project lands in such a year would not deplete the 

project water supply any more than the use of gravity water, unless 

excessive irrigation by ground water caused an excessive consumptive use by the crops and excessive transpiration and evaporation losses.

Pumping of ground water in a year of normal surface supply 

could result in some saving of water to the project if pumps were 

located in areas of native vegetation where a lowering of water 

level would reduce nonbeneficial transpiration losses.

Also, use of ground water instead of surface water for winter 

irrigation would result in some water savings to the project, especially if drain water were pumped. Approximately 50, 000 acrefeet of water is released from storage annually from October 

through February for winter irrigation of a widely distributed 

acreage planted principally to truck crops. This acreage constitutes 

a small percentage of the total irrigated acreage. An unusually 

large part of this winter release is lost through waste, seepage, 

and unnecessary evaporation and transpiration, the losses per acre 

served being proportionately much higher than those involved in 

irrigation in the summer.

The pumping of drain water during the winter would utilize some 

water that is now allowed to bypass the project. W. F. Resch, 

project manager of the Bureau of Reclamation, El Paso, Tex., 

estimates roughly that, of the drain flow passing the end of Mesilla 

Valley, 40 percent of that in October, 50 percent of that in November 

and December, 100 percent of that in January, and 40 percent of 

that in February is not used in the lower El Paso Valley. These 

percentage estimates, combined with the drain flow given in table 

5, pages I4i > 142, show that possibly 34, 000 acre-feet of the winter 

drain flow is allowed to bypass the project. However, as part of 

the winter drain flow is a result of the large losses from the winter 

releases, it is not expected that this quantity would be available
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 129

for pumping from the drains. Some pumping from ground-water 

storage would be necessary. The quantity of water saved in winter 

irrigation by substituting pumping, especially from drains, for 

reservoir releases therefore presumably would be about 34, 000 

acre-feet anually, if all water bypassing the project in the winter 

could be stopped, plus some small saving in losses from evaporation 

and transpiration. As drain flow removes undesirable salts from 

the lands and is as necessary as removal of sewage from a city, it 

is presumed that not all drain flow bypassing the project throughout the year should be stopped in order to save water, but that the 

drain flow seemingly could be profitably stopped in the winter.

COST OF PUMPING SUPPLEMENTAL GROUND WATER

The minimum number of pumps required to deliver the 213, 000 

acre-feet of pumped water believed necessary for the Elephant 

Butte Irrigation District in a dry year is estimated to be about 148, 

on the assumption that each pump would discharge 1, 800 gpm continuously for 6 months. Allowance should be made for periods of 

high demand; otherwise, with the pumps running continuously at 

full capacity, the farmers would have to take water on a strict 

rotating schedule and any breakdown in pumping equipment would 

result in a shortage of water. Also, it is unlikely that every well 

drilled would be capable of discharging 1, 800 gpm. Therefore, 

allowing a 15-percent operational variance and 10 percent for 

breakdowns, and assuming a lower average discharge per well of 

perhaps 1, 500 gpm, the number of pumps necessary is estimated 

to be about 220.

Rough estimates made in 1948 of the costs of installation of a 

well, pump, and motor; fuel and lubrication; labor and transportation; total depreciation in 5 years; interest on investment; and 

taxes indicate a total charge of $2, 900 per pump per year during 

the first 5 years of operation. The charge for 220 pumps would be 

$638,000 a year, or $3, 190, 000 for the 5-year period. This is 

equivalent to $7.25 per acre per year for 88,000 acres or $3. 00 

per acre-foot of water on the basis of 2. 42 acre-feet per acre per 

year.

Under the assumptions given previously, only 73, 000 acre-feet 

of water per year would need to be pumped in the sixth, seventh, 

and eighth years. This would require 75 pumps, on the basis that 

220 pumps would be needed for pumping 213,000 acre-feet per 

year. Assuming the pumps to be fully depreciated at the end of the 

first 5 years, the unit cost per pump in the sixth, seventh, and 

eighth years is estimated at about $1, 540 per year or $346, 860 for 

75 pumps for 3 years. The total cost for 8 years thus would be 

$3,536,900.
130 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

As stated previously, a 50-percent gravity supply would suffice, 

with extremely careful use, to irrigate about 70 percent of the 

acreage. The pumping of irrigation water would result in saving 

all the crops on the remaining 30 percent; thus the pumping costs 

should be justified by that acreage. The average gross return per 

acre for the Rio Grande project was about $140 in 1945 and about 

$252 in 1946, the record year up to that time. However, the 

average crop return on the project from 1914 to 1946 was about $84 

per acre and from 1937 to 1946 was about $120 per acre 12. The 

additional gross return through ground-water irrigation in 5 dry 

years, on the basis of 1937-46 average crop returns, would be 

$15, 800, 000. The total cost of pumping and pumping equipment is 

thus approximately one-fifth of the increase in average gross crop 

returns and probably less than the normal net profit. The average 

cost per acre for 88, 000 acres during the initial 5 years would be 

about $7. 25 a year.

Intermittent operation and the probable smaller capacity of a 

pump on an individual farm would result in a somewhat higher unit 

cost of pumping than would continuous operation of large-capacity 

pumps by a district pumping system.

The favorable factor of cost of pumping is offset somewhat by the 

unfavorable factor of little net gain of water and the problem of installation and operation. Installation of 220 wells, pumps, and 

motors would consume sometime, but possibly less than the period 

of shortage of surface water supply. Among the operational problems would be the distribution of the pumped water to the New 

Mexico lands only. About 11,000 acres of irrigated land in the 

Mesilla Valley is in Texas and is served by the same canal system. 

Also, very strict operating and irrigating schedules would have to 

be maintained, as only a 3-percent wastage was assumed in the 

estimates.

RECOMMENDED LOCATION OF WELLS

Wells producing sufficient water for irrigation can be located 

nearly everywhere on the floor of the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys. 

As a result of the variable nature of the alluvial sediments that 

have been deposited by the meandering Rio Grande, there will be 

a variation in the performance of the wells. Many wells will be 

filled with running sand and the perforations of some well casings 

will be clogged by gravel and sand. It does not appear possible to 

predict the location of gravel stringers in which presumably better 

wells would be obtained than in sand alone. The meager information 

available indicates that sand predominates in the lower end of the 

Mesilla Valley.

12 U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1946, Project history: unpublished report, El Paso, Tex.
GROUND-WATER DEVELOPMENT 131

With respect to the chemical quality of the water, generally 

better water is obtained with depth; an exception is the lower end 

of the Mesilla Valley, where apparently very poor water is obtained 

at depth. Some shallow wells in the Selden Canyon area obtain socalled salt water, which may occur also at greater depths. As the 

shallow water is generally satisfactory for irrigation, however, 

the drilling of irrigation wells deeper than 100 feet for the better 

water is not justified. Many domestic wells in the Mesilla Valley 

obtain their comparatively good water from depths in excess of 

100 feet. Deep irrigation wells would possibly disturb this availability of better water with depth by drawing in poorer water from 

the upper strata to the lower.

As water of comparatively good chemical quality enters the 

valleys as underflow from adjacent arroyos, wells located on the 

valley floor in line with or a short distance downstream from these 

arroyos may obtain better-than-average water from the valley 

fill.

The alluvial fill in the Selden Canyon area and in the northern 

end of the Mesilla Valley, near Leasburg Dam, is thin and narrow. 

If a large number of irrigation wells were drilled in these areas 

and used continuously, comparatively large drawdowns of water 

level would result and wells drilled near the impermeable rocks 

at the edges of the valleys would be relatively unproductive.

In order to draw a greater percentage of the pumped water from 

storage, the wells should be located as far as possible from the 

drains and the river. Canals that leak excessively are paralleled 

with drains, and the water level in the canals is without doubt above 

the water table. The water level in sections of canals that have 

only a small leakage is also above the water table. Wells drilled 

near canals whose water is not in direct contact with the ground 

water will not appreciably increase the leakage from the canals, 

but will divert to the pumps water that would normally be picked 

up by drains.

Locating irrigation wells in areas of native vegetation will lower 

the water table in these areas and will reduce transpiration losses 

and save some water for the project.

Thereforei for least effect upon the project supply and for maximum well production, it is recommended that irrigation wells on 

the valley floors should be located as far as possible from the 

drains and the river; be drilled as far as practicable from the 

mountain masses in Selden Canyon and the northern end of Mesilla 

Valley; be drilled near arroyo mouths where possible; be drilled no 

deeper than necessary to secure an adequate supply of water; and 

not be drilled in the lower end of Mesilla Valley.
132 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

As brought out previously, water pumped by wells in the Rincan 

and Mesilla Valleys is not an additional or new supply but, instead, 

is water that would normally flow to the drains and be diverted for 

use in a lower part of the project. Pumping of ground water, therefore, is essentially a change in point of diversion of an existing 

supply. In times of normal or adequate supply of surface water to 

the project, pumping obtains water that would otherwise be available by gravity. In a year of surface-water shortage, pumping re - 

suits in an adequate supply of water to those farmers having pumps 

but may reduce the amount of surface water availabl'e for diversion 

in the lower part of the district or project. Pumping water from 

wells upon new lands, either in or bordering the valleys, will result in reducing to some extent the supply of water to the project.

Because of these effects of pumping upon the water supply of the 

project, continuing records should be kept of the amount pumped 

and the location of the irrigation wells.

The initial effect of the pumping, especially in a year of inadequate 

surface supply, will be a decrease in the drain flow. This decrease 

may not be readily apparent for a small number of pumps unless 

accurate and frequent measurements of the drain flow are made. 

If 75 pumps are in operation, the decrease in drainflowmay amount 

to approximately 10,000 acre-feet a year. If measurements of the 

drain flow approach an accuracy of 5 percent, the error in measurements in a year of average drain flow may amount to about 

12, 500 acre-feet. Thus, unless accurate and frequent measurements of drain flow are made, any decreases noted could not be 

definitely attributed to the effects of pumping. At present, the 

drainage return flow is measured only at the outlets to the river. 

Measurements should be made at additional points along the drains 

in order that any decrease in flow caused by pumping can be localized within sections of the drains.

The ground-water levels will decline as a result of pumping. 

However, the decline will be small so long as water continues to 

flow in the drains, the drains acting as sources of recharge to the 

cones of depression caused by the pumps. An effort should be 

made to continue measurements in the fifty-odd auger holes in the 

Mesilla Valley that have been measured for a number of years by 

the Bureau of Reclamation. Auger holes should be installed in the 

Rincon Valley at pertinent locations in order to permit observation 

of any effects of pumping upon the water level there. Also, measurements of water level should be made in the irrigation wells at 

least once a year, preferably in January or early February when 

the effects from the previous irrigation season are at a minimum.
SUMMARY 133

Records as to the performance of each well and logs of formations 

penetrated would aid in interpretation of the effects of pumping.

In summary, in order to have reliable data for a future reevaluation of the effects of pumping, if such becomes desirable, the 

following records should be kept: information on the irrigation wells 

such as, location, performance, and pumpage; measurements of 

water level in the irrigation wells annually and in the auger wells 

seasonally; and additional measurements of drain flow.

SUMMARY

1. The ground water in the valley fill originates mainly from 

surface water, that is, from seepage of the canals and the river, 

and from excess water applied to irrigated lands, but partly from 

ground water from the adjoining high lands, and, occasionally, 

from precipitation upon the valley floor.

2. The quality of the shallow ground water in the alluvium of 

the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys is slightly poorer than drain water 

but satisfactory for most irrigation requirements. The Dissolved 

solids generally decrease with increased depth of wells except in 

a few areas, especially in the lower end of the Mesilla Valley and 

in the Selden Canyon. Comparatively good water is obtained in 

surrounding high lands and in arroyo beds.

3. Wells yielding sufficient water for irrigation can be developed 

over the major part of the valley floors of the Rincon and Mesilla 

Valleys, with the probable exceptions of the Selden Canyon area 

and the southern end of the Mesilla Valley. Sanding of wells has 

occurred and may occur in wells that may be drilled, and special 

well construction may be necessary to prevent it.

4. Irrigation wells, generally of small capacity, can be developed 

on the arroyos and on the low benchlands. However, many wells 

in these areas may not obtain sufficient quantities for irrigation.

5. Pumping of ground water will divert water from the drains 

and the river. The drains may practically stop flowing by the end 

of the first summer in a dry year if enough pumps are installed to 

furnish an adequate water supply for all lands.

6. If an increased portion of releases from the reservoir were 

made up to the lower district as compensation for the reduction in 

flow of the drains, caused by pumping in the Rincon and Mesilla 

Valleys, a corresponding reduction in the diversions to the Elephant 

Butte Irrigation District would be necessary.
134 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

7. As no unused ground-water recharge escapes from the project, and there is very little unused ground-water discharge, only 

a small amount of water can be salvaged to the Rio Grande project 

as a whole over a period of years by pumping in the Elephant Butte 

district.

8. Assuming that the El Paso division continues to get diversions 

in the same proportion of reservoir releases as in the past, pumping 

of ground water will not result in any additional water for the Elephant Butte Irrigation District on a year-to-year basis unless the 

amount of pumping exceeds the amount of the diverted drain flow, 

when this excess will come from storage.

9. On a long-term basis nearly all water removed from storage 

must be replaced before the flow of the drains returns to normal.

10. With a gravity water supply available for diversions of 50 

percent of average, about 70 percent of the land in the Elephant 

Butte Irrigation District probably could be irrigated by careful use 

and control of gravity water alone.

11. During a year in which the normal supply of surface water 

is deficient by 50 percent, an additional acre-foot per acre would 

be needed to successfully irrigate the water-right land in New 

Mexico. To supply this deficit for 88, 000 acres by pumping from 

wells would, because of distribution losses and reduction in flow 

of the drains caused by pumping, require pumping 213, 000 acrefeet per year, assuming that the El Paso division receives its accustomed share of the reservoir water.

12. As supplemental pumpage would in effect save the crops on 

30 percent of the land that could not be irrigated by surface water 

in a year of 50-percent gravity supply, the additional gross crop 

return resulting from pumping would be $15, 800,000 for a 5-year 

period on the basis of the average annual gross crop return from 

1937-46 of $120 an acre.

13. The total number of wells and pumps required in a year of 

50-percent gravity supply is estimated to be about 220 and the 

total cost about $3, 190, 000 on the basis of a 5-year period and 

$3, 536, 900 for 8 years, including all charges, or approximately 

one-fifth of the average gross dollar benefits from crops grown.

14. Total cost per acre-foot of water pumped would be about 

$3. 00, equal to about $7. 25 per irrigated acre per year for the 

district.

15. Pumping of ground water on individual farms in years of 

deficient gravity water supply would ultimately reduce the water
LITERATURE CITED 135

supply of the Rio .Grande project. If such a reduction were borne 

by the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, it would be necessary to 

reduce deliveries of surface water to farms with pumps in order to 

maintain the expected deliveries to farms without pumps.

16. Pumping of ground water for winter irrigation in the project 

could effect savings in water, as los'ses of winter releases are 

disproportionately large for the acreage irrigated.

17. About 15, 000 acres of now undeveloped land and suspended 

land could be irrigated by ground water. Water pumped on these 

lands will, in afew years, reduce the water available to the existing 

irrigated lands by an amount equal to the consumptive use by the 

lands and crops irrigated.

18. As the water pumped will affect the water supply of the project, especially in years of deficient surface supply, continuing records should be kept of the amount of water pumped, of water-level 

measurements, and of the location and performance of irrigation 

wells.

LITERATURE CITED

Bryan, Kirk, 1938, Geology and ground-water conditions of the Rio Grande depression in 

Colorado and New Mexico la National Resources Committee, Regional Planning, Part 

6, The Rio Grande joint investigation in the upper Rio Grande basin in Colorado, New 

Mexico, and Texas, 1936-37, v. 1, p. 197-225.

Dunham, K. C., 1935, The geology of the Organ Mountains, N. Mex.: New Mexico School 

of Mines Bull. 11, 272 p.

Follansbee, Robert, Dean, H. J., Follett, W. W., and Gray, G. A., 1915, Water resources 

of the Rio Grande basin, 1888-1913: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 358.

Fleming, B. P., and Stoneking, J. B., 1909, Tests of pumping plants in New Mexico: 

New Mexico College of Agr. and Mech. Arts, Bull. 73.

International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, 1946, Flow of 

the Rio Grande and tributary contributions, 1946: Water Bull. 16.

Lee, W. T., 1907, Water resources of the Rio Grande valley in New Mexico and their development: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 188.

Meinzer, O. E., 1923, The occurrence of ground water in the United States, with a discussion of principles: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 489.

National Resources Committee, 1938, Regional Planning, Part 6, The Rio Grande joint 

investigation in the upper Rio Grande basin in Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, 

1936-37, v. 1.

New Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station, 46th Ann. Rept., 1934-35.

New Mexico State Engineer, Seepage study on Rio Grande between Elephant Butte Dam 

and Leasburg Dam, November 1928: 9th Bienn. Rept., 1928-30.

Public Health Service, 1946, Drinking water standards, 1946: Public Health Repts., 

Repr. 2697, v. 61, no. 11.

Sayre, A. N., and Livingston, Penn, 1945, Ground-water resources of the El Paso area, 

Texas: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 919.

Scofield, C. S., 1938, Quality of water of the Rio Grande basin above Fort Quitman, 

Tex.: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 839.

SHchter, C. S., 1905, Observations on the ground waters of the Rio Grande valley: U. S. 

Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 141.
136 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Theis, C. V., 1935, The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the 

rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground-water storage: Am. Geophys. 

Union Trans., v. 16, pt. 2, p. 519-524.

 1938, Ground water in the middle Rio Grande valley, in New Mexico, in National Resources Committee, Regional Planning, Part 6, The Rio Grande joint investigation in the upper Rio Grande basin in Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, 1936 37, 

v. 1, p. 268-291.

-1941, The effect of a well on the flow of a nearby stream: Am. Geophys.

Union Trans., v. 22, pt. 3, p. 734-738. 

White, W. N., Broadhurst, W. L., and Lang, J. W., 1946, Ground water in the High Plains

of Texas: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 889-F. 

Wilcox, L. V., 1948, Explanation and interpretation of analysis of irrigation waters: U. S.

Dept. Agr. Circ. 784.

RECORDS

Table 1. Annual flow and depletion of the Rio Grande, 1930-46, in thousands of

acre-feet

[Water Bulletins 13-16, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and 

Mexico and U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, El Paso, Tex. ]

Year

1930...................

1931...................

1932...................

1933...................

1934...................

1935...................

1936...................

1937...................

1938...................

1939...................

1940...................

1941...................

1942...................

1943...................

1944....................

1945....................

1946...................

Average

Average 

(except 1942)

Flow passing

Caballo 

Dam

1799.9 

1776. 0 

1854. 0 

1 829.0 

1813.9 

1 649. 1 

1757.9 

1798.3 

780.4 

789.1 

731.9 

703.5 

1,795.6 

911.8 

866.5 

882.8 

763.9

853.1 

794.2

Leasburg 

Dam

790.5 

740.7 

816.0 

824.0 

768.2 

633.0 

693.3 

740.8 

746.8 

737.5 

689.8 

685.9 

1,764.1 

861.0 

801.0 

814.2 

734.8

814.2 

754.8

El Paso 

station

532.7 

517.8 

567.2 

609.2 

508.5 

459.9 

473.8 

536.2 

554.9 

511.6 

435.9 

511.4 

1,559.2 

631.8 

611.9 

568.9 

497.9

594.5 

534.2

Depletion

Rincon 

Valley

9.4 

35.3 

38.0 

5.0 

45.7 

16.1 

64.6 

57.5 

33.6 

51.6 

42.1 

17.6 

31.5 

50.8 

65.5 

68.6 

29.1

38.9 

39.4

Mesilla 

Valley

257.8 

222.9 

248.8 

214.8 

259.7 

173.1 

219.5 

204.6 

191.9 

225.9 

235.9 

174.5 

204.9 

229.2 

189.1 

245.3 

236.9

219.7 

220.6

Rincon 

and 

Mesilla 

Valleys

267.2 

258.2 

286.8 

219.8 

305.4 

189.2 

284.1 

262.1 

225.5 

277.5 

278.0 

192.1 

236.4 

280.0 

254.6 

313.9 

266.0

258.6 

260.0

Ipercha Dam.
Table 2. Releases from Caballo Reservoir as represented by monthly flow of the Rio Grande 

acre-feet

[Water Bulletins 13 to 16, International Boundary and Water Commissio

Year

1938..........

1939..........

1940..........

1941..........

1942..........

1943..........

1944..........

1945..........

1946..........

Average...... 

Average minus 1942..

Percent.......

Jan.

3.1

.2

.1

.1

4.8

4.9

.3

.7

.3

1.6 

1.2 

.1

Feb.

22.2

20.0

12.7

7.3

64.3

32.2

20.4

22.9

18.2

24.5 

19.5 

2.4

Mar.

73.8

76.0

84.3

49.3

88.7

95.1

89.2

85.2

82.3

80.4 

78.2 

10.1

Apr.

116.0

106.0

110.4

115.0

212.0

138.7

136.0

129.0

119.0

131.3 

121.2 

15.1

May

113.0

105.0

91.5

93.0

412.0

123.5

115.0

112.0

97.2

140.2 

106.3 

13.2

June

121.0

121.0

114.3

117.0

354.0

131.3

124.0

122.0

120.0

147.2 

121.3 

15.1

July

109.0

128.0

129.1

129.0

234.0

125.3

134.0

141.0

138.0

140.8 

129.2 

16.0

Aug.

131.0

118.0

114.3

110.0

179.0

153.5

137.0

132.0

130.0

133.9 

128.2 

15.9
138 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 3. Gross diversions from the Rio Grande to the divisions of the Rio Grande 

project and to Mexico, 1930-46, in thousands of acre-feet

[From U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, El Paso, Tex. , except Acequia Madre from Water Bulletins 13 to 16, International Boundary and Water Commission, United -States and Mexico]

Year

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938 

1939 

1940 

1941 

1942 

1943 

1944 

1945 

1946

Average

Percha Dam 

(Rincon Valley)

100.0

98.6

98.0

97.3

108.9

66.7

78.4

77.9

79.2 

84.2 

80.9 

72.8 

101. 0 

105.2 

108.2 

103.8 

99.6

91.8

Leasburg 

Dam

231.1

211.0

220.0

224.0

210.5

123.1

155.2

151.9

151.0 

164.8 

154.8 

139.1 

192.4 

219.9 

204.4 

218.1 

205.7

186.9

Mesilla 

Dam

351.2

353.8

353.5

336.7

315.4

222.8

269.0

277.0

289.8 

321.8 

292.4 

270.5 

349.6 

330.6 

314.9 

328.2 

303.3

310.6

Mesilla 

Valley

582.3

564.8

573.5

560.7

525.9

345.9

424.2

.428.9

440.8 

486.6 

447.2 

409.6 

542.0 

550.5 

519.3 

546.3 

509.0

497.5

El Paso 

Valley*

385.7

353.2

347.6

349.0

372.1

308.6

393.6

423.5

427.4 

387.0 

386.3 

418.9 

435.4 

500.8 

448.9 

408.7 

375.1

392.5

Acequia 

Madre 

(Valle de Juarez)

60.4 

60.6 

58.2 

55.3 

83.9 

61.3 

61.8 

60.7 

60.5

62.5

Computed from reported acreages and headgate diversions in acre-feet per acre.

Table 4. Acreage irrigated and distribution of diversions for Rio Grande project, 

New Mexico and Texas, as reported, 1930 46

Year

Acres 

irrigated

Headgate 

diversion 

(acre -feet 

per acre)

Canal waste 

or return 

(percent)

Canal and 

unaccounted-for 

losses 

(percent)

Delivered to farms

percent acre -feet per acre

Rincon division

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

Average

12,702

13,069

12,463

12,283

12,776

11,834

13,528

14,462

14, 152

14,336

14,813

15,280

15,916

16,265

16,049

16,272

17,000

14,306

7.9

7.5

7.9

7.9

8.5

5.6

5.8

5.4

5.6

5.9

5.5

4.7

6.4

6.4

6.7

6.4

5.9

6.47

35

35

24

29

25

23

20

22

21

24

20

21

25

19

22

15

14

23.2

37

42

49

47

46

42

34

33

36

29

29

30

34

34

34

36

38

37.0

28

23

27

24

29

35

46

45

43

47

51

49

41

47

44

49

48

39.8

2.22

1.74

2.07

1.89

2.51

1.98

2.64

2.45

2.38

2.78

2.78

2.30

2.61

3.03

2.98

3.12

2.79

2.49
RECORDS 139

Table 4. .Acreage irrigated and distribution of diversions for Rio Grande project, 

New Mexico and Texas, as reported, 1930 46 Continued

Year Acres 

irrigated

Headgate 

diversion 

(acre -feet 

per acre)

Canal waste 

or return 

(percent)

Canal and 

unaccounted-for 

losses 

(percent)

Delivered to farms

percent acre -feet per acre

Leasfaurg division

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

28,061

28,289

28,569

29,713

25,531

22,706

27,670

28.387

25,907

27,075

28,811

28,811

28,942

30,060

32.081

31,734

31,765

Average 28.4T7

8.2

7.5

7.7

7.5

8.2

5.4

5.6

5.4

5.8

6.1

5.4

4.8

6.6

7.3

6.4

6.9

6.5

6.55

35

35

30

32

23

19

14

16

16

15

16

14

24

19

17

12

8

20.3

33

32

36

37

37

33

32

26

31

28

26

33

34

34

35

36

44

33.4

32

33

34

31

40

48

54

58

53

57

58

53

42

47

48

52

48

46.4

2.62

2.51

2.63

2.30

3.28

2.59

3.00

3.09

3.08

3.48

3.12

2.58

2.74

3.36

3.06

3.57

3.14

2.95

Mesilla division

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

48,312

48,433

48,140

47,348

43,074

39,469

47,143

49,223

47,592

46,959

46,566

50,050

52,275

52,585

50,768

51,537

52,146

Average 48,331

7.3

7.3

7.3

7.1

7.3

5.6

5.7

5.6

6.1

6.7

6.0

5.4

6.4

6.3

6.2

6.4

5.7

6.38

23

25

19

21

16

11

12

12

16

12

12

15

24

21

14

13

10

16.2

44

46

49

45

44

44

40

34

38

40

36

37

37

30

34

31

34

39.0

33

29

32

34

40

45

48

54

46

48

52

48

39

49

52

56

56

44.8

2.37

2.12

2.35

2.37

2.90

2.52

2.73

3.01

2.80

3.28

3.24

2.58

2.61

3.10

3.21

3.57

3.28

2.83

317267 O - 55 - 10
140 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 4. Acreage irrigated and distribution of diversions for Rio Grande project, 

New Mexico and Texas, as reported, 1930 46 Continued

Year Acres 

irrigated

Headgate 

diversion 

(acre -feet 

per acre)

Canal waste 

or return 

(percent)

Canal and 

unaccounted-for 

losses 

(percent)

Delivered to farms

percent acre -feet per acre

El Paso Valley

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

Average

52.122

50,455

48.277

49,862

47,711

46,066

50,460

52,939

49,703

51,597

52.921

53,709

54,425

55,032

55,424

55,232

55,988

51,876

7.4

7.0

7.2

7.0

7.8

6.7

7.8

8.0

8.6

7.5

7.3

7.8

8.0

9.1

8.1

7.4

6.7

7.61

33

30

28

30

27

30

43

42

48

25

21

42

38

31

37

27

30

33.0

28

34

36

28

33

34

23

23

23

36

39

30

33

35

27

27

21

30.0

38

36

36

42

40

36

34

35

29

39

40

28

29

34

36

46

49

36.9

2.86

2.53

2.63

2.93

3.15

2.41

2.67

2.78

2.47

2.90

2.91

2.18

2.32

3.09

2.93

3.38

3.23

2.79

Rio Grande project

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

Average

141.197

140,246

137,449

139,206

129,092

120,075

138,801

145,011

137,354

139,967

143,111

147,860

151,558

153,942

154, 322

154.775

156,899

142,992

7.6

7.2

7.4

7.2

7.8

6.0

6.4

6.4

6.9

6.8

6.3

6.1

7.0

7.4

6.9

6.8

6.2

6.85

30

29

24

25

22

20

26

28

30

19

17

28

28

24

24

18

17

24.1

36

39

42

40

40

39

31

27

31

35

35

33

36

36

32

31

32

35.0

34

32

34

35

38

41

43

45

39

46

48

39

36

42

44

51

51

41.1

2.58

2.31

2.48

2.51

3.03

2.44

2.75

2.89

2.69

3.13

3.05

2.40

2.53

3.14

3.06

3.46

3.18

2.80
Table 5.~~Flow of drains to the Rio Grande in Rincon and Mesilla 

Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

Average

Percent

1,543

1,463

1.917

1,605

2,035

1,599

1,408

1,235

1,457

1,641

1,667

1,322

1,556

2,201

1.660

1.420

1.560

1,605

4.5

1,666

1,722-

2,014

1,692

2.421

1,428

1.387

1,289

1.422

1,643

1,426

1,188

1,727

2,150

1,466

1,370

1,310

1,607

4.5

2.601

2,540

2,835

2,638

3,419

1,820

1,919

1,882

2,188

2,564

2,527

1,630

2,700

3,308

2,490

2,080

2,130

2,428

6.9

i Rincon Valley

3,153

3,439

3,951

4,006

4,653

2,565

2.838

3.004

2,951

3,659

3,547

3,434

4,315

4,421

3,475

3,540

3,650

3,565

10.1

3,228

3,504

4,360

3,831

4,513

2,397

2,859

3,474

3,118

3,634

3.579

3.720

4,790

4,650

3,818

3,940

3.480

3.700

10.4

3,296

3,927

4,409

3,963

4,653

2,586

2,898

3,213

3,349

3,784

3,713

2,903

4,546

4,665

3.791

3.780

3.680

3,774

10.7

3.800

4,463

4,021

4.426

4,802

3,321

3,615

3,419

3,149

3,776

3,885

4,218

5,319

4,939

4,526

4,060

4,530

4,133

11.7

3,627

4,095

4,532

5,386

4,236

3,228

3,929

4,021

3,610

3,682

4,169

4.372

5,669

5,196

5,084

4,400

4,790

4,354

12.3

Mesilla Valley

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

8,602

9.230

9,254

9,807

9,880

9,709

9,623

9.512

10,378

10,422

10,858

10,169

10,840

8,624

8,664

9,066

8,826

9,670

8,181

8,727

8,375

9.141

9,374

9; 772

8,342

11,273

12.857

13,723

12,857

14,382

18,840

10,004

11.283

11,485

12.426

14,025

14,634

11,337

14,227

17,548

18,903

17,071

18,936

20,791

14, 174

15,524

16,019

15,155

19,441

19,797

18,387

20,917

18,483

19,824

18,606

19,990

23,101

15,556

18,088

18,033

17,623

20,972

22,443

21,060

24, 859

18,762

20,838

19,683

19,761

24,291

15,661

18,442

18,149

18,430

21,892

24,278

22,589

24, 534

21,416

22,910

21,104

22,128

25,378

18,446

21,797

19,880

19,911

25,345

27,257

26,298

26,913

20,020

22,363

23,210

23,888

25,857

19.978

23,027

22, 247

21,416

25,185

27,239

25,873

27,934
142 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

I

^i 00 O O 

rH C- OCO 

OS OS "3 00

Co"u3"os"-<*" 

U3 CO 1/5 q' 

<N <N (N <N

OS O O O 

^* rH CO O 

rH CO 00 00

rH rH rH rH

O (N O O 

OS CO U3 <N 

OS C- CO CD

U3 CO C-CO 

rH rH rH rH

U3 rH O O 

CO C- W <N 

C- CO 00 U3

OCO <N CTfi OS O O 

OS OS rH <N 

C- U3 CO U3

00 OS OS CD 

<N <N <N <N

OS O O O 

Tfi T}I O O

OS O Tf> Ci-H Tfi CO <N 

CO CO CO CO

CD Tf OO 

C- OS 3 OS

OS rH OO 

<N CO COCO

OS CD O O 

OS i-l CD OS 

CO C- U3 OS

CO CO CD CO 

<N (N (N (N

C- rH O O

 <* C- 00 C- 

 * C- OS O

CD U3 CO U3 

<N <N CM IN

O 00 O O 

IO CO O CO 

00 OS O O

<N CO <N <N 

CM C-l C-l C-l

IO<N O O

00 OS rH COrH rH CCO C- U3 CO 

rH rH rH rH

OS O O O 

rH C-COCO

<N rH <N CrH rH rH OS 

rH rH rH

rH 1C O O 

OS (N 00 O

i-l <N rH CO 

rH rH rH rH

m ^i US CO

OS OS OS OS 

rH rH rH rH

O

0

O

<N

CO C- 

<N

rH

3 Ccoi-H

CO 

rH 

O

00 

rH

1

CO 

<N

O

OS

U3 

(N

U3 

O 

003

CD 

rH 

O

§3

rHCrH

rH 

<N

<N

CO 

O

OS 

rH

00ec3

i

OS

OS

o

rH

0) 

60 

rt

<

OS

Os' 

OS

cU3

CD"

00

OS

o

rH 

<N

CD 

rH

COo"

OS 

Os'

OS 

00*

CO*

 *'

OS

I

0.
RECORDS 143

Table 6. Drillers togs of wells in parts of Sierra and Dona Ana Counties, //. Mex.

16.5.23.300. O. B. Dawson 

[Casing perforated from 105 ft to 215 ft]

Sand (water)..........................

Clay and sandstone (?) stringers..

Clay and sand........................

Thickness 

(feet)

37

2

33

1

42

2

23

1

11

8

Depth 

(feet)

37

39

72

73

115

117

140

141

152

160

Clay.................................

Clay.................................

Thickness 

(feet)

11

5

3

3

4

12

7

8

1

11

1

Depth 

(feet)

171

176

179

182

186

198

205

213

214

225

226

16. 5. 25.120. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Caballo Dam) 

[Casing perforated from 38 ft to 105 ft]

Topsoil, gravel, clay, and

35

30

7

35

65

72

Soft fine sand (water at 45 ft,

33

31

105

136

16.5.25.343. A. ]. Osborn

Hard dirt............................... 38

90

38|lsoft red rock........................

loan 128||

24 152

17.4.30.133a. W. B. Cantrell

Clay....................................

4

8

6

2

3

15

2

2

3

6

4

10

18

20

23

38

40

42

45

51

4

4

2

2

7

1

11

1

13

1

55

59

61

63

70

71

82

83

QfJ

Q7

17.4.31. 111. Ben Luchini

Sand and coarse gravel (water)...

10

10

15

18 

2

10

20

35

53 

55

JRed and white clay, gray sand.

5

3

3

5

60

63

66

71

17.5.24.333. E. W. Powers

Sand and boulders (arroyo

]

C13.y* * ** * * *** * 

35

10

L7.5.26

52

5

<5cd

45]

242.

52

57

Dirt...................................

Lloyd Welch

10

1 B

28

27

4

55

Ti

101

84

88

18.4.35221. Boggs

Sand and gravel with clay

Hard rock formation resembling

111

1

111

119

Water between hard formation.

D eiow,« 

10?

114
144 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 6. Drillers logs of wells in parts of Sierra and Dona Ana Counties, 

N. Mex. Continued

19.2E.33.140b. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 

(Jornada Experimental Range)

Thickness 

(feet)

7

13

10

30

30

Depth 

(feet)

7

20

30

60

90

Thickness 

(feet)

85

135

35

15

Depth 

(feet)

175

310

345

360

19. 2.3.122. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. 

[Casing perforated from 170 ft to 259 ft]

27

8

99

21

25

4

16

8

27

35

134

155

180

184

200

208

balls............................... 22

4

6

8

9

3

230

234

240

248

257

260

19.3.15.443. I. W. Smallwood

Soil......................................

10

12

18

19.4.11

16

39

10

22

40

.221.

16

55

Clyde Cowan

3

3

6

15

4

43

46

52

70

74

20. IE. 14.140. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 

(Jornada Experimental Range)

Conglomerate rock and sand......

5

40

70 

10

60

15

35

12

5

45

115 

125

185

200

235

247

Alternate layers of clay and

33

8

35

7

18

8

280

288

323

330

348

356

20.1.10. New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts

Caliche................................. 20

20

7

13

12

8

110

20

40

47

60

72

80

190

7

27

6

70

12

8

197

224

230

300

312

320

21.1.13.323. Isaac Rhodes

Clay.....................................

29

7

12

29

36

48 Rock..................................

10

35

122

58

93

215
RECORDS 145

Table 6. Drillers logs of wells in parts of Sierra and Dona Ana Counties,

' N. Mex. Continued

.22. IE. 10.413. E. A. Knight 

[Casing perforated from 50 ft to 60 ft]

Thickness 

(feet)

5

15

20

5

17

Depth 

(feet)

5

20

40

45

62

Thickness 

(feet)

17

43

3

5

Depth 

(feet)

79

122

125

130

22. IE. 26.214. 'j. K. Nakayama 

[Casing perforated from 30 ft to 52 ft]

6

24

15

5

14

6

30

45

50

64

Clay.................................. 3

25

5

3

67

92QT

100

21.2E. 12.222. Edwin Parker

Sandstone (?)..........................

Clay.....................................

Clay.....................................

Clay.....................................

Clay.....................................

Clay.....................................

Clay.....................................

Clay and sand (small amount

2

3

4£

I1/

9

23

6

27

4

3

2

25

11

26

2

28

2

19

10%

10%

68

2

2

37

4

3

35

2

5

&/'

11

20

43

49

76

80

83

85

110

121

147

149

177

179

198

2081/;

219

287

289

291

328

332

335

370

Clay

Clay..................................

Shale.................................

Shale.................................

11

5

9

4

4

1

9.

17 Vi

2%;

12

3

26

4

3

4

1

1

4

10

3

38

4

3

2

80

QQ1

386

395

399

403

404

413

430%

433

445

448

474

478

4.81

485

486

487

491

501

504

542

546

549

551

631

23.1.15.211. Picacho Oil and Gas Syndicate 

[Old oil test, abbreviated log]

Very sticky, light -blue, gummy

30

130

15

5

5

20

345

14

34

92

25

5

4

186

30

160

175

180

185

205

550

564

598

620

646

650

654

840

Blue and gray lime and shale...

25

13

7

5

10

45

30

10

50

10

69

84

32

5

865

878

885

890

900

945

975

985

1,035

1,045

1,114

1,198

1,230

1,235
146 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 6.- -Drillers logs of wells in parts of Sierra and Dona Ana Counties, 

N. Mex. Continued

23.1.15. 211. Picacho Oil and Gas Syndicate Continued

(salt water at 1,335 tt).. ........

Blue and red lime and shale......

Black slatey crystallized

Thickness 

(feet)

280

95 

205

805

20

70

90

40

Depth 

(feet)

1,515

1,610

1

Q1 C

2,620

2,640

2 T\f\

2 Of\C\

2.840

Sandy lime streaks of shale....,

Thickness 

(feet)

12

10

22 

6

53

3

124

3

123

Depth 

(feet)

2,852

2,862

2,884 

2,890

2,943

2,946

3,070

3,073

3,196

23.1.32.330. H. S. Bissell

165 

155

165 

320

23.3.4.140. H.

Hard rock and gray and blue

200 

295

200 

495

S. Bissell

Hard blue rock (malpais) 

(water 600 to 900 ft)..........

110

71

510

430 

501

1,005

23. IE. 13.144. City of Las Cruces (Hadley Street well)

Soil...................................... 10

15

65

10

25

qrv

20

55

10

110

165

175

23. IE. 13. 244. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. 

[Backfilled to 82 ft]

Fine sand and boulders (water)....

Fine sand and boulders (water)....

Fine sand and boulders (water)....

62

0

58

0

45

4

31

2

62 

co

120

120

165

169

200

909

Sand and boulders (water).....,. 18

3

8

7

o

8

220

991

226

234

241

243

251

23.2E. 6.332. Fay Sperry

101

2

101

103

23

7

126

133

23.2E. 6.332a. Fay Sperry

Sand..................................... 3

52

23

17

5

3

55

78

95

100

31ay..................................

10

15

5

110

125

1Qft

23.2E. 8.434. City of Las Cruces (well 5) 

[Casing perforated from 210 ft to 250 ft; screen 26J ft to 285 ft]

Packed sand with thin strips of

Sand, gravel, and clay mixture

60

35

105

55

60

95

200

255

Clay................................. 15

20

10

97ft

290

300
RECORDS 147

Table 6. Drillers logs of wells in parts of Sierra and Dona Ana Counties^

W. A/ex. Continued

23. 2E. 17.210. City of Las Graces (well 1) 

[Screen from 275 ft to 294 ft]

Quicksand (very little water)......

Thickness 

(feet)

45

30

5

38

4

58

Depth 

(feet)

45

75

80

118

122

180

Thickness 

(feet)

65

5

28

16

Depth 

(feet)

245

250

278

294

23. 2E. 17.210b. City of Las Graces (well 3) 

[Screen from 272 ft to 291 (?) ft]

Packed sand with conglomerate

Packed sand with conglomerate

23. 2E. 29. 243 New Mexico <!

42 

28

26 

9

70

42 

70

96 

105

175

Gray shale interbedded with

Gray shale with some gravel

70

27 

2

12

245

272 

274

286

ollege of Agriculture & Mechanic Arts (well 2, domestic)

Fine sand, 80 percent dark,

Fine sand, 80 percent dark,

32

10

40

5

60

32

42

82

87

147

Fine sand, 90 percent dark.....

Very large gravel and

4

20

35 

5

9

8

151

171

206 

211

220

228

23.2E. 29.243b. New Mexico College of Agriculture & Mechanic Arts 

[Plugged at 81 ft with concrete; casing perforated from 52 ft to 72 ft]

Large loose rock and gravel with

50

25

50

75

Fine dark quicksand (ran into 

well)..............................

8

0

83

83

23.2E. 29.243c. New Mexico College of Agriculture & Mechanic Arts (well 4, domestic)

Soil......................................

Sand and large gravel (water at

Clay, gravel, and sand (no

Conglomerate gravel and rock....

Very hard dark-colored

5

5

25

25

20

41

4

30

5

20

5

10

35

60

80

121

125

155

160

180

Very hard dark-colored

Softer dark-colored material...

23

4

46

5

15

7

3

7

13

182

205

209

255

260

275

282

285

292

305

23.2E. 30.412c. New Mexico College of Agriculture & Mechanic Arts 

[Screen from 22 ft to 92 ft]

Soil......................................

Clay.....................................

4

22

60

4

26

86

Clay.................................. 2

7

88

95
148 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 6. Drillers logs of wells in parts of Sierra and Dona Ana Counties,

N. Mex. Continued

24. IE. 1.111. Stahman Farms, Inc. (well 1) 

[Test hole from 306 ft to 331 ft]

Soft reddish-brown topsoil

Soft reddish-brown quicksand...

Medium-hard reddish-brown

Soft sand..............................

Soft sand..............................

Soft reddish-brown sand...........

Soft yellow clay and gravel......

Soft sand..............................

Thickness 

(feet)

10

34

4.9i/

7%

4

1

5

14

7

6

7

K

6

Vi

3

1

18

8

1

10

1

12

2

1

1

4

2 y2 

8

0 1/2

2

3

Depth 

(feet)

10

44 

8#

94

98

99

104

1 10

125

131

138

13&

144V

145

148

149

167

175

176

186

187

199

201

202

203

207

209Vi 

217/5

218

220

223

Medium-hard yellow sand.....

Medium -hard yellow clay.....

Medium-hard sandrock, sand, 

and gray conglomerate.......

Thickness 

(feet)

1

4

7 

2

1

1

5

2

1

i ?

1

2

2

2

5

5

2

6

1

1

2

0

1

2

1

9

4

12

Depth 

(feet)

994.

99 SJ

235

9Qrr

OyJC

246

247

OC9

9CA

9^^

Q£IQ

9ftQ

271-

9T3

eyn r

OOfi

OQC

9Qr7

9Q^

9CM

9Qt;

OQf?

9QQ

300

QftQ

305

QAC

315

 31 Q

QQ1

24.3W. 8.310. H. S. Bissell

79

28

140

79

100

240 i Gravel cla , . 5

15

2

245

260

262

24. 3W. 25. 230. H. S. Bissell

Red clay..............................

200

5

200

9AC

7 212

24. 4. 12. 230 . Biggs ranch

100

40

100

140

60 200

26. 3E. 9. 221 Berino Cotton Gin

80

1

31

80

81

112

Clay................................. 36 148

148+

26. 3E. 19. 432. Judo Yabumoto 

[Test hole 90 ft to 131 ft]

Sand..................................

Gray shale (?)......................

33

2

24

33

35

59 Sand.................................

27

4

41

86

90

131
RECORDS 149

Table 6. Drillers logs ot wells in parts of Sierra and Dona Ana Counties,

N. Mex. Continued 

26.3E. 30.114. O. E. Egbert

Clay....................................

Thickness 

(feet)

15

30

8

12

3

Depth, 

(feet)'

15

45

53

65

68

Rock................................

Thickness 

^eet)

7

10

99

Depth 

(feet)

r7C

QC

107 1017

26.1.4.410. Southern Pacific Co. (Afton)

Caliche................................ 25

7S

150

20

26

31

25

100

250

270

296

327

188

25

45

43

97

47

515

540

585

628

655

702

27. IE. 11.330. Southern Pacific Co. (Lanark, well 1. center well)

Clay....................................

Clay.... ........ ...... .

229

525

31

16

4

34

229

754

785

801

805

839

Clay..................................

10

53

30

5

13

040

Qfi9

932

CW7

950

27.1E. 11.330a. Southern Pacific Co. (Lanark, well 2, west well)

Clay....................................

Clay............ . . ...

5

15

ID:

50

5

55

10

20

12

30

15

20

5

20

30

80

85

140

150

170

182

212

227

247

Clay..................................

Clay...................................

365ft)............................

Clay.................................

Sand.................................

97

4

62

18

25

11

12

100

15

85

974.

278

<w.n

358

383

394

Afvo

AT;

515

530

615

27.1E.11.330b. Southern Pacific Co. (Lanark, well 3, east well)

Clay....................................

Clay....................................

Clay....................................

Clay....................................

Clay....................................

10

20

50

20

40

12

30

20

50

32

9

30

10

30

80

100

140

152

182

202

252

284

293

323

Clay.................................

365ft).«.........................

Clay..................................

Clay..................................

50

35

7

10

10

30

55

30

Of)

90

4fi

373

408

415

425

435

465

520

550

580

600

646

27.3E. 6. 213. Chester Little 

[Casing perforated from 60 ft to 80 ft]

Large rounded boulders and

55

30

55

85

Clay.................................. 90

10

11

105

115

126

27.3E. 15.143. Paul Price 

[Screen from 50ft to 90 ft]

5

37

5

42 Clay.................................

48

1

90

91
150 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 6. Drillers logs of wells in parts of Sierra artd Dona Ana Counties,

N. Mex. Continued 

28. 2E. 24.110. Southern Pacific Co. (Strauss, well 1)

[Well later plugged back to 975 ft]

Caliche.................................

Thickness 

(feet)

3

3

6

8

85

15

50

15

25

5

22

13

5

10

30

2

23

10

90

5

5

52

38

25

3

7

3

10

20

Depth 

(feet)

3

6

12

20

105

120

170

185

210

215

237

250

255

265

295 007

320

330

350

355

360

412

450

475

478

485

488

498

518

Clay..................................

Clay..................................

Thickness 

(feet)

5

4

3

10

70

20

20

120

60

40

25

45

10

30

10

20

5

20

5

40

10

35

15

10

125

50

2

3

Depth 

(feet)

523

527

530

540

610

630

650

770

830

870

895

940

950

980

990

1,010

1,015

1,035

1,040

1,080

1,090

1,125

1,140

1,150

1,275

1,325

1,327

1,330

28.2E. 24. HOa. Southern Pacific Co. (Strauss, well 2)

Sand....................................

Caliche.................................

Clay.....................................

Clay.....................................

Clay.....................................

3

3

6

8

85

15

50

10

46

00

6

8

12

33

13

13

14

3

6

19

20

105

120

170

180

226

248

254

262

974.

307

320

333

347

Clay..................................

Clay..................................

20

13

2

38

40

23

22

35

25

30

25

70

15

367

380

382

420

460

483

505

540

565

595

620

690

705

28. 3E. 25. Lippincott well 

[Water-Supply Paper 919, p. 106]

Very coarse gravel and sand

Gravel, broken shale and sand...

49

5

31

5

9

190

21

23

12

10

13

4.0

54

85

90

99

289

310

333

345

355

368

Shell lime..........................

4.0

43

17

10

2

65

err

218

40

3

1

410

453

470

480

4.00

S47

604

822

flO^

865

868

869
RECORDS 151

Table 6. Drillers logs of wells in parts ot sierra and Dona Ana Counties, 

N. Mex. Continued

28.3E. 25. Lippincott well Continued

Sandy limestone (some water).....

Very hard solidified lime...........

Thickness 

(feet)

71

11

3 

3

6

1

1

2

3

4

3

3

Depth 

(feet)

Q40

951

954 

957

963

964

965

967

970

974

977

986

989

Yellow clay and sand seam.,.

Fhickness 

(feet)

8

7

3

10

9

1

7

3

20

5

2

10

Depth 

(feet)

997

1,004

1,007

1,017

1,026

1,027

1,034

1,037

1,057

1,062

1,064

1,074

29. IE. 8.2lOa. Southern Pacific Co. (Noria, well 2)

Clay.....................................

40 

5 

235 

95 

30 

30 

30

40 

45 

280 

375 

405 

435 

465

Clay, shale, and packed

Packed sand, clay, and

29. IE. 8. 210b. Southern Pacific Co. (Noria, well 3)

Sand.....................................

Chalk rock.. ...........................

Sand.....................................

Sand.....................................

Clay.....................................

3 

12 

85 

70 

110 

83 

21

2 

15 

100 

170 

28C 

363 

384

Shale...............................

Shale...............................

Clay................................

35 

10

30 

11

14

500 

510

540 

551

565

15 

19 

42 

27 

18 

45 

15

399 

418 

460 

487 

505 

550 

565

29.2.6.230. Southern Pacific Co. (Mt. Riley, well 2) 

[Well allowed to fill to 528 ft, August 1924]

Clay.....................................

Clay.....................................

110

60

110

20

25

95

7

106

17

IK

17(

28C

30(

32E

42( 42r,

53J

53

Rock...............................

10

5

7

10

33

5

10

85

560

565

572

582

615

620

630

715

29.4.9.100. Southern Pacific Co. (Malpais, well 1)

Clay..................................... 5

103

5

108

Clay................................ 262

75

'- 370

445

29.4.9. lOOa. Southern Pacific Co. (Malpais, well 2)

Caliche................................

Clay....................................

12

20

56

98

13

25

53

46

12

32

88

186

199

224

277

323

Clay................................

Rock...............................

Clay................................

42

1

22

5

34

38

49

365

366

388

393

427

465

514
152 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 7. Analyses of ground waters in parts 

[Analysesby U. S. Geological Survey1 , unless otherwise noted.

Well

location

no.

Owner or name

Date of

collection

1947

Depth

of

well

(feet)

Silica

(Si02)

Calcium

(Ca)

Magnesium

(Mg)

Wells drilled in arroyo deposits or

16.5.22.420...

Do..........

Do..........

16.5.23.300...,

Do..........

16.5.25.120...

17.5.14.212.... 

17. 5. 14. 441....

17.5.24.333....

17.5.26.212...,

19.4.11.221...,

20.1.26.210.... 

21.1.11.431....

22. IE. 33. 321..

22. 2E. 13. 411..

23. 2E. 6. 323....

23. 2E. 8. 434....

Do...........

23. 2E. 17.210..

23. 2E. 17. 210a.

24.3.5.330..... 

26. 3E. 19.311..

26.1.4.410.....

26. 1.25.410a..

27. IE. 33. 130..

28. 2E. 24. 110..

28. 2E. 24. HOa.

1 mile west of ;

Cerro de 

Muleros.

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

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

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

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

Reclamation. 

A. J. Osbom... .............. 

Earl Riggs. ...................

E. W. Powers...............

Clyde Cowan................

New Mexico Coll. of 

Agr. & Mech. Arts. 

C. C. Rice..................

K. H. Walker...............

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

H. S. Bissell................

(Afton).

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

Southern Pacific Co.

(Strauss). 

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

Dr. J. E. Laws..............

(*)

(8)

July 31

(4)

July 14 

Aug. 15

Apr. 17

July 14

Apr. 17

May 175 

Mar. 26 s

Aug. 29

Aug. 26s

Aug. 13

May 6

Mar. 25 s

( 6) ,

Mar. 25s

Mar. 25s 

Mar. 25s

(8)

May 1

May 1

(8 )

May 1

f9 )

216

216

216

226

226

138

121 

80

102

68

74

284 

150

74

430

200

300

300

r>

'""132

702

460

453

950

705

32

25

28

30

24

73

........

22

21

22

24

53

38 

53

60

66

267

34 

216

158

34

58

124

134

56

70

15 

43

47

5

12

20

24

33

2.9

4.4

2.5

1.6

7.3

3.1 

8.0

8.3

8.0

53.

13. 

52.

27.

7..

17.

32.

36.

17.

18.

9.4 

12.

18.

3.2

9.8

9.0

10.

6.2

Wells drilled in alluvial fill

17.4.31.111..., 

19.3.4.331.....

19.3.9.121a....

19.3.10.333....

19.3.10.432....

22. IE. 26. 214..

22. IE. 28. 140..

22. IE. 28. 310..

22. IE. 28. 320..

23. 2E. 18. 141..

Do...........

Do...........

23. 2E. 29. 332..

26.3.9.221.....

Ben Luchini..... .............

E. L. Cocks..................

Lee Stotts...... ...............

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

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

City of Las Cruces..........

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

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

July 14 

Apr. 18

Aug. 12

Aug. 11

Aug. 15

Aug. 27

Aug. 13

Aug. 13

Aug. 13

(10)

(»)

(12)

Aug. 13

Aug. 12

71 

52

70

CO

68

100

242

42

162

148

20

32

27

33

157 

138

91

200

86

164

5?

302

98

161

150

165

142

21. 

30.

15.

29.

15.

27.

9.4

44.

17.

24.

27.

28.

45.

Springs

17.4.29.340....

21.1.10.213....

Apr. 17

May 17s 71

52

142

19.

23.

Analysts: C. S. Howard, E. F. Williams, V. E. Arnold, L. S. Hughes. 

2Dec. 19, 1945. 

3June 14, 1946. 

4Dec. 9, 1936. 

51948.

6May 11, 1939

7Hydrant water at Pueblo Courts. City water supply being obtained from 3 city wells, 294, 

296, and 301 feet deep.
RECORDS 153

of Sierra and Dona Ana Counties, N. A/ex. 

Parts per million except percent sodium and specific conductance]

Sodium

and

potassium 

(Na + K)

Bicarbonate 

(HC03)

Sulfate

(S04)

Chloride

(Cl)

Fluoride

(F)

Nitrate

(NOs)

Total

hardness

as CaCO

Dissolved

solids

Specific

conductance

(micromhos 

at 25 C)

Percent

sodium

on mesa lands above valley floor

59

59

74

73

35

144

47

25

53

259

90

962

96

30

69

94

84

63

139

81

355

300

178

247

240

132

168

169

180

180

180

207

187

215

228

218

295

181

506

347

120

174

<232

227

177

180

370

183

423

492

345

407

365

188

37

36

58

52

44

211

65

33

103

615

145

286

279

65

90

227

246

90

126

41

91

210

121

74

180

195

156

12

13

11

11

13

10

25

14

6

14

400

18

1,510

98

9

90

153

158

66

76

20

63

282

42

47

72

69

50

0.8

1.2

1.0

1.2

1.7

4.3

1.2

.2

.3

.3

.7

.2

.6

.3

7.9

2.0

1.5

1.1

.8

1.1

1.3

11.

2.7

2.1

9.1

7.3

1.5

8.6

2.3

.6

.3

2.6

.7

.6

6.8

.7

18.

8.8

.75

1.2

9.1

67

70

66

66

133

108

165

184

198

884

139

753

505

114

214

441

482

210

248

76

157

191

26

70

87

101

108

250

219

283

283

550

296

254

383

1,740

472

3,280

829

205

411

747

770

442

414

381

1,120

773

513

729

731

479

350

360

385

357

360

594

495

449

478

2.640

648

5,760

1,260

349

719

1,210

1,260

660

761

698

657

1,290

865

1,180

66

64

71

70

32

74

38

23

37

39

59

74

29

36

41

32

27

36

80

53

80

96

85

86

84

73

of valley floor of Rio Grande

296

128

86

140

85

142

44

309

52

131

125

125

47

316

220

213

354

237

337

164

508

188

382

176

663

666

342

193

399

179

376

65

747

98

268

294

290

211

119

147

71

153

56

108

44

289

120

112

118

122

42

436

.4

.3

.2

.3

.4

.4

.1

.3

.1

0.9

2.5

.1

.8

.3

9.6

.4

4.7

2.8

.6

478

468

288

618

276

520

170

934

314

501

485

527

540

1,440

896

561

1,100

538

993

297

1,950

481

943

970

1,012

1,550

1,400

1,380

897

1,650

858

1,460

520

2,740

846

500

2,580

57

37

39

33

40

37

36

42

27

36

36

34

61

Springs Continued

303 

1,160

370 

427

309 

265

160 

1,660

5.8 

4.6

2.0 

2.0

208 

449

1,030 

3,540

1,650 

6,060

76 

86

8 Sayre, A N. , and Livingston, Penn, Ground-water resources of the El Paso area, Tex. , 

U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 919, p. 121. Date of collection, Apr. 22, 1936. 

9 Idem Date of collection, July 17, 1936.

l°City water supply being obtained from 2 wells, 75 and 100 feet deep, of El Pasp Electric 

Co. Date of collection, 1930. Analyzed by C. W. Botkin, chemist, State College, N. Mex. 

"SeenotelO. Date of collection, 1934? 

12 See note 10. Date of collection, Nov. 26, 1935.
154 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

2^ 

I

.S 3

O (/>

u ^u

838*3

vw 4> a2

I

00 OO 00 00

rH iH CO

w w ea

00 00 00

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

S5 Z Z S5 2i S5 S5

w ^

c- to

tD iH 

O (J>

t/> t/J t/J W 00

iH * 

5 iH

OS O5 

W* W*

<N rH rH

<N iH <N

iH (N <N

a a 88

i

 B

x «

3 Js

? s

fli

 S3*,

IsSJ 

ll«

a «.a II s*>:i

E_ i» ?

?* ,

8 ffl

ill

 S o a

la I 

128

 2PS

B * 

^ 2 « C«B 0)

l?w*

|StD

| 8 > 

l?l
Table 9. Water levels in auger holes in 2 lines across Park drain, 19

Date

Held nos. of wells

N1783W N960W N358W N74W N577E N1501E N2817E S2916W S1583W 

1947

Feb. 14

21

28

Mar. 7

14

28

Apr. 11

24

May 9

23

June 6

.19

July 3

17

Aug. 1

15

29

Sept. 12

28

Oct. 10

24

Nov. 7

21

Dec. 5

19

12.02

12.09

12.14

12.13

12.20

11.49

10.77

10.34

10.07

10.25

10.23

9". 96

9.48

9.28

8.68

8.41

8.82

9.02

9.40

9.70

10.16

10.49

10.71

10.94

11.18

11.80

11.84

11.89

11.89

11.93

11.57

11.10

10.52

10.32

10.48

10.48

10.38

9.84

9.91

9.42

9.29

9.36

9.60

9.84

10.07

10.37

10.61

10.81

10.96

11.01

8.50

8.54

8.55

8.55

8.58

8.35

7.97

7.63

7.52

7.60

7.62

7.49

7.24

7.18

6.78

6.65

6.71

6.90

7.04

7.23

7.44

7.62

7.62

7.82

7.98

9.14

9.16

9.14

9.27

9.18

9.00

8.54

8.34

7.45

8.46

8.52

8.39

8.29

8.11

7.84

7.74

7.78

7.90

8.01

8.17

8.40

8.49

8.56

8.67

8.71

13.09

13.14

13.15

13.17

13.20

13.19

12.30

12.19

12.05

12.02

12.04

11.79

11.54

11.27

10.82

10.26

10.65

11.09

10.79

11.44

11.75

12.01

12.20

12.24

12.50

7.93

7.99

8.05

8.08

8.13

8.18

7.25

7.02

6.87

6.79

6.77

6.66

6.11

5.66

5.25

4.68

5.00

5.57

5.46

5.95

6.29

6.60

6.86

7.09

7.26

11.15

11. 23*

11.29

11.34

11.40

11.43

10.53

10.29

10.16

10.06

10.05

9.88

9.30

8.53

8.32

7.83

8.22

8.75

8.62

9.19

9.55

9.80

10.05

10.29

10.51

9.68

*9.07

*9.03

9.90

10.00

9.89

9.18

8.56

8.40

8.02

7.80

7.65

7.13

6.79

6.47

5.36

6.28

5.55

6.61

27.15

7.89

8.16

8.55

9.5

9.

9.7

9.7

9.

9.

8.

8.5

8.4

8.

8.0

6.9

7.4

7.

6.7

6.

6.

6.2

6.9

7.

7.

7.

8.2

8.

8.6

Jan. 2 

16 

30 

Feb. 13 ,

27

11.31 

11.52 

11.70

11.73

11.22 

11.36 

12.51 

11.61

11.70

8.05 

8.14 

8.22 

8,30

8.46

8.78 

8.87 

8.91

12.63 

12.74 

12.81 

12.90

12.99

7.42 

7.56 

7.71 

7.85

7.97

10.69 

10.85 

11.00

U lq

11.27

8.88 

9.10 

9.44

9

^*7

9.91

8.

9.

9.3

9 

9.7
156 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

3

)

-4 

,J

)

) 

*

z

a

3

3 

& 

)

i

c

?

JrH m 

3 1

3 -8

& 8

4 c

-a 2 /) «

I E

1

 4 

^1

=

/} 

)

2

u 

U 

JO

§ 

4

2

j

B

V

:

h 

U

Tf

w10 

CO 

CO 

<N 

(A

S1067E

w in

CO 

10 

(A

wIN 

10 i-H 

(A

S101W

S441W

S1583W

S2916W

N2817E

N1501E

wccIO2

1 2

N358W

N960W

N1783W

V 4J 

01

Q

1948-Continued

(N CO i-H c- c- to

OO OO OO

to 10 o

i-H i-H OO

i-H i-H O i-H i-H i-H

 * O OO 

C- IO <N

i-T r-l" i-l* 

rt i-H i-H

<N C- CO 

i-H C- OO

O O> O5

C- IO Tj< 

O5 O *

O rH O

>-l .-1 i-H

O <N <N 

CO <N tD

r-l i-H O i-H i-H i-H

 * OO * 

OO OO *

O) O) O)

Tj« IO r-t 

i-li-H IO

O O O3 

iH i-l

CO O3 * * * co

i-l rH O i-l i-l i-l

c~oo n

O OO<£>

oo c- to

 * * *

O O IO

CO* Co" i-T 

>-l rH i-l

&&& QQQ

IO C- O

 * * t^

OO 00 CO3 1-1 O 

C- O5 O5

i-l i-l O l-l i-l i-l

OO i-l

fe- r>- E; ti ,-1

DDrt

<N 5D O5 

i-l<N

3 i

2 <

.Measurement uncertain. 

Estimated,
RECORDS 157

Table 10. Water levels, in feet below land-surface datum, in auger well 23.2E.29.214 

[Measured at 5:00 p.m., 1947-48]

Location: Northeast corner of westernmost weather instruments shelter of New Mexico College 

of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, State College, N. Mex.

Diameter: 2 inches; depth: 11 feet.

Measuring point: Top edge of hole in cap on casing, 5.22 feet below B. M. 102 U. S. C. and 

G. S. (3,844 feet above mean sea level), 0.25 foot above land-surface datqm.

Reference point: Surface of northeast corner of concrete curbing for weather instruments shelter, 1. 5 feet from well, 0. 74 foot above land-surface datum.

Date

1947

Feb. 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mar. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Apr. 1

2

3

4

5

25

26

27

28

29

30

May 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Water 

level

10.07

10.06

10.09

10.09

10.08

10.08

10.09

10.08

10.09

10.08

10.06

10.05

10.04

10.03

10.05

10.07

10.08

10.09

10.09

lO.'lO

10.10

10.10

10.11

10.12

10.12

10.13

10.14

10.15

10.15

10.15

10.15

10.15

10.15

10.15

10.15

10.16

10.17

10.16

10.15

10.13

10.11

10.02

10.00

10.00

10.03

10.06

9.72

9.55

9.20

9.30

9.44

9.47

9.52

9.56

9.59

9.62

9.62

9.62

9.67

Date

1947

May 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

June 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

July 1

2

3

4

5

Water 

level

9.69

9.58

9.51

9.49

9.49

9.52

9.53

9.54

9.45

9.53

9.55

9.59

9.60

9.63

9.60

9.63

9.53

9.55

9.55

9.55

9.56

9.61

9.43

8.64

9.03

9.12

9.23

9.25

9.34

9.35

9.35

9.33

9.31

9.33

9.33

9.33

9.29

9.23

9.25

9/23

9.31

9.27

9.21

9:15

9.15

9.15

9.21

9.23

9.25

9.23

8.13

8.61

8.75

8.81

8.95

9.03

8.99

9.11

9.11

Date

1947

July 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Aug. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Sept. 1

2

Water 

level

9.07

9.11

9.13

9.17

9.19

9.19

9.19

9.15

9.14

9.10

9.05

9.10

9.15

9.15

9.06

9.02

9.05

9.10

9.11

9.05

9.01

8.94

8.95

8.97

9.01

8.80

8.50

8.50

8.71

8.79

8.85

8.90

8.92

8.91

8.89

8.89

8.90

8.94

8.95

8.95

8.95

8.86

8.80

8.74

8.72

8.73

8.76

8.79

8.80

8.83

8.87

8.88

8.92

8.95

8.96

8.98

9.00

9.02

9.03

Date

1947

Sept. 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Oct. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Water 

level

9.06

9.08

9.07

9.02

9.00

8.22

8.48

8.58

8.54

8.64

8.68

8.58

8.51

8.51

8.47

8.49

8.63

8.67

8.69

8.73

8.76

8.80

8.84

8.87

8.90

8.93

8.95

8.97

8.99

9.00

9.05

9.05

9.07

9.11

9.12

9.15

9.18

9.18

9.21

9.23

9.25

9.29

9.25

9.25

9.29

9.33

9.35

9.38

9.39

9.39

9.44

9.49

9.49

9.50

9.50

9.45

9.41

9.46

9.51
158 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 10. Water levels, in feet below land-surface datum, in auger 

well 23.2E. 29.214 Continued

Date

1947

Nov. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Dec. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Water 

level

9.54

9.55

9.56

9.58

9.61

9.61

9.62

9.63

9.64

9.64

9.65

9.65

9.66

9.68

9.70

9.69

9.69;

9.70

9.71

9.72

9.73

9.75

9.75

9.75

9.76

9.76

9.77

9.78

9.79

9.79

9.80

9.81

9.83

9.84

9.84

9.84

9.84

9.84

9.85

9.87

Date

1947

Dec. 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1948

Jan. 1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Water 

level

9.86

9.88

9.90

9.90

9.90

9.91

9.92

9.92

9.92

9.94

9.92

9.95

9.95

9.94

9.95

9.96

9.96

9.97

9.97

9.97

9.99

9.99

9.99

10.00

10.00

10.01

10.01

10.01

10.02

10.04

10.04

10.04

10.05

10.06

10.06

10.07

10.08

10.09

10.09

Date

1948

Jata. 20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Feb. 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Mar. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

15

22

29

Water 

level

10.09

10.10

10.11

10.12

10.13

10.13

10.13

10.17

10.17

10.17

10.18

10.20

10.21

10.21

10.21

10.22

10.23

10.23

10.24

10.25

10.25

10.26

10.26

10.25

10.25

10.15

10.05

10.15

10.15

10.23

10.25

10.26

10.27

10.27

10.28

10.28

10.32

10.35

10.35

Date

1948

Apr. 5

12

19

26

May 3

10

17

24

31

June 7

14

21

28

July 5

12

19

26

Aug. 2

9

16

23

30

Sept. 6

13

20

27

Oct. 4

11

18

25

Nov. 1

8

15

22

29

Dec. 6

13

20

27

Water 

level

10.04

10.05

9.91

9.75

9.65

9.55

9.55

9.60

9.85

9.85

9.95

9.75

9.95

9.99

9.89

9.91

10.03

9.94

9.85

9.73

9.84

9.71

9.75

9.75

9.78

9.76

9.88

9.90

9.85

9.89

9.98

9.99

10.00

10.04

10.03

10.06

10.10

10.11

10.14
Table 11. Water levels in wells in Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, ff. Mex., 1946 

Date

1946 

Nov. 22....................

Dec. 18.................... 

1947 

Jan. 8...................

Feb. 20...................

Apr. 17................... 

May 27, 28.............

July a..................

Aug. J...................

Aug. 30...................

Oct. 25...................

Dec. 2...................

1948 

Feb. 9, 14..............

Mar. 22...................

16.5.25.211

U. S. Bureau 

of Reclamation

19.29

J.y. OS?

19.44

16.80

11.30 

12.44

13.61

15.23

16.68

17.83

18.63

19.46

19.43

20.92

16.5.25.343

Arley 

Osborn

33.13

OO. <£O

33.34

33.36

33.28 

32.60

QO QC.

V) fil

39 ft 1?

32.86

OO OQ

°.Q. 71

34.21

34.27

Location no.

I7.4.30.133a

W. B. 

Cantrell

13.32

1 9 Q.^

n

QQ

11.05

n OQ

n ^O

11 1Q

14.45

15.48

and owne

17.4.

B

Lu
Table 11. Watet levels in wells in Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, N. Mex., 1946-48, 

1946 

Nov. 22. 23..................

Dec. 18.......................

1947 

Jan. 8.......................

Feb. 20.......................

Mar. 3.......................

Apr. 17.......................

May 27, 28..................

July 3.......................

Aug. 1.......................

Aug. 30.......................

Sept. 27.......................

Oct. 25.......................

Dec. 2.......................

1948 

Feb. 14.......................

Mar. 22.......................

17. 5. 14. 212

Arley 

Osborn

58.45 , 60.76

479.80

60.04

60.00

59.88

60.43

61.22

61.79

62.62

17. 5. 14. 231

Felix 

Lara

58.73

58.85

58.96

59.17

59.37

59.24

59.15

59.15

59.07

59.04

59.24

59.48

59.83

60.02

I

17.5.24.333

E. W. 

Powers

28.23

8 28. 64

3 28.92

S 29.40

28.48

28.29

28.02

27.98

27.90

28.54

29.45

30.46

30.51

.ocation n

17

M

P
Table 11. Water levels in wells in Rincon and Mesilla Valleys, N. Mex., 1946 48, in 

Date

1W 

Nov. 14.22,23...... 

Dec. 14,18..........

1947 

Jan. 14...............

Feb. 15,20...........

Mar. 7...............

Apr. 16,17...........

May 23,26,27......

July 3...............

Aug. 1 ...............

Aug. 30...............

Sept. 27,29...........

Oct. 25...............

Dec. 2,3............

1948 

Feb. 10. 14...........

Mar. 25...............

Location no. and owner

19.3.4.331a

B. S.

Thurman

6.25

6.70

4.86 

5.02 

5 6. 22 

5.17 

4.92 

5.73 

6.58 

6.96

7.20

19.4.11.211

Clyde 

Cowan

11.92 

12.28

12.97

420. 54 

3 13. 80

'*I2. 58 

10.69 

11.32 

12.04 

12.50

13.25

23. 2E. 29. 143

New Mexico 

A. &M. 

College

12.82 

13.17

13.37 

13.53 

3 13.54 

13.20- 

12.84 

12.93 

423.04 

12.96 

12.34 

13.08 

13.38

13.55 

13.63

1 Nearby field irrigated recently.

2 New measuring point, not exactly correlated with previous one.

3 Well had been'pumped. 

* Well being pumped. 

Nearby well being pumped.

RECORDS 163

Table 12. Records of large-diameter we/Is near or on the valley floor of the Rio Grande 

in Rincon and Meailla Valleys

Sheet and tract: letters and numbers refer to Irrigable area and properly maps of Elephant Butte

Irrigation District, U S. Bureau of Reclamation Rio Grande project. 

Owner or name: NMAC refers to New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. 

Topographic situation: A, arroyo bed; F, valley floor; M, mesa surface; S, alluvial side slope or

arroyo slope. 

Altitude: A, determined by aneroid; T, determined from U. S. Geological Survey topographic

quadrangle maps.

Type of well: Dd, dug and drilled; Dr, drilled; Du, dug; J, jetted. 

Depth of well: reported.

Water level: reported figures given to nearest foot. 

Type of pump: AL, air lift; C, centrifugal; PI, plunger; T, turbine. 

Kind of power: B, butane engine; D, diesel engine; E, electric motor; G, gasoline engine;T,

tractor engine; W, wind.

Discharge rate: E, estimated; M, measured;. R, reported. 

Drawdown: E, estimated; M, measured; R, reported. 

Use of water; A, abandoned; D, domestic; I, irrigation; II, intended irrigation; M, municipal,

RR, railroads; S, stock; U, unused, equipped with pump.
164 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 12. Records of large-diameter veils near or on the valley

No.

Well

location

no.

Sheet Tract

Owner

or

name

Driller

Date

completed

Topographic

situation

Rincon Valley, Sierra

1

?,

3

4

S

6

7 

8 

9

10

11 

12

13

14

IS

16

17

18 

19

20

16.5.23.300

16. 5. 25. 120

16.5.25.211

16.'5.25.341

16. 5. 25. 343

17.4.30. 133a

17.4.31.111 

17.4.32.112 

17. 5. 10. 442

17. 5. 14. 212

17. 5. 14. 231 

17.5.14.441

17.5.23.442

17.5.23.442a

17.5.24.331

17.5.24.333

17.5.25.123

17.5.25.134 

17.5.26.212

17. 5. 26. 242

A

A

A

A

C

C 

C 

B

B

B 

B

C

C

C

C

r

C 

C

C

22

48

37

""SSB

25

25

Reclamation. 

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

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

W. B. Cantrell....

Ben Luchini. ........ 

Ray Painter.........

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

Felix Lara..... ......

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

E. W. Powers......

G. P. Black........

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

Lloyd Welch........

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

Mickey Plemmons., 

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

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

Harrison..............

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

Harliss... ..............

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

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

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

April 1947..

1936..........

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

July 1947...,

March 1946

March 1947

December.., 

1946. 

February...., 

1947. 

k......do......

March 1947

1946.......... 

July 1947...,

1934 (?).....

1948. 

1934..........

April 1946..

1947. 

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

March 1947

1947.

S

A

A

S

S

F

F 

F 

M

S

A 

S

S

S

S

F

F 

S

S

No.

Well

location

no.

Pump

Type

Size

(in.)

Kind

of

power

Yield

Rate

(gpm)

Date

of

measurement

Drawdown

below static level

Amount

Duration

of test

(hr)

Rincon Valley, Sierra

1

2

3

4

S

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

16.5.23.300

16.5.25.120

16.5.25.211

16. 5. 25. 341

16.5.25.343

17.4.30.133a

17.4.31.111

17.4.32.112

17.5.10.442

17.5.14.212

17.5.14.231

17.5.14.441

17.5.23.442

17.5.23.442a

17.5.24.331

17.5.24.333

17.5.25.123

17. 5. 25. 134

17.5.26.212

17.5.26.242

T

AL

None

T

T

T

T

T

C

C

T

C

T

T

T

T

T

8

None

6

8

10

6

6

4

4

6

8

8

8

6

8

G

G

None

G

T

B

G

G

E

G

T

G

G

T

G

G

850 M

13 P

125 R

250 E

l.OOOM

800 R

250 E

500 R

800 R

250-300 E

450 E

650 M

860 M

780 M

225 M

700 G

June 5, 1947....

1936... ............

July 14, 1947...

July 15, 1947...,

July 18, 1947...

February 1947...

July 23, 1947...

1946...............

July 1947.........

Aug. 1. 1947...,

Aug. 1, 1947...

July 25, 1947...

Dec. 2, 1947...

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

June 4, 1947....

July 24, 1947...

115. 00 M

21 R

100 (?) R

14. 2 M

14 R

22. 6 M

19 R

10 R

12 R

20. 5 M

20. 00 M

8.5M

4

48

2

9

4

6

10

4

5

5

40

3

2

8
RECORDS 165

floor of the Rio Grande in Rincon and Meailla Valleys Continued

Altitude

above sea

level

(ft)

Type

of

well

Depth

of

well

(ft)

eter

of

well

(in.)

Principal water-bearing bed

Depth

to top

of bed

(ft)

Thickness

(ft)

Character

of

material

Depth

which

well is

cased

(ft)

Water level

Below

land

surface

(ft)

Date

of

measurement

County, N. Mex.

4.280 A

4, 194 T

4,181 T

4,180 T

4,182 T

4, 140 T 

4,113 T

4,110 T

4,260 A

4, 188 T

4, 180 T

4, 140 T

4, 140 T

4, 140 T

4, 140 T

4,140 T

4,120 T

4,120 T

4,160 T

4,152 T

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr 

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dd

Dd

Dr

Dd

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dd

Dr

226

138

32

127

152

97 

71

80

207

121

100 (?)

80

65

74

101

59

64

68

85

18

6

10

10

12

18 

14

12

15*

10

12

12

6

14

12

18

18

10

12

186

38

12 

10

55

57

12

43 

43

18

27

Sand and gravel. 

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

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

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

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

215

107

127

131

69 

65

80

121

80 ^'

74

68

85

Flows

24.12

19.29

27.20

32.22

13.32 

8.88

7.72

15.94

58.45

58.73

13.90

28.

28.23

14.65

12.77

43.99

36.60

June 5, 1947

Nov. 22, 1946

Do.

July 3, 1947

June 21, 1946

Apr. 17, 1947 

Feb. 20, 1947

Do.

Apr. 17, 1947

Mar. 3, 1947

Nov. 22, 1946

Aug. 1, 1947

Aug. 1, 1947

Nov. 23, 1946

Feb. 14, 1948

Do.

Apr. 17, 1947

Do.

Specific 

capacity 

[gpm/ft)

Use 

of 

water

Measuring point

Description

Height 

above (+) 

orbelow(-) 

land-surface 

datum (ft)

Remarks

County, N. Mex. Continued

63

0.6

1.2

70 

57

11

42

25

38 

32

11

82

I

D

A

II

I

n

i

n

A

i

n

i

i

Bottom of air-line elbow

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

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

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

Top west edge of 3-in.. 

pipe in concrete. 

Top of extended casing

L.............do.:... ........

Bottom of N-S 8x8 in., 

pump support, east 

side of well.

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

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

Bottom of pump base... 

flange.

0.00

+4.00 

+3.00

+.60

+.25

+4.00

+.83

+.85 

+.00

+.30

+1.38

.00

.00 

+.50

.00

1.00

+1.00 

+.50

estimated June 5, 1947. See analysis. 

See analysis.

Depth 131 ft measured July 1947.

Temperature 67 F.

bailer.

Dug 18 ft. Test pumped at date of

completion.

About 10 ft west of well 17. 5. 23. 442.

Temperature 67 F. Diameter of pit 72 in. 

Temperature 67 F. See analysis.

Temperature 64 F.

Temperature 67 F. Diameter of pit 60 in. 

See analysis. 

Temperature 67 F.
166 GROUND*WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 12. Records of large-diameter wells near or on the valley

No.

Well

location

no.

Sheet Tract

Owner

or

name

Driller

Date

completed

Topographic

Situation

Rincon Valley^ Dona Ana

9:1

9:9,

9,3

94

9,5

9,fi

27 

9,8

9,9

30 

31

39,

33

34

35

18.4.5.214

18.4.17.312

18.4.17.411

18.4.35.231

19. 2. 3. 122

19. 3. 4. 331

19. 3. 4. 331a 

19.3.5.

19.3.9.121

19. 3. 9. 121a 

19. 3. 10. 333

19. 3. 10. 432

19.3.15.443

19.4.3.234

19.4.11.221

D

D

D

F,

G

G 

G

G

G 

G

G

G

F

F

IB

145

144C

120

.........

10

10 

113

89

169B

73

W. A. Prater.......

W. B. Engler.......

A. T.&S. F. Ry...

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

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

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

E. L. Cocks.........

Lee Stotts............

I. W. Small wood..

D. L. Oliver........

P. D. Wynne........

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

Claude Right........

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

Claude Right........

1946..........

July 1947....

December...

1947.

January 1932

July 1946....

1946.......... 

January 1948

1933..........

July 1947.... 

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

August 1947

1947. 

June 1947....

October 1946

F

F

F

F

S

F

F 

F

F

F 

F

F

F

S

S

Mesilla Valley, Dona

36

37

38

39

No.

21. IE. 30. 323

21. IE. 31. 322

21. IE. 31. 412

21.1.11.431

Well,

location

no.

2 11

2 23

2 22

1 .........

B. W. Vermilion...'

Rudolph Garcia....

Edgar Rhodes.......

C. C. Rice.........

Pump

Type

Size

(iii.)

Rind

of

power

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

Morrison Bros........

Jack Daniels.........

Yield

Rate

(gpm)

Date

of

measurement

Mar. 1948..

Jan. 1948...

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

Mar. 1948..

F

F

F

M

Drawdown

below static level

Amount

Duration

of test

(hr)

Rincon Valley, Dona Ana

91

9,9,

9.3

9,4

95

26

97

9.8

9.9

30

31

32 

33

34

35

18.4.5.214

18.4.17.312

18.4.17.411

18.4.35.231

19.2.3.122

19.3.4.331 

19.3.4.331a

19.3.5

19.3.9.121

19.3.9.121a

19. 3. 10. 333 

19.3.10.432 

19. 3. 15. 443

19. 4. 3. 234

19.4.11.221

C

T

C

T

T

T

C

T 

T 

T

C

T

3

6

6

8

6

#

10 

10

8

6

8

G

T

G

G

E

G

E

G 

G 

T

T

T

280 R

1,000 R

225 R

660 M 

400 R

120 R

150 E

600 E 

700 E 

250 E

500 R

700 M

January 1932......

Apr. 18, 1947.... 

1946.. ....... .......

Aug. \ 1947.....

Aug. 11, 1947.... 

Aug. 15, 1947....

Anr 17 1 Q47

June 1947..........

July 24, 1947.....

14 R

8.9

2.1 M

10. OM 

10. 4 M

5 R

12 M

96

'/3 

\

3

8

4

MeSilla Valley, Dona Ana

3fi

37

38

39

21. IE. 30. 323

21. IE. 31. 322

21. IE. 31. 412

21.1.11.431

T

T

T

8

8

8

G

T

D

1,000 R

1,200 R

1,000 R

ii R

30 R
RECORDS 167

floor of the Rio Grande in Rincon and Mesilla Valleys Continued

Altitude 

ibove sea 

level 

(ft)

Type 

of 

well

Depth 

of 

well 

(ft)

Diameter 

of 

well 

(in.)

Principal water-bearing bed

Depth 

to top 

of bed 

(ft)

Thickness 

(ft)

Character 

of 

material

Depth 

to 

which 

well is 

cased 

(ft)

Water level

Below 

land 

surface 

(ft)

Date 

of 

measurement

County, N. Mex.

4,107 T

4, 095 T 

4,092 T

4,070 T

4,052 T

4, 052 T

4,050 T

4, 050 T

4,049 T 

4,049 T

4,040 T 

4,075 T

4,080 T

Du

Dr 

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Or

Or

1>

Dr 

Dr

Dr 

Dr

Dr

20

70 

70

68 

260

52

35

32

70

69 

68

53 

68

74

12

12

12 

14

10

12

8

7

12 

12

12

8

10

5

10

53

42

10 

22

16

60

38

15

12

30

46

54

Sand and gravel

Sand and gravel

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

Sand and grave]*

Fine and^ coarse 

sand.

70

60 

260

52

35

32

67

69

68

53 

68

74

13.40

5.34 

9.65 

8.3

6.92 

120.

6.25

6.25

3.38

3.38

4.98 

8.57 

9.13

11.71 

5.65

8.49

11.92

Feb. 14. 1948

Aug. 11. 1947 

Feb. 14, 1948 

Dec. 2. 1947

Aug. 15. 1947

Nov. 22, 1946

Do.

Aug. 1, 1947

JDo.

Aug. 11. 1947 

Feb. 14, 1948 

Aug. 27, 1947

Feb. 14, 1948 

Feb. 20, 1947

June 12, 1947

Nov. 23, 1946

Ana County, N. Mex.

3,943 T 

3.945T 

4,020 T

Specific 

capacity 

gpm/ft)

Dr.

Dr 

Dr 

Dr

Use

of 

water

........ 14.

100 12 

77 16 

150 12

50 25

.............................. 9.42 Mar. 26, 1948

..................... ......... 10.55 Feb. 12, 1948

Gravel............ 75 9.58 Do.

..................... ......... 64.00 Mar. 26, 1948

Measuring point

Description

Height 

above (+) 

orbelow(-) 

land-surface 

datum (ft)

Remarks

County, N. Mex. Continued

16

74

71

60 

67

100

58

I

I

I

I

M, RR

I

A

I

A

M

I 

I

I

I

I

cribbing.

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

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

.............do............'. 

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

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

+1.50

+1.00

.00

.00

+2.00

+ .37

+ .80

+ .70

.00 

+1.00

+1.00

-5.40

-.90

Pit, 5 by 9 ft.

drilled.

78 ft from well 19. 3. 4. 331.

Well sanded.

Temperature 62 F. Emergency use 

only. Two pumps. See analysis. 

Temperature 65 F. See analysis.

Temperature 66 F. See analysis.

County, N. Mex. Continued

110

33

I

I

II

I

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

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

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

+ .75

+.50

+2.00 

+1.25 See analysis.
168 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 12. Records of large-diameter wells near or ort the valley

No.

Well

location

no.

Sheet Tract

Owner

or

name

Driller

Date

completed

Topographic

situation

Mesilla Valley, Dona Ana

40

41

4?,

43

44 

45

46 

47

48 

49

50 

51

5?.

53

54

55

56 

57 

58

59

21.1.13.323

21.1.14.433

22. IE. 8. 421

22. lE.8.421a

22. IE. 10.413 

22. IE. 15. 343

22. IE. 15.431 

22. IE. 21. 211

22. IE. 22 

22. IE. 26. 214

22. IE. 27. 411 

22. IE. 28. 142

22. IE. 33. 321

23. IE. 1.414

23. IE. 1.423

23. IE. 1.443

23. IE. 2. 143 

23. IE. 4. 413 

23. IE. 9. 411

23. IE. 10. 442

1

1

3

3

4 

4

4 

4

4 

5

5

4

5

7

7

9

7 

6 

8

7

7

4A1

37

37

37A

40 

12B2

35B(?) 

21

32 

63A

89

68

70

2

8A 

16 

1

56

Roy Black..........

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

E. A. Knight........ 

Clifford Hare.......

Claude Tharp......

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

J. W. Taylor.......

K. H. Walker......

L. B. Linbeck......

Tatman...... ........ 

J. A. Griffin........

McBee....... .........

Joe Clary.............

Joe Clary.............

Morrison Bros........

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

Morrison Bros........ 

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

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

McBee................

1948..........

1947. 

October......

1947. 

September.. 

1947.

1947. 

September.. 

1947.

1906..........

November... 

1947. 

August 1947.

February..... 

1948. 

November...

1947. 

August 1947.

1948... .......

1948. 

September.. 

1947. 

March 1948 

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

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

1947.

F

F

F

F

S

F

F

F

F 

F

F 

F

F

F

S

F

F 

F 

F

F
RECORDS 169

floor of the Rio Grande in Rincon and Meailla Valleys Continued

Altitude 

above sea 

level 

(ft)

Type 

of 

well

Depth 

of 

well 

(ft)

Diameter 

of 

well 

(in.)

Principal water-bearing bed

Depth 

to top 

of bed 

(ft)

Thickness 

(ft)

Character 

of 

material

Depth 

to 

which 

well is 

cased 

(ft)

Water level

Below land" 

surface 

(ft)

Date

of 

.measurement

County, N. Mex. Continued

3,960 T

3,960 T

3,925 T

3,925 T

3,945 T

3,925 T

3,920 T

3,920 T

3,915 T

3,920 T

3,920 T

3,925 T

3,910 T

3,915 T

3,905 T

3,900 T

1>

Or

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dd

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

J

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

215

1 7=/o\

132

108

75

197

130

100

107

80

74

60

100

75

90

90

95

16

14

16

12

16

12

6

12

16

16

10

a

14

12

14

14

14

16

48

40

30

48

55

22

50

10

22

34

59

25

52

15

gravel. 

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

gravel. 

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

gravel.

80,

116

93

107

74

12.4

8.30

8.46 

12.23

21.45

11.87

11.15

11.58 

9.56

10.41

15'.

11.19

12.43 

14.64

15.46

21.27

17.08

17.53

13.98

14.85

Feb. 12, 1948

Dec. 5, 1947

Feb. 12, 1948 

Do.

Sept. 11, 1947

Feb. 12, 1947

Dec. 5, 1947

Feb. 12, 1948 

Dec. 5, 1947

Feb. 12, 1948

August 1947

Dec. 5, 1947

Feb. 12, 1948 

Aug. 12, 1947

Feb. 12. 1948

DoDec. 5, 1947

Feb. 12, 1948

Dec. 5, 1947

Feb. 11, 1948
170 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESDLLA VALLEYS

Table 12. Records at large-diameter wells near or on the valley

No.

Well

location*

no.

Pump

Type

Size

(in.)

Kind

of

power

Yield

Rate

(gpm)

Date

of

measurement

Drawdown 

below static level

Amount

Duration

of test

(hr)

Mesilla Valley, Dona Ana

40

41

42 

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

5?,

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

21.1.13.323

22. 1. 14. 433

22. IE. a. 421

99 117 R 4.9 la

22. IE. 10. 413

22. IE. 15. 343

22. IE. 15.431

99 IT 91 911

22. IE. 22

99 117 9fi 91A

99 117 9T All

99 117 98 14.9

22. IE. 33. 321

23. IE. 1. 414

23. IE. 1. 423

OQ IT? i /Ldq

23. IE. 2. 143

23. IE. 4. 413

23. IE. 9. 411

23. IE. 10.442

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

AL

T

T

T

T

10

8

10

8

10

10

8

8

6

10

8

G

T

G

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

900 E

2,000 R

800 R

1,000 R

1,000 E

1 9nn n

800 R

1,000 R

600 R

1,200 R

Oct. 10. 1947....,

1947.................

Aug. 29, 1947....

February 1948.....

1947.,.. .............

26 M

30 R

16 R

16 R

30 M

lot
RECORDS 

floor of the Rio Grande in Rincon and Meailla Valleys Continued

171

Specific 

capacity 

[gpm/ft)

Use

of 

water

Measuring point

Description

Height 

above (+) 

or below (-) 

land -surface

datum (ft)

Remarks

County, N. Mex. Continued

35

67

63

63

27

II

II

I

II

I

I

I

I

II

I

II

I

II

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

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

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

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

, ........ ...... do.. ..........

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

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

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

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

.00

+.50

+.40

+1.50

+ 1.25

-1.00

-1.00

+2.85

+1.75

+1.00

+.75

.00

About 120 feet north of well 22. IE. 8. 421.

Pit; diameter 18 ft, depth 30 ft. Old

Shalem Colony well; see W. S.P. 188. 

p. 45.

Well sanded.

317Z67 O - 55 - 1Z
172 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 12. Records of large-diameter wells near or on tne valley

No.

Well

location

no.

Sheet Tract

Owner

or

name

Driller

Date

completed

Topographic

situation

Mesilla Valley, Dona Ana

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

7.2

73

23. IE. 13. 144

23. IE. 13. 244

23. IE. 21. 314

23. IE. 21. 314a

23. IE. 26. 311

23. IE. 35. 231

23. IE. 35. 421

23. IE. 36. 333

23. 2E. 6. 323

23. 2E. 6. 332

23. 2E. 8. 434

23. 2E. 17.210

23.2E. 17.210a

23. 2E. 17. 210b

9A

9A

10

10

10

10

10

12

9 .

9 .

157

.......

82A

82A

56

64

64

33A1

.* < 

Hadley Street well,

Las Cruces.

A. T. &S. F. Ry. ,

well 2.

O. McElyea... ......

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

Victor Ginther......

Harry Tashiro.......

Tashiko Tashiro....

Stahman Farms

Inc. , well 2.

Las Cruces

Country Club.

Mrs. Fay Sperry....

City of Las Cruces,

well 5.

City of Las Cruces,

well 1.

City of Las Cruces,

well 2.

City of Las Cruces,

well 3.

Frank Dickinson.....

A. A. Riggs.........

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

Victor Ginther.......

McBee.... .............

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

J. F. Williams......

Andy Rominger......

R. D. Sidey.. .......

Frank Dickinson.....

McCollough.. ........

Dickinson.............

brothers.

June 1947...

November

1925.

November

1947.

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

1948..........

August 1947

September...

1947.

November

1947.

1925 (?).....

March 1940.

May 1947....

1936 (?>.....

November

1938.

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

M

M

M

M

M

M

No.

Well

location

no.

Pump

Type

Size

(in.)

Kind

of

power

Yield

Rate

(gpm)

Date

of

measurement

Drawdown 

below static level

Amount

Duration

of test

(hr)

Mesilla Valley, Dona Ana

60 

61

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68

69 

70 

71 

72 

73

23. IE. 13. 144 

23. IE. 13.244

23. IE. 21. 314 

23.1E.21.314a 

23. IE. 26. 311 

23. IE. 35. 231 

23. IE. 35. 421 

23. IE. 36. 333 

23. 2E. 6. 323

23. 2E. 6. 332 

23. 2E. 8. 434 

23. 2E. 17. 210 

23.2E.17.210a 

23. 2E.17.210b

None 

C

T 

T

T 

T 

T 

T

T 

T 

T 

T

None 

2

8 

10

8 

8 

10 

4

6 

6 

6 

6

None 

E

G 

G

G 

G 

G 

E

E 

E 

E 

E

230 R 

64 M 

1,200 R 

1,500 R

1,100 R 

700 R 

1,000 R 

150 R

45 R 

250 E 

250 M 

205 M 

270 M

November 1925... 

Nov. 16, 1946....

March 1940........

May 13. 1947..... 

Apr. 3, 1947......

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

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

9 R 

3.9 M

65 (?)R 

13 R

10 R 

12. 6 M

10 (?)M

16

5 

24

96
RECORDS 173

floor of the Rio Grande in Rincon and Mesilla Valleys Continued

Altitude 

ibove sea 

level 

(ft)

Type 

of 

well

Depth 

of 

well 

(ft)

Diameter 

of 

well 

(in.)

Principal water-bearing bed

Depth 

to top 

of bed 

(ft)

Thickness 

(ft)

Character 

of 

material

Depth

which 

well is 

cased 

(ft)

Water level

Below 

land 

surface 

(ft)

Date 

of 

measurement

County, N. Mex. Continued

3.895 T 

3,895 T

3,898 T

3,898 T

3,8807

3.878T

3.878 T

3.878 T

3,959 A

3.950 T

4,057 L 

4.042 A

4.050 A

4,048 A

Dr 

Dd

Dr

Dr

Du

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dd

Dr

Dr 

Dr

Dr

Dr

175 

82

90

90

80

80

99

190

133

300 

294

296

' 301

14 

13

12

12

120

16

16

14

8

8

13 

10

10

10

110

200

55

55

Sand and small 

gravel.

boulders.

Sand and 

gravel.

gravel.

170

87

74

190

133

285 

294

296

292

11.34 

15.

12.25 

10.87

11.63 

10. 94

10.93 

10 R

10.68

11.50 

12.84

13.81 

13.43

14.30

77.8

65

185. 09 

189. 28 

186.71 

170. t

192. 12

160. t

July 31, 1947

November 1925

Nov. 13. 1946 

Dec. 5, 1947

Feb. 11, 1948 

Dec. 5, 1947

Feb. 11, 1948

Dec. 4. 1947

Feb. 10, 1948 

Dec. 4, 1947

Feb. 10, 1948 

Dec. 4. 1947

Feb. 10. 1948 

Apr. 10, 1947

March 1940

Apr. 15. 1947 

Oct. 8, 1947 

Dec. 3. 1947 

1936 (?)

May 14, 1947

November 1938

Specific 

capacity 

(gpm/ft)

Use

of 

water

Measuring point

Description

Height 

above (+) 

or below (-) 

land-surface 

datum (ft)

Remarks

County, N. Mex. Continued

26

16

15

12 

45

on

20

M

RR

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

DI

M

M

M 

M

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

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

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

Top of 8 by 8 pump... 

supports.

Top of concrete floor.

+0.50

-11.51

.00

'+.50

+.50

+.25

+1.00

+.70

+ .50

.00

Original depth 251 ft. backfilled to 82

ft for best water.

2001 ft east of well 23. IE. 21. 314.

Reportedly poor quality.

Filled with sand to 70 (-) ft.

See analysis. 

Irrigates yard.

See analysis.

See analysis.
174 GROUND*WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 12. Records of large-diameter wells near or on the valley

No.

Well

location

no.

Sheet Tract

Owner

or

name

Driller

Date

completed

Topographic

Situation

Mesilla Valley, Dona Ana

74

75

76 

77

78 

79

80

81

8?,

23.2E. I7.210c

23. 2E. 17. 210d

23. 2E. 20.412 

23. 2E. 28. 113

23. 2E. 29. 143 

23. 2E. 29. 243

23. 2E. 29. 243a

23. 2E. 29. 243b

23. 2E. 29. 243c

11 

11

11 

11

11

11

11

59

well 4.

well 6. 

B. B. Evans..........

well 1. 

NMAC, Irrig. Eng.. 

well 3.

well 2

well 3. 

NMAC................

well 4.

Dutch Chandler.....

R. D. Sidey.. .......

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

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

1940 (?)......

1947.

1937........... 

1906..........

June 1935.... 

1932 (?)......

1938...........

1946.

1947.

M

M

S 

S

F 

S

S

S

S

No.

Well

location

no.

Pump

Type

Size

(iB.)

Kind

of

power

Yield

Rate

(gpm)

Date

of

measurement

Drawdown 

below static level

Amount

Duration

of test

(hr)

Mesilla Valley, Dona Ana

74

Ft C

76

77

78 

79

Bft

81

82

9^ 917 T7 91fl^>

9Q 917 1*7 91 fW

no 917 9A A1O

23. 2E. 28. 113

23. 2E. 29. 143

on OTT OQ OJQ

oo Or- On OAQ23. 2E. 29. 243b

23. 2E. 29. 243c

T

T

C

PI

T 

PI

PI

6

6

8

E

E

E

E

E 

E

£

310 M

oon »*

OAA o

100 R

1.270M 

100 R

1 AA D

Apr. 3, 1947.....

Feb. 12, 1948....

1937................

1946..... ....... ....

Nov. 18, 1946... 

1946....... ....... ..

,.........do..........

....... 3 R

16 R

13 M 24
RECORDS 175

floor of the Rio Granefe in Rincon and Meailla Valleys Continued

Altitude 

ibove sea 

level 

(ft)

Type 

of 

well

Depth 

of 

well 

(ft)

Diameter 

of 

well 

(in.)

Principal water -bearing bed

Depth 

to top 

of bed 

(ft)

Thickness 

(ft)

Character 

of 

material

Depth 

to 

which 

well is 

cased 

(ft)

Water level

Below 

land 

surface 

(ft)

Date

of 

measurement

County, N. Mex. Continued

4,048 A

3,935 A

3.942T

3.883L

3,899 T

3,906 T

3,903 L 

3.898L

Or

Or

Dd

Dd

Or

Dd

Dd

Dr 

Dr

298

300±(?)

70

110

50

228

428

83 

305

10

12

12

12

16

4

8

18 

14

50

55

20

20

gravel.

Sand and large... 

gravel.

298

70

110

50

228

81 

286

184. 54

184. 91 

184. 90 

56

75

12.82

28

35

34.00 

30.35

Dec. 3, 1947

Feb. 12, 1948 

Mar. 25, 1948 

April 1947

1946

Nov. 14, 1946

1932

1938

Dec. 14, 1946 

Feb. 15, 1947

Specific 

capacity 

(gpm/ft)

Use 

of 

water

Measuring point

Description

Height 

above (+) 

or below (-) 

land-surface 

datum (ft)

Re*marks

County, N. Mex. Continued

67

6

98

...........

M

M

I

D

I 

D

D

II

D

 pipe ineoncrete base.

Top of rib inside pump 

shell.

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

+.82

+1.50

+ .80

+ .50

Dug to 50 ft to water level, 1937.

Dug to 70 ft to water in 1906, 326 gpm,

drawdown 21 ft, 1906. Swimming pool 

and emergency use. 

Yield, 1,625 gpm; drawdown, 18.5 ft 

when drilled. 

Pit, depth 28 ft.

Pit, depth 35 ft.

Intended for domestic.
176 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 12. Records of large-diameter wells near or on the valley

No.

Well

location

no.

Sheet Tract

Owner

or

name

Driller

Date

completed

Topographic

situation

Mesilla Valley, Dona Ana

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

99!

93

23. 2E. 30. 412b

23.2E.30.412c

23. 2E. 31. 213

24. IE. 1. Ill 

24. IE. 1. 144

24. 2E. 5. 234

24. 2E. 5. 422

24. 2E. 15. 231

24. 2E. 22. 444

24. 3E. 31. 430

25. 2E. 2. 221

11

11

11

12 

19!

13

13

15

15

17

17

74

74

L29

33A1 

33A2

18C

ISA

14

63A

72A1B

NMAC, Horti...... 

cultural well 3.

NMAC, Horti...... 

cultural well 4.

NMAC, Agronomy 

well 1.

Stahmann Farms, .. 

Inc. , well 1.

Inc. , well 3.

W. E. Evans........

W. H. Walters.....

R. D. Sidey.......

Layne Texas.......

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

J. F. Williams.... 

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

May 1935...

November...

1947.

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

August....... 

1947.

1947.

1948. 

October......

1947.

1948.

(?) 1947... 

October......

1946.

1947.

F

F

F

F 

F

F

F

F

F

S

F

No.

Well

location

no.

Pump

Type

Size

(in-)

Kind

of

power

Yield

Rate

(gpm)

Date

of

measurement

Drawdown

below static level

Amount

Duration

of test

(hr)

Mesilla Valley, Dona Ana

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

23. 2E. 30. 412b

23.2E.30.412c

23. 2E. 31. 213

24. IE. 1. Ill

24. IE. 1. 144

24. 2E. 5. 234

24. 2E. 5. 422

24. 2E. 15. 231

24. 2E. 22. 444

24. 3E. 31.430

25. 2E. 2. 221

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

8

8

8

8

8

4

6

E

T

T

T

250 E

695 R

1,100 R

1,200 R

800 R

350 R

600 R

1946.

1947. 

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

1947...............

1946...............

21 R

40 R

60 R

19
RECORDS 177

floor of the Rio Grande in Rincon and Mesilla Valleys Continued

Altitude 

above sea 

level 

(ft)

Type 

of 

well

Depth 

of 

well 

(ft)

Diameter 

of 

well 

(in.)

Principal water-bearing bed

Depth 

to top 

of bed 

(ft)

Thickness 

(ft)

Character 

of 

material

Depth

which 

well is 

cased 

(ft)

Water level

Below 

land 

surface 

(ft)

Date 

of 

measurement

County. N. Mex. Continued

3,885 T 

3,885 T 

3,880 T

3,875 T 

3,875 T

3,870 T

3,870 T

3.855T

3,853 T

3,860 T

3,840 T

Dd 

Dr 

Dr

Dr 

Dr

Or

Or

Or

Dr

Dr

Dr

71 

95

70

331 

100

60

80

.80

90

96

12 

14 

14

15 

16

12

12

16

10

12

12

26

44

50

60

104

Sand and........ 

gravel. 

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

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

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

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

gravel.

gravel.

71 

92

306

90

16.97 

17.63 

16.89 

17.53 

13.16

14.13 

9.65 

14.02 

14.93 

12.48

10.92

11.57

13.16

13.97 

41.78

42.97 

11

Dec. 3, 1947 

Feb. 12, 1948 

Dec. 3, 1947 

Feb. 10, 1948 

Dec. 3, 1947

Feb. 10, 1948 

July 31, 1947 

Dec. 4, 1947 

Feb. 12, 1948 

Do.

Dec. 5, 1947

Feb. 13, 1948

Dec. 5, 1947

Feb. 11, 1948 

Dec. 4, 1947

Feb. 11, 1948

Specific 

capacity 

(gpm/ft)

Use

of 

water

Measuring point

Description

Height 

above (+) 

or below (-) 

land -surf ace 

datum (ft)

Remarks

County, N. Mex. Continued

33

28

20

18

A

I

I

I

II

I

I

n

ii

n i

casing.

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

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

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

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

-1.50

+ .50

+1.75

+.87

+.50

+.75

+1.75

+.50

sanded.

Being drilled Feb. 13, 1948, depth, 48 ft.
178 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 12. Records of large-diameter wells near or on the valley

No.

Well

location

no.

Sheet Tract

Owner

or

name

Driller

Date

completed

Topographic

situation

Mesilla Valley, Dona Ana

94

95

96

97 

98

99 

100 

101

109:

103 

104

25. 2E. 4. 422

25. 2E. 24. 413

25. 3E. 8.132 

25. 3E. 19. 331 

26. 3E. 19.311

26. 3E. 19.432 

26. 3E. 30. 114 

26. 3E. 31. 123

27. 3E. 5. 414

27. 3E. 6.213 

27. 3E. 15. 143

18

20

19 

21 

26

26 

26 

26

28

28 

30

6A

39

83 

5

12 

16

57

ISA]

5

7

S. Y. Wilson......

W. H. Randle....

Mrs. Fuller........ 

W. E. Esslinger...

Judo Yabumoto... 

O. E. Egbert......

L. G. Little.......

Chester Little....

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

McBee.. ...............

Schumaker............ 

Morrison Bros......... 

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

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

1947. 

October.....

1947.

January.(?)u,

1948. 

November... 

1947.

1948. 

October..... 

1947. 

February.... 

1948. 

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

March 1948

February.... 

1948.

1948.

F

F

S 

F 

S

F 

S 

S

F

F 

F

Mesilla Valley. El

105

106

107

108

28. 3E. 12. 311

28. 3E. 25. 424

28. 3E. 25. 442

28. 3E. 26. 232

32

33

33

33

12-7

4-2

4-21A

5-21

O. C. Coles.......

J. M. Taylor......

ErickBrandis......

Payne................... January......

1948.

1947.........

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

,......do......

F

F

F

F

No.

Well

location

no.

Pump

Type

Size

(in.)

Kind

of

power

Yield

Rate

(gPm)

Date

of

measurement

Drawdown

below static level

Amount

Duration

of test

(hr)

Mesilla Valley, Dona Ana

94

95

OC

Q7

98

99

100

101

102 

103 

104

25. 2E. 4. 422 

25. 2E. 24. 413

25. 3E. 8. 132

25. 3E. 19.331

26. 3E. 19. 311

26. 3E. 19.432

26. 3E. 30. 114

26. 3E. 31. 123

27. 3E. 5.414 

27. 3E. 6.213 

27. 3E. 15. 143

T

T

T

T

T

T

T 

T

10 

6

8

8

8

8

10 

8

G

T

G

T

G

T

G 

G

1, 100 M 

600 R

1.100R

600 R

Qftft T?

800 R

1.500M 

1.100E 

800 R

Dec. 4, 1947.... 

1947.... ...........

1948...............

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

1947

1948...............

Mar. 25, 1948 

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

1948...............

42 M 

35 R

33 R

11 R

60 (?)R

47 R

35 

34 

40 R

4

48 

4

Mesilla Valley, El

105

106

107

108

28. 3E. 12. 311

28. 3E. 25. 424

28. 3E. 25. 442

28. 3E. 26. 232

T

T

C

None

8

4

V:

None

T

G

E

None
RECORDS 179

floor of the Rio Gtande in Rincon and Mesilla Valleys Continued

Altitude 

above sea 

level 

(ft)

Type 

of 

well

Depth 

of 

well 

(ft)

Diameter 

of 

well 

(in.)

Principal water-bearing- bed

Depth 

to top 

of bed 

(ft)

Thickness 

(ft)

Character 

of 

material

Depjh 

to 

which 

well is 

cased 

(ft)

Water level

Below 

land 

surface 

(ft)

Date . 

of 

measurement

County, N. Mex. Continued

3.840T

3,823 T

3,845 T

3.824T

3.810T

3,800 T

3,800 T

3,800 T

3,785 T

3.,780'T

Dr

Or

Dr

Dr

Dr

T>

Dr

Or

Dr

Dr

Dr

95

130

90

132

131

107

90

82

126

91

20

12

18

16

14

16

14

16

14

14

16

50

58

59

53

52

40

55

42

27

20

42

30

38

Sand and........

gravel.

Sand and.........

gravel.

gravel.

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

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

gravel.

90

107

82

85

15.58

8.57

9.20

18.04

9.36

9.90

23.63

10.17

8.30

10

13

17

8.42

Dec. 4, 1947

Do.

Feb. 11, 1948

Do.

Dec. 4, 1947

Feb. 11, 1948

Do.

Dec. 4, 1947

Feb. 11, 1948

March 1948

Do.

Feb. 11, 1948

Paso County, Tex.

3,755 T

..........

Specific 

capacity 

[gpm/ft)

Dr 

Or

Dr 

Dr

. . 60 3r ..................

64 .8 ..................

Use 

of 

'water

............................... 7.04 Feb. 11, 1948

Measuring point

Height 

above (+) 

Description or below (-) 

land-surface 

datum (ft)

Remarks

County, N. Mex. Continued

26

17

33

55 

15

17

43

32

20

I

I

I

I

I 

I

II

n

i

i

n

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

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

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

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

...,...........do. ............

+1.00

.00

+.'50

.00

+2.00 

+.50

+3.00

+2.00

drawdown, 22 ft, February 1948.

Temperature 70. 5 F. See analysis. 

Well sanded in (?), measured 250 gpm; 

drawdown, 22 ft, February 1948.

Being completed Feb. 13, 1948.

Paso County, Tex.

I

I

ID

n

+1.50
180 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS. RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 13. -Records of wells principally above the valley

Altitude: A, determined by aneroid barometer; T, determined from U. S. Geological Survey

topographic quadrangle maps.

Type of well: Dd dug and drilled; Dr, drilled; Du, dug; J, jetted. 

Depth of well: .M, measured; otherwise reported. 

Water level: Reported figures given to nearest foot.

No,

Well

Location no. Field name Owner or

1 

2

3

19.5. lr 

19. 5. 16. 100

19.5.28.300

Mexican Querva... 

Twin Mills West...

Iron Mill.............

name Driller

Homer Jones................ 

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

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

.........

Sierra

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

Andy Romenger...

Date 

completed

County,

1925....... 

1900.......

1917 (?)..

Dona Ana

4

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10

11 

12 

13

14 

15 

16

17

18

No.

18. IE. 27. 430

18.4.5.211 

18.4.8.410 

18.4.9.130 

18.4.34.211 

18.4.35.221 

19. IE. 1. 221

19. 2E. 33. 120 

19. 2E. 33. 120a 

19. 2E. 33. 210

19. 4E. 31. 420 

19.4.29.130 

19.4.30.240 

20. IE. 4. 120

20. IE. 8.330

Location no.

Simms...............

Middle well........

Headquarters West

Headquarters East 

Little well...........

East well............

West well...........

A. & M. Camp..

Depth to which 

well is cased 

(ft)

Jornada Experimental 

Range. 

C. W. Right................ 

Bre wster. .....................

R. F. Hedge 

Simms........ 

Boggs

Jornada Experimental 

Range. 

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

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

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

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

Homer Jones................ 

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

Jornada Experimental 

Range. 

New Mexico Coll. of 

Agr. and Mech. Arts.

EiiYott!"!!!!!"""!!!

Schoptaugh.......... 

Boggs!.. ...............

Turney

Andy Romenger.... 

Boyd Lusk... .........

Dutch Chandler..... 

Jim Sewell.... .......

Water level

Below 

land 

surface (ft)

Date

of 

measurement

Type 

of 

pump

1946 (?).. 

1916...... 

1945...... 

1940 (?).. 

1940.......

1937......

1917...... 

1936...... 

1906......

1930.......

Kind 

of

power

Sierra County,

1

?.

3

19.5.1.

19. 5. 16. 100

19.5.28.300

28.05

99.80

118. 20

June 25, 1947.....

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

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

PI

PI

PI

W

W

W

Dona Ana

4

ft

fi

7 

8

9

10 

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

18. IE. 27. 430

18.4.5.211

18.4.8.410

18.4.9.130 

18.4.34.211

18.4.35.221

19. IE. 1. 221 

19. 2E. 33. 120

19.2E..33. 120a

19. 2E. 33. 210 

19. 4E. 31. 420

19.4.29.130

19.4.30.240

20. IE. 4. 120

20. IE. 8. 330

100

112

350

355

30

300

356

195

3 to 4

4.72

8

236. 05

239. 50 

100

160

290

April 1947..........

1946.................

July 15, 1947.....

1940.................

Apr. 17, 1947....

Mar. 26, 1948....

1947.................

1947.................

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

PI

C

None

PI

PI 

PI

PI

PI 

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

W

E

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

E

W 

W

G

W 

W

W

W

W

W
RECORDS 181

floor of the Rio Grande in Sierra end Dona Ana Counties, N. Mex.

Type of pump: AL, air lift; C, centrifugal; Pl,plunger; T, turbine.

Kind of power: B, butane engine; E, electric motor; G, gasoline motor; T, tractor engine; W,

wind. 

Use of water: A, abandoned; D, domestic; I, irrigation; RR, railroad; S, stock.

Topographic 

situation

Altitude 

above sea 

level (ft)

Type 

of 

well

Depth 

of well 

(ft)

Diameter 

of well 

(in.)

Principal water-bearing bed

Depth to 

top of 

bed (ft)

Thickness 

(ft)

Character 

of 

material

N. Mex.

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

4.225 A

4,490 A

4,500 A

Du

Du

Dr

40

118 M

138 M

60

50

6

erate.

County, N. Mex.

Valle

On m

In cai 

On m

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.. t...do...........

Use 

of 

water

Quality

4, 355 A

4,066 T 

4,058 T 

4,059 T 

4.036T 

4.036T 

4,350 A

4,355 A 

4,350 A 

4,340 A

5,235 A 

4,440 A

4,360 A 

4,395 A

Dr

J

Dr

J 

J

Dr

Dr 

Dr 

Dr

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr

Dr

350

82 

200 (?) 

100 

245 

214 

350

360

103 

180 

160 

390

373

6<

2% 

6 

2% 

2% 

3 

6

6 

6

6 

6 

12

6

6

Measuring point

Description

Height 

above (+) or 

below (-) 

land -surf ace 

datum (ft)

310

295

50

78

Quicksand.

Sand and gravel.

Quicksand.

Quicksand and, 

sandstone.

Quicksand.

Remarks

N. Mex. Continued

S 

S

S

Good 

.....do....

.....do....

Top of tin well cover... 

Top of wooden well.....

cover.

+0.30 

+ .50

+1.00

Reportedly weak.

County, N. Mex.

S

D

A

A

A

D

S

D,S

D

D.S 

D.S

S

S

S

S

Fair

.....do....

Bad

Poor

.....do....

Good

Fair

Good

Good

.».do.....

Poor

Top of steel pipe clamps

+5.80

+1.43

+.50

Clay from 70tollO±ft and 112tto 245

ft. Rock 1101 to 112t ft.

camp.
182 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 13. Records of wells principally above the valley floor of

No.

Well

Location no. Field name Owner or name Driller

Date 

completed

Dona Ana County,

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30 

31

32

33

34

35 

36

37

38

20. IE. 14. 140

20. IE. 35. 220

20. 2E. 28. 330

20. 3E. 18. 210

20. 3E. 36. 330 

20.1.10.

20.1.11.310

20.1.26.210

20. 1. 30. 330

20.1.31.320

20.1.31.320a

20.2.13.330 

20.2.24.110

20.2.25.230

20. 2. 25.230a

20.2.34.

20.4.6.210 

20.5.8.220

21. IE. 15. 230

21. IE. 22. 240

Taylor well.........

T. Gardner spring.,

Mayfield............

Selden....... ........

Buckle Bar..........

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

Hackett.. ...........

Cleofos....... .......

Range.

Agr. and Mech. Arts.

Range. 

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

W. F. Isaacs...............

Agr. and Mech. Arts. 

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

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

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

Beal... ........................

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

C. H. Ward.................

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

Beal...........................

Homer Jones................ 

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

Agr. and Mech. Arts. 

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

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

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

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

Lusk......... ........

1936. 

1905 (?)..

1936.

1900 (?).'.

1935......

1942......

1945......

1938......

1947. 

1937......

1931.......

1943.......

1935.......

1900 (?)..

No. Location no.

Depth to which

well is cased

(ft)

Water level

Below

land

surface (ft)

Date

of

measurement

Type

of

pump

Kind

of

power

Dona Ana County,

19

20

21 

22

23

24

25

26 

27 

28 

29

.30 

31

32 

33

34

35

36

37

38

20. IE. 14. 140 

20. IE. 35. 220

20. 2E. 28. 330 

20. 3E. 18. 210

20. 3E. 36.330

20. 1. 10.

20.1.11.310

20.1.26.210 

20. 1. 30. 330 

20.1.31.320 

20.1.31.320a

20.2.13.330 

20. 2. 24. 110

20. 2. 25. 230 

20.2.25.230a 

20. 2. 34.

20.4.6.210

20.5.8.220 

21. IE. 15. 230

21. IE. 22. 240

356 

356

365 (?)

400

316

366

267 (?) 

18

45

26

70 

21

7

0 

0

0

325 

319. 74 

290

230 

360. 00

355

267 

13 

20 

14

24

17

38 

16 

20 to 25

120

53.95

4

6

February 1936..... 

Mar. 26, 1948.... 

1947.................

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

Mar. 18, 1947....

Mar. 4, 1947......

1947.................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1947.................

June 24, 1947..... 

1947.................

PI 

PI

PI

PI

PI 

PI 

PI 

PI

PI 

PI

PI 

PI 

PI

PI

PI 

PI

PI

W 

W.G

W

W

W 

W 

W 

W

W 

Hand

W 

W 

W

W

W.G 

W

W
RECORDS

the Rio Grande in Sierra and Dona Ana Counties, N. Mex. Continued

183

Topographic 

situation

Altitude 

above sea 

level (ft)

Type 

of 

well

Depth 

of well 

(ft)

Diameter 

of wel] 

(«.)

Principal water-bearing bed

Depth 

to top oi 

bed (ft)

Thickness 

(ft)

Character 

of 

material

N. Mex. Continued

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

4,415 A

4,390 A

4,325 A

4,455 A

4,380 A

4,335 A

4,010 A

4, 006 A

4,023 A

4,010 A

4,475 A

4,440 A

4.525T

4, 520 T

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dd

Dr

J

Du

J

Dr

Du

Dr

Dr

Du

Du

Du

356

373

365

499

320

369

284

18

93

59

26

119

70

21

124

160

60

16

20

6.

6

6

6

6

6

6

4

6

6

6

3

6

8

6

6

CA /O\ 60(?)

(*f\ /O\

"U.8

9Q 1;

312

355

267

45

59

0

Q74.

68

0

0

0

rjQ

17+

26

2

60

16

15

Da.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do4

Do.

rv-i

Do.

Do.

Use 

of 

water

Quality

Measuring point

Description

Height 

above (+) or 

below(-) 

land -surf ace 

datum (ft)

Remarks

N. Mex. Continued

S 

D,S

S

A

S

S

S

S

D,S

D,S

D,S

D.S

S

D,S

S

S

D.S 

S

S

Good 

.....do....

Fair

Hard

Salty

Salty

Hard

.....do....

.....do....

Top of casing......

Top of pipe clamps......

+0.90

+1.00

+1.45

phurv taste. Temperature 58 F. 

Well not located.

Temperature 67 F. Luna County.

 springs cased in for supply.
184 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS. RINCON AND. MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 13. Records of wells principally above the valley floor of

No.

Well

Location no. Field name Owner or name Driller

Date 

completed

Dona Ana County,

39

40 

41

42 

43 

44

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50

51 

52

53 

54 

55

56

57 

58

21. 2E. 12. 222

21. 2E. 15. 244 

21. 2E. 25. 430

21. 2E. 25.43 Oa 

21. 3E. 25.430 

21. 4E. 30. 230

21.1.9.230 

21.2.31.440 

22. IE. 28. 140 

22. IE. 2G. 310 

22. IE. 28. 320 

22. 2E. 13.411

22. 2E. 31. 340 

22. 3E. 2. 240

22. 3E. 2. 410 

22. 3E. 2. 420 

22. 3E. 11.320

22. 3E. 23.320 

22. 3E. 23. 320a 

22. 3E. 26.420

Parker...............

East Headquarters

West Headquarters 

Home...............

Merrimac mine.-., 

spring.

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

West well...........

East well...........

Mine house.........

spring.

Edwin Parker................

Jornada Range Reserve 

W. F. Isaacs................

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

............ ..do (?)..........

H. S. Bissell.. ..............

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

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

J. W. Daujjherty........... 

W. F. Isaacs................

S. A. Walter................

E. J. Isaacs................. 

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

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

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

J. F. Williams......

American Smelting 

& Refining Co.

Jeff Chandler........

Boone......... ........ 

Dutch Chandler.....

Dickinson brothers .

Ed Boone.............

Ed Boone.............

April..... 

1947.

1907. 

1899.....

1900.....

March.... 

1948. 

1920......

1931...... 

1946......

1939...... 

1922......

1939......

No. Location no.

Depth to which

well is cased

(ft)

Water level

Below

land

surface (ft)

Date

of

measurement

Type

of

pump

Kind

of

power

Dona Ana County,

39

40

41

4?.

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

59!

53

54 

55

56

57 

58

21. 2E. 12. 222

21. 2E. 15. 244

21. 2E. 25.430

21. 2E.25.430a

21. 3E. 25.430

21. 4E. 30. 230

21.1.9.230

21.2.31.440

22. IE. 28. 140

22. IE. 28. 310

22. IE. 28.320

22. 2E. 13.411

22. 2E. 31. 340

22. 3E. 2. 240

22. 3E. 2.410

22. 3E. 2. 420 

22. 3E. 11. 320

22. 3E. 23. 320

22. 3E. 23. 320a 

22. 3E. 26.420

420 (?)

75

242

42

162

430

T6l (?)

150

50 

40

122

40

294

300

290. 50

75

30.07

90

5

5

5

375. 04

164. 00

187

140

115.30 

135

135

135

July 1947............

1947..................

Feb. 26, 1947.....

1947..................

Mar. 5, 1947......

May 26, 1947......

Mar. 26, 1948

Mar. 18, 1947

1947. ................

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

Mar. 5, 1947 

1947..................

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

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

Mar. 12, 1947

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

C

C

C

PI

PI

PI

PI 

PI

PI

PI

G

W

W

W

W

W

E

E

E

W

W

W

W 

W

W

W
RECORDS 185

the Rio Grande in Sierra and Dona Ana Counties, N. Mex. Continued

Topographic

situation

Altitude

above sea

level (ft)

Type

of

well

Depth

of well

(ft)

Diameter

of well

(in.)

Principal wate -bearing bed

Depth

to top of

bed (ft)

Thickness

(ft)

Character

of

material

N. Mex. Continued

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

Slope of San Andres..

In Rolling Hills .......

Valley floor 

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

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

In San Augustine Pass., 

Organ Mountains. 

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

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

Mountains. 

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

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

4,370 T

4,290 T 

4.360T

4,360 T 

5.190 T 

5,500 T

4,710 T

4,450

4,060 A 

5,110 T

5,030 T 

5,090 T 

4,890 T

4,955 T 

4,935 T 

5,360 T

Dr

Dr 

Dr

Dr 

Dr 

Dr

Dr 

Dr

J 

Dr

J 

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dd 

Dr 

Dr

Dd 

Dr

631

250 

342

325 

75 

125 (?)

180 

242 

42 

162 

430

175 

198

155 

200 

204

212 

204

6

4 Ma

6

4 

6

6 

6 

2V4 

4 

2V4 

6

6 

6

6 

6 

6

6 

6

335

320 

320

5 

150 

386

165 

187

165

5 

5

37

10

Sandstone (?).

Gravel. 

Do.

Sand and gravel. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do.

Gravel. 

Limestone and 

shale (?). 

Limestone (?). 

Limestone and shale (?). 

Do.

Do. 

Do.

Use 

of 

water

Quality

Measuring point

Description

Height 

above (+) or 

below (-) 

land-surface 

datum (ft)

Remarks

N. Mex. Continued

n

A

D,S

D,S 

D.S

S

D.S

D.S

D,S

D.S

D.S

.......

D

D,S

D.S

S

D.S

D,S

S

Good

.....do.... 

Hard

.....do....

Good

.....do....

Poor

Good

.....do.... 

Fair'

taste. 

Hard

.....do....,

.....do....,

.....do....,

....do....,

.....do....

Top of 4 by 4 pipe...... 

clamps.

Top of collar on casing 

Top of pipe column.....

+1.5

+1.20

+1.50 

+4.30

+1.30

Reported by Lee, W. T. , Water - 

Supply Paper 188. Pumps dry.

diate vicinity. Small flow.

Temperature 76. 5 F. See analysis.

does not go dry.
186 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 13. Records of wells principally above the valley floor of

No.

Well

Location no. Field name Owner or name Driller

Date 

completed

Dona Ana County,

59 

60

61

fi2

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72 

73

74

75

22.1.19.330 

22.2.21.330

22.3.16.340

22.3. 16.340a

22.4.10.230 

22.4.19.340

23. IE. 30.210

23.2E.6.332a

23. 2E. 7. 320

23. 2E. 29. 332

23. 2E. 30. 441

23. 2E. 30. 443

23. 3E. 1.340

23. 3E. 12. 230 

23. 3E. 13. 330

23. 3E. 21. 310

23.1.15.211

Hawkins............

Little Mills North

Little Mills South

Monterey well.....

H. S. Bissell... ............. 

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

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

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

Weldon Burris... ............ 

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

Will Washington...........

R. E. Boyd.... .............

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

Picacho Oil & Gas Syn...

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

E. H. Boone.. .......

MacElhaney.

Jeff Chandler.......

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

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

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

1929'!!!!!!

1947......

1945......

1938......

1907......

1941......

No. Location no.

Depth to which

well is cased

(ft)

Water level

Below

land

surface (ft)

Date

of

measurement

Type

of

pump

Kind

of

power

Dona Ana County,

59

60 

61 

62

63

64 

65

66

67 

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

22.1.19.330

22.2.21.330 

22.3.16.340 

22.3. 16.340a

22.4.10.230

22.4.19.340 

23. IE. 30. 210

23. 2E. 6. 332a

23. 2E. 7. 320 

23. 2E. 29. 332

23. 2E. 30. 441

23. 2E. 30. 443

23. 3E. 1.340

23. 3E. 12. 230

23. 3E. 13. 330

23. 3E. 21. 310

23.1.15.211

277 

75 

75

383

224

67 

224

268

157

100 (?)

151.00

235. 60 

12.00

310

211 

297.65

65

57.60 

16

11

17

0.30

69

65

200

550

Feb. 4, 1947.......

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

Feb. 5, 1947.......

1942 (?).............

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

Feb. 6, 1947.......

Apr. 10, 1947......

Mar. is, 1947.....

1947..................

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

PI

PI 

PI

PI

PI 

PI

PI

PI 

C

C

C

PI

PI PI

PI

w

w 

w

w

W,G 

W.E

W

W

E

E

E

G

W

W

W
RECORDS 

the Rio Grande in Sierra and Dona Ana Counties, N. A/ex. Continued

187

Topographic 

situation

Altitude 

above sea 

level (ft)

Type 

of 

well

Depth 

of well 

(ft)

Diameter 

of well 

(in.)

Principal water-bearing bed

Depth 

to top of 

bed (ft)

Thickness 

(ft)

Character 

of 

material

N. Mex. Continued

Flat plain...............

Gap in range of hills..

Magdalena Draw......

Bluff above valley....

floor. 

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

Slope off Rio..........

Crande valley.

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

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

4,460 T

4.610T

4,610 T

4,610 T

4,815 T

4,180 T

3,950 T

3,940 T

5,650 T

5,780 T

5,600 T

4,590 T

4,480 T

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dd

Dr

J

J

Du

Du

Dr

Dr

Dr

180

280

75

383

224

330

130

67

224

268

157

Q

70-75

220

3,196

8

6

6

6

4'/2

5V4

6

5

4V4

3

9 1/

6

8

220

130

148

5

9

Alluvial fill.

Do.

Do.

Use

of 

water

Quality

Measuring point

Description

Height 

above (+) or 

below (-) 

land -surf ace 

datum (ft)

Remarks

N. Mex. Continued

S

S

S

S

S

D,S

D

D

D

Ice

D

D

D,S

S

S

S

A

Good

Fair

Good

,....do....

,....do....

.....do....

....do....

Good

....do.....

Poor

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

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

+0.50

+1.80

+.70

+ .70

+ 1.95

j.^ 9

water 2,130 ppm, lower water 720 

ppm.

See analysis.

solved solids 300 ppm; hardness 150.

behind dam across arroyo.

ported 5,430 ppm.

317267 O - 55 - 13
188 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 13. Records of wetts principally above the valley floor of

No.

Well

Location no. Field name Owner or name Driller

Date 

completed

Dona Ana County,

76

77

78 

79

an

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90 

91

92 

93

94

95

23.1.32.330

23.2.13.310

23. 2. 13. 310a 

23. 2. 23. 330

23.2.27.330

23. 2. 27.330a

23. 3. 4. 140

23.3.9.330

23.3.20.420

23.3. 20.420a

23.4.18.111

23.4.18.310

23.4.26.440

23.4.32.144

24. 3E. 31. 230 

24.1.22.120

24.3.4.420 

24.3.5.330

24.3.6.320

24.3.6.430

T^. , .

Headquarters West

Little Gap East....

Little Gap West...

Kerr.. ...............

Le Febre............

Temple East.......

Temple West......

Mossman ranch...,

Brass.................

H. S. Bissell...............

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Price...................

H. S. Bissell................ 

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

F. C. Leach................

.........do (?).......

Payne.... .............

Al Kimball........

Payne.................

1935.......

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

1947.......

1916.......

1936.......

1900 (?)..

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

1941.......

1926.......

No. Location no.

Depth to which 

well is cased 

(ft)

Water level

Below 

land 

surface (ft)

Date 

of 

measurement

Type 

of 

pump

Kind

of 

power

Dona Ana County

7fi

77

78

79

80 

81 

82 

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

23.1.32.330

23.2.13.310

23.2. 13. 310a 

23. 2. 23. 330

23.2.27.330 

23. 2. 27. 330a 

23.3.4.140 

23.3.9.330 

23.3.20.420

23. 3. 20. 420a

23.4.18.111

23.4.18.310

23.4.26.440

23.4.32.144

24. 3E. 31. 230

24. 1. 22. 120

24. 3. 4. 420

24.3.5.330

24.3.6.320

24. 3. 6. 430

165

180

180 

172 

1,005(?)

80

0

0

130

117

135

350

130 (?)

117.70

148. 00 

149. 20 

4.20 

30.50 

54.20

85.60

14

18

78.40

90

300. 00+

333

300. 00+ 

78.15

98

99.35

Feb. 4, 1947......

Feb. 4, 1947....... 

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

Feb. 5, 1947....... 

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

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

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

1942..................

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

Feb. 7, 1947.......

Feb. 10, 1947.....

Feb. 5, 1947....... 

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

1942 (?)..............

Feb. 17, 1947......

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI 

PI 

PI

None 

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

W

W

W.G 

W

W 

W 

W,G

""w"""

W

W,G

W,G

W

W,G

W

W

W

W
RECORDS 189

the Rio Grande in Sierra and Dona Ana Counties, N. Mex, Continued

Topographic 

situation

Altitude 

above sea 

level (ft)

Type 

of 

well

Depth 

of well 

(ft)

Diameter 

of well 

(in.)

Principal water-bearing Jevel

Depth 

to top of 

bed (ft)

Thickness 

(ft)

Character 

of 

material

N. Mex. Continued

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

West side of Mason

Draw. 

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

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

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

On slope of valley....

- - Draw.

4,410 T

4,420 T

4,420 T

4,460 T

4,470 T

4,470 T

4,480 T

4,450 T

4,390 T

4,400 T

4,360 T

3,930 T 

4,220 T

4,360 T

4,330 T

4.330 T

4, 325 T

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Du

Du

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

501

200

180

177

180

172

1,005

80

366

18

20

200(?

280

130

366

138

135

8

6

6

8

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

5% 

6

6

6

6

6

430

108

60

71

22

40

Quicksand.,

Use 

of 

water

Quality

Measuring point

Description

Height 

above (+) or 

below ( -) 

land-surface 

datum (ft)

Remarks

N. Mex. Continued

s

D.S

D,S

S

c

S

S

A

S

S

D.S

S

S

D.S

D.S .

S

D,S

D

Good

Good

.....do....

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

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

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

+0.70

+1.25

+.85

+1.85

+1.45

+1.50

+ .65

+.80

+2.60

+1.10

Do.

Weak well.

Three windmill wells at this location.
190 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 13. Records of wells principally above the valley floor of

No.

Well

Location no. Field name Owner or name Driller completed

Dona Ana County,

96 

97 

98

qq

100

ini

102

103

104

105

10fi

107

108

109 

110

111 11?,

113

114

115

116

117

118

24.3.7.410 

24.3.8.310 

24.3.25.230

24.4.2.111

24.4.12.220 

24.4.12.230

24.4.12.322

25. IE. 6.330

25. IE. 19. 240

25. 2E. 28. 220

25. 2E. 31. 130

25. 3E. 22. 120

25.2.12.240

25.2.30.320 

25.3.2.220

25.3.10.240 

25.4.10.120

25.4.22.110

26. IE. 18. 220

26. 2E. 17. 240

26. 2E. 31. 410

26. 3E. 9. 221

26. 3E. 11. Ill

Works well....... 

West Line........

Phillips...........

Perry..............

R. T. ranch.....

North well. 

O. D. ranch,....

South well.

John Biggs.................... 

H. S. Bissell...... .......... 

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

Phillips.......................

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

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

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

Paul Price....................

Johnson Bros................. 

H. S. Bissell.................

Johnson Bros.................. 

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

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

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

Paul Price....................

Zeke Mordyke...... 

Bob Payne...........

E. H. Boone.. ...... 

Strickland.. .........

E. H. Boone........

Bob Payne...........

U. S. Grazing......

Service.

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

1929 (?).. 

1936......

1941-42..

1934-35 .. 

1936 (?)..

1928 (?)..

1942 (?)..

1916......

1900......

1890 (?)..

1946......

1947...... 

1900 (?)..

1915......

1942......

1917......

July 1947

1943.......

No. Location no.

Depth to which 

well is cased

(ft)

Water level

Below 

land

surface (ft)

Date 

of

measurement

Type 

of

pump

Kind

of

power

Dona Ana County,

9fi

97

98

qq

100

101 10?,

103

104

105 

106

107

108

109

110

111

113

114

115

116

117

118

24.3.7.410

24.3.8.310

24.3.25.230

9 A. A. 9 1 1 1

9 A. A. 19 990

24.4.12.230

94. A. 19 ^99

25. IE. 6. 330

25. IE. 19.240

25. 2E. 28. 220 

25. 2E. 31. 130

25. 3E. 22. 120

oc 9 19 94.0

9C 9 on 090

25.3.2.220

25.3.10.240

25.4.10.120

25.4.22.110

26. IE. 18. 220

26. 2E. 17.240

26. 2E. 31.410

OR 0.17 Q 991

26.3E.11. Ill

0

170

130

100 

360

185

398

217

30

437

338

148

50

100+

169. 19

178.80

136. 56

Qfi ^1

91.28

120

300. 00+

375

104. 65

155

383

917

AAA O\

300.00+ 

120

185.95

121.20

390

321

317

4

15

1942 (?)..............

Mar. 25, 1948......

Feb. 11, 1947......

Sept. 16, 1942.....

Feb. 7, 1947........

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

1942 (?).............

Feb. 11, 1947......

Apr. 29, 1947......

1947.. ......... ........

Feb. 11, 1947...... 

1947...................

Feb. 7, 1947........

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

1947

PI

PI

None

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

G

PI

W

w

W.G

W

W,G

W

W,G

W

W,G

W,G

W

W

w

w

w

W,G

W

W

E

W
RECORDS 191

the Rio Grande in Sierra and Dona Ana Counties, N. Mex. Continued

Topographic 

situation

Altitude 

above sea 

level (ft)

Type 

of 

well

Depth 

of well 

(ft)

Diameter 

of well 

(in.)

Principal water-bearing bed

Depth 

to top of 

bed (ft)

Thickness 

(ft)

Character 

of 

material

N. Mex. Continued

On mesa................

4,315 T

4,325 T

4,550 T

4,320 T

4,320 T

4,310 T

4,210 T

4,160 T

3,920 T

4,. 170 T

3,980 T

4,225 T

4,280 T

4,480 T

4,420 T

4. 220 T

4. 170 T

4.210 T

4.125T

4,125 T

3 860 T

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

J

Dr

140

262

480

170

200 (?)

130

400+

400t

120

360

185

398

017

444

527

200

300+

4-10

340

338

148

50

6

7

4

6

6

6

6

7

6

8

6

6

8

8

6

6

6

6

8

2'/2

4

265

140

140

170

200

506

400

320

317

148

30

60

15

17

21

40

20

21

....... Do.

.... Do.

Sand.

Do.

Do.

Use 

of 

water

Quality

Measuring point

Description

Height 

above (+) or 

below (-) 

land -surf ace 

datum (ft)

Remarks

N. Mex. Continued

D.S

S

A

D

D.S

S

S

D.S

D.S

A

S

S

D,S

S

S

S

S

D.S

S

S

D

D.S

.....do....

.....do....

Bad

....do....

....do.....

....do....

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

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

+1.50

+.75

+.45

+1.00

+ .75

+1.10

+2.00

+.50

Weak well.

North well of 3 wells.

Southwesternmost of 2 wells.

Hit malpais; strong well.

Reported 10 to 12 gpm.

Reported 5 to 7 gpm.

North well of 2 wells.

Reported 18 gpm, drawdown 1 to 2 ft.

Reported 12 gpm, hardness 120 ppm.
192 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 13. Records of wells principally above the valley floor of

No.

Well

Location no. Field name Owner or name Driller

Date 

completed

Dona Ana County,

119

120

121

122 

123

124

125

12fi

127 

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

13fi

137

138

No.

26.1.4.320

26.1.4.410

26.1.16.330

26.1.25.410 

26.1.25.410a

27. IE. 11. 330

27.1E. 11.330a

27.lE.ll.330b

27. IE. 17. 210 

27. IE. 33. 130

27.1.8.340

27.1.26.430

27.1.32.120

27. 2. 2. 320

28. 2E. 24. 110

28.2E.24. HOa

28. 2E. 24. llOb

28. 2E. 31. 340

28. 3E. 3. 121

28. 3E. 5. 140

Location no.

Headquarters New

Lanark No. 2......

Lanark..............

Little Hole well..

Depth to which 

well is cased 

(ft)

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

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

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

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

Mrs. Annie Braidfoot..... 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water level

Below Date 

land of 

surface (ft) measurer

Shell Norwood.....

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

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

Bob Payne.......... 

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

Shell Norwood....

Bob Payne..........

Type 

of 

nent pump

1943......

1918.

1946......

1899......

1900......

1900......

1944...... 

1941......

1910 (?)..

1946......

1917......

1918......

1945......

1910 (?).,

1936......

Kind 

of 

power

Dona Ana County,

119

1?,0

121

122 

123 

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

26.1.4.320

26.1.4.410

26.1.16.330

26.1.25.410 

26.1.25.410a 

27. IE. 11. 330

27.1E. 11.330a

27.lE.ll.330b

27. IE. 17.210

27. IE. 33. 130

27.1.8.340

27.1.26.430

27.1.32.120

27.2.2.320

28. 2E. 24. 110

28.2E.24. HOa

28.2E.24. llOb

28. 2E. 31. 340

28. 3E. 3. 121

28. 3E. 5. 140

445

702

445

450 

450 

950

615

646

396 (?)

453 (?)

314 (?)

280

406

975

705

507

335

140

110

445

385

406

450 

430 

365

365

365

390

450

310

286. 39

280

400 (?)

342

340

342

330

328

325

298.5 

15

80-85

52.36

August 1918........

1947..................

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

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

1899..................

1900..................

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

1944..................

1941..................

Mar. 7, 1947......

1917..................

1941..................

1918..................

1941..................

1945..................

May 6, 1947....... 

1947..................

Aug. 28, i9'47*

PI

AL

PI

PI 

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

AL

AL

T

PI

C

PI

G

S

G

G 

G

W.G

W

W.G*

W

G

Steam

Steam

E

W,G

E

W
RECORDS 193

the Rio Grande in Siena and Dona Ana Counties, N. Mex. Continued

Topographic 

situation

Altitude 

above sea 

level (ft)

Type 

of 

well

Depth 

of well 

(ft)

Diameter 

of well 

(in.)

Principal water-bearing bed

Depth to 

top of 

bed (ft)

Thickness 

(ft)

Character 

of 

material

N. Mex. Continued

Depression in malpais.

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

Depres 

On me

si on in malpais.

4,210 T 

4,210 T

4,210 T 

4,190 T 

4,190 T 

4,170 T 

4,170 T 

4,170 T 

4,170 T 

4.150 T 

3,945 T 

4,090 T 

4,030 T 

4,200 T 

4,110 T 

4,110 T 

4,110 T 

4,110 T 

3,765 T 

3,820 T

Use 

of 

water

Quality

Dr 

Dr

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr 

Dr

445 

702

445 

460 

450 

950 

615 

646 

396 

453

314

280 

406 

975 

705 

550 

400 

140 

110

6 

14

6 

5 

6 

10 

12 

10 

6 

6

6 

6 

6 

14 

15 

8(?) 

7 

2X 

6

Measuring point

Description

Height 

above (+) or 

below (-) 

land-surface 

datum (ft)

385

754 

415 

425

360 

382

325 

140 

100

130

31 

185

52 

101

75

10

Fine sand.

Sand. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do.

Sand. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Gravel.

Remarks

N. Mex. Continued

s

RR

S

D,S

D.S

A

A

A

S

S

A

S

S

S

RR

RR

RR

S

D.S

D,S

Good

Poor

Good

.....do....

,....do....

.....do...

Good

.....do...

Bad

Good

.....do...

.....do...

Fair

.....do...

Good

Top of casing............

+0.50

+.30

.00

drawdown 15 ft.

ft. Well abandoned and covered.

ft. Well abandoned and covered.

1,330 ftin 1907. Reported 30 gpm, 

drawdown 110 ft.

gpm, drawdown 120 ft. See analysis.
194 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS, RINCON AND MESILLA VALLEYS

Table 13. ^Records of wells principally above the valley floor of

No.

Well

Location no. Field name Owner or name Driller

Date

completed

Dona Ana County

139

140 

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

29. IE. 6.110

29.1E. 8.210a 

29.1E. 8.210b

29. 3E. 12. 300

29. 4E. 7.440 

29.2.6.230

29. 2. 12. 240

29.4.9.100 

29.4.9.lOOa

Noria, well 2.....

Mt. Riley, well 2

Potrillo....... ......

Malpais, well 1...

Southern Pacific Co...... 

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

J. A. Wilson...............

Archie Bond................

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

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

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

Layne & Bowler, 

Inc. 

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

J. A. Wilson.......

Archie Bond........

W. McLees.. .......

April...... 

1914. 

Decembei

1916. 

1926.......

1925 (?)..

1914.

1903....... 

1909.......

No. Location no.

Depth to which

well is cased

(ft)

Well level

Below

land

surface (ft)

Date

of

measurement

Type

of

pump

Kind

of

power

Dona Ana County,

139

140

141

142

143 

144

145

146

147

29. IE. 6. 110

29.lE.8.210a

29.1E. 8. 210b

29. 3E. 12. 300

29. 4E. 7.440 

29.2.6.230

29.2.12.240

29.4.9.100

29.4.9.100a

565

560

60 

518

370

479

265

321

320 (?)

147.80

44.26 

278

278 

220

267

255

1914.................

1916..................

Aug. 28, 1947......

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

1914..................

^.941

1903..................

1909..................

PI

AL

AT

PI

PI 

PI

W

Steam

W

W
RECORDS 195

the Rio Grande in Sierra and Dona Counties, N. M ex. Continued

Topographic

situation

Altitude

above sea

level (ft)

Type

of

well

Depth

of well

(ft)

Diameter

of well

(in.)

Principal water-bearing bed

Depth

to top of

bed (ft)

Thickness

(ft)

Character

of

material

N. Mex. Continued

4,130 T

4,120 T

4,120 T

3,895 T

3,790 T

4,110 T

4,247 T

4,125 T

4,125 T

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

400

565

560

190

60

528

940

445

514

7

13

18

4

6

13

6

10

418

280

387

42

20

39

Use

of

water

Quality

Measuring point

Description

Height

above (+) or

below (-)

land -surf ace

datum (ft)

Remarks

N. Mex. Continued

s

RR

A

D,S

D

RR

A

A

A

Poor

,...do....

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

+1.50

+2.00

Water struck at 425 ft. Reported 20

gpm, drawdown 100 ft. 

Water struck at 418 ft. Reported 23

gpm.

dissolved solids. Reported 22 gpm, 

drawdown 100 ft. Original depth 

715 ft. 

See Water- Supply Paper 188, p. 40.

ported 18 gpm. 

Water struck at 387 ft. Reported 5

gpm.

INDEX

Page 

Abstract.......................................... 1-3

Access to the area............................ 10-12

Acknowledgments............................. 7-8

Acreage irrigated, table of..............138-140

Aden station well, depth to water......... 29

Afton, wells at.......... 81-82, 149, 152-153

Agricultural College, precipitation

a.t................................. 13, 14, 64

Agricultural College, wells of......... 63, 82,

83, 95, 96, 103-104, 105, 

108-109, 161, 174-177,180^183 

See af so New Mexico College of

Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. 

Altitudes of topographic features......... 15-17

American Dam............................... 17

Analyses of water......... 83, 86, 88, 152-153

Anthony Drain, transmissibility determined from now of............. 101, 102

Aquifer, hydrologic characteristics of..90-103 

specific yield of........................ 102-103

Archer, Albert, well of.................... 83

Arnold, V. E. , analyses by............. 152-153

Artesian wells................................ 22-23

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, wells of........ 95, 96, 144, 146,

166-167, 172-173 

Auger holes, maps showing............ pis. 2, 3

measurements in........................ 56 154

water-level measurements

in......................... 97-102. 155-156

Beal well.................................... 182-183

Berino, change in quality of water.... 82, 83

Berino Cotton Gin, well of...... 148, 190-191

Beyers, L. , well of....................... 176-177

Biggs, John, wells of..................... 190-191

Biggs ranch, well log........................ 148

Bissell, H. S. , well logs............... 146, 148

wells of......... 29, 30, 152-153, 184-185,

186-187, 188-189, 190-191 

Black, G. P., wells of............. 26, 164-165

Black, Roy, well of...................... 168-171

Black Mountain............................... 16

Boggs well...................... 26, 143, 180-181

Bond, Archie, well of..............7..... 194-195

Botkin, C. W. , analyses by.. 83, 88, 152-153 

Bowman, Frank, well of..................... 83

Bowman, L. E., well of................. 190-191

Boyd, R. E., well of..................... 186-187

Braidfoot, Mrs. Annie, wells of....... 29, 30,

81-82, 152-153, 192-193 

Brandis, Erick, well of.................. 178-179

Brewster well............................... 180-181

Burris, L. F., wells of...... 188-189, 190-191

Burris, Weldon, well of.................. 186-187

Bryan, Kirk, quoted.......................... 25

Caballo Dam, flow passing................. 136

precipitation at........................... 13, 64

Caballo Mountains............................ 16

Caballo Reservoir, capacity of............ 17

releases from................................ 137

Canals, map of........................... pis. 2, 3

Canal waste.............................. 41-42, 43

Cantrell, W. B., well of....... 26, 143, 159,

164-165

Page 

Chamberino Drain, quality of water

in.....................................86, 87

Chemical quality of water............... 79-90

Climate...................................... 12-14

Cocks, E. L. , well of................. 26, 58,

152-153, 166-167 

Coldiron, Andy, well of............... 188-189

Coles, O. C., well of................. 178-179

Consumptive use of water, for crops..... 51

Corralitos ranch, well, depth to water

in........................................ 29

Cowan, Clyde, well of...26, 82, 152-153,

161, 166-167

well of, driller's log...................... 144

Cox, Jack, well of...................... 178-179

Daugherty, J. W., well of.............81-82,

152-153, 184-185 

Dawson, O. B. , well of..... 143, 152-153,

164-165

Del Rio Drain, quality of water in... 86, 87 

transmissibility determined from

flow of................... 100-101, 102

Depth to water, in upland areas.......27-31,

190-195 

in valley fill............................. 52-58

Deny, warm springs near............. 17, 81,

152-153 

Diversions, comparisons of........... 43, 138

differences in computations of....... 51

distribution of............... 40-41, 138-140

relations to drain flow................. 45-50

to canals of the Rio Grande project.. 40 

Domestic water supplies................105-107

Dona Ana Mountains..................... 16, 31

Drain flow, departures from average... 49 

effect of pumping on....... 116-121, 123

relation to diversion.................... 45-50

Drains, analyses of water in............ 85, 86

flow in................ 36, 43, 96-102, 141

map of................................ pis. 2, 3

flow of, table......................... 141-142

flow of, transmissibility determined from...................... 96- 102

system of, in the Rio Grande

project............................... 18

Drought periods, supplemental pumping of water......................421-129

East Drain, quality of water in........ 84-85,

86, 87, 88 

East Potrillo Mountains...................... 16

Egbert, O. E., well of................ 178-179

Elephant Butte Irrigation District...... 4, 20,

21, 115, 122, 124

Elephant Butte Reservoir, capacity of... 17 

effect of storage of water in............ 67

first diversions from....................... 53

Elmendorf, H. B. , well of................. 83

El Paso gaging station, flow passing..... 136

ElPaso Valley................... 17, 138, 140

Engler, well of............................ 26. 58

Esslinger, W. E., well of............ 178 179

Evans, B. B., well of..................174 175

Evans, W. E., well of.................l76 177

Evaporation..................................... 78

197
198 INDEX

Page 

Evapotranspiration in waterlogged areas... 115

Field work......................................... 4-5

Flow of drains. See Drains. 

Fluctuations of water levels, effect of

irrigation on.......................... 58-64

effect of precipitation on................... 64

effect of transpiration on.................... 65

Franklin Mountains.............................. 16

Franzoy, A. A., wells of............ 26,166-167

Fritz, Marsella, well of................. 164-165

Fuller, Mrs. , well of..................... 178-179

Future studies, recommendations for.. 132-133

Gaging stations, location of............... 17-18

Garcia, Rudolf, wells of........ 105, 166-167,

168-171 

Gardner. R. A., wells of........ 30, 190-191,

192-193, 194-195 

Gary, well of..................................... 26

Geography...................................... 10-15

Geology......................................... 21-26

Ginther, Victor, well of................ 172-173

Gomez, J. O., well of.................. 168-171

Griffin, J. A., well of.................. 168-171

Ground water, accretion.................... 36-37

analyses of.............................. 152-153

areas of discharge........................... 114

areas of rejected discharge................ 114

direction of movement............. 31, 65-66

discharge of................................ 77-79

domestic use of........................ 105-107

early use of, for irrigation.......... 103-105

in upland areas............................ 27-37

in valley fill............................... 52-79

movement and flow of.................. 31-37

pumping of............................... 114-116

recharge of........................37-38, 76-77

relation of drain flow and diversions

to recharge........................... 45-50

source of........................... 37-38, 66-77

types......................................... 81-82

Ground-water divide................... 31, 32-33

Hare, Clifford, well of.................. 168-171

Harvey, Paul, well of.......................... 84

Hatch, N. Mex. , domestic water supply

of.......................................... 106

precipitation................................... 13

wells........................... 26, 58, 166-167

Hayes, Leslie, well of...... 152-153, 178-179

Hayner, F. M., well of................. 186-187

Hedgecock, R. F.. well of....... 26, 180-181

Herrington ranch well................. 30, 32-33

Hill area, water table contours for..... 74, 75

Holmes, Bert, well of................... 184-185

Hot Springs. See Truth or Consequences. 

Howard, C. S. , analyses by........... 152-153

Hueco Bolson, gradient of water table..... 35

recharge to ground water in............... 37

Hughes, L. S. , analyses by............ 152-153

Igneous rocks, effect on depth to water. 28-29 

Industries.......................................... 12

International Boundary and Water

Commission..................... 17, 67-68

International Dam.......................... 17, 40

Introduction..................................... 4-10

Irrigated land, amount of, in early

years................................... 52-53

increase in acreage.......................... 53

Rio Grande project.... 18, 20, 21, 138-140

Irrigation water, as recharge of ground

water.................................. 76-77

Page 

Irrigation wells, development of............ 107

early use of.............................. 103-105

future development of................ 110-114

performance of......................... 107-110

Isaacs, E. J. , wells of... 184-185, 186-187 

Isaacs, ©Hie, wells of.................. 184-185

Isaacs, W. F., well of. 30, 182-183, 184-185

Johnson Bros., wells of................. 190-191

Jones, Homer, well of....... 180-181, 182-183

Jornada del Muerto, depth to water in.. 27-28 

description of............................. 15, 21

quality of water........................... 81-82

Jornada Experimental Range, depth to

water...................................... 28

movement of ground water................ 31

wells.......................................180-185

Juarez, Ciudad de............................... 39

Vallede............................ 17, 40, 138

Right, C. W. , well of................... 180-181

Knight, E. A., well of........... 145, 168-171

La Mesa, depth to water.................... 28-30

description................................ 15, 21

geology........................................ 21

stratigraphic section...................... 23-24

La Mesa area, wells......................... 81-82

See also individual well owners. 

La Mesa Drain, quality of water........ 86, 87

Lanark wells, depths to water............ 30, 32

logs....................................... 149

Land classification...... 18-20, 111-113, 115

Land subject to construction charges.... 18-19

Langford, Ray, well of.......... 83, 186-187

Lara, Felix, well of........ 63, 160, 164-165

Las Cruces, water supply............... 105-106

water supply, quality of..... 83, 84, 88-89

wells at....................... 22, 25, 172-175

well logs................................. 146-147

Las Cruces Country Club, well of..... 82, 83,

116, 152-153, 172-173 

Las Cruces Ice Co., well of.... 83, 152-153,

186-187 

Las Cruces Lateral, seepage from.... 76, pi. 8

Laws, Dr. J. E. , well of............... 152-153

Leach, F. C. , well of................. 188-189

Leasburg Canal, seepage from............ 74-76

Leasburg Dam............ 17, 85, 86, 136, 138

Leasburg Drain, quality of water in.... 85, 86-

Linbeck, L. B., well of................. 168-171

Lippincott well................. 24, 84, 150-151

Literature cited............................ 135-136

Little, Chester, wells of......... 149, 178-179

L. G., well of.......................... 178-179

Location of the area........................ 10, 11

Location of wells, recommendations. 130-131 

Locke, Tom, well of.......................... 83

Luchini, Ben, well of......... 26, 58, 95, 96,

152-153, 159, 164-165 

well log........................................ 143

Lundgren, J. H. , well of............... 178-179

Macaw, Raymond, well of............ 168-171

McElyea, O., well of................... 172-173

Malpais well, depth to water in.. 29, 192-193

log............................................. 151

Mayse, R. L. , well of.................. 168-171

Mesilla Park, change in quality of

water with depth................... 82, 83

rise of water-table at.................... 53-54

water supply................................... 106

Mesilla Valley, altitude of................... 15

changes in water levels....... 52-57, 58-61
INDEX 199

Page 

Mesilla Valley, depth to water..... 28, 52-53

gradient of the water table................ 66

irrigation wells in............... 108-109, 110

location of wells for irrigation...... 120-121

new land susceptible to irrigation by

ground water............................ 113

quality of water........................... 81-90

seepage losses from Rio Grande in.. 71, 72 

suspended land in....................... 111-113

thickness of sediments in................... 25

water conditions in....................... 38-50

See aJ so Records.

Mesquite Drain, transmissibility determined from flow of............. 101, 102

Mimbres Mountains.............................. 16

Morales, Ramon, well of............... 192-193

Nakayama, Carl, well of............... 168-171

J. K. , well of.................... 145, 168-171

New Mexico College of Agriculture and 

Mechanic Arts, analyses of ground 

water at............................ 152-153

domestic water supply..................... 106

measurements in auger hole........ 157-158

well logs........................... 22. 144, 147

See a/so Agricultural College. 

Noria wells, depths to water............. 30, 32

logs............................................. 151

Norwood wells................. 186-187, 188-189

Numbering system for wells................. 8-9

Nunn, Fred, well of...................... 196-191

Oliver, D. L. , well of............. 26, 166-167

Olson, Henry, well of.................... 184-185

Organ Mountains....................... 16, 17, 28

Organ Needle.................................... 15

Osborn, A. J. , wells of... 26, 63, 81-82. 95,

96, 108, 152-153, 159, 160, 164-165

well log........................................ 143

Painter, Ray, well of....... 58, 159, 164-165

Park Drain, profiles of water table..... 97, 98

transmissibility determined from

flow of.................................... 99

Parker. Edwin, well of..... 24, 145. 184-185

Percha Dam.......................... 17, 136, 138

Perry, Ben. F. , well of................. 190-191

Phillips well................................ 190-191

Picacho Drain, transmissibility determined from flow of............. 100, 102

Picacho Mountain................................ 16

Picacho Oil and Gas Syndicate, well

of............................... 24, 186-187

well log.................................. 145-146

Plemmons, Mickey, well of............ 26, 81,

152-153, 160, 164-165 

Population of the area.......................... 10

Powers, E. W. , well of........ 26, 63, 81-82,

152-153, 160, 164-165 

well log....................................... 143

Prater, W. A., well of............ 58, 166-167

Precipitation, amount................. 12-14, 64

as recharge to ground water................ 77

effect of, on water levels.................. 64

Previous investigations........................ 5-7

Price, Paul, wells of....... 176-177, 178-179,

188-189, 190-191 

well log....................................... 149

Purpose of the investigation................... 4

Pumping, effect on flow of drains... 116-121,

123 

effect on water table....................... 116

supplemental, cost of................ 129-130

supplemental, in periods of

drought............................. 121-129

Page 

Pumping, with normal supply of

surface water.................... 128-129

Pumping equipment.. 103-104, 105, 163-195 

Pumping ground water.................. 114-116

Pumping tests................................ 92-96

Quality of water, analyses of... 83, 86, 88,

152-153 

factors determining..................... 79-82

variation in, with depth............... 82-84

variations areally....................... 84-88

Quaternary fill, thickness of............ 25-26

Radium Springs......... 17, 82, 85, 152-153

Randle, W. H. , well of............... 178-179

Rath, Milos, well of................... 186-187

Reclamation, Bureau of, measurements in auger holes.... 60, 97, 100

Bureau of, seepage runs by.............. 69

Bureau of, well log................ 143, 144

Reclamation Bureau, wells of...... 63, 159,

164-165 

Records.................................... 136-195

Rhodes, Edgar, well of................ 166-167

Isaac, well of............ 25, 144, 168-171

Rice, C. C. , well of...........25, 82. 85,

152-153. 166-167. 182-183 

Riggs, Earl, well of....... 152-153, 164-165

Fred, well of.................... 58, 166-167

Riley, Mount............................... 16, 33

Rincon, domestic water supply........... 106

Rincon Drain, transmissibility determined from flow of.......... 100, 102

Rincon Valley, altitude of................. 15

diversion of water to...................... 40

gradient of the water table.............. 66

irrigation wells in.................. 108, 110

land susceptible to irrigation by

ground water......................... 113

location of wells for irrigation.... 120-121

quality of water................... 84-88, 89

reported depth to clay.................... 26

seepage loss from Rio Grande in.... 71, 72

suspended land in..................... 111-113

thickness of sediments in.............. 25-26

water conditions in..................... 38-50

See also Records. 

Rio Grande, analyses of water in...... 85, 86

annual flow and depletion................ 136

degradation of the riverbed........... 68-69

flow of........................................ 70

gains and losses in flow of............ 71-73

maintainence of flow in................. 16

seepage from............................ 66-73

Rio Grande project, area included in... 17 

diversion of water to................. 138-140

funds for..................................... 21

gaging stations........................... 17-18

land classification in................... 18-20

land irrigated........ 18, 20, 21, 138-140

system of drains............................ 18

water storage for........................... 17

River depletions............................... 44

Robison, Tod, well of................. 164-165

Robledo Mountain......................... 16, 31

San Andres Mountains.................... 16, 31

Santa Fe formation, character of...... 21-24

water from.......................... 81-82, 89

SCC land. See Land subject to construction charges.

Schofield, Carl S. , analyses of water by..8b 

Scope of investigation.......................... 5

Sediments, description of................ 22-24

Pleistocene and Recent..................... 24

thickness of............................... 24-27
200 INDEX

Page 

Seepage from canals................... 42, 73-76

from the river.............................. 66-73

of ground water to the river............... 78

Seepage losses............42-43, 67, 71, 72-76

Seepage runs.............38-39, 42, 69, 71, 78

Selden Canyon................................... 16

Selden Drain, analyses of water in..... 82, 86

quality of water in...................... 85, 86

Shalam Colony, wells of................ 104-105

See also Garcia, Rudolf, wells of. 

Sierra de las Uvas, depth to water........... 28

Simms well............................ 26, 180-181

Simpson, T. L., wells of......... 82, 83, 109,

168-171, 184-185 

Smallwood, I. W., well of...... 26, 58. 144,

166-167 

Smith, O. F. , well of................... 184-185

Sodium, percent, analyses of.......... 152-153

percentage in water, significance of.... 81

Southern Pacific Co. , wells of....24, 30, 32,

81-82, 152-153, 192-193, 194-195

well logs........................... 149, 150,151

Specific conductance................. 79-80, 153

Specific yield of aquifer................ 102-103

Sperry, Fay, well of.. 82, 83, 146, 172-173,

186-187 

Spring Canyon Arroyo......................... 106

Springs................................. 17, 152-153

Stahman Farms, Inc., well..... 25, 172-173,

176-177

well log....................................... 148

State College. Sec New Mexico College 

of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. 

Stotts, Lee, well of.... 58, 152-153, 166-167

Stratigraphic section........................ 23-24

Strauss, wells at..... 30, 81-82, 150. 152-153

Summary.................................... 133-135

Surface water, shortage of in dry years..... 52

Suspended land, classification of........ 18-19

irrigation of............................. 111-114

transpiration from........................... 115

Tashiro, Harry, well of................. 172-173

Tashiko, well of....................... 172-173

Tatman, well of.......................... 168-171

Taylor, J. M., well of............ 84, 178-179

J. W., well of......................... 168-171

Temperature...................................... 12

Terry, E. L., well of................... 176-177

Tharp, Claude, well of................. 168-171

Three Saints Lateral, seepage from..745.,. pi. 9 

Thurman, B. S., well of...92, 96, 152-153, 

160, 161, 166-167 

Tierra Blanca Creek, quality of water

from...................................... 81

Topography.................................... 15-17

Tortugas Mountain............................. 16

Transmissibility, coefficient of..35, 91, 92-102 

methods of determining.................. 90-92

Transpiration, effect of, on water

levels..................................... 65

Page 

Transpiration of ground water............. 78-79

reduction of.............................. 115-116

Tributary valleys............................... 16

Truth or Consequences, N. Mex........... 10

Unit diversions from canals.................. 41

Valley fill, ground water in.............. 52-79

Vermilion, B. W., well of............. 166-167

Vickers, Dave, well of.................. 176-177

Walker, K. H., well of.......... 82. 152-153,

168-171 

Walter, S. A. , well of.................. 184-185

Walters, W. H., well of................ 176-177

Ward, C. H., well of................... 182-183

Ward, Ernest, well of.................... 182-183

Washington, Will, well of.............. 186-187

Wastage from canals to drains................ 45

Water, delivered to farms..................... 43

Water level, rise of, cause................... 53

Water levels, changes in................... 53-65

diurnal fluctuations........................... 65

in auger holes........................... 155-158

in wells................................... 159-161

Water storage for Rio Grande project....... 17

Water supply, required amount........... 50-52

Water table, configuration of............. 32-35

effect of continuous pumping on.......... 116

fluctuations of............................. 58-65

gradient of................. 33-36, 66, 96-102

profiles of.............................. 98, pi. 4

Water-table contours, maps..74, 75, pis. 1, 5-7, 9 

Welch, Lloyd, well of........ 26, 63, 95-96,

143, 160, 164-165 

Well logs.................................... 143-151

Well-numbering system...................... 8-9

Wells, above valley floor, records of. 180-195 

distance from river or drain....... 120

domestic................................. 106-107

for irrigation............................ 107-114

gravel packing in...................... 109-110

large-diameter, records of.......... 163-179

location of........,................120, 130-131

maps showing..................... pis. 1, 2, 3

performance of......................... 107-110

power for....................................... 109

records of................................ 163-195

West Drain, quality of water in.......... 86, 87

transmissibility determined from

flow of............................ 100, 102

West Potrillo Mountains........................ 16

White, Tex., change in quality of water

at depth................................... 84

Williams, E. F., analyses by.......... 152-153

Wilson, J. A. , well of.................. 194-195

S. Y., well of.......................... 178-179

Yabumoto, Judo, well of........ 148, 178-179

Yanaga, Tsuyuko, well of.............. 168-171

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1955 O - 317Z67