SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-TEXAS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI DALLAS, TEXAS
AIR AND WATER PROGRAMS DIVISION
MARCH 1973
-------
PREPARED FOR
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
DALLAS, TEXAS
-------
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-TEXAS
Abstract
A study was made which discloses that the quantity of
salts collected and transported by the Brazos River
can be substantially reduced by construction of con-
trol projects proposed by the Corps of Engineers.
Construction of salinity control project (Plan 4A)
will reduce mineral concentrations sufficiently to
allow use of water resources in the entire stretch of
the main stem in and below Possum Kingdom Reservoir
for potable water supplies.
-------
Ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables vi
List of Figures viii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Request and Authority 1
Purpose and Scope 1
Acknowledgments 2
Note 2
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .... 3
Summary of Findings 3
Conclusions 3
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 7
IV. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION 8
Location and Boundaries 8
Geography 8
Physiography 11
Climate 14
Principle Communities and Industries. . . 19
V. WATER RESOURCES OF THE STUDY AREA 23
Groundwater 23
General 23
Quantity 23
Quality 25
Surface Water 27
General 27
Quantity 27
Quality 30
Return Flow 43
Summary 43
-------
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
VI. WATER REQUIREMENTS 44
General 44
Projection Criteria and Procedures ... 44
1960 Water Use 45
2020 Projected Water Demand 50
VII. SOURCE OF MINERAL POLLUTION 54
General 54
Natural Mineral Pollution 54
Double Mountain Fork 58
Salt Fork 59
Clear Fork 60
Man-made Mineral Pollution 61
Oil Field Pollution 61
Pollution as a Result of Water Use . . 63
VIII. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL. . . 65
General 65
Water Supply 65
Sub-Area 1 66
Sub-Area 2 66
Sub-Area 3 66
Sub-Area 4 67
Sub-Area 5 67
Sub-Area 6 67
Water Quality Control 68
Established Water Quality Standards . . 68
Taste 69
Laxative Effects 71
Potability Scale for the Brazos River
Basin 71
Quality Improvements 83
IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY 92
APPENDIX I 95
GROUNDWATER QUALITY ANALYSES 95
Well-Numbering System 95
-------
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
APPENDIX II 123
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN SIMULATION MODEL .... 123
General 123
Model Design 123
Model Operation 128
Reservoir Rules 131
APPENDIX III 138
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 4B 138
Project Description 138
Water Quality Control (Plan 4B) 138
-------
VI
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
IV-1 Communities With Populations Greater
Than 10,000 in 1970 20
V-l Reservoirs 31
V-2 Surface Water Quality 33
V-3 Surface Water Resources Summary 43
VI-1 1960 Water Use 46
VI-2 2020 Projected Water Demand 51
VI-3 2020 Projected Municipal and Industrial
Water Demand 52
VII-1 Mean Annual Mineral Contribution-Upper
Brazos River Basin 1957-66 Water Years. 55
VIII-1 California Potability Scale 72
VIII-2 Communities With Populations of 10,000
or Greater That Have TDS Concentrations
Exceeding 500 mg/1 in Their Potable
Water Supply 74
VIII-3 Municipal Supply Water Quality 76
VIII-4 Brazos River Basin Potability Scale ... 82
VIII-5 Surface Water Quality Prediction 88
AI-1 Chemical Analyses of Groundwater -
Primary Aquifers 98
AI-2 Chemical Analyses of Groundwater -
Secondary Aquifers 122
AII-1 Water Supply and Waste Water Return Flow
Plan, Brazos River Basin Simulation
Model (2020 Conditions) 125
-------
vii
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Title Paj
All-2 Surface Water Distribution, Water Supply
and Waste Water Return Flow Plan,
Brazos River Basin Simulation Model
(2020 Conditions) 129
All-3 Groundwater Return Flow, Water Supply
and Waste Water Return Flow Plan,
Brazos River Basin Simulation Model
(2020 Conditions) 130
AIII-1 Surface Water Quality Prediction
(Plan 4B) 142
-------
Vlll
LIST OF FIGURES
Following
Number Title Page
III-l Location Map 90
III-2 Salinity Control Project-Plan No. 4A . . 91
IV-1 Generalized Land Resource Areas 9
IV-2 Physiography 13
IV-3 Mean Annual Precipitation 15
IV-4 Mean Annual Temperatures 17
IV-5 Lake Surface Evaporation 18
V-l Groundwater Supply 24
V-2 Runoff 28
V-3 Surface Water Supply 29
VII-1 Permian Basin 56
VII-2 Major Oil Production 62
VIII-1 Mean Monthly Chloride Concentrations
(Mathematical Model Simulation) .... 85
VIII-2 Mean Monthly Sulfate Concentrations
(Mathematical Model Simulation) .... 86
VIII-3 Mean Monthly Total Dissolved-Solids
Concentrations (Mathematical Model
Simulation) 87
AI-1 Well Numbering System 96
AII-1 Brazos River Basin Mathematical Model
Schematic 124
AIII-1 Mean Monthly Chloride Concentrations
(Mathematical Model Simulation Plan 4B) 139
AIII-2 Mean Monthly Sulfate Concentrations
(Mathematical Model Simulation Plan 4B) 140
-------
IX
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Following
Number Title Page
AIII-3 Mean Monthly Total Dissolved-Solids
Concentrations (Mathematical Model
Simulation Plan 4B) 141
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Request and Authority
In a letter dated May 3, 1963, the Fort Worth District,
Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas requested the
Public Health Service to assist the Corps of Engineers
in their study of the water resources of the Brazos
River Basin by determining "the municipal and industrial
water requirements, the quality of water, the extent of
existing and potential pollution, as well as the need
for and the benefits from conservation storage for pur-
poses of municipal and industrial water supply and water
quality control."
In a planning conference September 1, 1967, the Corps of
Engineers requested that an interim report dealing spe-
cifically with salinity control, be prepared prior to
completion of the comprehensive study. This interim
study is the first increment of the total requested work
Responsibility for completing the study was transferred
to the Environmental Protection Agency after three orga-
nizational changes. Effective December 31, 1965,
Section 2 of the Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
by Public Law 89-234, established the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration as an operating agency of
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Under
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966, the Administration
was transferred to the Department of the Interior, effec-
tive May 10, 1966. Under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1970, the Administration was transferred to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, effective December 2, 1970.
The study has been conducted in accordance with provi-
sions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) wherein authority is
given to conduct investigations relating to the causes,
control, and prevention of water pollution.
Purpose and Scope
Due to high mineral content, use of water resources in
certain areas of the Brazos River Basin is severely
restricted. This interim report was prepared to define
future water demands and to describe the extent of
mineral pollution and the feasibility of reducing the
mineral content to levels that would allow less re-
strictive water use. Only a portion of the information
-------
requested by the Corps of Engineers for their compre-
hensive study of the full development potential of
water resources in the Brazos River Basin is presented.
This report was prepared from an analysis of basic data
available in the Environmental Protection Agency files
and data supplied by other agencies; no field studies
were conducted. A mathematical model of the stream
system was constructed to simulate surface water pro-
perties throughout the basin. This model was used to
predict the affect of various salinity control plans on
surface water supplies under projected conditions of
water resource development. The model is discussed
further in Appendix II.
Acknowledgments
The assistance and cooperation of agencies and indivi-
duals who aided in the assembly of data for this report
are gratefully acknowledged. Special appreciation is
expressed to the following:
1. Brazos River Authority - Waco, Texas.
2. Texas Water Development Board - Austin, Texas.
3. United States Geological Survey - Austin, Texas.
4. United States Army Corps of Engineers - Fort
Worth, Texas.
Note
All references to study area, tables, figures and appen-
dices pertain to the Environmental Protection Agency
Report. This note is included to prevent confusion
where this report is later published as an appendix of
the Corps of Engineers Report.
-------
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary of Findings
1. The study area in Texas comprised of 64 counties,
partially or wholly in the Brazos River Basin and
the Brazos-San Jacinto Coastal Basin, increased
in population from 1,541,714 in 1960 to 1,672,919
in 1970.
2. The study area includes a 46,080 square mile
drainage area of which 44,280 square miles are in
the State of Texas. The portion of the basin in
New Mexico and on the High Plains of Texas, a
total of 9,240 square miles contributes very
little runoff to the Brazos River.
3. The climate of the study area is typically humid
in the eastern part and semiarid in the western
part while in the midsection alternation between
humid and dry is typical. Mean annual precipita-
tion ranges from 18 inches to 48 inches across
the study area. Two peak rainfall periods are
evident with the greatest rainfall during the
April, May, June period and the second largest
rainfall during the August, September, October
period.
4. Exclusive of the Ogallala Formation, a perennial
yield of about 505,000 acre-feet of fresh to
slightly saline groundwater could be withdrawn
from primary and secondary aquifers in the Brazos
River Basin and the Brazos-San Jacinto Coastal
Basin.
5. Groundwater quality is highly variable, however,
it can be generally stated that the mineral con-
tent of the greater portion of the groundwater
supplies of the study area exceeds maximum limits
recommended in the U. S. Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards.
6. Flow measured at river mile 93 (USGS Gage 1140 at
Richmond) averaged 7740 cfs (5,607,320 acre-feet
per year) for the period water years 1941 to 1962,
7. Total 1960 water use in the six sub-areas of the
study area was 4,963,100 acre-feet.
-------
8. Water resources of the Brazos River Basin that
are transported in the main stem channel are se-
verely damaged by mixing with highly mineralized
runoff collected in the headwater areas.
9. Poor quality of water in the upper basin is due
principally to:
a) natural mineral pollution (inflow of natural
sodium chloride brine, particularly in Salt
Croton Creek, a tributary to the Salt Fork;
and solution of calcium sulfate from the gyp-
siferous rocks and soils that are at or near
the surface throughout much of the area).
b) manmade pollution of streams by the disposal
of salt water produced with oil. Although
the pollutants from present day oil produc-
tion are properly handled, minerals discharged
in past days are still being washed into
drainage courses. Also, seepage from aban-
doned improperly plugged oil wells degrades
surface supplies.
10. Although the area above Possum Kingdom Reservoir
contributes an average of only 14 to 18 percent
of the runoff from the Brazos River Basin, this
area is the source of about 45 to 55 percent of
the dissolved solids, 75 to 85 percent of the chlo-
ride and 65 to 75 percent of the sulfate carried
by the Brazos River at Richmond, near the mouth.
11. The effect of oil-field brines on water quality in
the Upper Brazos River Basin is most evident in
the Clear Fork and its tributaries.
12. There are a wide range of adverse economic and
public health effects exerted by high levels of
salinity in water supplies, but the most readily
evaluated indicator of acceptable chloride, sul-
fate, and total dissolved solids in municipal
water supplies is their effect upon the taste and
laxative properties of the water, and water that
is acceptable from this standpoint is generally
considered suitable for most beneficial uses.
13. Waters containing less than 600 mg/1 of sulfate
generally do not produce laxative affects.
-------
14. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards for
chlorides, sulfates, and total dissolved solids
are primarily based on threshold taste tests.
Limits have been selected to preclude detectable
taste by most users .
15. Consumer attitude surveys show that detectable
taste in potable water is not necessarily objec-
tionable .
Conclusions
1. Multiple use of natural resources, in effect, in-
creases the available supply. Where the geography
is favorable, waste water discharged by upstream
users can be appropriated to satisfy downstream
demands. It is projected that by 2020, 369,250
acre-feet per year of waste water will be reused
to meet a portion of the water supply requirements.
2. The total yield of water resources expected to be
developed in the study area by the year 2020 is
2,184,250 acre-feet per year. This estimate in-
cludes yields from existing import projects,
groundwater, return flow, reservoirs and a limited
supply from uncontrolled streamflow. The estimate
does not include withdrawals from the Ogallalah
Formation which is expected to be 426,100 acre-feet
per year by 2020.
3. Projected water demands (acre-feet) for the year
2020 are - municipal and industrial 1,603,000; ir-
rigation 5,399,700; and mining 7,800. This demand
cannot be fully supplied with water resources
available in the study area. Imports totaling
4,493,900 acre-feet per year will be needed in sub-
areas 1 and 2. Resources can supply demands in
sub-areas 3 through 6 if quality improvements are
obtained.
4. Poor chemical quality resulting from salt pollution
imposes severe restrictions on use of water in the
Brazos River. Improvements in chemical quality
will be required to permit effective utilization of
the water resources of the Brazos Basin for supply-
ing projected water needs through the year 2020.
-------
The mineral content of water resources at any point
in the main stem of the Brazos River cannot be re-
duced below limits recommended in U. S. Public
Health Service Drinking Water Standards - 1962 one
hundred percent of the time with any of the impound-
ment alternatives studied. However, very
significant reductions in mineral content can be
achieved and consumer attitude tests reveal that
potable water supplies can be successfully developed
where mineral concentrations exceed, within rea-
sonable limits, the maximums recommended in U. S.
Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards -
1962.
Construction of the proposed salinity control pro-
ject (Plan 4A) will reduce degradation of main stem
resources and mineral quality improvements will
allow the resource to be fully used. Brazos River
Basin water resources transported in the main stem
could be withdrawn from Possum Kingdom Reservoir and
at any point below for municipal water supplies.
Construction of the alternative salinity control
project (Plan 4B) will reduce degradation of main
stem resources. Mineral quality improvements will
allow full utilization of the main stem resources
in and below Lake Granbury. It may also be possible
to gain full utilization of resources above Granbury
Lake to include Possum Kingdom Reservoir resources
through selective pumping and mixing with other sup-
plies.
-------
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Although numerous methods of salinity control in the
Brazos River Basin were investigated, discussion in this
report will be restricted primarily to the method (Plan
4A) that appears, at this time, to most effectively meet
the river basin needs for prudent water resource manage-
ment. One alternative (Plan 4B) is discussed in
Appendix III. Plan 4A involves construction of four
reservoirs in the upper basin. These reservoirs will be
used to permanently impound all runoff from certain por-
tions of the basin where large quantities of minerals
are now carried by the runoff to the main river channel
below. Locations of the four reservoirs are shown on
Figure III-l and III-2.
Site 20 is located on the main stem of the Salt Fork of
the Brazos River; all other sites are on tributaries.
Site 10 is located on Croton Creek, site 14 is on Salt
Croton Creek and site 19 is on North Croton Creek.
The reservoirs at sites 10 and 14 will be used only for
collection and temporary storage. Water collected in
these reservoirs will be pumped into site 19 for per-
manent storage. The reservoir at site 14 will be dry
much of the time. All four reservoirs are adequately
sized to prevent passage of any surface flow past the
damsites.
-------
IV. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
Location and Boundaries
As shown on Figure III-l, the study area includes 64
full counties, in Texas, all or a portion of which are
within the basin drained by the Brazos River and the
coastal area that drains directly to the Gulf of
Mexico and to Galveston Bay between the Brazos and San
Jacinto River Basins (referred to hereafter as Brazos-
San Jacinto Basin). The study area was divided into
six sub-areas shown on Figure III-l for convenience in
planning.
Geography !_/
Climatic and soil conditions vary widely and have re-
sulted in several distinctive patterns of land use.
Areas possessing similar characteristics of use are
shown on Figure IV-1 as Land Resource Areas. The Land
Resource Areas have been given names similar to the
physiographic units showing that the origin of soil
materials has a major influence on land use. However,
more than one physiographic type may be represented
within a land resource area. The land resource areas
are described below:
High Plains - Soils range almost uniformly from
somewhat sandy materials to very loose sands. Exten-
sive groundwater irrigation has made the High Plains
one of the major irrigated areas of the United States.
Cotton and grain sorgham are major crops on the best
soils. Wheat is important on the heavier soils
occupying a narrow northern rim in the basin. Short-
grasses are the principal native vegetation. Many of
the sandier rangeland soils support dense growth of
shin oak and sand sagebrush.
Rolling Plains - A large portion of the Rolling
Plains area is native range covered with native mid-
grasses and shortgrasses. Soils generally are shallow
and unproductive on a rolling, well-dissected topo-
graphy. Bare eroded areas of clayey red bed material
are numerous. Rainfall is erratic and supplemental
water for irrigation is scarce. Limited areas are
used for growing cotton, grain sorghum, wheat, and
other small grains. Mesquite, other brushy growth,
and some cedar is present on much of the rangeland.
-------
LEGEND
HIGH PLAINS
ROLLINS PLAINS (WEST)
ROLLING PLAINS (EAST)
NORTH CENTRAL PRAIRIE
WEST CROSS TIMBERS
GRAND PRAIRIE
EAST CROSS TIMBERS
8LACKLAND PRAIRIES
EAST TEXAS TIMBERLANOS
COAST PRAIRIE
BOTTOMLANDS
HOUSTON
•
SOURCE: THE REPORT OF THE u.s. STUDY
COMMISSION-TEX AS PART II
RESOURCES AND PROBLEMS
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN — TEXAS
GENERALIZED LAND RESOURCE AREAS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE IV-I
-------
10
North Central Prairies - Shrubs, cacti, mesquite,
and brushy hardwood species cover much of the North
Central Prairies. Possibly one-third of the area is
open grasslands covered with midgrasses and short-
grasses. Among the rangelands are ridges and bluffs
covered with dense non-commercial stands of cedar and
scrubby blackjack oak, post oak, and other hardwoods.
Ranching is the principal interprise. Growing seasons
are hot and dry. Annual rainfall is around 25 inches
but is very erratic. Soils are tight and absorb water
slowly. Farmland is used largely to grow feed crops,
forage and hay.
Cross Timbers (East and West) - Land use and
treatment in the land resource areas designated as East
and West Cross Timbers are similar. Cross Timbers
soils are sandy, acid, loose, and easily eroded. The
organic-matter content is low and the soils are rela-
tively low in natural productivity. Small fields of
cropland are used largely for growing pasture, hay and
feed crops. Much of the area remains in natural stands
of short-bodied, slow growing blackjack oak, post oak
and other hardwoods. Dairying and poultry raising are
important. A considerable number of beef cattle also
are raised.
Grand Prairie - Soils in the Grand Prairie land
resource area are derived from limestone and other
limy materials. Oats and other small grain are raised
for both grain and pasture, particularly on the shallow
soils. Cash crops, mostly cotton and grain sorghum,
are concentrated on the deeper soils of valleys and
smooth divides in the northern part where summer soil-
moisture conditions are more favorable. Tame pastures
and meadows are being developed increasingly. In the
southern part of the Grand Prairie the economy is based
almost exclusively on livestock raising on small
ranches and livestock farms. Confined to relatively
small fields of the better soils, croplands provide
feed crops and pastures to supplement grazing from na-
tive rangeland. The Grand Prairie becomes progressively
rougher, steeper, and rockier toward the southern
boundary. The native rangeland vegetation is greatly
affected by frequent droughts and prevailing hot, dry
summer growing seasons. Native bluestems and other mid-
grasses develop well, however, bunchgrasses and
shortgrasses are more common in the southern part of
the Prairie. Much of the rangeland has a woody over-
story of blackjack oak and post oak, cedar, live oak,
-------
11
mesquite, and other brush. Wooded valley lands contain
oak, pecan and other hardwoods. Except for some of the
better cedar near the southern edge of the area, the
woodlands are non-commercial and are used with adjoin-
ing rangeland for grazing.
Blackland Prairies - The black and gray calcareous
clay soils of this area are highly productive. Cotton
is the most important crop although considerable acreage
is devoted to grain sorghum, corn, wheat and oats.
Cropland pastures of small grains legumes and several
adapted pasture grasses provide sizeable livestock pro-
duction. The production of chickens, turkeys, and eggs
is also important.
Coast Prairie - Heavy clay soils are prevalent in
the Coast Prairie and generally are poorly drained.
Much of the area is used periodically for growing rice.
Large numbers of cattle are grazed on rice fields dur-
ing the years between periods used for rice and on large
acreages of native grass range and improved tame pas-
tures .
Bottomlands - The Bottomlands land resource area
includes the alluvial soils along the lower reaches of
the Brazos River. The soils have been transported from
upstream and are unlike the adjoining area. Frequently
flooded areas remain in native vegetation of bottomland
hard woods and grass. Both high river terraces and bet-
ter drained "front" lands along stream courses are
high-producing farming areas and are used intensively
for production of cotton, corn and other crops. There
is a growing acreage of Bottomlands crops that is being
irrigated from water pumped from the river or shallow
wells in the adjacent alluvium.
Physiography I/
The study area extends almost 600 miles from the mouth
of the Brazos River at the Gulf of Mexico near Galveston,
northwest across Texas and into New Mexico near the City
of Clovis and includes a 46,080 square mile drainage
area of which 44,280 square miles are in the State of
Texas. The portion of the basin in New Mexico and on
-------
12
the High Plains of Texas, a total of 9,240 square miles
contributes very little runoff to the Brazos River.
The study area is topographically a series of plains
characteristic of the great physiographic provinces of
the United States called the Great Plains, the Central
Lowlands and the (West) Gulf Coastal Plains (Figure
IV-2).
A section of the Great Plains Provinces known as the
High Plains, with elevations from 2,500 to 5,000 feet
(mean sea level), comprises the first and highest level
of plains. The High Plains, extending to the Cap Rock
Escarpment, is almost completely without erosional fea-
tures interrupted only by scattered shallow undrained
depressions, ranging from a few feet to 50 feet or more
in depth and a few hundred feet to a mile or more in
diameter; sand dunes; a few saline water table lakes
and shallow water courses.
Just below the Cap Rock Escarpment is an expanse of
rolling, lightly timbered country called the "North
Central Plains", a section of the Central Lowlands Pro-
vince. This area slopes from the escarpment at a
elevation of 2,500 feet (mean sea level) to an eleva-
tion of about 800 feet (mean sea level) . Erosion has
left largely a great body of clay and shale with some
weak sandstones forming low escarpments. However,
erosion in some areas left massive limestones and sand-
stones from which have formed some features not
characteristic of the general topography. The Brazos
River is deeply entrenched in limestones with steep
tributary canyons and mesas.
South of the North Central Plains is another section of
the Great Plains Province called the Central Texas Sec-
tion. Limestone once formed a continuous, seaward-
sloping cover over all of this area. The limestone is
heavily faulted along a line through Austin and Waco.
Between the Brazos and Colorado Rivers the Central
Texas Section is a eastward sloping plateau called the
Comanche Plateau. A belt along the Brazos-Colorado
Basin divide where the limestone has survived as a
series of mesas is known as the Callahan Divide. The
Callahan Divide marks the southern extent of the
Central Lowland Province in Texas .
The Coastal Plain in the study area is a segment of the
Gulf Coastal Plain that extends from Florida to Mexico.
-------
13
MEXICO
LEGEND
LoVol GREAT PLAINS PROVINCE
CENTRAL LOWLAND PROVINCE (Osage Section)
COASTAL PLAIN PROVINCE
Adapted from Nevin M. Fenneman, Physiography of the Eastern
United States and Physiography of the Western United States,
SOURCE: THE REPORT OF THE u.s. STUDY COMMISSION-
TEXAS PART II RESOURCES AND PROBLEMS.
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN—TEXAS
PHYSIOGRAPHY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE IV-2
-------
14
The coastal plains extend from the coast to the Bal-
cones Escarpment (Figure IV-2). The Balcones
Escarpment, a broken line of hills, marks the Balcones
fault zone. Along the escarpment, where the elevation
averages about 500 feet, there is a complex margin of
transittional topography. There are three major sub-
divisions of the Coastal Plains in the study area:
the Grand Prairie, the Blackland Prairies and the
Coastal Prairie. Narrow strips of remarkable continu-
ity which mark sandy outcrops called East and West
Cross Timbers are significnat border features.
A gently rolling, forested belt, nowhere more than 10
miles wide, the West Cross Timbers is a sandy outcrop
which separates the Grand Prairie and the North Central
Plains. Lying generally North of the Brazos River, the
Grand Prairie is an area underlain largely by resistant
limestone which dips gently gulfward. The nearly level
plains of the Grand Prairie are broken occasionally by
the steep slopes of stream valleys in the limestone.
Bounding the Grand Prairie on the East is the eroded,
wooded East Cross Timbers area, which is another pre-
dominately sandy outcrop. The Biackland Prairies is
typically a stiff, calcareous clay. The surface
usually is gently rolling, with occasional flatlands.
The Coastal Prairie is largely a deep accumulation of
sediments. This belt of coastal lowland is the most
recently emerged portion of the continental shelf.
Quite level for some distance inland, the Coastal
Prairie rises rapidly to about 100 to 175 feet along its
inland edge. Except for the steep-sided channels of
transverse streams, the Coastal Prairie is a clay plain
almost unrelieved by erosional features.
Climate
The climate of the study area is typically humid in the
eastern part and semiarid in the western part while in
the midsection alternation between humid and dry condi-
tions is typical. The variation in mean annual
precipitation is shown on Figure IV-3 ranging from about
18 to 48 inches.
The Gulf of Mexico is the principal moisture source.
Warm winds moving inland release moisture as they cool.
Topography is of prime importance. Rises in elevation
force the air upward where the atmospheric pressure is
lower. The air expands under the lower pressure and is
cooled. Two abrupt changes in topography are present
-------
15
20
28
30
32
34
38
JFMAMJJASOND
MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION-SELECTED STATIONS
Minimum, mean, and maximum monthly precipitation
amounts are shown by wide, medium, and narrow
bars respectively. Absence of a wide bar indicates
the minimum was zero or a trace.
SOURCE : THE REPORT OF THE U.S. STUDY
COMMISSION - TEXAS PART II
RESOURCES AND PROBLEMS.
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN - TEXAS
MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
(Inches) 1919-1959
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE IV-3
-------
16
in the Brazos Basin, the Balcones Escarpment and the Cap
Rock Escarpment (Figure IV-2). These topographical
changes cause early release of moisture with resultant
scarsity of moisture in the western part of the basin.
Monthly distributions are included for selected sta-
tions to show the rainfall pattern. Two peak rainfall
periods are evident with the greatest rainfall during
the April, May, June (spring) period and the second
largest rainfall during the August, September, October
(autumn) period. "In May, the winds have intermit-
tently prevailed from the south for long enough periods
of time to have carried great quantities of water vapor
from the Gulf of Mexico far into the interior of Texas.
The last of the winter season of cold air migrations
from Canada and the Great Basin, the first of the warm
season air mass thunderstorms, and springtime low pres-
sure troughs aloft in the westerly winds all contribute
to causing considerable precipitation and the May maxi-
mum ." 2J
"By September, the first of the autumn-winter season of
cold air has begun occasionally to clash with the long
established moisture laden prevailing southerly winds.
The last of the summertime convective thunderstorms and
the two upper air convergence phenomena, easterly waves
and westerly troughs, all act to produce the secondary
September maximum precipitation period. Also, the
severest hurricanes to affect Texas have occurred in
September." 2J
Mean annual amounts of snowfall range from a trace near
the Gulf of Mexico to 5.5 inches at Lubbock. !_/ Snow
is sometimes an important source of moisture on the
high plains but is relatively unimportant for this pur-
pose elsewhere.
The variation in mean annual temperature is shown on
Figure IV-4 ranging from about 58 to 70 degrees Fahren-
heit. Monthly distributions are included for selected
stations to show the extremes. The freeze-free period
(growing season) is approximately 200 days in the high
plains near Lubbock and 290 days near the coast. I/
Lake surface evaporation is shown on Figure IV-5.
-------
17
64
67
j FMAMJ JASONO
MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION-SELECTED STATIONS
Highest, mean, and lowest monthly temperatures
are shown.
SOURCE: THE REPORT OF THE u.s. STUDY
COMMISSION - TEXAS PART II
RESOURCES AND PROBLEMS.
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN - TEXAS
MEAN ANNUAL TEMPERATURES
{ Degrees Fahrenheit} i 9 i 3 - 1957
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE IV-4
-------
AVERAGE ANNUAL GROSS LAKE SURFACE
EVAPORATION IN INCHES 1940-1965
70
60
AVERAGE ANNUAL NET LAKE SURFACE
EVAPORATION IN INCHES 1940-1965
SOURCE : TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REPORT 64 Oct. 1967
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-TEXAS
LAKE SURFACE EVAPORATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE IV-5
-------
19
Principle Communities and Industries
Communities within the study area with populations
greater than 10,000 in 1970 are listed in Table IV-1.
"The production of oil and gas is the most widespread
and perhaps the most important industrial activity in
the basin. Oil is produced in almost all of the
counties in the basin and natural gas and gas liquids
(natural gasoline, butane, and propane) are produced
in several counties. The many supporting activities
connected with the production of oil and gas, such as
refining, distribution of supplies, distribution and
servicing of equipment, and technical services further
enhance the economy of the areas.
Some of the other industrial activities concerned with
the production and processing of mineral products are
the operation of sand and gravel pits and stone quar-
ries, the mining and processing of gypsum, the
production of clay and manufacture of brick and tile
products, the production of cement materials and manu-
facture of cement, and the production of salt and
sulphur. Lignite is mined in Milam County where it is
used to produce electricity for the processing of
aluminum ores shipped in from other states or imported
from foreign countries.
The principal manufacturing plants in the basin are in
or near the larger cities. However, other plants also
process local products, especially those related to
agriculture. The Cities of Waco and Temple in the
eastern part of the basin in McLennan and Bell Counties,
respectively, are important manufacturing centers,
where some of the products produced include auto tires
for national distribution, glass and glass containers,
textiles, clothing, furniture, rock wool insultation,
shoes, clay products, cement, cottonseed oil, food, and
feed stuff. Lubbock, the largest city in the basin, is
the third ranking inland cotton market in the world.
The cottonseed oil mills in the vicinity of Lubbock have
a combined production which is the largest of any city
in the world.
Agriculture has contributed substantially to the economy
of the basin; however, the development of groundwater
for irrigation has greatly increased the production of
-------
20
TABLE IV-1
COMMUNITIES WITH POPULATIONS
GREATER THAN 10,000 IN 1970
Sub-
Area a/
Community
Lubbock
Plainview
Levelland
Abilene
Sweetwater
Waco
Cleburne
Mineral Wells
Kileen
Temple
Copperas Cove
Bryan
College Station
Galveston b/
Texas City b/
LaMarque b/
Lake JacksFon b_/
Rosenberg ~
Freeport
League City b/
Dickinson b/
Alvin b/ ~~
Population
1960
341,635
128,691
18,735
10,153
196,340
90,368
13,914
311,594
97,808
15,381
11,053
237,794
23,377
30,419
4,567
171,408
27,542
11,396
282,943
67,175
32 ,065
13,969
9,651
9,698
11,619
-
4,715
5,643
1970
344,167
149,101
19,096
11,445
178,839
89,653
12,020
339,147
95,808
16,015
18,411
279,270
35,507
33,431
10,818
172,942
33,719
17 ,676
358,554
61,807
38,908
16,131
13,376
12 ,098
11,997
10,818
10,776
10,671
1-6
1,541,714
1,672,919
a7 Valu"es shown for sub-areas are full county populations
~ for the counties partially or wholly within the sub-
area .
b/ In Brazos-San Jacinto Coastal Basin.
-------
21
agricultural products and improved the standard of liv-
ing on farms in some parts of the basin. In 1958, about
2,653,000 acres were under irrigation in the Brazos
Basin, about 98 percent being irrigated with groundwater.'
"In the 1930's and 1940's, cattle raising and dryland
farming gave way to large-scale irrigation farming in the
High Plains. Irrigation increased in many areas in the
basin during the drought of the early 1950's, and as of
1962 the part of the Brazos River Basin in the High
Plains, along with other parts of the High Plains, con-
stituted one of the largest intensively cultivated
regions of the State. As a result of the large-scale
development of irrigation in the High Plains, the popu-
lation, both rural and urban, increased. The towns and
cities of the irrigated areas became distribution centers
for large quantities of equipment and supplies necessary
in the development and operation of irrigated farms.
As a result of the drought of the 1950's, irrigation was
developed in other parts of the basin wherever ground-
water was available, notably in the Osage Plains section.
Here again, the value of the agricultural production in-
creased and the standard of living improved.
In the eastern part of the basin where dryland farming is
generally successful, irrigation is used chiefly as a
supplement to the usually adequate rainfall. Cotton,
grain sorghums, and wheat are the principal crops in the
western part of the area; in the eastern part, cotton
and grain sorghums are the main crops and vegetables
and alfalfa are minor crops .
The raising of beef cattle is an important part of the
agricultural economy in the Brazos River Basin; however,
the areas of greatest beef cattle production have
shifted. In the early years, the High Plains section
and parts of the Osage Plains section were important
cattle raising areas. Although cattle raising is still
important to the economy of these sections, the number
of cattle on farms and ranches has decreased, whereas
the number of cattle on farms and ranches in the area
along the inner Coastal Plain has increased.
There are several colleges in the Brazos River Basin,
such as Wayland College at Plainview; Texas Technological
College and Lubbock Christian College, both at Lubbock;
Hardin Simmons, McMurry and Abilene Christian College at
-------
22
Abilene; Baylor University at Waco; Southwestern Univer-
sity at Georgetown; and Texas A £ M College at College
Station." 3/
-------
23
V. WATER RESOURCES OF THE STUDY AREA
Groundwater
General
Aquifers providing significant quantities of fresh to
slightly saline water within the study area are termed
"Primary" if they yield large quantities of water over
relatively large areas and "Secondary" if they yield
either large quantities of water over small areas or
small quantities over large areas.
Primary aquifers underlying the study area (Figure
V-l) are the Ogallala Formation, Quaternary Alluvium
(Osage Plains), Trinity Group, Brazos River Alluvium,
Carrizo Sand and Wilcox Formation undifferentiated
and the Gulf Coast Aquifers (Catahoula Sandstone,
Oakville Sandstone and Lagarto Clay, undifferentiated;
Goliad Sand, Willis Sand and Lissie Formation, undif-
ferentiated; Quaternary Alluvium). Secondary
aquifers (Figure V-l) are the Edwards-Trinity (Rocks
of Cretaceous Age in the High Plains), Woodbine, Santa
Rosa (Dockum Group) , Queen City Sandstone (Mount Selman
Formation), Sparta Sand, and Edwards Limestone (Balcones
Fault Zone) .
Quantity
A perennial yield of about 505,000 acre-feet 4 ,5/ of
fresh to slightly saline groundwater could be drawn from
primary and secondary aquifers in the Brazos River Basin
and the Brazos-San Jacinto Coastal Basin. There are
many other minor water bearing formations that can pro-
vide small quantity perennial supplies for ranches,
small communities and limited irrigation.
The amount of water withdrawn from the Ogallala Forma-
tion each year greatly exceeds the recharge, therefore,
use from the Ogallala is not included in the estimated
perennial groundwater yield. In 1958, an estimated
67,000,000 acre-feet of economically recoverable water
was stored in the aquifer. 3/ In 1959, the Ogallala
Formation supplied about 2,700,000 acre-feet of the
total 2,400,000 acre-feet of groundwater used in the
basin.
-------
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM
(OSAGE PLAINS)
Yield - 38,000 acre-ft/yr
TDS 600-2000 Cl 200-500 SO, 200-400
Hordness 300-700 SiO., 25-35
F 1-2 NO, 40-70
Fe 0.02 - 0.05
Avg, well yield - 280- 1300 gpm
TRINITY GROUP
Yield - 21,000 acre-ft/yr
TDS 400-1000 Cl 20-200
Hardness 10-300 Si02
F high (>I.O) in many areas
Fe high (>0.3) in many areas
Avg. well yield - 200- 1000 gpm
SO, 30 - I 50
10- 30
OGALLALA
Yield - Recharge is insignificant compared
to pumpage
TDS 500-700 Cl 20-50 SO, 30-100
Hardness 200-300 Si02 30-60
F 2-4
Fe 0.02-0.08
Avg. well yield - 500-1000 gpm
CARRIZO -WILCOX
Y!«ld - 100,000 acre-ft/yr
TOS 300-700 Cl 50-70 SO, 2-30
Hordness 8- 150 SiO, 18-25
F 0. I - 0.5
Fe high (>0.3) some areas
Avg well yield - 300- 3000 gpm
EDWARDS -TRINITY
(HIGH PLAINS)
Yield - unknown
TDS 1100 Cl 270
Hordness 500 Si02
F 3,5
Avg. well yield - unknown
SO,
50
WOODBINE
Yield - 1000 acre-ft/yr.
TDS 600 - 22OO Cl 35-60 S04
Hordness 4-260 Si02 10-12
F 02
Fe (>0.3) outcrop area
Avg. well yield -20- 100 gpm
GULF COAST AQUIFERS
Yield - 275,000 ocre-ft/yr
TOS 300-500 Cl 40-100 S04 2-50
Hardness 100-150 Si02 15-20
F 0.2-0,5
Ft 0.05 - O.S
Avg. well yield - 1500-3400 gpm
Yield - 51,000 acre-ft/yr,
TDS 400-1000 Cl 100-200 SO, 40-100
Hardness 200-1600 SiC-2 15-20
F 0.1-0.5 Boron 0.14 - 1.8
Avg. well yield - 500 - 1350 gpm
QUEEN CITY
Yield - unknown
TDS 300-1000 Cl 75 S04
Hordness 50-150
F 1,6
Fe (> 0.3) outcrop area
Avg well yield- ZOO - 400 gpm
SPARTA
Yield - 10,000 acre-ft/yr.
TDS 200-600 Cl 10-20 SO, 5-20
Hardness 6 SiOj 20-30
F 0.2-0.5
Fe (> 0.3) outcrop area
Avg. well yield - 300- 500 gpm
SECONDARY AQUIFERS
SANTA ROSA
Yield - 3, 400 acre - ft/yr
TDS 300-500 Cl 20-40 SO, 30-70
Hardness 200-300 Si02 15-25
F 0.3-1.7
Avg well yield - 50 -100 gpm
EDWARDS
Yield - 5000 acre-ft/yr
TDS 400-500 Cl 15-35 SO 35-40
Hordness 350-400 SiO 10
F 0.0 - 0 2
Fe 0,02 - 0.05
Avg well yield - 1000 - 2000 gpm
SOURCE: TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
BULLETIN 6310
DECEMBER 1963
THE TEXAS WATER PLAN
SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 1968-
NOTE: I. Yield is estimated yield for portion of aquifers
underlying Brazos River Basin and the
coastal area outlined.
2. Yield shown for Gulf Coast Aquifers includes
that portion of the Brazos River Alluvium
below (south) of the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifers.
3. Ground water quality is highly variable
Mineral concentrations shown are representative
values only in milligrams per liter.
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN -TEXAS
GROUND WATER SUPPLY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE V-l
-------
25
Quality
Figure V-l shows representative mineral concentrations
of water supplied by primary and secondary aquifers in
the Brazos River Basin. Quality analyses in Appendix
I show the variability of quality in the aquifers. It
can be seen that the mineral content of the ground-
water, in many instances, exceeds maximum limits
recommended in the U. S. Public Health Drinking Water
Standards. 6/ It can also be seen that the water in
many areas Ts very hard. The quality of water in each
aquifer is discussed below:
Ogallala - Water from this aquifer typically is
hard and has an objectionably high concentration of
fluoride. Dissolved solids are normally above 500
mg/1 but seldom exceed 800 mg/1. High silica concen-
trations exist universally.
Quaternary Alluvium (Osage Plains) - The mineral
content of water from the alluvium is highly variable.
Dissolved solids range from 300 to 4,000 mg/1 but
normally fall in the range from 100 to 2,000 mg/1.
The water generally has objectionably high concentra-
tions of fluoride and nitrates. High silica
concentrations exist universally.
Trinity Group - Dissolved solids are usually above
400 mg/1 but seldom exceed 1,000 mg/1. Normally, water
from shallow wells is hard while deeper wells yield
soft water high in sodium bicarbonate content. Objec-
tionably high concentrations of fluoride and iron occur
in many areas.
Gulf Coast Aquifers - Most of the water drawn from
the aquifer is moderately hard to very hard, although
soft water generally can be obtained by selectively
screening deeper sands. However, the water from the
deeper sands contains greater concentrations of bicar-
bonate than the water in the shallow sands. Dissolved
solids concentrations are generally less than 500 mg/1
and chlorides are less than 250 mg/1 in the area above
Brazoria County. In the northern half of Brazoria
County dissolved solids generally range from 500 to
1,000 mg/1 with chlorides less than 250 mg/1, while in
the southern half of the county dissolved solids con-
centrations frequently exceed 1,000 mg/1 and chloride
exceed 250 mg/1.
-------
26
Edwards-Trinity (High Plains) - Water from the
aquifer is very hard and the dissolved solids, chloride,
fluoride, and nitrate contents exceed the maximum limits
recommended by the U. S. Public Health Service 6/ for
drinking water.
Santa Rosa - Dissolved solids concentrations in
water from the aquifer are generally less than 500 mg/1.
The water is hard and has a moderately high silica con-
tent. The fluoride content is excessive for drinking
water.
Edwards Limestone - The water is very hard. The
concentrations of mineral constituents are generally
below maximum levels recommended by the U. S. Public
Health Service for drinking water. 6/
Queen City - The dissolved solids concentrations
in water from the aquifer is usally above 300 mg/1 but
seldom exceeds 1,000 mg/1. Generally the water is soft
with a high sodium bicarbonate content. In some places,
especially in and near the outcrop area, iron concen-
trations exceed 0.3 mg/1.
Carrizo-Wilcox - The dissolved solids concentra-
tions in water from the aquifer is usually above 300
mg/1 but seldom exceeds 700 mg/1. Generally, the water
is soft with a high sodium bicarbonate content. Iron
concentrations frequently exceed 0.3 mg/1 in water
pumped from the outcrop area.
Brazos River Alluvium 7_/ - The mineral content of
water from the river alluvium is highly variable.
Radical changes often occur in short distances along
the river. Generally, however, the water has a high
bicarbonate content and is very hard. Dissolved solids
concentrations range from about 400 mg/1 to more than
2,000 mg/1 but are usually within the range from 500 to
1,000 mg/1. The iron content exceeds 0.3 mg/1 in many
areas. Chloride and sulfate concentrations exceed 250
mg/1 in southern areas throughout the alluvium but
quite frequently exceed this level in Milam, Burleson,
Robertson and Brazos counties.
Sparta Sand - The dissolved solids concentration
in water from the aquifer is usually less than 600 mg/1.
Generally the water is soft with a high sodium bicar-
bonate content. Iron concentrations frequently exceed
0.3 mg/1 in water pumped from the outcrop area.
-------
27
Surface Water
General
The study area extends almost 600 miles from the mouth
of the Brazos River at the Gulf of Mexico where rain-
fall averages about 48 inches, northwest across Texas
into New Mexico near the City of Clovis where rainfall
averages only 18 inches. At the same time the average
net lake surface evaporation varies from 10 inches
near the mouth of the Brazos River to 60 inches near
the headwaters. These climatic conditions sustain a
broad ranged highly variable runoff pattern.
Quantity
Much of the Brazos River drainage basin (approximately
9,240 square miles) in New Mexico and in Texas west of
the Caprock Escarpment, probably does not contribute
flow to the lower basin. Below the Escarpment as far
down the Basin as Possum Kingdom Reservoir, streamflow
is very erratic. Many streams fluctuate from dry
ditches to raging torrents in short time periods.
More uniform flow patterns prevail further downstream.
Runoff generally increases from the upper to the lower
basin but varies widely from year to year and between
periods of wet and dry years (Figure V-2). "During
the wet 7-year period 1940-46, the average annual run-
off in acre-feet per square mile ranged from a maximum
of 650 near the Gulf Coast to a minimum of 50 near the
eastern edge of the Caprock. During the dry 7-year
period 1950-56, the average annual runoff per square
mile ranged from a maximum of 200 acre-feet near the
Gulf Coast to less than 50 acre-feet west of a north-
south line from Parker to Williamson County." 4/
Runoff is that part of precipitation that reaches sur-
face drainage courses. Since the effect of man's control
of the drainage system is reflected in the measurement
of streamflow, a direct examination of historical
streamflow records does not indicate an absolutely true
measure of the quantity or pattern of natural runoff.
However, an examination of historical records can be
effectively used, without adjustment, to show general
trends in runoff patterns. An analysis of streamflow
records for the period water years 1941 to 1962 is pre-
sented on Figure V-3 to illustrate the general runoff
-------
28
RUNOFF-TYPICAL WET YEAR 1941
AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF
1941 - 1956
SOURCE.' THE REPORT OF THE U.S. STUDY
COMMISSION - TEXAS PART !!
RESOURCES AND PROBLEMS
RUNOFF-TYPICAL DRY YEAR 1956
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-TEXAS
RUNOFF
(INCHES)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE V-2
-------
USGS RECORDED FLOW (CFS)
STATION PERIOD WY 1941-62
STATION
NO.
'MEAN
ANNUAL
FLOW (CFS)
STANDARD
DEVIATION
805
810
812
815
820
821.8
825
840
850
855
865
873
926
930
935
950
956
965
995
1025
1040
1050
1065
1090
1100
1105
1110
1140
418.7
96.3
1815 .0
117.8
225.3
2546.0
157.8
725.5
309.1
130.7
1802.0
5381.0
282.1
414 .8
4354.0
374.9
1292.0
548.6
214.3
2691.0
7656.0
479.5
751.0
10240.0
SIMULATED FLOW (CFS)
1962 BASIN DEVELOPMENT
KY 1941-62 RUNOFF
STANDARD
DEVIATION
425.1
163.5
50.5
14.4
351.0
23.2
924.9
320.5
202.1
719.0
604.5
1404.0
2363.0
4.5
2517.0
2604.0
3140.0
218 .9
441.2
968.1
4161.0
375.6
1475.0
549.4
214.7
2827.0
7643.0
480.4
749.1
1237.0
10790.0
SIMULATED FLOW (CFS)
2020 BASIN DEVELOPMENT
WY 1941-62 RUNOFF
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY §
ESTIMATES FOR WY 1957-66
MEAN
ANNUAL
FLOW (CFS)
188.8
70.9
21.9
6.2
152.1
10.5
418.7
98.5
57.4
213.0
175.4
411.8
1002.0
0.3
1079.0
1119.0
1806.0
117.4
225.8
458.9
2531.0
157.8
725.2
309.0
130.7
1806.0
5367.0
281.7
413.6
682.4
7730.0
STANDARD
DEVIATION
429.7
9.1
0
0
131 .7
0
695.4
324.9
205.2
700.5
554 .8
1328.0
2010.0
10.3
2439.0
2530.0
3127 .0
178.0
441 .7
895.9
4158.0
350.0
1457.0
549.5
206. 2
2583.0
7154.0
414 .1
749.4
1011 .0
9695.0
FLOW WEIGHTED MEAN ANNUAL
MINERAL CONTRIBUTION (TONS PER DAY]
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
CHLORIDE SULFATE SOLIDS
KY 1941-62 RUNOFF
MEAN
ANNUAL
FLOW (CFS)
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
CHLORIDE
189
16 27
7 2 £/
119 £/
25
379 2./
135 *'
450 £/
100
215
75
530
830
50
940
161 k/
1250
1060 y
760
672 £/
565
520
240
920
1760
190
2520
3440
3200 £/
83.3
213.1
70.6
525.4
828.2
50.7
5651 £/
c/
c/
c/
33.0
80.9
44.5
141.5
1128.8
0.5
1158.5
1148.9
5.7
120.2
1321.0
31.4
167.3
1554.6
217.6
81. 5
79.0
34.8
240.0
65.0
546.5
56.3
92.5
10.8
105. 1
675. 1
497.1
245.9
931.1
1738.4
181.6
2491.7
122.4
295.4
108.2
443.3
3031.5
25.8
3165.4
3499.9
75.1
655
54
0
52.1
.0
332.2
76. 1
92.0
7.8
101.8
510.2
0.4
553.1
489.5
7.5
142.5
280.1
76.5
396.3
1333.6
9.2
1488.3
1646.5
73.9
103.3
915.0
65.4
53.0
1124.4
136.4
583.5
33.0
45.0
943.1
396 .9
4519. 5
a/ Recorded Flow WY 1957-66
b/ Exclusive of Area above Hubbard Creek Reservoir
c/ KY 1949-64
LEGEND
820
U.S-G.S. STATION NUMBER
RESERVOIR EXISTING OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION
RESERVOIR TO BE COMPLETED BY YEAR 2020
SALINITY CONTROL STRUCTURES
SUBAREA NUMBERS
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-TEXAS
SURFACE WATER SUPPLY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE V-3
-------
30
distribution throughout the Brazos River Basin. Mathe-
matical model simulated flows are also shown for
comparison.
Flow in the Brazos River at Station 880 near South Bend,
Young County averaged 1012 cfs (733,153 acre-feet per
year) for the period of record. Runoff was collected
from a drainage area of 21,600 square miles of which
9,240 is probably noncontributing. "The maximum year
of runoff was 1957 with 2,461,000 acre-feet, and the
minimum year was 1952 with 43,500 acre-feet." 4/
Flow in the Brazos River at Station 965, Waco, McLennan
County averaged 2,546 cfs (1,844,475 acre-feet per year)
for the period of record. "The maximum year of runoff
was 1957 with 5,544,000 acre-feet, and the minimum year
was 1952 with 403,600 acre-feet." 4/
Flow in the Brazos River at Station 1140, Richmond,
Fort Bend County averaged 7,740 cfs (5,607,320 acre-
feet per year) for the period of record. "The maximum
year of runoff was 1941 with 16,120,000 acre-feet, and
the minimum year was 1951 with 1,027,000 acre-feet." 4/
Table V-l lists reservoirs greater than 5,000 acre-feet
capacity that are expected to be in place by the year
2020. These reservoirs will provide a total safe yield
of 1,175,300 acre-feet per year.
Quality
Chemical quality of surface water in the study area is
highly variable. The quality not only differs from
stream to stream but it also changes along the course
of the streams and fluctuates at any point over a
period of time. Therefore, it is necessary to describe
quality by defining the percent of time the mineral con-
centration is within various ranges at a specific
location. This analysis is, influenced, of course by
the extent of available data. Many of the quality
records for Brazos River Basin streams cover a very
limited time frame. For prediction of future quality
conditions, measured quality data has been extended by
constructing a mathematical model of the Brazos Basin.
The model and the quality predictions are described
later in this report (Chapter VIII and Appendix II).
This section of the report deals only with interpreta-
tion of available historical records.
-------
INCREMENTAL CAPACITIES COHTRIB-
2020 (1000 ACRE-FEET) UTHlG
SUB- DATE
AREA RESERVOIR COMPLETED
FLOOD
CONTROL
CONSER-
VATION
DEAD
TOTAL (
AREA
SQ.MI.S
ESTIMATED
YIELD b/
2020
AC.FT./YR
OWNER
RESERVOIRS COMPLETED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION
1 Buffalo Springs
White River
2 Sweetwater
Abilene
Kirby
Fort Phantom Hill
Stamford
Hubbard Lake
Daniel
Cisco
3 Graham
Possum Kingdom Lake
Palo Pinto Creek
Mineral Wells
Lake Granbury
Pat Cleburne
Lake Whitney
Waco Lake
Trading House Creek a/
4 Proctor Lake
Leon
Bel ton Lake
North San Gabriel Lake c/
Laneport c/
Stillhouse Hollow Lake
Lake Creek
5 !-'exia
Camp Creek
Alcoa
Somerville Lake
6 Smitr-ers
William Harris a/
Eagle Sest-Manor Lake
Erazoria a/
2 Millers Creek
Breckenridge
3 Stepherwille
Aquilla Creek
4 Caterer,
5 "iavasota 2
Hi 11 ican
9-59
11-63
1930
8-21
1928
10-38
6-53
12-62
1948
9-23
1958
3-41
1964
9-20
1970
1964
12-51
2-65
9-63
4-54
3-54
2-68
5-52
6-61
11-48
10-52
1-67
10-57
4-43
-
5-54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1372.4
553.3
0
314.8
0
640.0
87.6
126.2
394.7
0
0
0
337.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
111.5
0
550.7
359.0
5.4
36.4
8.2
8.0
4.8
67.0
47.6
277.8
3.0
6.5
47.0
188.1
39.5
5-0
105.4
18.3
372.9
104.1
37.8
37.5
17.5
398.5
29.2
73.9
218.2
9.5
Q
7.7
10 -^
143.9
18.0
11 .1
18.0
21.3
RESERVOIRS
7.4
550.0
40. 6
59.7
1200.0
1315.4
1125.8
0
1.8
3.7
1.8
2.8
7.3
12.4
40.0
7.0
2.4
5.6
536.3
4.6
3.4
44.6
7.3
202.5
69.0
0
21.9
9.8
59.1
14.0
44.1
17.5
10.0
0.9
Q
25.9
0
0.9
0
0.7
PLANNED
18.1
67.0
10.9
28.1
18.0
69.5
72.0
5.4
38,2
11.9
9.8
7.6
74.3
60.0
317.8
10.0
8.9
52.6
724.4 13
44.1
8.4
150.0 15
25.6
1947.8 16
726.4 1
37.8
374.2 1
27.3
1097.6 3
130.8
244.2
630.4 1
9.5
10.0
8.6
10.5
507.5 1
18.0
12.0
18. C
22.0
FOR CONSTRUCT!
25.5
617,0
51 .5
199.3
1218.0
1935.6
1556.8
340
172
104
102
44
478 d/
360
1107
87
26
212
,310
471
63 d/
,451
92
,930
,652
39.1 d/
,265
252
,560
246
709
,318
17 d/
-
40
6 d/
,006
24.2 d/
0 d/
- I/
-
ON PRIOR
3,600
1,700
1 ,600
200
9,500
600
14,900
-
500
6,400
86,000
11,200
200
67,100
3,600
122,300
57,300
-
14,600
3,100
103,700
11,500
10,800
62,000
-
0
2,600
-
35,600
_
-
-
-
TO 2020 e/
13,000
54,900
6,000
15,200
95,400
231 ,600
128,600
Lubbock Co Water Improvement Dist. No. 1
White River Municipal Water Dist.
City cf Sweetwater
City of Abilene
City of Abilene
City of Abilene
City of Stamford
West Central Texas Municipal Water Dist.
City of Breckenridge
City of Cisco
City of Graham
Brazos River Authority
Palo Pinto Co. Municipal Water Dist.
City of Mineral Wells
Brazos River Authority
City of Cleburne
U. S. Government
U. S. Government, City of Waco, Brazos R. Auth.
Texas Power and Light Co.
U. S. Government
Eastland Co. Water Supply Dist.
U. S. Government
U. S. Government
U. S. Government
U. S. Government
Texas Power and Light Co.
Bistone Municipal Water Supply Dist.
Camp Creek Water Co.
Aluminum Co. of America
U. S. Government
Houston Lighting and Power Co.
Dow Chemical Co.
T. M. Smith et al
Dow Chemical Co,
a/ Off-channel reservoir.
b_/ Lees r,ot include return flows. Yields were determined by the Texas Water Development Board.
c_< jfider construction.
d_/ '.;=te'' p^rped into reservoir frorr, anotner drainage area.
e/ Sreckenridge, Stephenville, Aquilla Creek and Mi 111 can are expected to be needed prior to 1979, Killers Creek by 1990, and Cameron and Navascta 2 by 2020
-------
32
The United States Geological Survey has very adequately
presented a summary of surface water quality conditions
in a report 8/ for the Texas Water Development Board.
Much of theiF discussion is "quoted" below. Table V-2
is their analysis of available records through 1964 to
show the extent of past water-quality variations. Esti-
mates of the quantity (tons per day) of salt contributed
from various parts of the Brazos Basin are presented on
Figure V-3.
The chemical quality of water of the Double Mountain
Fork Brazos River near Aspermont is highly variable.
The dissolved-solids content has ranged from less than
600 ppm to more than 7,000 ppm. During about 90 percent
of the period of record, the dissolved-solids content
equaled or exceeded 1,040 ppm; for about 10 percent of
the time it equaled or exceeded 5,750 ppm. Similarly
the sulfate, chloride, and hardness contents of the
water are highly variable. During 80 percent of the
time, sulfate concentrations ranged between 425 and
1,900 ppm, chloride concentrations ranged between 170
and 1,950 ppm, and hardness concentrations ranged be-
tween 460 and 2,470 ppm. The principal factor resulting
in the variation of dissolved minerals was water dis-
charge. The dissolved-solids content was usually
highest during periods of low flow, when most of the
flow consisted of groundwater inflow. The quality of
water improved with increase in water discharge.
The dissolved-solids content of water of the Salt Fork
Brazos River near Aspermont has ranged from about 1,000
ppm to more than 135,000 ppm. During about 50 percent
of the period of record, the dissolved-solids content
equaled or exceeded 33,900 ppm. (In comparison, the
dissolved-solids content of ocean water averages about
35,000 ppm). The principal chemical constituents of
the water also were highly variable. For example, dur-
ing 80 percent of the time, the chloride content of the
water ranged between 2,280 and 29,400 ppm. For about
50 percent of the time the chloride content equaled or
exceeded 18,700 ppm. The dissolved-mineral content of
the water was maximum during low flow when most of the
flow was contributed by highly mineralized inflow from
seeps and springs in the drainage area of Croton and
Salt Croton Creeks. However, some medium and high flows
also were very highly mineralized because of the solu-
tion of large quantities of salt that had been previously
deposited in flats around salt springs and seeps and in
stream channels.
-------
TABLE V-2
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Station
(Figure V-2)
Stream and Location
10
Percent of Days Equaled or Exceeded
25 50 75
90
805
820
825
848
Double Mountain Fork Brazos River near Aspermont
1949-51, 1957-64 water years:
Sulfate (S04)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as
Salt Fork Brazos River near Aspermont
1949-51, 1957-64 water years:
Sulfate ($04)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as CaC03
Brazos River at Seymour
1960-64 water years:
Sulfate (S04)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as CaC03
California Creek near Stamford
1963-64 water years:
Sulfate (504)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as CaC03
Mean Daily Concentration (mg/1)
1,900
1,950
5,750
2,470
1,720
1,520
4,850
2,110
1,480
1,050
3,770
1,670
870
425
2,000
900
425
170
1,040
460
3,000
29,400
51 ,500
4,650
2,920
25,500
45,000
4,400
2,600
18,700
33,900
3,800
1,720
7,800
15,000
2,300
780
2,280
4,900
1,030
1,910
6,200
12,400
2,300
1,740
5,200
10,700
2,100
1,500
3,750
8,100
1,750
980
1,650
4,100
1,060
600
720
2,120
630
2,550
2,600
7,100
2,600
2,220
2,200
6,150
2,300
1,930
1,800
5,200
2,000
1,220
1,100
3,500
1,400
440
380
1,460
640
-------
TABLE V-2 (Continued)
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Station
(Figure V-2)
Stream and Location
10
Percent of Days Equaled or Exceeded
25 50 75
90
865
873
Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge
1956-61 water years:
Sulfate (S04)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as
Mean Daily Concentration (mg/V
1963-64 water years:
Sulfate (504)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as CaC03
Clear Fork Brazos River at Eliasville
1962-64 water years:
Sulfate (S04)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as
Brazos River below Possum Kingdom Dam, near Graford
1943-64 water years:
Sulfate (504)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as
220
930
1,810
740
340
275
1,000
525
140
580
1 ,280
550
72
155
470
258
62
240
680
320
18
115
330
184
620
880
2,210
890
400
650
1,600
640
205
410
1,000
410
25
92
335
175
13
94
278
156
64
190
500
225
14
48
210
115
11
80
250
141
30
120
365
175
390
650
1,710
515
340
565
1,510
465
305
500
1,350
425
280
450
1,230
395
245
380
1,080
370
-------
TABLE V-2 (Continued)
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Station
(Figure V-2)
Stream and Location
10
Percent of Days Equaled or Exceeded
25 50 75
90
926
1040
1065
Brazos River below Whitney Dam, near Whitney
1949-51 water years:
Sulfate (SOi)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as CaC03
1953-64 water years:
Sulfate (504)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as
Mean Daily Concentration (mg/1]
Lampasas River at Youngsport
1962-64 water years:
Sulfate (SOd)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as CaCOg
Little River at Cameron
1961-64 water years:
Sulfate (S04)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as
330
510
1,380
450
280
445
1,230
405
28
280
660
295
59
81
447
269
300
470
1,290
425
245
400
1,120
375
23
215
550
262
50
66
385
234
245
400
1,120
375
200
330
960
330
20
170
468
235
42
52
325
202
148
250
770
275
155
265
795
280
15
117
370
200
36
43
289
182
59
102
395
165
113
195
635
235
12
81
298
172
30
32
242
156
-------
TABLE V-2 (Continued)
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Station
(Figure V-2)
Stream and Location
Percent of Days Equaled or Exceeded
10 25 50 75
90
1087
1100
1110
Brazos River at State Highway 21, near Bryan
1962-64 water years:
Sulfate (S04)
Chloride (CT)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as CaC03
Yegua Creek near Somerville
1962-64 water years:
Sulfate (504)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as CaC03
Navasota River near Bryan
1959-64 water years:
Sulfate (S04)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as
Mean Daily Concentration (mg/1)
195
330
960
338
275
170
800
382
49
260
570
150
172
280
850
312
212
142
635
300
43
180
427
125
143
220
720
280
125
86
390
180
37
122
320
103
107
152
560
240
66
42
220
98
30
76
225
80
71
89
400
196
41
23
143
62
24
49
165
61
-------
TABLE V-2 (Continued)
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Station Stream and Location
(Figure V-2)
1140 Brazos River at Richmond
1943-51 water years:
Sulfate (S04)
Chloride (C1)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as CaC03
1955-64 water years:
Sulfate (504)
Chloride (Cl)
Dissolved solids
Hardness as CaC03
10
Percent of Days
25
Equaled or
50
Mean Daily Concentration
196
330
960
347
182
300
895
330
149
240
750
290
137
219
695
275
86
127
465
206
92
136
490
215
Exceeded
75
(mg/1 )
53
72
315
156
60
82
345
166
90
36
45
235
126
40
51
255
134
NOTE:
For this frequency study, the dissolved-solids content of each daily sample was estimated from the specific conductance of the sample. These
data for the period of record were used to prepare dissolved-solids duration curves. Curves of relation were plotted between these curves
and concentrations of sulfate, chloride, and hardness. For each value of dissolved-solids in the table, corresponding concentrations of sul-
fate, chloride, and hardness were calculated. Care should be taken to consider the length of record and basin development when these values
are used.
Source: Texas Water Development Board - Report 55
-------
38
Water of the main stem Brazos River at the Seymour sta-
tion during the 1960-64 period usually was slightly to
very saline. Although the dissolved-solids content
ranged from about 500 ppm to more than 20,000 ppm,
about 50 percent of the time the dissolved-solids con-
tent equaled or exceeded 8,100 ppm. Because water at
the Seymour station is a composite of water from both
the Double Mountain and Salt Forks, the dissolved-
solids content and the chemical composition depend
largely upon the proportion of water contributed by
each fork. When most of the water is contributed by
the Salt Fork, the water usually ranges from moderately
to very saline and chloride greatly predominates over
sulfate. When most of the flow is contributed by the
Double Mountain Fork, the water usually ranges from
slightly to moderately saline; and although chloride
usually is the predominant anion, the percentage of
sulfate increases.
The water of the Clear Fork Brazos River usually is
much superior in quality to that of either the Double
Mountian Fork or the Salt Fork. During the 1962-64
water years, the dissolved-solids content of the Clear
Fork Brazos River at Eliasville ranged from about 100
ppm to more than 3,200 ppm; but about 50 percent of the
time the water contained less than 1,000 ppm. Water in
California Creek, a tributary to the upper reach of the
Clear Fork, generally was more mineralized than water
of the Clear Fork at Eliasville. During the 1963-64
water years, the dissolved-solids content of water of
California Creek near Stamford ranged from about 200
ppm, equaling or exceeding 5,200 ppm about 50 percent
of the time. Although the relation between dissolved-
solids content and water discharge was not precise, the
dissolved-solids content in both California Creek and
Clear Fork usually was minimum during high flows when
most of the water consisted of direct runoff. However,
the concentrations of principal dissolved constituents,
especially chloride, varied markedly during some high-
flow periods, apparently because of oil-field brine
pollution. Because of this variation, the relation
between dissolved-solids and individual chemical con-
stituents was ill defined, and values for individual
chemical constituents in Table V-2 are rough approxi-
mations .
Oil-field brine pollution also has resulted in marked
variation of the quality of water of Hubbard Creek,
-------
39
the principal tributary to the lower reach of the Clear
Fork Brazos River. During the 1956-61 period, before
closure of Hubbard Creek Reservoir, the dissolved-
solids content of Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge
ranged from less than 100 ppm to more than 5,000 ppm.
However, for about 50 percent of the time the
dissolved-solids content equaled or exceeded 680 ppm.
Although the chemical quality usually improved with
increase in water discharge, the dissolved-solids con-
tent, especially the chloride content, was relatively
variable at all discharge rates. Much of this varia-
tion probably resulted from oil-field brine pollution.
Since the closure of Hubbard Creek Reservoir in 1962,
most of the flow passing the Breckenridge station has
consisted of runoff from the area downstream from the
reservoir and seepage from the reservoir. During the
1963-64 water years, the dissolved-solids content of
water at the Breckenridge station ranged from about
100 ppm to more than 2,000 ppm. However, about 50
percent of the time the water contained less than 330
ppm dissolved-solids.
A comparison of chemical-quality data for the Brazos
River at the Possum Kingdom Dam station with those for
upstream stations on both the main stem and tribu-
taries show that storage of water in Possum Kingdom
Reservoir has resulted in a decrease of quality-of-
water variations. During the 1943-64 period, since
the closure of Possum Kingdom Reservoir, the dissolved-
solids content of water released or spilled from the
reservoir has ranged from about 220 ppm to more than
3,800 ppm. However, for about 80 percent of the time
the range has been from about 1,080 ppm to about 1,710
ppm. Similarly, for about 80 percent of the time the
sulfate and chloride concentrations have ranged from
245 ppm to 390 ppm and from 380 to 650 ppm, respec-
tively.
The collection of chemical-quality data from the Brazos
River near Whitney pre-dates the closure of Whitney
Reservoir. Therefore, chemical-quality frequency data
for periods both before and after closure of Whitney
Reservoir are given in Table V-2. During the 1949-51
water years, before the closure of the reservoir, the
dissolved-solids content of the water ranged from less
than 150 ppm to more than 1,500 ppm. During 50 percent
of the time, the dissolved-solids content equaled or
exceeded 1,120 ppm. During the same period, the
-------
40
dissolved-solids content of water released from Possum
Kingdom Reservoir ranged from about 1,000 ppm to more
than 1,600 ppm. Water from the drainage area between
the two reservoirs is low in dissolved-solids. Much
of the time before the closure of Whitney Reservoir,
water at the Whitney station consisted largely of
water released from Possum Kingdom Reservoir. During
the 1953-64 period after the closure of Whitney Reser-
voir, the dissolved-solids content of water at the
Whitney station ranged from less than 350 ppm to more
than 1,400 ppm. About 50 percent of the time, the
dissolved-solids content equaled or exceeded 960 ppm.
During the same period, the dissolved-solids content
of water released from Possum Kingdom Reservoir ranged
from less than 300 ppm to more than 3,800 ppm, and for
about 50 percent of the time equaled or exceeded 1,400
ppm. These data show that regulation of flow by
Whitney Reservoir has resulted in an integration of the
saline releases from Possum Kingdom Reservoir with
water of better quality contributed by the intervening
area. Mixing of these waters in Whitney Reservoir has
resulted in more uniformity in the chemical quality of
water at the Whitney station.
During the 1962-64 period of chemical-quality record
for the Lampasas River at Youngsport, the dissolved-
solids content of the water ranged from less than 150
ppm to more than 950 ppm. During about 40 percent of
the time, the dissolved-solids content equaled or ex-
ceeded 500 ppm. Mills and Rawson (1965) have shown
that although the base flow of most streams in the
drainage area of the Lampasas River contains low con-
centrations of dissolved-solids, the base flow of
Sulphur Creek is slightly saline. Therefore, the
variation in chemical quality of the Lampasas River at
Youngsport is attributed largely to differences in
pattern of runoff. When most of the flow is contrib-
uted by Sulphur Creek, the dissolved-solids content is
maximum. As the percentage of water contributed by
other tributaries increases, the chemical quality of
water of the Lampasas River improves.
Because water of the Little River at Cameron is a com-
posite of the flow of the Leon, Lampasas, and San
Gabriel Rivers, the dissolved-solids content and the
chemical composition of the water depend largely upon
the pattern of runoff from sub-basins. During the
1961-64 period of chemical-quality record, the
-------
41
dissolved-solids content of the Little River at Cameron
ranged from less than 125 ppm to more than 675 ppm.
Although the.dissolved-solids content was maximum dur-
ing low flow, it equaled or exceeded 500 ppm only about
one percent of the time.
The quality of water of the main stem Brazos River near
Bryan -is relatively variable. During the 1962-64 water
years, the dissolved-solids content ranged from less
than 200 ppm to more than 1,200 ppm. About 50 percent
of the time the dissolved-solids content equaled or ex-
ceeded 720 ppm. During the same period, the dissolved-
-solids content of water released from the upstream
Whitney Reservoir equaled or exceeded 700 ppm for more
than 99 percent of the time. These data indicate that
the dissolved-solids content of water at the Bryan sta-
tion is maximum when most of the flow consists of , ••
releases from Whitney Reservoir. As the proportion of
water contributed by the intervening area between the
reservoir and the Bryan station increases, the chemical
-quality of water improves.
The dissolved-solids content of water of Yegua Creek
near Somerville during the 1962-64 water years ranged
frpm less than ;100 ppm to more than 950 ppm. About 40
percent of the time the dissolved-solids content
equaled or exceeded 500 ppm. Although the chemical :
quality clearly improved with increase in water dis.-;
charge, the dissolved-solids content and concentrations
of individual constituents were variable at all dis-.
charge rates, but especially during medium and low flows.
Although no chemical-quality data are available for
tributaries, much of this variation at the Somerville
station probably is due to differences in the pattern of
runoff from sub-basins.
During the 1959-64 period, the dissolved-solids content
of the Navasota River near Bryan ranged from less than
50 ppm to more than 2,200 ppm. However, the dissolved-
solids equaled or exceeded 500 ppm for only about 15
percent of the time. The dissolved-solids content
usually was maximum during low or medium flows. How-
ever, the relation between discharge and dissolved-solids
content was ill defined. During some periods, both the
dissolved-solids ajad chloride contents of the water
increased erratically •without a corresponding, change in
rate of flow. Much of this variation is attributed to
oil-field brine pollution.
-------
42
The collection of chemical-quality data from the Brazos
River at Richmond pre-dates the construction of the
upstream Whitney and Belton Reservoirs. Therefore, in
Table V-2 chemical-quality frequency data for the
Richmond station are shown for two periods--the period
before closure of Whitney Reservoir and the period
after closure of Belton Reservoir. During the 1943-51
period before closure of Whitney Reservoir, the
dissolved-solids content of the Brazos River at Richmond
ranged from less than 150 ppm to more than 1,400 ppm.
About 50 percent of the time the dissolved-solids
equaled or exceeded 500 ppm. During the same period,
the dissolved-solids in water released from the up-
stream Possum Kingdom Reservoir ranged from about 800
ppm to more than 1,600 ppm. About 50 percent of the
time the dissolved-solids content of water released
from the reservoir equaled or exceeded 1,300 ppm.
These data show that before the construction of Whitney
Reservoir the quality of water at the Richmond station
was relatively variable. The dissolved-solids content
of the water was maximum when inflow from the interven-
ing area between the Possum Kingdom and Whitney station
was deficient. As the proportion of water contributed
by the intervening area increased, the chemical quality
of water at the Richmond station improved. For example,
discharge records for the 1943-51 period indicate that
during the January-June months, releases from Possum
Kingdom Reservoir averaged less than 7 percent of the
total flow at the Richmond station. For 50 percent of
the days during the January-June period, the dissolved-
solids content of water at the Richmond station was less
than 360 ppm. During the July-December months, releases
from Possum Kindgom Reservoir averaged more than 20 per-
cent of the total flow at the Richmond station. For 50
percent of the days during the June-December period,
water at the Richmond station contained more than 590
ppm dissolved-solids.
The dissolved-solids content of the Brazos River at
Richmond during the 1955-64 period, since the closure
of Whitney and Belton Reservoirs, has ranged from less
than 150 ppm to more than 1,200 ppm. About 48 percent
of the time the dissolved-solids content has equaled or
exceeded 500 ppm. These data indicate that the regula-
tion of flow by Whitney and Belton Reservoirs has not
reduced appreciably the day-to-day variations of chemi-
cal quality of water at the Richmond station.
-------
43
Return Flow
Multiple use of natural resources in effect increases
the available supply. Where the geography is favorable
waste water discharged by upstream users can be appro-
priated to satisfy downstream demands.
In the Brazos River Basin the geography and location of
large population centers will allow only limited re-use
of waste water. In most cases only two cycles of use
are possible. Re-use of water is estimated to increase
the available 2020 supply by 369,250 acre-feet per year.
Summary
Table V-3 is a summary of yields expected from planned
development through the year 2020. The summary includes
groundwater supplies in the Brazos-San Jacinto Coastal
Basin; it does not include groundwater that will be
mined from the Ogallala Formation or possible imports
from East Texas Basins. Complete development of ground-
water resources is assumed.
TABLE V-3
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES SUMMARY
2020 Supply
Source _ (acre-feet/year)
Import from Canadian Basin 47,300
Import from Colorado Basin 2,400
Reservoir Yield 1,175,300
Main Stem Diversion 85,000
Groundwater 505,000
Return Flow 569 ,250
2,184,250
Utilization of the above listed supplies can be se-
verely restricted by their high mineral concentrations.
A large quantity of the water resources in the Brazos
basin are presently damaged to such a degree that they
cannot be used for municipal supplies. Satisfaction of
water demands by using study area resources will be
discussed later in this report.
-------
44
VI, WATER REQUIREMENTS
General
Water requirement projections adopted for this study
were prepared by the State of Texas Water Development
Board for use in formulation of the Texas Water Plan. 10/
Projections independently prepared by the Environmental
Protection Agency were not significally different.
Projection Criteria and Procedures
The following procedures and assumptions were used in
projecting future requirements.
1. Smaller industries and commercial establishments
presently obtaining or projected to obtain their
water supplies from municipal systems were in-
cluded in municipal requirements.
2. Large-scale industrial users - 10 thousand gallons
per day or more, who purchase their supplies from
municipal systems were separated into the indus-
trial category.
3. It was assumed that necessary water supplies of
suitable quality could be supplied at a cost simi-
lar to prices experienced in the basin over the
recent historical period. Growth similar to that
experienced historically and thus water demand
would not be restricted by lack of adequate sup-
plies. The type industrial development would be
restricted by these assumptions, however, since
water prices in some areas have historically dis-
couraged development of large water using
industries. Industrial development was projected
in accordnace with what has been feasible in the
past.
4. Municipal water requirements were calculated by
multiplying projected per-capita use by projected
population. Per-capita use data was developed
from historic data collected by the Water Develop-
ment Board for the years 1960-64 and by the State
Health Department for the years 1956-62. Urban
areas were assigned per-capita demands in accord-
ance with their stage of growth as compared to
similar area.
-------
45
5. Industrial requirements were developed by compar-
ing projected employment in basic industrial
sectors with current and projected water require-
ments for those sectors. Projections of
employment were based on area resource evaluations
and the probable expansion of basic local indus-
tries .
6. The principal use of water for mining purposes is
the recovery of petroleum by fluid injection.
Water use projections were developed by evaluating
the amount of petroleum potentially recoverable by
water injection. It should be noted that either
saline or fresh water can be used for secondary
recovery and much of the requirement could be sat-
isfied by use of saline water commonly produced
with oil and gas or locally available.
7. The University of Texas made a detailed analysis
of the future need for agricultural products in
the nation and Texas probable share in providing
these food and fiber requirements. Their studies
show that economic incentives could exist by the
year 2020 to support development of irrigated
agriculture on 16.6 million acres of the 37 million
acres of irrigable lands in Texas. This irrigation
potential was then assigned to the most suitable
areas in Texas. Water requirements were then cal-
culated from historical water use data for local
cropping patterns.
1960 Water Use
Table VI-1 shows 1960 water use for irrigation, mining
and municipal supplies for each city in the study area
with a 1960 population of more than 5,000 and "all other
cities" with lesser populations considered as a group
for each sub-area.
-------
46
TABLE VI-1
1960 WATER USE a/
(Acre-Feet)
Sub- Ground Surface
Area City b/ and Type Use Water Water Total
1 Municipal and Industrial
Levelland 3,300 3,300
Littlefield 5,700 5,700
Lubbock 23,000 23,000
Plainview 3,400 3,400
Slaton 800 800
Other Cities 17,200 17,200
TOTAL 53,400 53,400
Irrigation 4,100,400 100 ,4,100,500
Mining 14,900 14,900
TOTAL SUB-AREA 1 4,168,700 100 4,168,800
2 Municipal and Industrial
Abilene 17,600 17,600
Breckenridge 1,000 1,000
Stamford 1,200 1,200
Sweetwater 2,600 2,600
Other Cities 5,900 5,900 11,800
TOTAL 5,900 28,300 34,200
Irrigation 116,700 6,000 122,700
Mining 29,300 29,300
TOTAL SUB-AREA 2 151,900 34,300 186,200
-------
47
TABLE VI-1 (Continued)
Sub- Ground Surface
Area City b/ and Type Use Water Water Total
3 Municipal and Industrial
Bellmead 400 400
Cleburne 2,400 2,400
Graham 2,900 2,900
Hillsboro 1,200 1,200
Mineral Wells 2,100 2,100
Stephenville 1,200 1,200
Waco 600 21,400 22,000
Other Cities 11,100 3,800 14,900
TOTAL 16,900 30,200 47,100
Irrigation 1,200 8,500 9,700
Mining 5,400 5,400
TOTAL SUB-AREA 3 23,500 38,700 62,200
4 Municipal and Industrial
Belton 1,700 1,700
Cameron 700 700
Georgetown 2,500 2,500
Killeen 3,500 3,500
Lampasas 1,000 1,000
Taylor 1,200 1,200
Temple 4,800 4,800
Other Cities 5,000 7,400 12,400
TOTAL 10,400 17,400 27,800
Irrigation 2,900 5,900 8,800
Mining 1,000 1,000
TOTAL SUB-AREA 4 14,300 23,300 37,600
-------
48
TABLE VI-1 (Continued)
Sub-
Area
5
6
City b/ and Type Use
Municipal and Industrial
Brenham
Bryan
College Station
Hearne
Marlin
Mexia
Other Cities
TOTAL
Irrigation
Mining
TOTAL SUB -AREA 5
Municipal and Industrial
Alvin
Angleton
Freeport
Galveston
Hitchcock
Houston (5 percent)
Lake Jackson
McMarque
Rosenberg
Texas City
Other Cities
TOTAL
Irrigation
Mining
TOTAL SUB -AREA 6
Ground
Water
1 ,000
5,200
2,200
900
5,000
14 ,300
71,400
100
85,800
1,800
700
12 ,400
12 ,200
400
11,000
1,100
1,500
9,800
16 ,500
45,900
113,300
32,100
2,200
147 ,600
Surface
Water
1,000
1,600
1,400
4,000
24,700
28,700
50,500
2,100
19,700
72,300
173,900
246,200
Total
1,000
5,200
2,200
900
1,000
1,600
6,400
18 ,300
96,100
100
114,500
1,800
700
62,900
12 ,200
400
13,100
1 ,100
1,500
9,800
36,200
45 ,900
185,600
206,000
2,200
393,800
-------
49
TABLE VI-1 (Continued)
Sub- Ground Surface
Area City b/ and Type Use Water Water Total
1-6 Municipal and Industrial
Cities above 5,000 pop. 124,100 133,700 257,800
Other Cities 90,100 18,500 108,600
TOTAL 214,200 152,200 366,400
Irrigation 4,324,700 219,100 4,543,800
Mining 52,900 52,900
TOTAL SUB-AREA 1-6 4,591,800 371,300 4,963,100
a/1964 data used for irrigation
F/ Cities named had populations greater than 5,000 in 1960
All cities with populations below 5,000 were combined.
Source: Texas Water Development Board
-------
50
2020 Projected Water Demand
Projected water demand for the year 2020 is shown in
Table VI-2. The total available fresh groundwater
supply was assigned to satisfy as much of the demand
as possible. The remaining demand must be satisfied
with surface water. Where adequate surface water sup-
plies cannot be developed locally, imports will be
required. The Texas Water Plan published in 1968 pro-
poses imports from East Texas and/or the Mississippi
River.
Table VI-3 shows projected 2020 municipal and indus-
trial water demands for urban areas that had
populations greater than 5,000 in 1960. Demands for
all other urban areas are combined.
-------
51
TABLE VI-2
2020 PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
(Acre-Feet)
Sub-
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
1-6
Use
Municipal and Industrial
Irrigation
Mining
TOTAL SUB -AREA 1
Municipal and Industrial
Irrigation
Mining
TOTAL SUB -AREA 2
Municipal and Industrial
Irrigation
Mining
TOTAL SUB -AREA 3
Municipal and Industrial
Irrigation
Mining
TOTAL SUB -AREA 4
Municipal and Industrial
Irrigation
Mining
TOTAL SUB -AREA 5
Municipal and Industrial
Irrigation
Mining
TOTAL SUB -AREA 6
Municipal and Industrial
Irrigation
Mining
Ground
Water
121,400
302,500
2,200
426,100
12,300
14,000
4,400
30,700
8,000
4,000
800
12,800
8,000
3,000
100
11,100
43,000
70,100
113,100
119,900
115,800
300
236,000
312,600
509,400
7,800
Surface
Water
130,900 a/
4,111,000 F/
4,241,900
123,400 c/
225,200 37
348,600
212,900
25,000
237,900
75,000
50,000
125,000
26,200
50,000
76,200
722,000
429,100
1,151,100
1,290,400
4,890,300
Total
252,300
4,413,500
2,200
4,668,000
135,700
239,200
4,400
379,300
220,900
29,000
800
250,700
83,000
53,000
100
136,100
69,200
120,100
189,300
841,900
544,900
300
1,387,100
1,603,000
5,399,700
7,800
TOTAL SUB-AREA 1-6 829,800 6,180,700 7,010,500
a/Import of 127,300 acre-feet projected (47,300 from Canadian
River)
b/ Import of 4,111,000 acre-feet projected
c/ Import of 40,000 acre-feet projected
37 Import of 215,600 acre-feet projected
Source: Texas Water Development Board
-------
52
TABLE VI-3
2020 PROJECTED MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER DEMAND
(Acre-Feet)
Sub- 2020
Area Urban Area a_/ Demand
1 Levelland 8,000
Littlefield 11,900
Lubbock 175,900
Plainview 17,600
Slaton 4,600
Other Urban Areas 34,500
TOTAL SUB-AREA 1 252 ,300
2 Abilene 75,100
Breckenridge 3,000
Stamford 2,500
Sweetwater 30,300
Other Urban Areas 24,800
TOTAL SUB-AREA 2 135,700
3 Bellmead 11,800
Clebrune 12,800
Graham 8,500
Hillsboro 5,300
Mineral Wells 10,100
Stephenville 6,800
Waco 130,600
Other Urban Areas 35,000
TOTAL SUB-AREA 3 220,900
4 Belton 5,900
Cameron 2,200
Georgetown 5,000
Killeen 12,300
L amp asas 3,400
Taylor 4,400
Temple 22,400
Other Urban Areas 27,400
TOTAL SUB-AREA 4 83,000
5 Brenham 3,600
Bryan 31,900
College Station 12,500
Hearne 3,000
Marlin 3,500
Other Urban Areas 14,700
TOTAL SUB-AREA 5 69,200
-------
53
TABLE VI-3 (Continued)
2020 PROJECTED MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER DEMAND
(Acre-Feet)
Sub- 2020
Area Urban Area a_/ Demand
6 Alvin 36,100
Angleton 8,400
Freeport 288,300
Galveston 27,400
Hitchcock 6,400
Houston (5 percent) 108,400
Lake Jackson 4,500
LaMarque 13,500
Rosenberg 25,000
Texas City 88,100
Other Urban Areas 235,800
TOTAL SUB-AREA 6 841,900
1-6 TOTAL SUB-AREA 1-6 1,603,000
a?Urban areas named had populations greater than 5,000
in 1960. All other urban areas were combined.
Source: Texas Water Development Board
-------
54
VII. SOURCE OF MINERAL POLLUTION
General
Although the area above Possum Kindgom Reservoir contri-
butes an average of only 14 to 18 percent of the runoff
from the Brazos River Basin, this area is the source of
about 45 to 55 percent of the dissolved-solids, 75 to 85
percent of the chloride, and 65 to 75 percent of the
sulfate carried by the Brazos River at Richmond, near
the mouth. The percentage varies with the period of re-
cord examined. The poor quality of the water in the
upper basin is due principally to: 1) natural mineral
pollution (inflow of natural sodium chloride brine,
particularly in Salt Cronton Creek, a tributary to the
Salt Fork; and solution of calcium sulfate from the gyp-
siferous rocks and soils that are at or near the surface
throughout much of the area) and 2) man-made pollution
of streams by the disposal of salt water produced with
oil. 9_/ Table VII-1 shows U. S. Geological Survey esti-
mates of the magnitude of the total mineral pollution
load discharged to the Brazos River in the Basin above
Possum Kingdom Reservoir for the period 1957-66 water
years. Figure III-2 shows the location of streams in-
cluded in the table. Figure V-3 presents a comparison
of U. S. Geological Survey estimates of mineral loads
for the WY 1957-66 period with simulated loadings cal-
culated for the period WY 1941-62 using the Basin
simulation model.
Natural Mineral Pollution
"The Permian Basin (Figure VII-1) comprises a large
area in the southern midcontinent region and includes
major portions of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Kansas. Within this basin brine springs and seeps dis-
charge more than 20,000 tons per day of sodium
chloride." 11.J "In no comparable area of the interior
United Statelf are natural sources of salt water so
widespread or deleterious to the fresh water supply of
so large a segment of the nation's population and
industry." ll/
Practically all of the Brazos River Basin above Possum
Kingdom Reservoir is within the Permian Basin. Data
collected by the U. S. Geological Survey indicate the
presence of two distinct bodies of groundwater in this
area - shallow fresh water (less than 5,000 mg/1 total
-------
TABLE VII-1
MEAN ANNUU MINERAL CONTRIBUTION - UPPER BRAZOS RIVER BASIfi
1957-66 Water Years
Stream and Location
Double Mountain Fork Brazos River:
Rad Creek northwest of Rotan
White Canyon north of Rotan
Salt Creek southwest of Aspermont
Double Mountain Fork Brazos River near Aspermont
Salt Fork Brazos River:
(Above Peacock)
McDonald Creek near Post
Unnamed tributary to Salt Fork - Brazos River near Post
Red Mud Creek near Clairemont
Salt Creek near Clairemont
Salt Fork Brazos River near Peacock
(Below Peacock)
Croton Creek near Jayton
Salt Croton Creek near Aspermont
Salt Fork Brazos River near Aspermont
Stinking Creek near Aspermont
North Croton Creek near Knox City
Brazos River at Seymour
Clear Fork Brazos River:
Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge
Clear Fork Brazos River at Eliasville
Brazos River at Possum Kingdom Dam near Graford
Streamf low
Period of
Record
Drainage Area (square miles)
Total.
21.2
17.4
45.4
7980
112
6.3^
-JC Q&f
I J . 0 —
36.92'
4275
310
64.3
4830
92,4
251
14490
1111
5721
Non
contrib- Contrib-
uting uting
21.2
17.4
45.4
6470 1510
112
6.3
75.82'
36.9^'
2770 1505
310
64.3
2770 2060
92.4
251
9240 5250
1111
5721
Years
—
—
37
1
--
--
4
7
10
27
1
1
42
11
31
Mean
Dis-
charge
(cfs)
-_
--
177
1.6
--
64.2
13.7
7.2
140
11.4
117
421
116
399
Mean
Dis-
charge
1957-66
3b/
2b/
&
189
,
^
£.1
78-
16
7.2
119, ,
s—
25b/
379
125 ,
450^
Flow Weighted
Mean Annual
Load
Dis-
solved
Solids
20
16
40
565
40
5
30
55
520
240
920
1760
20
190
2520
86 ,
480^
(tons per
Chloride
5
4
10
100
20
2
13
30
215
75
530
830
5
50
940
29 ,
165^
day)
Sulfate
8
6
15
235
3
5
5
5
85
80
35
250
6
70
600
6JW
22550
9240
13260
42
1112
1250
760
a/ Approximate.
b/ Estimated by extension of available records and/or correlation of data from similar areas.
c/ Exclusive of area above Hubbard Creek Reservoir,
Source: Uv Ss Geological Survey
-------
56
LEGEND:
PERMIAN BASIN (approximate bound )
SITES OF BRINE-DISCHARGE
FEATURES
Source: U. S Geological Survey
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-TEXAS
PERMIAN BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE VII -I
-------
57
dissolved-solids) and a deeper brine, ll/ "Brine move-
ment, though affected locally by the he~a"d or thickness
of overlying fresh water, has a circulation pattern of
its own, independent of local recharge." ll/ The shal-
low fresh water is predominantly of the caTcium sulfate
type, presumably owing to solution of gypsum. The
brine is predominantly of the sodium-chloride type with
a total dissolved-solids concentration averaging about
250,000 mg/1. ll/ "It is . . .reasonable to infer that
salt springs and" seeps are places where this body of
brine crops out, or where it is near the surface and is
induced to rise hydraulically and to discharge into
valley bottoms where the overlying body of fresh water
is very thin or absent. Actual points of discharge
seem to be controlled by local geology which determines
the distribution of permeability within the locality
where the brine is near the surface. The varying sa-
linity of the springs and seeps is explained as due to
mixing varying amounts of fresh water with the brine
at any one place, although this has not been conclu-
sively demonstrated." ll/
Since 1941, the Geological Survey, in cooperation with
the Texas Water Development Board (and its predecessor
agencies), the Brazos River Authority, the Corps of
Engineers, the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, and several
local agencies, has studied the chemical quality of
surface and groundwaters in the Brazos River Basin
above Possum Kingdom Reservoir. Since December 1964
the Geological Survey has expanded its data-collection
program to provide the Corps of Engineers with data
needed to evaluate the benefits of providing remedial
measures for reduction of mineral degradation of water
resources and to provide data necessary for design of
the required control structures. One of the principal
objectives of the current program is to locate all
significant sources of natural brine or highly saline
emissions and to determine the magnitude of their con-
tribution of mineral pollutants.
U. S. Geological Survey studies have shown that the
source of sulfate, one of the principal mineral con-
stituents in most of the surface waters, is the
solution of calcium sulfate from the surface and near
surface rocks and soils by surface runoff. "Calcium
sulfate is only slightly soluble in water, and sulfate
concentrations rarely exceed 5,000 ppm, and in the con-
centrated brines sulfate occurs in a ratio of only
-------
58
1 part to 30 or 40 parts chloride. Thus, the quantity
of sulfate contributed by the brine-spring areas is
only a fraction of the chloride contribution, and
there is no concentrated source of sulfate comparable
to the chloride." 9/
"Data from shallow wells driven into the streambed at
many sites in the upper Brazos River during the pre-
sent study appear to confirm that underflow is not a
significant source of salt. The streambed deposits
appear to be very shallow in many places, especially
in tributaries. Many of the streams, which are
usually dry at the surface absorb flood waters; but
when flood runoff recedes, much of the absorbed water
is lost to evaporation and salt accumulates in the
streambed and upper layers of sand. Flood flows re-
dissolve the salt deposits and flush them
downstream." 9/
There are three principal tributaries above Possum
Kingdom Reservoir - Double Mountain Fork, Salt Fork
and Clear Fork. Natural mineral pollution in each
tributary is discussed below:
Double Mountain Fork
"The principal mineral constituents in runoff from the
Double Mountain Fork are calcium and sulfates, although
sodium and chloride often predominate in the more con-
centrated low flows." 9/ Most of the tributaries
contribute objectionabTe quantities of minerals result-
ing in relatively high concentrations during low flow
periods but very saline water (containing 10,000 -
35,000 mg/1 dissolved-solids) or brine (containing more
than 35,000 mg/1 dissolved-solids) has only been ob-
served in Red Creek, White Canyon and Salt Creek
(Figure III-3). All of these streams are intermittent;
they have no base flow. Apparently salts are deposited
within the alluvium and on the surface of the stream
channels by evaporation of hidden brine seepage and are
later picked up when surface runoff occurs. Although
mineral concentrations are very high at times the total
load contributed is relatively small (Table VII-1). A
large part of the total load is flushed out into the
Double Mountain Fork during high flow periods at rela-
tively low concentrations. Yet, there are periods when
low flows carry highly mineralized water to the main-
stem. Chloride concentrations of low flows from Red
-------
59
Creek have reached 34,300 mg/1 from White Canyon 18,600
mg/1 and from Salt Creek 14,800 mg/1.
Salt Fork
"The Salt Fork and most of its tributaries are inter-
mittent throughout much of their drainage. Channels of
many of the streams are shallow, braided, and partly
choked with sand, silt, and clay. Although most of the
streams are dry at the surface, the alluvial fill in
the streambed is seldom dry for more than a few feet
below the surface." 9/
Only about 26 to 28 percent of the total mineral load
contributed by the Salt Fork is collected above Peacock
(Figure V-3). Much of this load is collected in small
increments from many sources and generally is flushed
out into the Salt Fork during high flow periods. Very
saline water or sodium chloride brine has only been
observed in four streams - an unnamed tributary,
McDonald Creek, Red Mud Creek and Salt Creek, northwest
of Clairemont. (Figure III-2) Chloride concentrations
in the unnamed tributary averages about 28,000 mg/1
where there is a base flow of 0.1-0.2 cfs. In McDonald
Creek low flows contain as much as 18,800 mg/1 chloride.
Concentrations of 13,500 mg/1 have been measured in Red
Mud Creek when flow occurs. Chloride concentrations
average 70,000 mg/1 at an upstream site on Salt Creek
with a 0.1 cfs base flow emerging from a small brine
spring. Farther downstream the Creek is intermittent
and much of the flow is absorbed in the alluvium. None
of these tributaries discussed contribute major quanti-
ties of minerals (Table VII-1).
Below Peacock high mineral concentrations, predominantly
sodium chloride have been observed in Croton Creek,
Short Croton Creek, Hot Springs Canyon, Salt Croton
Creek, Haystack Creek, Dove Creek, Stinking Creek, and
North Croton Creek (Figure III-2).
Seeps and springs at the salt flats on Hot Springs
Canyon, Short Croton, Dove, and Haystack Creeks dis-
charge brine to the stream channels. "Discharge at the
salt flats on Hot Springs and Short Croton Creek is
facilitated by fractures and solution openings in a bed
of gypsum that crops out at the margins of these salt
flats. Analysis of water from springs issuing from this
gypsum indicate that the water is probably a mixture of
-------
60
about two parts fresh water and one part brine." ll/
Similar conditions exist in the vicinity of the Dove
Creek salt fait. !!_/
In Croton Creek below the salt flats brine seepage
to the alluvium appears to be contributed in small in-
crements throughout most of the reach. Croton Creek
and its tributaries are dry much of the time. Low
flows from the upper basin are often absorbed further
downstream by the unsaturated alluvium, yet the quan-
tity of water that moves downstream as underflow is
probably insignificant. 9/ Water in the alluvium ap-
pears to be stagnent. 9/~ Salt loads are flushed out
into the Salt Fork when runoff occurs. Chloride con-
centrations generally exceed 10,000 mg/1 when the
stream is flowing while low flows through the salt
flats often exceed 20,000 mg/1. Croton Creek contri-
butes almost 15 percent of the total mineral load
collected by the Salt Fork of the Brazos River (Table
VII-1) .
The largest portion of the salt load of the Brazos
River originates from seeps and springs in the Salt
Croton Creek drainage area, primarily from the Dove
and Haystack Creek salt flats. (Figure III-2) The
base flow for water years 1957-66, measured 0.1 mile
below Haystack Creek averaged about 1 cfs of concen-
trated brine frequently exceeding 100,000 mg/1
chloride. Salt Croton Creek contributes about 45 to
55 percent of the total mineral load collected by the
Salt Fork of the Brazos River (Table VII-1 and Figure
V-3).
Small but significant quantities of mineral pollutants
are collected in Stinking Creek. Specific sources
have not been located.
North Croton Creek contributes about 9 to 10 percent
of the total mineral load collected by the Salt Fork
of the Brazos River. Part of this load originates
from seeps and springs in the drainage area of a small
tributary - Salt Creek where chloride concentrations
often approach 90,000 mg/1.
Clear Fork
"Chemical-quality records for the Clear Fork and tri-
butaries indicate that surface water of the Clear Fork
-------
61
ususally is fresh, except in areas where pollution by
oil-field brine is occurring." 9_/ Natural brine see-
page has not been detected.
Man-Made Mineral Pollution
Oil Field Pollution
Oil fields are widely distributed in the Brazos River
Basin (Figure VII-2) and salt water (brine) is pumped
to the surface with the oil in nearly every field.
The amount of brine produced in proportion to the oil
produced generally increases as the fields become
older.
"If improperly handled, the salt eventually reaches
surface streams. According to an inventory by the
Texas Railroad Commission in 1961, more than 93 per-
cent of the salt water produced in oil fields of the
Brazos River Basin was injected underground to prevent
and abate pollution or to increase oil production. 12/
The remainder of the salt water was disposed of in
open surface pits, most of which were unlined. From
these so-called evaporation pits, much of the brine
has percolated into the ground and has seeped, or
eventually will seep, into the streams of the basin.
Since the beginning of salt water production, some of
the brine has always been washed by surface runoff
directly into streams when the pits were breached or
overflowed, when pipelines leaked, or when the brine
was deliberately dumped. In addition, brine from
abandoned wells and unplugged or improperly plugged
test holes may find its way into streams. Also, in-
jected brine may move upward in old wells or test
holes, or along fault zones, and again reach the sur-
face .
Effect of oil field brines on water quality in the
upper Brazos River Basin is most evident in the Clear
Fork Brazos River and its tributaries and in the lower
Brazos River Basin is most evident in the Navasota
River.
Hembree and Blakey (1964) 15/ have shown that the sur-
face waters of the Hubbard Creek watershed were by
nature originally low in chloride content but had
shown a progressive increase in chloride since about
-------
62
LEGEND
Approximate location of Oil
or Gas Field
SOURCE:
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REPORT 55
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN -TEXAS
MAJOR OIL PRODUCTION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE VII-2
-------
63
1955--this increase coinciding with an increase in water
flood projects in the oil fields.
Shamburger (1958) 14/, after investigating the salinity
of California CreeF7 concluded that oil field operations
had resulted in artesian flow of salt water from springs
in the bed of California Creek and from open exploration
holes.
On the basis of 1949-53 chemical quality data on the
Clear Fork and 1955-59 data on Hubbard Creek, Baker,
Hughes, and Yost (1964, p. CC49-50) 15/ calculated the
average daily load contributed by the Clear Fork Brazos
River at 320 tons dissolved-solids, 75 tons chloride
and 50 tons sulfate . . .Subsequent data show that this
load has increased markedly, and for the base period . .
. ., 1957-66, was about 480 tons dissolved-solids, 165
tons chloride and 60 tons sulfate . . . This increase
in load could only be the result of oil field activities,
as has been documented in the Hubbard Creek watershed.
The use of surface pits for the disposal of oil field
brine has been decreasing steadily . . ., and perhaps
the effect of oil field pollution on streams will
gradually decrease. But the salt that has seeped into
the ground as the result of past activities will con-
tinue to affect the quality of ground and surface water
for many years. The accepted disposal method-injection
of salt water underground for disposal or for water
flooding oil fields has many potential hazards, and un-
less the disposal projects are properly engineered and
operated, injected brine will continue to be a source
of salt pollution in the upper Brazos River Basin.
Programs for plugging abandoned wells, such as are being
conducted in the Hubbard Creek area, may be required in
other areas for the control of oil field pollution." 9/
Pollution as Result of Water Use
Only a portion of the water drawn from groundwater
aquifers or surface sources is depleted by mans use in
irrigation, industrial processes and for municipal water
supplies. More than half of the water developed finds
its way back to the stream system as waste water.
This waste carries a significant mineral load to the
basin streams. One cycle of use in a municipal system
may raise the total dissolved-solids concentration more
than 200 mg/1 and the source concentration of the
-------
64
irrigation and many industrial supplies may be doubled
by a single cycle of use. As water demands increase,
return flows increase, resulting in a gradual climb to
higher mineral concentrations in the stream system.
-------
65
VIII. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL
General
Severe restrictions of use are imposed on water re-
sources in the Brazos River Basin by quality
degradation. Quality improvement will be required to
effectively develop the available water resources for
supplying projected water needs through the year 2020.
Water Supply
The dominant water supply objective of this study was
to fully utilize the water resources of the Study Area
to satisfy water needs within that same area while
limiting imports to minimum quantities.
Plans prepared by the State of Texas for meeting water
demands of the state through the year 2020 apportion
Texas resources throughout the state. Even with maxi-
mum utilization of groundwater resources and re-use of
waste water return flows, Texas resources are not ex-
pected to fully meet projected 2020 demands without
imports. Importation to Texas from other states has
met some resistance. It seems likely that imports
will not be authorized until the State of Texas can
demonstrate that all resources within the boundary of
Texas are fully utilized.
Effective use of the Brazos River Basin water resources
is essential not only to the Basin area but to the en-
tire State of Texas. If use of in-basin resources is
restricted or prevented by poor quality, then a portion
of the available good quality resources from other
areas must be shared with the Brazos Basin. No doubt
other areas of the state will object to sharing of
their limited supplies unless they can be assured that
every possible effort has been made to meet the Brazos
Basin demands with its own resource.
The projected water demand for the year 2020 (Table
VI-2) cannot be fully satisfied with study area re-
sources. Imports will be required to prevent or reduce
deflation of potential developmental pressures in sub-
areas 1 and 2 (Figure III-l) of the study area. Water
demands in sub-areas 3 through 6 can be satisfied with
study area resources. A brief discussion of demands
and supplies is presented below. Table VI-2 shows the
-------
66
proportion of demand to be supplied with groundwater,
surface water and imports. A detailed distribution of
supplies is presented in Appendix B for use in the
basin mathematical model. This distribution does not
include sub-area 1 or imports for sub-area 2.
Sub-Area 1
This sub-area is supplied primarily by groundwater
with very limited in-basin surface water supplies and
imports from the Canadian River Basin. It will be nec-
essary to greatly reduce groundwater withdrawal in this
sub-area prior to the year 2020. If some means of im-
porting water from other basins cannot be found, the
irrigated agricultural industry will be severly damaged.
Municipal and industrial water demands of the deflated
economy could be satisfied with resources available in
the sub-area. To maintain a viable economy, imports of
47,300 acre-feet per year from the Canadian River Basin
and 4,191,000 acre-feet per year from some other source
will be needed by the year 2020. These water imports
would supply 4,111,000 acre-feet per year for irriga-
tion and 127,300 acre-feet per year for municipal and
industrial use.
Sub-Area 2
Groundwater resources are limited in quantity and are
very poor in quality yet they are used rather exten-
sively in some areas for irrigation and are essential
for small urban, farm and ranch supplies. If surface
water could be imported, dependance on groundwater for
irrigation most likely would diminish. Although local
supplies could meet the demands if the quality was im-
proved; if import water was available, it would
possibly be desirable to import some water (40,000 acre-
feet per year) from other basins for meeting municipal
and industrial demands to assure higher quality sup-
plies. Degradation of surface water resources by oil
field operations and natural brine emissions must be
greatly reduced to allow unrestricted use of the sub-
area 2 resources.
Sub-Area 3
Groundwater resources are limited both in quantity and
quality. Surface water resources from the main stem of
-------
67
the Brazos River would be sufficient to supply the total
demands of the sub-area, however, use of tributary sup-
plies has been necessary due to the poor quality of the
main stem and continued use of existing supply systems
will be necessary. Therefore, a portion of the demand
will be supplied from the main stem but much of the main
stem resource will continue to be allowed to flow
through sub-area 3 for use further downstream. Main
stem supplies will not be planned until quality improve-
ments can be assured. A portion of the surface water
resources of sub-area 4 will be used in sub-area 3.
Sub-Area 4
Groundwater resources are limited both in quantity and
quality. However, their use is essential for small
urban, farm, and ranch supplies. Surface water re-
sources are more than adequate in quantity and quality
but are not evenly distributed. A large portion of the
sub-area cannot be economically supplied with surface
water and must continue to use poorer quality ground-
water supplies while the surface water resources are
utilized in the sub-area 3, Waco urban complex, and in
sub-area 6 service areas.
Sub-Area 5
Groundwater resources are generally good both in quan-
tity and quality and are used almost exclusively for
present supplies. Much of the surface water resource
is not needed locally and can be utilized in sub-area 6.
Sub-Area 6
Groundwater resources are extensive and are generally
good in quality. They are not extensive enough, how-
ever, to meet the water demands. Heavy withdrawal in
some areas has produced land subsistence and possibly
will have to be reduced. Surface water runoff is
heavy but reservoir sites are very limited. Surface
water supplies must be developed in other parts of the
basin for supplying large sub-area 6 demands.
Surface water resources surplus to other sub-areas in
the Brazos Basin will be sufficient in quantity to sup-
ply the surface water demands of sub-area 6. It will
be necessary, however, to use the main stem of the
-------
68
Brazos River for transporting the supplies to sub-area
6. Good quality supplies can not be provided in this
manner until salinity control programs are instituted.
Water Quality Control
This study of the Brazos River Basin has been specifi-
cally directed toward an analysis of the occurrence
and control of dissolved mineral constituents in sur-
face waters and is further limited to a detailed
analysis of chloride, sulfate and total dissolved-
solids since these constituents are believed to be
most critical.
There are, of course, many diverse needs for water.
Some uses are sensitive to mineral constituents and re-
quire rigid control of their concentration while other
uses are less sensitive and a broad range of concentra-
tions can be tolerated. As a general rule, however,
public systems are developed to provide water accept-
able for potable supplies. This approach generally
accommodates the majority of the water users and has
been used to establish the goals for quality control in
the Brazos River Basin.
The dominant water quality objective was to devise
methods for adjusting the quality of study area water
resources to obtain supplies that would meet the Public
Health Service Drinking Water Standards - 1962. 6/
However, this objective could not be met in all cases
and it became necessary to define the utility of sup-
plies with mineral concentrations that exceed the
recommended limits. A secondary objective then became
to plan supplies with qualities that would be similar
to the quality of supplies already developed in other
areas in Texas that were acceptable to the people liv-
ing in those area.
Established Water Quality Standards
Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards - 1962 6/
state, "The importance of chloride, sulfate, and ~~
dissolved-solids as they affect water quality hinges
upon their taste and laxative properties. There is
evidence that excessive amounts of these constituents
cause consumer reaction which may result in individual
treatment or rejection of the supply. Therefore,
-------
69
limiting amounts for these chemical constituents have
been included in the standards." These standards rec-
ommend that chloride should not exceed 250 mg/1,
sulfates 250 mg/1, and dissolved-solids 500 mg/1 where
other suitable supplies are, or can be made available.
Of course, the total dissolvecT^solid concentration
would exceed 500 mg/1 if both chlorides and sulfates
reached 250 mg/1, therefore, the standards are much
more restrictive then they first appear. Actually,
water with a sulfate concentration of 250 mg/1 and a
chloride concentration of 100 mg/1 would contain ap-
proximately 500 mg/1 of dissolved-solids.
The World Health Organization Internationaal Standards
16/ set chloride, sulfate and total dissolved-solids
concentration highest desirable limits of 200,200 and
500 mg/1 respectively with maximum permissable limits
of 600,400 and 1500 mg/1. The World Health Organiza-
tion European Drinking Water Standards 17/ recommended
a limit of 200 mg/1 for chloride with a maximum limit
of 600 mg/1. The recommended sulfate limit is 250
mg/1. These standards do not include limits for total
dissolved-solids.
Taste
"Because of absence of significant physiological af-
fects, the controlling factor limiting total mineral
content in domestic water will very likely be its gen-
eral taste quality." 18/
"The taste of water is affected by the common dis-
solved minerals: calcium, magnesium, potassium,
sodium, bicarbonate, carbonate, nitrate, chloride and
sulfate. Collectively these constituents make up most
of the dissolved-solids in water. 18/
Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards 6/ for
chlorides, sulfates, and total dissolved-solids are
primarily based on threshold taste tests. A threshold
is the amount of dissolved material per unit volume of
solvent that is just barely, but reliably, detectable
by each member of a sensory panel. Standards have been
conservatively set because detection thresholds for an
extremely large number of consumers were estimated by
only a small panel. The adoption of threshold concen-
trations as standard assumes that any detectable
mineral taste in water is unacceptable. The Public
-------
70
Health Service recognized that this assumption is not
totally valid; they state "It should be emphasized
that there may be a great difference between a detect-
able concentration and an objectionable concentration
of the neutral salts." 6_/ and "Relatively little in-
formation is available on consumer attitudes toward
mineralized water." 6/ Since 1962 when the Public
Health Service Drinking Water Standards were last re-
vised, additional research has been conducted to
develop a procedure to establish a functional relation
between mineral content in water and consumer attitude
toward taste. The procedure used was similar to that
used by the food industry to determine consumer eval-
uation of various products and beverages. In a test
of the procedure in California, both consumer and
taste panel evaluations were obtained by the research
to fully describe the general taste quality of the
waters studied. "The major finding of the consumer
survey research indicated an inverse linear relation-
ship between general taste quality and total mineral
content." 18/ It was recognized that individual
mineral anions may have widely differing effects upon
taste quality, however, analysis of data collected in
the California survey indicated that the consumer at-
titude prediction using total dissolved-solids content
was not significantly different from predictions that
accounted for individual anion content. Additional
" . . .work might yield a multivariate function relat-
ing major ionic concentrations to taste evaluation.
Unfortunately, the present data give no clear indica-
tion what such a function might be since, for the
waters here studies, all major ionic constituents cor-
related highly with total dissolved-solids." 18/ In
his April 13, 1971, letter discussing his survey, 18/
Dr. William H. Bruvold did say "As far as taste is
concerned, chloride measured in mg/1, has a more pro-
nounced effect than sulfate. The latter seems to
yield a flat chalky taste, while, surprisingly, chlo-
ride seems to give water a bad or unpalatable taste.
A 1000 mg/1 total dissolved-solid water consisting
mainly of chlorides would likely be judged unacceptable
for daily drinking, while the same concentration of
dissolved sulfates might be judged acceptable."
Attitude test results were used to develop scales for
predicting potability of water supplies in California.
A score of 6.0 on attitude tests used in the consumer
survey 18/ represents a neutral attitude. Higher scores
-------
71
represent favorable attitudes, and scores lower repre-
sent unfavorable attitudes. Following in Table VIII-1
is a grading scale based upon the percent of individual
scores above or below 6.0, the neutral point.
Laxative Effects
Both sodium sulfate and magnesium sulfate are well
known laxatives. Laxative effect is commonly noted by
newcomers and casual users of waters high in sulfates.
However, one evidently becomes acclimated to use of
these waters in a relatively short time. "The North
Dakota State Department of Health has collected infor-
mation on the laxative effects of water as related to
mineral quality. This has been obtained by having
individuals submitting water samples for mineral analy-
sis complete a questionnaire which asks about the taste
and odor of the water, its laxative effect (particu-
larly on those not accustomed to using it), its effect
on coffee, and its effect on potatoes cooked in it."
Peterson . . . and Moore . . . have analyzed part of
the data collected, particularly with regard to the
laxative effect of the water.
"Peterson found that, in general, the waters containing
more than 750 mg/1 of sulfate showed a laxative effect
and those with less than 600 mg/1 generally did not.
If the water was high in magnesium, the effect was
shown at lower sulfate concentrations than if other
cations were dominant. Moore showed that laxative ef-
fects were experienced by the most sensitive persons,
not accustomed to the water, when magnesium was about
200 mg/1 and by the average person when magnesium was
500-1,000 mg/1." 6_/
The Public Health Service concluded that "Cathartic
effects are commonly experienced with water having sul-
fate concentrations 600 to 1,000 mg/1, particularly
if much magnesium or sodium is present. 6/
Potability Scale for the Brazos River Basin
The Public Health Service states "Although waters of
such quality are not generally desirable, it is recog-
nized that a considerable number of supplies with
dissolved-solids in excess of the recommended limits
are used without any obvious ill effects." 6_/ A re-
port 19/ prepared by the Southwest Research Institute
-------
TABLE VIII-1
CALIFORNIA POTABILITY SCALE ]_8_/
Grades by Total Dissolved-Solids (TDS)(mg/l) as defined by the percent scoring above the neutral point on five
tests of general taste.
Qua!i ty
Potabil i ty
Grade
% >Neutral
TDS
TDS
TDS
TDS
TDS
Mean
for
for
for
for
for
TDS
TEST
TEST
TEST
TEST
TEST
1
2
3
4
5
Excel 1 ent
A
100-85
I67
£287
£444
£521
^276
<319
Good
B
84
68
288
445
522
- 75
-384
-630
-768
-874
277-632
320
-658
Fai
C
74-
385-
631-
769-1
875-1
633-
659-
r
65
702
972
093
226
988
996
Poor
D
64-
703-1
973-1
1094-1
1227-1
989-1
997-1
55
010
315
418
578
329
332
Unacceptable
F
54-0
£1020
£1316
£1419
£1579
£1330
<1333
Note:
This scale, of course, was developed for the State of California and may not be universally applicable. Many
mineral analyses of test cities do, however, appear very similar to waters of the Brazos Basin, therefore, a
modified form of the scale was utilized to estimate the potability of future study area supplies. A potability
scale for the Brazos River Basin is presented later in this Chapter.
-------
73
and the Texas Water Development Board for the Office of
Saline Water shows an evaluation of all communities in
Texas with one thousand or more population in the 1960
U. S. Census. This evaluation shows that 50.3 percent
of the 586 communities use water supplies with total
dissolved-solids concentrations exceeding 500 mg/1;
6.4 percent have sulfates exceeding 250 mg/1 and 9.7
percent have chlorides exceeding 250 mg/1. A report 20/
prepared by Black and Veatch list data on 1870 communi-
ties in the United States with populations exceeding
1,000. Of the 742 communities reporting mean total
dissolved-solids concentrations, 32.3 percent were equal
to or greater than 500 mg/1.
Table VIII-2 lists some communities greater than 10,000
population in 1960 that use supplies with total
dissolved-solids exceeding 500 mg/1. It is interesting
to note that one of the largest municipal supplies in
the United States, in the Southern California area sup-
plied by the Colorado River, does not conform to Public
Health Service standards for mineral content. Water
appropriated from the Colorado River averages approxi-
mately 285 mg/1 S04, 90 mg/1 Cl, and 760 mg/1 TDS.
The mineral content of water presently used for supplies
within the study area in many cases exceeds U. S. Public
Health Service Drinking Water Standards - 1962 recom-
mended limits. Table VIII-3 is a list of cities that
had populations greater than 1,000 in 1960 showing
representative mineral quality of their potable water
supplies.
It should be apparent from the discussion above that
potable water supplies, although not as desirable, can
be successfully developed where total dissolved-solids
and/or individual anions exceed the Public Health
Service recommended limits. 6_/ Most of the resources
available in the Brazos now and in future years, even
with salinity control, will exceed one or more of these
limits but the resources must be developed to meet in-
basin demands.
The scale in Table VIII-4 has been adopted to evaluate
the success of salt control plans for development of
potable water resources within the study area. Of
course, the ideal objective is to produce "Excellent"
quality supplies, where possible, that have mineral
concentrations well below the Public Health Service
-------
74
TABLE VIII-2
COMMUNITIES WITH POPULATIONS OF 10,000 OR GREATER
THAT HAVE TDS CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDING
500 mg/1 IN THEIR POTABLE WATER SUPPLY
Community
Chandler, Arizona
Mesa, Arizona
Phoenix, Arizona
Tempe, Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
Metro. Water Dist. - Los Angeles, California
Compton, California
Conservative Water Co. - Los Angeles, California
Eastern Mun. Water Dist. - Hemet, California
El Centro, California
Fallbrook Public Util. Dist. - Fallbrook, California
Garden Grove, California
Los Angeles Co. WWD #13 - Lomita, California
Newport Beach, California
Oceanside, California
Oxnard, California
Pasadena, California
Pamona Valley MWD - Pamona,
Port Hueneme, California
San Diego, California
San Diego Water Authority -
San Gabriel Valley Water Co.
Santa Ana, California
Santa Barbara, California
Santa Marie, California
Santa Paula Water Works, Ltd. - Santa Paula, California
Ventura, California
Ventura River MWD - Oakview, California
Sarasota, Florida
Vero Beach, Florida
Ames, Iowa
Arkansas City, Kansas
Hutchinson, Kansas
Salina, Kansas
Lead Belt Water Co. - Flat River, Missouri
Las Vegas Valley Water Dist. - Las Vegas, Colorado
Artesia, New Mexico
Gallup, New Mexico
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Roswell, New Mexico
Population
California
San Diego, California
- El Monte, California
10,000
50,000
550,000
40,000
253,760
9,000,000
55,500
60,000
42,500
20,000
10,300
103,000
16,500
32,468
31 ,000
50,000
139,000
180,000
11,500
620,000
1,100,000
46,644
108,000
60,000
32,000
15,000
50,000
45,000
38,000
12,000
24,000
14,698
38,000
45,000
10,000
80,000
12,000
16,000
29,000
50,000
875
712
638
1000
600
681
508
777
681
800
850
600
650
678
660
1150
520
681
950
750
683
560
513
550
672
800
1100
717
1400
630
510
773
995
600
600
570
750
600
862
1100
-------
75
TABLE VIII-2 (Continued)
IDS (mg/1 1
Community Population Avg. Max.
Jamestown, North Dakota 15,000 894 1113
Minot, North Dakota 33,477 759 915
Reynoldsburg, Ohio 10,500 648 670
Zanesville, Ohio 38,000 700
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 350,000 535 575
Conway, South Carolina 10,000 650
Georgetown, South Carolina 14,000 539 599
Brookings, South Carolina 11,500 700 1000
Huron, South Carolina 15,000 1100 1600
Sioux Falls, South Carolina 70,000 610 1140
Andrews, Texas 12,000 1000
Baytown, Texas 36,000 764 1154
Beeville, Texas 15,000 1120 1120
Bryan, Texas 32,000 600 1000
Eagle Pass, Texas 12,500 570 882
El Paso, Texas 300,000 800 1290
Ennis, Texas 10,200 2141 2141
Harlingen, Texas 38,000 900 1300
Hurst, Texas 15,200 960
Kingsville, Texas 25,297 800
Lake Jackson, Texas 11,500 1000 1110
Lamesa, Texas 13,000 900 900
Laredo, Texas 65,000 770 900
Lubbock, Texas 142,000 600 1000
Mercedes, Texas 12,000 1605 1605
Midland, Texas 65,000 1157
Odessa, Texas 85,000 600 700
Palestine, Texas 15,000 600 820
Pecos, Texas 13,250 1500
Sherman, Texas 24,988 767 1286
Texas City, Texas 33,000 1070 1200
Source:Office of Saline Water
Research and Development Progress Report No. 162
-------
TABLE VIII-3
MUNICIPAL SUPPLY WATER QUALITY
Rails
Spur
Post
Crosby
Dickens
Garza
2,229
2,170
4,663
Sub-Area 1
Representati ve
Mineral Concentrations (mg/1
Total
Solids
Sulfate
SURFACE SUPPLY
520 56
710 93
710 93
Chloride
102
76
76
Water Use
Annual
Million
Gal 1ons
77
131
248
Gal Ions
Per Capita
94
165
145
GROUNDWATER SUPPLY
Muleshoe
Lorenzo
Rotan
Floydada
Lockney
Abernathy
Hale Center
Petersburg
PIai nview
Seth Ward
Anton
Level 1 and
Earth
Littlefield
Olton
Sudan
Idalou
Lubbock
Reese Village
Shallowater
Slaton
O'Donnel
Tahoka
Bovi na
Farwel1
Aspermont
Bailey
Crosby
Fisher
Floyd
Floyd
Hale
Hale
Hale
Hale
Hale
Hockley
Hockley
Lamb
Lamb
Lamb
Lamb
Lubbock
Lubbock
Lubbock
Lubbock
Lubbock
Lynn
Lynn
Parmer
Parmer
Stonewal1
871
188
788
769
141
451
196
1 ,400
18,735
328
068
153
104
1
1
10
1
7,236
1 ,917
1 ,235
1 ,274
128,691
1 ,800
1 ,001
6,568
1 ,356
3,012
1 ,029
1 ,009
1 ,286
660
500
386
520
580
500
475
397
499
499
1590
770
461
451
445
833
510
660
1000
770
2000
870
342
365
720
121
33
70
32
30
38
24
32
24
24
590
201
33
30
22
227
35
120
227
118
460
195
27
25
57
91
19
31
18
38
33
21
16
20
20
271
72
28
17
23
90
27
52
132
69
410
175
13
15
56
195
23
82
171
97
158
127
41
1252
51
600
52
466
191
108
50
6675
20
261
29
142
36
46
61
138
54
80
124
124
173
159
161
183
129
161
130
176
273
240
108
141
55
109
58
129
96
125
130
Source: Office of Saline Water "Research and Development Progress Report No. 250."
-------
TABLE VIII-3
MUNICIPAL SUPPLY WATER QUALITY
Sub-Area 2
Bai rd
Anson
Ham!in
Stamford
Sweetwater
AT bany
Breckenri dge
Abi1ene
Merkel
Seymour
Clyde
Haskell
Rul e
Knox City
Munday
Roscoe
Cal1ahan
Jones
Jones
Jones
No! an
Shackelford
Stephens
Taylor
Tay1 or
Bay!or
Cal1ahan
Hasekll
Haskell
Knox
Knox
Nolan
1 ,633
2,890
3,791
5,259
13,914
2,174
6,273
90,368
2,312
3,789
1,116
4,016
1 ,347
1 ,805
1 ,978
1 ,490
Mi neral
Total
Solids
Representati ve
Concentrati ons
Sulfate
(mg/1)
Chloride
SURFACE SUPPLY
185
1100
351
439
321
489
292
399
357
GROUNDWATER
760
690
1160
900
1130
1730
640
15
247
46
47
50
49
22
43
34
SUPPLY
69
120
139
83
223
401
108
10
170
34
49
34
151
58
71
55
83
188
243
107
149
331
88
Water Use
Annual
Million
Gallons
79
125
179
497
118
182
314
5492
220
32
180
89
65
58
44
Gallons
Per Capita
131
118
123
168
270
228
137
166
158
79
123
180
98
80
81
Source: Office of Saline Water "Research and Development Progress Report No. 250.
-------
TABLE VIII-3
MUNICIPAL SUPPLY WATER QUALITY
Sub-Area 3
Cleburne -/
Beverly Hills
Mart .5/
Waco -'
Mineral Wei 1s
Graham
01 ney
Cl ifton
Valley Mills
Stephenville
Hi 11 s b o r o
Itaska
Whi tney
Grandbury
Bel 1 mead
Lacy Lake View
McGregor
Moody
Robinson
West
Woodway
Johnson
McLennan
McLennan
McLennan
Palo Pinto
Young
Young
Bosque
Bosque
Erath
Hill
Hill
Hill
Hood
McLennan
McLennan
McLennan
McLennan
McLennan
McLennan
McLennan
15,381
,728
2,197
97,808
11 ,053
8,505
3,872
2,335
1 ,061
7,359
7,402
1 ,383
1 ,050
2,227
5,127
2,272
4,642
1 ,074
2,111
2,352
1 ,244
Mineral
Total
Solids
Representative
Concentrations
Sulfate
(mg/1)
Chloride
SURFACE SUPPLY
95
240
960
240
201
269
445
GROUNDWATER
695
740
530
1361
2440
990
710
600
860
990
936
900
790
18
33
123
33
43
12
16
SUPPLY
52
79
23
409
1360
237
72
89
130
180
93
147
80
13
37
47
21
11
111
189
17
16
27
55
38
43
34
44
43
59
171
48
49
Water Use
Annual
Million
Gallons
603
148
5447
822
471
209
86
23
360
243
33
31
117
130
75
101
37
45
92
17
Gallons
Per Capita
132
185
152
203
151
147
103
60
134
90
65
80
143
69
91
59
93
107
37
a/ Mixed ground and surface supply
Source: Office of Saline Water "Research and Development Progress Report Mo. 250.
-------
TABLE VIII-3
MUNICIPAL SUPPLY WATER QUALITY
Ki1een
Tempie
Comanche
Copperas
Cisco
Eastland
Ranger
Hami1 ton
Lampasas
Cameron
a/
Cove
a/
Bel ton
DeLeon
Gatesvi 11e
Gorman
Hi co
Rockdal e
Bartlett
Georgetown
Granger
Round Rock
Taylor
Bell
Bell
Comanche
Coryel1
Eastland
Eastland
Eastland
Hami1 ton
Lampasas
Mi 1 am
Bell
Comanche
Coryel1
Eastland
Hami1 ton
M i 1 a m
Wi11i amson
Wi11i amson
Wi11i amson
Wi11i amson
Wi11i amson
23,377
30,419
3,415
4,567
4,499
3,292
3,313
3,106
9,061
5,640
8,163
2,022
4,626
1 ,142
1 ,020
4,481
1 ,540
5,218
1 ,339
1 ,878
9,434
Sub-Area 4
Representati ve
Mineral Concentrations (mg/1)
Total
Solids Sulfate Chloride
30
32
14
54
15
48
48
94
96
34
289
138
258
41
28
63
266
22
301
18
188
Water Use
SURFACE
145
174
222
200
211
253
253
399
770
312
SUPPLY
25
22
15
36
16
27
27
51
117
28
GROUNDWATER SUPPLY
1600
730
1452
346
550
217
1440
434
1440
580
1261
330
51
285
14
50
33
305
23
264
27
280
Annual
Million
Gallons
632
1335
114
106
307
176
128
256
236
312
48
202
63
46
183
43
292
56
36
343
Gallons
Per Capita
74
120
91
63
186
146
112
138
114
105
65
119
151
125
111
76
153
114
53
99
a_/ Mixed ground and surface supply
Source: Office of Saline Water "Research and Development Progress Report No. 250.
-------
TABLE VIII-3
MUNICIPAL SUPPLY WATER QUALITY
Throckmorton
Crosby ton
M a r 1 i n
Rosebud
Grosebeck
M e x i a
Bryan
College Station
Caldwell
S o m e r v i 11 e
Sunrise
Navasota
Ca1 vert
Frank!in
Hearne
Brenham
Brazos
Crosby
Falls
Falls
L ime stone
Limestone
Brazos
Brazos
Burleson
Burleson
Falls
Grimes
Robertson
Robertson
Robertson
Washi ngton
Sub-Area 5
Representative
Mineral Concentrations (m g /1 )
Total
Solids Sulfate Chloride
Water Use
SURFACE SUPPLY
299
088
6,918
644
498
6,121
520
418
213
230
580
173
24
42
27
108
23
36
GROUNDWATER SUPPLY
27,542
11,396
,204
,177
,708
,937
1 ,950
1 ,065
5,072
7,740
820
640
499
1520
710
965
1107
286
640
560
4
15
55
391
149
22
3
10
5
3
204
25
17
10
242
34
53
51
20
176
220
216
106
15
41
46
Annua1
Million
Gallons
65
94
350
43
89
195
1340
209
76
43
152
51
28
265
256
Gallons
Per Capita
136
122
138
72
98
87
133
50
94
100
84
67
73
143
90
Source: Office of Saline Water "Research and Development Progress Report No. 250."
-------
i ABLl.
Bellville
Sealy
A1 v i n
Angleton
B r a z o r i a
Cl ute
Freeport £./
Lake Jackson
Pearl and
Sweeny
West Columbia
Ri chmond
Rosenberg
Sugar!and
Alta Loma
Bacliff
Dickinson
Galveston
Hi tchcock
LaMarqe
League City
Texas City
Brookshire
Hempstead
Austin
Austi n
B r a z o r i a
B r a z o r i a
Brazori a
Brazori a
Brazoria
B r a z o r i a
Brazori a
Brazori a
B r a z o r i a
Fort Bend
Fort Bend
Fort Bend
Galveston
Galveston
Galveston
Galveston
Galveston
Galveston
Galveston
Galveston
Wailer
Wailer
Sub-Area 6
Representati ve
Mineral Concentrations (mg/1
Total
Sol ids
Water Use
Sulfate
GROUNDWATER SUPPLY
2,218
2,328
5,643
7,312
1 ,291
4,501
11,619
9,651
1 ,497
3,087
2,947
3,668
9,698
2,802
1 ,020
1 ,707
4,715
67,175
5,216
13,969
2,622
32,065
1 ,339
1 ,505
650
233
852
837
2205
910
595
850
500
820
920
385
430
460
923
660
630
1100
650
1057
6]7
920
398
570
49
5
10
11
3
12
1
37
5
23
5
17
11
16
0
4
3
3
5
0
0
5
11
6
Chloride
61
57
222
128
424
135
123
197
53
129
320
46
54
57
165
164
84
389
105
324
95
167
65
45
Annual
Million
Gallons
94
66
261
207
33
125
539
215
36
65
88
146
278
254
15
146
4345
144
416
71
926
36
77
Gallons
Per Capita
116
78
126
77
69
76
127
61
66
58
82
109
78
248
39
85
177
75
82
74
79
74
140
a/ Mixed ground and surface supply
Source: Office of Saline Water "Research and Development Progress Report No. 250.
-------
82
TABLE VIII-4
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN POTABILITY SCALE
(mean concentration range mg/1)
Constituent Excellent Good Fair Poor Unacceptable
TDS <300 300<650 650<1000 1000<1300 >1300
C1+S04 <200 200<500 500< 650 650< 800 > 800
Cl <100 100<250 250< 300 300< 400 > 400
-------
83
recommended upper limits, however, as a matter of prac-
ticality it will not be engineeringly feasible or
economically sound to provide this quality supply
throughout the Basin. Therefore, it is necessary to
establish measures of acceptability. The scale in
Table VIII-4 is such a measuring device.
Quality Improvements
Man-made degradation of water resources in the Brazos
River Basin was discussed in Chapter VII. Active state
programs already exist to deal with this problem,
therefore, it is sufficient to say that significant
progress has been made and it is reasonable to expect
that by the year 2020 man-made degradation will be pro-
perly controlled and the affect of historic man-made
degradation will be erased or reduced to tolerable
levels.
A system is now needed to deal with degradation of water
resources in the Brazos River Basin by natural phenomena
such as brine emissions and solution of minerals from
rocks and soil. It is apparent with little study that
it will not be feasible to attempt to improve the qual-
ity of every stream in the basin, however, the quality
of runoff collected in the main stem of the Brazos River
can be improved by various alternative procedures.
Large quantities of high quality (low mineral concentra-
tion) water could theoretically be imported and released
into the Brazos River to regulate its quality. Poor
quality (high mineral concentration) runoff could be
collected, stored and evaporated or it could be trans-
ported by pipeline for disposal in the Gulf of Mexico
or processed through a desalinization plant for supply-
ing local water demands. All of these alternatives
were considered but lake surface evaporation was judged
to be most feasible.
After the most feasible method of control was selected
it was necessary to design a project that would provide
the desired degree of quality control. Unfortunately,
no project was discovered that would improve the qual-
ity of water resources collected in the main stem of
the Brazos River to meet our initial objective; the
quality of main stem resources could not be improved to
such a degree that they would meet the 1962 U. S. Public
Health Service Drinking Water Standards one-hundred per-
cent of the time. It was possible, though, to produce
-------
84
supplies equal in quality to those already in use and
favorably accepted in many areas throughout the United
States.
The project described in Chapter III was formed after
extensive tests of various combination of control
structures and has been judged to be the most desirable
design configuration.
Figures VIII-1, VIII-2, and VIII-3 graphically depict
the projected quality of water resources in the main
stem of the Brazos River after Plan 4A salinity control
project (Figure III-2) is in place and the year 2020
water supply and waste water return flow plan (Appendix
II) is operating. The graphs do not reflect improve-
ments in quality conditions that will accrue from
reduction of pollution from oil production. Graphs are
shown on each figure to describe the quality condition
expected at five locations - USGS (stream gage and
quality) Station No. 825 Brazos River at Seymour,
Texas; USGS (stream gage) Station No. 890 Brazos River
near Palo Pinto 20 miles downstream from Possum Kingdom
Dam; USGS (stream gage) Station No. 965 Brazos River at
Waco, Texas, 2 1/2 miles downstream from the Bosque
River; USGS (stream gage and quality) Station No. 1090
Brazos River near Bryan, Texas; USGS (stream gage and
quality) Station No. 1140 Brazos River at Richmond,
Texas, river mile 93. Table VIII-5 presents values ex-
cerpted from the graphs and predictions of future
quality conditions.
If the quality of water expected at Station No. 825 is
measured with the potability scale (Table VIII-4), the
quality would range from fair to unacceptable and would
be unacceptable approximately 50 percent of the time,
poor approximately 20 percent of the time and fair only
30 percent of the time. Development of municipal sup-
plies at this point would not be recommended. The
quality would be acceptable for other uses such as
selective use for irrigation, livestock watering and
mining.
At Station No. 890 the quality will range from Good to
Fair, is Fair approximately 60 percent of the time and
Good approximately 40 percent of the time. Satisfac-
tory municipal supplies could be withdrawn at this
point. The quality compares favorably with municipal
-------
USGS STATION No. 825
MON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
USGS STATION No. 890
NON-EXCEEOENCE FREQUENCY
.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
USGS STATION No. 965
NON-EXCEEOENCE FREQUENCY
_O IO2O3O4O5O6O7O8O90 IOO
USGS STATION No. 1090
NON-EXCEEOENCE FREQUENCY
10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 IOO
USGS STATION No. 1140
NON - EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LEGEND
NOTE:
P IIP 20 30 4O SO 60 TO 80 9O IOO
F M A M
SEASONS
D J FMAMJJ AS
SEASONS
ON D J FMAMJJ AS
ON DJ FMAMJJ AS
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-TEXAS
MEAN MONTHLY CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS
(MATHEMATICAL MODEL SIMULATION)
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY CURVE REPRESENTING QUALITY CONDITIONS
ASSUMING 1962 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT SALT CONTROL
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY CURVE REPRESENTING QUALITY CONDITIONS
ASSUMING 2020 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITH SALT CONTROL
RANGE OF MEAN MONTHLY CONCENTRATIONS ONE STANDARD DEVIATION
ABOVE AND BELOW THE MEAN CONCENTRATION FOR THE PERIOD OF
RECORD ASSUMING 2020 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITH SALT CONTROL
RANGE OF MEAN MONTHLY CONCENTRATIONS ONE STANDARD DEVIATION
ABOVE AND BELOW THE MEAN CONCENTRATION FOR THE PERIOD OF
RECORD WITH 1962 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT SALT CONTROL
WATER YEARS 1941-62 STREAMFLOW RECORDS WERE USED
FOR SIMULATION OF MATHEMATICAL MODEL FLOW
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE Vlll-l
-------
USGS STATION No. 825
USGS STATION No. 890
USGS STATION No. 965
800
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
0 10 20 30 4O SO 60 70 80 90 100
800
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
IP 2O 30 4O 50 6O 70 8O 9O IOO
800
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
.0 10 20 30 40 5O 6O 70 80 90 IOO
USGS STATION No. 1090
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
IP 2O 3O 40 5O 6O 70 80 9O IOO
USGS STATION No. 1140
NON-EXCEEOENCE FREQUENCY
.0 10 2O 30 40 50 60 70 80 9O 100
LEGEND
CIU
NOTE:
/r^\^ _ ^4
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY CURVE REPRESENTING QUALITY CONDITIONS
ASSUMING 1962 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT SALT CONTROL
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY CURVE REPRESENTING QUALITY CONDITIONS
ASSUMING 2020 BASIN DEVELOPMENT
•5
RANGE OF MEAN MONTHLY CONCENTRATIONS ONE STANDARD DEVIATION "+-
ABOVE AND BELOW THE MEAN CONCENTRATION FOR THE PERIOD OF
RECORD ASSUMING 2020 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITH SALT CONTROL
WATER YEARS 1941-62 STREAMFLOW RECORDS WERE USED
FOR SIMULATION OF MATHEMATICAL MODEL FLOW
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN- TEXAS
MEAN MONTHLY SULFATE CONCENTRATIONS
(MATHEMATICAL MODEL SIMULATION)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE VIII-2
-------
USGS STATION No. 825
3000
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
IO 20 30 40 50 60 7O 80 9O IOO
USGS STATION No. 890
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
-0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9O IOO
USGS STATION No. 965
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
.0 10 20 30 4O 50 60 7O 8O 9O IOO
USGS STATION No. 1090
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
.0 IO 20 30 4O 50 60 70 80 90 IOO
USGS STATION No. 1140
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
_O 10 20 30 4O 50 60 70 80 90 100
LEGEND
ON D J F M A M J J AS
ONDJFMAMJJAS
ON DJ FMAMJJ AS
SEASONS
ON DJ FMAMJJ AS
ONDJFMAMJJAS
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY CURVE REPRESENTING QUALITY CONDITIONS
ASSUMING 1962 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT SALT CONTROL
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY CURVE REPRESENTING QUALITY CONDITIONS
ASSUMING 2020 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITH SALT CONTROL
RANGE OF MEAN MONTHLY CONCENTRATIONS ONE STANDARD DEVIATION
| I ABOVE AND BELOW THE MEAN CONCENTRATION FOR THE PERIOD OF
RECORD ASSUMING 2020 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITH SALT CONTROL
NOTE: WATER YEARS 1941-62 STREAMFLOW RECORDS WERE USED
FOR SIMULATION OF MATHEMATICAL MODEL FLOW
\
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN- TEXAS
MEAN MONTHLY TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS
(MATHEMATICAL MODEL SIMULATION)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
DALLAS. TEXAS
FIGURE VIM-3
-------
Station
(Figure V-2)
825
890
965
1090
1140
Stream and Location
TABLE VIII-5
SURFACE WATER QUALITY PREDICTION
Quality Prediction (2020 Conditions)
Potability Scale Classification
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unacceptable
% of Time Mean Monthly
Concentration Will Be In Class
Brazos River at Seymour
Sulfate
Chloride
Dissolved Solids
Brazos River near Palo Pinto
Sulfate
Chloride
Dissolved Solids
Brazos River at Waco
Sulfate
Chloride
Dissolved Solids
Brazos River near Bryan
Sulfate
Chloride
Dissolved Solids
Brazos River at Richmond
Sulfate
Chloride
Dissolved Solids
54
30 20
50
40 60
20 60 20
54 44 2
44
Simulation Model Quality
10
Percent of Time
25
Equaled or Exceeded
50 75
Mean Monthly Concentration
(2020 Conditions With 1941-62
555
600
1990
320
215
825
225
140
695
135
105
525
120
125
525
500
500
1705
280
195
805
175
125
620
100
90
430
90
90
430
395
370
1315
260
165
695
105
85
430
65
55
280
60
55
280
(mg/1)
Runoff)
310
210
940
200
155
620
80
60
330
40
30
245
40
30
245
90
255
125
675
80
130
545
55
45
260
30
25
190
30
25
190
-------
89
supplies currently in use in the general locality and
in many municipal systems throughout the United States.
At Station No. 965 the quality will range from Excel-
lent to Fair, is Fair approximately 20 percent of the
time, Good approxiamtely 60 percent of the time and
Excellent approximately 20 percent of the time. Mu-
nicipal supplies withdrawn at this point would be very
satisfactory. The quality compares favorably with
municipal groundwater supplies currently used in the
general locality, in fact, in many instances the Brazos
River water would be more desirable than the ground-
water supplies and would meet U. S. Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards - 1962 approximately
60 percent of the time.
At Stations Nos. 1090 and 1140 the quality will range
from Excellent to Fair, is Fair approximately 4 percent
of the time, Good approximately 44 percent of the time
and Excellent approximately 54 percent of the time.
Municipal supplies withdrawn at these points would meet
U. S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards -
1962 approximately 88 percent of the time.
It can be concluded from our study that construction of
the proposed salinity control project (Plan 4A) will
result in a substantial reduction of the degradation of
main stem resources. Mineral quality improvements will
allow full utilization of those resources. Brazos
River Basin water resources transported in the main
stem could be withdrawn at any point from Possum Kingdom
reservoir to the mouth of the river for municipal water
supplies.
-------
MAJOR SALT
PRODUCING AREA
RESERVOIR EXISTING OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION
RESERVOIR TO BE COMPLETED BY YEAR Z020
SALINITY CONTROL STRUCTURES
SUBAREA NUMBERS
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-TEXAS
LOCATION MAP
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE Ill-l
-------
HASKELL CO.
the JAYTON
U. S. G. S. STREAM GAGE
MAJOR SALT DEPOSIT
10) CORPS OF ENGINEERS DAM SITE
-*• PIPE LINE
••41 SALINITY CONTROL STRUCTURES
STONEWALL CO.
FISHER CO.
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN - TEXAS
SCALE IN MILES
1123
SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT
PLAN NO. 4A
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE 111-2
-------
92
IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. U.S. Study Commission, The Report of_ the U. S_.
Study Commission -Texas , Part I_I_ Resource and
Problems, March 1962.
2. Texas Water Development Board, The Climate and
Physiography of Texas, (Report No. 53, Austin,
Texas , July 19"6~7~
3. Texas Water Commission, Reconnaissance Investi-
gation ojE the Groundwater~~Resources of the
Brazos River Basin, Texas, (Bullet in~No . 6310)
Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas,
December 1963.
4. Texas Water Development Board, A Summary of the
Preliminary Plan for Proposed Water Resources"
Development in the Brazos River Basin, Austin,
Texas, June,~T966.
5. Texas Water Development Board, A Summary of_ the
Preliminary P 1 an for Proposed Water Resources
Development rn the San Jacinto -Brazos Coastal
Basin, Austin, Texas, June 1966.
6. Public Health Service, Drinking Water Standards
1962 , Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, D. C., August 1962.
7. Texas Water Development Board, Groundwater in
the Flood Plain Alluvium of the Brazos River~7
Whitney Dam tcTVicinity oF~Richmond, Texas,
(Report No. 41), Austin, Texas, March 1967.
8. Texas Water Development Board, Study and Inter-
pretation o_f_ Chemical Quality of Surface Waters
in the TTFaz'o's River Fas in, Texas' , (Report No.
" Austin, Texas, July 1967^
9. U. S. Geological Survey, Sources of Saline
Water in the Upper Brazos River~Ba~s"in~^ Texas
(Progress Report, June 1967 - Open File No.
108) Austin, Texas, March 1968.
10. Texas Water Development Board, The Texas Water
Plan , Austin, Texas, November 1968 .
-------
93
11. U. S. Geological Survey, Preliminary Report on
the Investigation of Salt Springs and Seeps in
a Portion of the Permian Basin in Texas, AustTn
Texas, November 1965.
12. Texas Water Commission and Texas Water Pollution
Control Board, A Statistical Analysis of_ Data oil
Oil Field Brine~Production in Texas for the Year
1961 From an Inventory Conduc'ted by the Texas
Railroad Commission, ("Summary) Texas Water Develop-
ment Board, Austin, Texas, 1963.
13. U. S. Geological Survey, Chemical Quality of
Surface Waters in_ the Hubbard Creek Watershed,
Texas, Progress Report^(Texas Water Commission
Bulletin 6411)Texas Water Development Board,
Austin, Texas, September 1963.
14. Shamburger, V.M., Jr., Reconnaissance Report on
Alleged Contamination of California"Creek near~
Avoca, Jones County, Texas'^(Texas Board of Water
Engineers Contamination Report No. 5) Texas Water
Development Board, Austin, Texas, 1958.
15. U. S. Geological Survey, Natural Sources of
Salinity in the Brazos River, Texas (U.S.GTS.
Water SuppTy"Paper 1669-CC) Austin, Texas, 1964.
16. United Nations, International Standards for
Drinking Water, World Health Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland, 1971.
17. United Nations, European Standards for Drinking
Water World Health Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland, 1970.
18. Bruvold, William H., Mineral Taste i.n. Domestic
Water, Berkeley Water Resources Center, University
of California, December 1968.
19. Southwest Research Institute - Houston and Texas
Water Development Board, The Potential Contribu-
tion of Desalting to Future Water Supply in Texas,
(Office" of Saline Waiter Research and DeveTopment
Progress Report No. 250) U. S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C., 1966.
-------
94
20. Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers, Kansas
City, Missouri, Results o_£ a_ Saline Water Demin-
eralization Applications, (Office of Saline Water
Research and Development Progress Report No. 162)
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, B.C.
1966.
-------
95
APPENDIX I
GROUNDWATER QUALITY ANALYSES
Well-Numbering System !_/
The numbers assigned to wells and springs in this re-
port conform to the statewide system used by the Texas
Water Commission. The system is based on the division
of Texas into 1-degree quadrangles bounded by lines of
latitude and longitude. Each 1-degree quadrangle is
divided into 64 smaller quadrangles, 7-1/2 minutes on
a side, each of which is further divided into 9 quad-
rangles, 2-1/2 minutes on a side. Each of the 89
1-Degree quadrangles in the State has been assigned a
2-digit number for identification (Figure AI-1). The
7-1/2 minute quadrangles are numbered with 2-digit
numbers consecutively from left to right beginning in
the upper left-hand corner of the 1-degree quadrangle,
and the 2-1/2 minute quadrangles within each 7-1/2
minute quadrangle are similarly numbered with a 1-digit
number. Each well inventoried in each 2-1/2 minute
quadrangle is assigned a 2-digit number. The well num-
ber is determined as follows: From left to right, the
first 2 numbers identify the 1-degree quadrangle, the
next 2 numbers identify the 7-1/2 minute quadrangle,
the fifth number identifies the 2-1/2 minute quadrangle,
and the last 2 numbers designate the well in the 2-1/2
minute quadrangle.
In addition to the 7-digit well number, a 2-letter pre-
fix is used to identify the county as follows:
-------
°«° 103- 102° 101
98° 97°
ST 40 14 1 01
ST 40 14 1 02
ST 40 14 8 01
SOURCE:
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
BULLETIN 6310
DECEMBER 1963
SEVEN AND ONE-HALF MINUTE OUADRANGLES
j! L' 1^ i'
9B° S22 45' 372 30' ZZZ 15' 72 97°
01
09
17
25
33
41
49
57
02
10
18
26
34
42
50
58
03
II
19
27
35
43
51
59
04
12
20
/
4t
44
52
60
05
13
21
A
y
45
53
61
06
H
22
30
36
46
54
62
07
15
23
31
39
47
55
63
08
16
24
32
40
48
56
64
TWO AND ONE-HALF MINUTE QUADRANGLES
,.22^ 20j 17^ 15' t.
©°'
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN -TEXAS
WELL NUMBERING SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
to
FIGURE Al -I
-------
97
Prefix
AJ
AP
AR
AT
AU
AX
BA
BB
BH
BJ
BR
BS
BT
BX
DD
DP
DY
HB
HK
HS
HY
JD
JP
JR
JU
JW
JY
KA
KJ
KW
KY
LA
LP
LW
County
Archer
Austin
Bailey
Bastrop
Baylor
Bell
Borden
Bosque
Brazoria
Brazos
Brown
Burleson
Burnet
Callahan
Castro
Cochran
Comanche
Coryell
Crosby
Dawson
Dickens
Eastland
Erath
Falls
Fisher
Floyd
Fort Bend
Freestone
Garza
Grimes
Hale
Hamilton
Haskell
Hill
Prefix
LX
LY
PL
PX
PY
RH
RL
RS
RU
RW
RZ
SA
SD
SP
SR
ST
TK
TL
UA
UK
UP
UR
WK
WZ
XA
XL
XR
XT
XW
XY
xz
YW
YY
ZK
ZU
County
Hockley
Hood
Jack
Johnson
Jones
Kent
King
Knox
Lamb
Lampasas
Lee
Leon
Limestone
Lubbock
Lynn
McLennan
Mi lam
Mills
Nolan
Palo Pinto
Parker
Farmer
Robertson
Scurry
Shackelford
Stephens
Stonewall
Swisher
Taylor
Terry
Throckmorton
Waller
Washington
Williamson
Young
Groundwater quality analyses are presented in the fol-
lowing Tables AI-1 and AI-2.
-------
.«-! O-U-901 140
A':-24-OS-601 206
...i-iH- tO-50.1 423
..:--7.i-12-701 217
i ;j_ 9 ^ _ ">/,_ ((; j 178
:';-23-2o-605
• ' ' - -1 '• - J i -7'1 ) i04
ill. -2 '- ',1-401 525
K-l 1-.; i-401 168
JV-2 ;-[)0-50l !68
: i-2 '-44-S01 140
;,'. -11-49-501 200
rv-2 1-10-101 267
I.X-24-3 1-801 241
: ::-24- in-601 170
.:r-l(J-5 i-501 200
•.;i -19-6 i-60] 250
:r-24-05-701 5'i
M'-2)-17-101 170
SP-24032-902 207
SiJ-2 3-4 i-401 151
SR-28-02-204 40
;-':;-09-40-901 518
;-;;-!()- r>-901 400
luno 17,
Apr. 11,
...let. 18,
Apr. 11,
"ay 24,
Oct. 17,
M.iy 16,
Juiu- 16,
Apr. 17,
May 17,
Juno 22,
\:t. 17,
.,pr. 11,
:\\-.f.. 15,
Oct. 18,
Tunt- 21,
June- 5,
Au g . 14,
Oct. 17,
Oct. 17,
Aug. 10,
Apr. 12,
June 17,
1955
1961
I960
1961
1961
1960
1 9 6 0
1961
1955
1961
1960
193.5
1960
1961
1956
1960
1955
1952
1956
1960
1960
1949
1961
1955
46
30
60
38
59
42
i 9
40
60
50
50
59
47
43
52
31
58
30
63
50
52
48
35
53
0.00 62
43
.08 37
33
124
.22 41
0 "' 3 S
39
.0) 45
38
36
.20 48
96
34
.00 48
.04 41
.02 66
70
.00 95
.04 28
.08 46
206
.03 50
.03 4°
Or.AIJ.A
46 35
25 55
28 48
41 55
50 1
35 37
31 61
31 74
37 42
38 34
52 78
32 19
74 i2
47 71
56 64
28 30
24 22
145 2'
98 140
44 93
48 117
200 2
26 30
22 24
Fotas-
(K)
\
8.6
6.4
7.?
8.6
£/
11
10
9.1
10
8.6
11
7.7
15
1 2
12
7.0
5.8
£'
17
12
12
&
6.6
ijicar-
n i r1 ri . ')
b/3
211
222
29!
280
196
330
351
383
352
346
325
307
364
310
34 i
276
296
29!
298
357
346
217
226
263
= ul-
(SV
140
80
34
85
422
34
38
43
40
29
97
21
162
117
!41
28
28
632
464
St
142
743
28
20
Chlo-
(CD
70
42
15
38
136
15
16
20
77
12
82
16
142
44
51
16
26
350
165
49
91
620
19
10
Fluo-
(F)
2.4
3.0
2.8
3.4
2.2
2 . 5
3.0
3.6
2 . 4
2.6
--
2.6
1.8
4.3
4.8
1 .8
1.1
8.0
1.6
5.8
4.9
-
2.9
1.9
M-
(NO.J)
4 . 9
7.5
1.2
3.8
2.0
3.8
4.5
5.9
1.1
4.0
6.6
4.3
3.5
4.0
1 .5
8.4
12
7.2
.8
3.0
9.7
11
9.8
7.4
Dis-
sol ids
351
403
374
444
1,020
58 t
414
454
432
391
582
366
780
533
599
334
589
1,680
1,190
550
712
2,160
300
300
Hard-
ness
CaC03
344
210
195
251
515
246
222
225
264
252
304
252
544
278
351
218
263
770
640
251
312
1 ,340
182
195
-------
Depth
of
well
Well (ft.)
Date of
Collection
Silica
(Si02)
Iron Cal-
(Fe) cium
(total) (Ca)
Magne-
sium
(Mg)
Bicar-
Potas- bonate
Sodium slum (11003)
(Na) (K) b/
Sul-
fate
(so4)
Chlo-
(CD
Fluo-
(F)
Ni-
(N03)
Dis-
solids
Hard-
ness
as
CaC03
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (OSAGE PLAINS)
AU-21-22-804
21-29-302
21-30-302
HY-22-25-302-/
22-25-902
22-34-105^
JU-29-13-101
29-13-601
29-14-901
29-23-102
29-23-603
KJ-23-46-201
23-55-801
LP-21-35-701
21-42-101
21-42-401^
21-49-lOli/
I.P-21-49-601-
21-50-601
21-51-701-'
PY-30-17-101
30-18-401
30-19-401
41
27
45
83
63
46
25
50
36
30
34
24
22
70
60
54
48
45
50
32
32
69
46
Aug.
Jan.
June
May
June
Aug.
Aug.
May
Sept,
Aug.
Mar.
Aug.
Mar .
Aug.
Mar.
July
June
July
8,
do
13,
4,
16,
9,
4,
do
do
8,
do
29,
do
. 1,
16,
24,
9,
21,
16,
17,
9,
22,
6,
1961
1961
1960
1961
1961
1960
1960
1961
1956
1956
1944
1961
1944
1956
1944
1953
1953
1953
31
24
30
27
19
27
25
36
22
23
24
37
13
26
32
21
14
21
30
21
38
42
30
45
70
O.Ol^7 71
.03 74
80
.Q2& 80
585
675
94
530
228
72
64
81
71
.14 75
715
.05 91
130
.02 151
. OO^/ 90
140
144
58
33
62
22
125
45
33
161
29
146
59
56
31
27
38
17
188
24
61
92
16
25
34
26^ 540
125 5.2 424
431 5.2 540
81 1.7 312
712 5.5 566
270 1.1 300
39s-7 120
752^ 220
336s7 332
743£7 322
42C£/ 322
879 3.3 664
6S^ 254
120 5.9 336
202 -- 215
109 5.2 333
871 11 238
114 6.6 362
217 -- 311
221 10 399
13£/ 298
109 -- 552
176 — 576
164
101
394
86
932
366
1,390
2,040
446
1,940
734
724
212
99
248
59
2,300
57
255
251
20
80
109
205
2
350
68
560
218
16
1,140
225
870
460
650
950
103
200
43
1,320
73
322
365
12
100
215
-
1.1
--
1.0
-
3.6
--
--
-
.7
.8
2.6
2.0
1.0
-
.6
.6
.4
-
1.2
1.8
.6
1.0
42
51
42
17
84
56
139
86
37
32
58
131
.0
54
68
129
46
152
75
177
40
8.2
2.0
1,080
681
1,650
538
2,800
1,220
2,290
5,000
1,350
4,440
2,140
2,880
2,080
684
1,020
623
5,580
627
1,240
1,490
374
776
994
351
310
432
275
714
384
1,600
2,350
354
1,920
812
410
287
312
334
257
2,560
326
575
756
290
452
500
See footnotes at end of table
Source: Texas Water Commission Bulletin 6310
-------
Depth
of
well
Well (ft.)
Date of Silica
Collection (Si02)
Iron Cal-
(Fe) cium
(total) (Ca)
Magne-
sium
(Mg)
Potas-
S odium slum
(Na) (K)
Bicar-
bonate
(HCO,,)
y
Sul-
fate
Chlo-
ride
(Cl)
Fluo- Ni-
ride trate
(F) (N03)
Dis-
solved
solids
Hard-
ness
as
CaCOj
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (OSAGE PLAINS) (Continued)
PY-30-19-402
RH-22-41-801
22-43-203
22-43-503
22-43-504
22-43-505
22-43-508
33-51-104
22-52-102^-'
22-52-103-'
22-52-104
22-59-702-'
RS-21-33-901
21-34-201
21-34-501-
21-36-401-
21-36-401-'
21-34-401-
XR-21-49-102
XR-22-45-801
22-46-801
XR-29-06-104-
XW- 30-5 0-102
See footnotes at
Source: Texas W;
60
72
102
98
136
126
110
44
52
52
62
—
50
31
35
37
37
40
58
59
52
51
21
end of
ater Coi
June
May
June
June
June
May
June
June
Aug.
Aug.
Apr .
Mar.
Apr.
Aug.
Aug.
May
June
Aug .
Aug.
18,
16,
21,
dO
22,
21,
do
16,
21,
do
do
1,
30,
15,
24,
22,
25,
30,
9,
22,
14,
1°,
4,
table
Timi s s i on 1
1953
1961
1960
1960
1960
1961
1960
1961
1956
1956
1957
1944
1957
1956
1961
1961
1961
1961
1960
Julletin
47
23
45
47
-
52
24
21
25
20
21
17
24
34
36
21
35
19
24
17
34
18
24
6310
146
525
358
301
-
288
203
655
252
104
96
432
170
59
109
0.12 112
113
229
46
695
85
525
100
27
162
60
53
~
44
45
217
42
12
8.9
91
128
35
43
99
98
53
16
176
16
138
36
176 4.9
530 7.9
44^'
132£/
-
121=.'
85^'
1,280 11
85^'
21-'
3.0 5.9
423^'
528 5.8
97
IRO£/
372 15
334^'
628 6.4
86^'
605^'
190^-'
933 9.0
94^'
545
234
194
344
-
308
236
158
249
229
214
181
342
323
350
481
485
322
321
84
356
190
282
130
2,390
898
590
344
610
514
2,760
578
113
86
1,430
1,120
106
211
469
411
853
43
2,020
154
1,600
114
200
345
88
225
88
168
88
1,680
112
20
5.2
520
460
50
185
340
360
740
16
1,130
135
1,480
115
0.2 22
2.5
.8 19
.7 51
40
.5 47
.7 26
40
.6 25
.5 25
.5 24
.8 .0
45
63
1.4 84
1.9 183
2.4 90
1.9
.5 44
.5 7.5
.2 58
1.1 7.5
111
1,020
4,100
1,610
1,570
-
1,480
1,100
6,750
1,240
436
356
3,000
2,650
618
1,020
1,780
1,680
2,690
434
4,690
854
4,810
796
476
1,980
1,140
970
-
900
692
2,530
800
309
276
1,450
950
292
448
686
685
790
181
2,460
278
1,880
398
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES!/ OF GROUNDWATER - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Well
Screened
Interval
(feet)
Date of
Collection
Silica
(Si02)
Iron Cal-
(Fe) cium
(total) (Ca)
Magne-
sium
(Mg)
Potas-
Sodium slum
(Na) (K)
Bicar-
bonate
(HC03)
Sul-
fate
(so4)
Chlo-
ride
(Cl)
Fluo- Ni- Dis-
ride trate solved
(F) (N03) solids
Hard-
ness
as
CaC03
TRINITY CROUP
AX-40-60-904
AX-40-62-801
AX-58-07-301
BB-32-61-701
BB-40-12-101
BX-30-36-901
BS-30-37-801
DY-31-53-706
HB-40-35-802
JD-30-56-901
JP-31-61-301
JR-38-64-601
LA-41-21-601
LA-41-22-501
LW-40-08-801
LY-32-26-801
PX-32-36-501
PX-32-37-302
PX-32-53-302
ST-40-24-803
TK-58-07-901
UA-29-53-102
XW-29-56-301
ZK-58-29-604
743-965£/
2,200-
2,366
2,886-
680-780
110-130
25
63
40-128
478-677£/
35- 65
96-188
3,354-
3,692
250-470
? -200
1,955-
2,083
55-100
440-490
? -630
? -510
2,253-
2,492
3,191-
3,413
262
90
2,780-
3,346£/
May
Apr .
Nov.
Apr.
Apr.
Feb.
Aug.
Dec.
Sept
Jan.
Dec.
June
Jan.
Mar.
Feb.
Oct.
Sep.
Feb.
Apr.
Apr.
Jan.
Mar.
Aug.
Mar .
25,
21,
9,
27,
6,
5,
11,
9,
. 9,
10,
1,
13,
25,
19,
__
5,
13,
11,
19,
6,
--,
21,
10,
1,
1954
1961
1960
1960
1960
1946
1961
1959
1955
1961
1959
1944
1960
1946
1959
1960
1942
1943
1961
1961
1959
1960
1961
1960
13
16
23
12
10
28
23
17
14
19
14
--
14
12
__
17
12
9.2
12
22
—
13
11
24
0.10 13
.13 5.8
10
2.5
2.2
.05 152
.84 120
78
.05 13
95
93
270
104
3.6 63
.01 3.0
67
2.6 18
.05 1.7
.02 1.5
.08 2.8
.94 60
74
61
0.11-7 18
7.9
2.2
2.6
1.9
2.1
28
24
6.9
7.2
23
33
42
8.6
24
1.0
9.6
8.3
.7
.4
.8
17
19
18
1.9
683£/
379 3.1
395^
198^
272£/
121 11
138^
16 3.1
483^
44 2.7
18 2.6
1,420£/
32£/
147 16
213£/
59 2.1
12l£/
175 4.2
268 1.5
235£/
534^
20£/
14E/
455 5.8
436
432
492
391
532
478
358
234
445
385
330
209
313
411
364
328
342
414
540
444
245
282
262
452
286
211
304
75
122
123
126
18
309
24
20
3,320
36
144
75
36
33
33
79
81
900
28
9.2
341
628
205
118
32
21
162
169
25
295
57
80
214
24
74
52
20
18
12
44
50
151
30
16
230
3.6 0.2 1,850
1.8 1.2 1,040
2.8 .0 1,100
.0 513
4.0 3.2 698
.6 26 919
.5 40 850
20 299
3.0 4.0 1,350
22 496
8.8 431
.2 5,370
.5 44 417
.6 2.5 686
.8 1.1 594
1.8 374
.4 .0 382
.4 2.0 442
2.2 3.0 692
.9 .0 611
1.8 .4 1,980
4.5 334
0.5 12 272
3.2 .0 1,300
65
24
36
14
14
494
398
223
62
332
368
846
296
256
11
206
79
7
5
10
220
262
226
53
See footnotes nt end of table
Source: Texas Water Commission Bulletin 6310
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES!/ OF GROUNDWATER - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Well
BJ-59-21-303
BJ-59-21-714
BS-59-43-401
RZ-58-40-603
RZ-59-33-701
TK-58-32-503
WK-39-51-801
WX-59-03-202
WX-59-04-701
Blca-
Screened Iron Cal- Magne- Potas- bonate Sul-
Interval Date of Silica (Fe) cium slum Sodium slum (HCO ) fate
(feet) Collection (S102) (total) (Ca) (Mg) (Na) (K) b/J (S04)
CARRIZO - WILCOX
2,670- May 8, 1954 25 0.5 3 2 322£/ 714 28
2,940
2,74J.-£/July 31, 1956 24 .03 2.4 .5 235£/ 536 .0
2.989
7-2,500 Nov. 11, 1959 18 — 4.5 .9 652 3.8 702 2.4
475-518 Nov. 17, 1959 18 1.0 34 8.3 45 5.0 145 73
168-486S/ Sep. 16, 1953 18 11 121 37 49 8.8 258 186
120-170 Aug. 15, 1952 — .3 15 4.0 45£/ 78 8.2
190-254 Feb. — , 1943 19 .05 42 8.2 65 6.6 205 28
534-6792' Feb. — , 1943 16 .02 6.3 1.5 321 6.0 692 1.6
l,221-£/Nov. 10, 1943 25 .02 3.4 1.8 187-7 427 3.9
1,426
Chlo- Fluo- Hi- Dls-
ride ride trate solved
(Cl) (F) (N03) solids
71 0.7 — 770
55 .5 0.0 581
620 — .2 1,650
19 .1 .0 275
111 — 1.0 694
55 — — 247
63 .2 1.0 334
111 .4 2.0 807
48 .4 .0 480
Hard-
ness
as
CaCO
16
8
14
119
454
53
138
22
16
See footnotes at end of table
Source: Texas Water Commission Bulletin 6310
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES-/ OF GROUNDWATER - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Well
Depth
of
well
(ft.)
Date of
Collection
Silica
(Si02)
Iron
(Fe)
(total)
Cal-
cium
(Ca)
Magne-
sium
(Mg)
Bicar-
Potas- bonate
Sodium slum (HC03)
(Na) (K) b/
Sul-
fate
(so4)
Chlo-
ride
(Cl)
Fluo-
ride
(F)
Ni-
trate
(N03)
Dis-
solved
solids
Hard-
ness
as
CaCO
BRAZOS RIVER ALLUVIUM
AP-59-63-902
BB-40-14-503
BJ-59-20-503
509
520
522
524
527
528
529
603
616
621
802
807
810
902
907
908
BJ-59-21-205
714
718
272
Spring
70
67
80
--
—
70?
__
68
60
49
75
62
1,035
—
56
64
68
2,880
3,060
492
Apr. 13,
Apr. 26,
Jan. 27,
June 19,
July 17,
June 19,
July 17,
June 19,
May 14,
do
June 19,
Aug. 8,
June 19,
July 8,
July 17,
July 17,
July 16,
June 27,
Nov. — ,
Aug. 1,
June 27,
do
July 16,
June 10,
July 31,
June 22,
July 30,
1964
1960
1953
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1964
1963
1963
1963
1942
1963
1963
1964
1964
1956
1943
1957
49
24
__
21
17
20
21
20
20
21
22
22
21
10
10
13
13
18
—
21
18
22
22
22
24
31
16
0.64
--
2.9
4.9
6.3
1.6
9.4
5.3
4.6
4.8
2.6
6.7
.60
.62
.11
.04
2.5
-
7.4
4.0
13
8.7
.02
0.03
.73
.05
16
91
124
136
108
142
142
142
129
143
--
136
170
18
18
8.0
62
147
~
185
156
212
182
2.5
2.4
2.0
1.9
9.4
34
31
24
31
38
62
' 42
38
—
--
32
5.6
5.6
3.9
18
43
-
34
31
43
43
1.0
0.5
.4
.1
SIOS-/ 770
24-/ 317
8<£/ 345
39£/ 592
269^-' 758
49£/ 634
72-/ 632
ISS^ 708
57 1.7 648
77 2.7 698
— 704
70°-' 684
58-' 686
202-/ 388
197 1.5 392
516£/ 682
c/
436~ 508
134-' 716
490
694
336^ 596
144- 766
61 3.4 656
258 2.1 624
235-' 536
8^. 172
78^' 157
0.2
22
99
30
192
30
54
182
57
57
56
53
57
.0
.4
77
192
129
50
146
131
190
155
.4
0.0
20
17
63
18
177
24"
93
26
66
126
17
29
34
28
42
134
123
365
395
80
23
49
440
137
49
53
55
18
17
0.9
0.4
—
0.4
.5
.3
.3
.1
.1
.2
—
.3
.3
.2
f 2
1.2
.6
.2
-
.3
.3
.3
.3
.7
0.5
.5
.4
0.0
11
0.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.2
1.2
—
.0
.5
.0
.2
1.0
1.2
.0
-
.0
.0
.0
.2
.0
0.0
.0
.0
820
364
865
573
1,080
611
705
1,040
643
713
—
686
718
561
549
1,320
1,370
904
-
864
1,410
1,130
839
647
560
265
208
48
266
449
467
368
482
511
610
494
514
505
504
556
68
68
36
228
544
-
602
516
706
631
10
8
6
345
See footnotes at end of table
Source: Texas Water Development Board - Report 41
-------
TACLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES!'' OF GROUNDUATEF. - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Well
Depth
of
well
(ft.)
Date of
Collection
Silica
(Si02)
Iron
(Fe)
(total)
Cal-
cium
(Ca)
Magne-
sium
(Mg)
Potas-
S odium slum
(Na) (K)
Bicar-
bonate
(HCO,)
y
Sul-
f ate
(so4)
Chlo-
ride
(CD
Fluo-
ride
(F)
Ni-
trate
(N03)
Dis-
solved
solids
Hard-
ness
as
CaCO
BRAZOS RIVER ALLUVIUM (Continued)
BJ-59-21-721
728
901
BJ-59- 38-606
902
909
BJ-59-39-606
611
701
705
907
BJ-59-47-305
BS-59-20-116
545
BS-59-28-201
202
312
315
316
325
326
327
501
70
46?
62
68J}
73
657
61
60
60
73
70
245
22%
Spring
.-
1,600?
79
55
61
980
787
—
57
Apr. 1,
June 11,
Hay 13,
July 24,
Aug. 15,
July 22,
Aug. 11,
July 9,
do
do
do
July 24,
July 23,
June 11,
May 14,
May --,
July 6,
June 17,
June 27,
Aug. 23,
June 27 ,
June 17,
do
June 27,
July 2,
1958
1964
1964
1964
1957
1963
1964
1963
1964
1964
1963
1964
1964
1957
1963
1963
1956
1963
1963
1963
1963
-
24
49
30
_.
36
40
24
28
27
27
27
24
41
46
-
--
17
21
--
20
14
14
20
19
--
.60
.10
7.3
__
12
11
2.7
4.3
.06
6.2
6.4
.05
--
0,06
--
"
.05
.15
--
2.7
.04
.07
7.5
2.2
84
109
60
142
181
160
154
152
200
218
176
161
153
73
46
-
154
2.5
186
44
232
1.5
1.5
133
256
5
14
15
23
34
39
36
29
34
51
37
36
41
4.9
3.7
-
41
.7
51
29
66
.1
.1
28
68
15£/
96^/
102^
38 3.4
119 . —
185^
74 4.1
95*'
152^
164^
108^
97 3.9
71 3.5
85^
19^
-
67£/
207 1.3
120*'
381^
124*'
258 1.6
202 1.3
56^
276^''
261
408
158
556
659
870
602
652
752
764
786
736
648
356
132
380
488
404
764
378
788
396
316
636
742
19
131
36
27
44
4.8
28
54
90
160
47
33
109
25
18
94
58
72
181
131
243
184
138
8.8
420
17
44
188
36
188
172
121
80
184
225
93
85
49
48
28
135
170
42
85
340
155
40
31
27
335
-
.2
.3
.4
__
.3
.4
.4
.2
.4
.4
.4
.3
.3
0.2
--
-
.3
.3
--
.3
.4
.2
0.4
.4
"
5.5
r 2
.0
__
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
6.0
--
-
.8
.0
-
1.2
.0
.0
0.0
.0
407
625
528
573
1,225
1,030
754
756
1,060
1,220
876
806
770
452
232
--
978
544
1,020
1,381
1,230
697
545
587
1,740
--
330
211
449
--
560
532
498
639
754
591
550
550
202
130
444
--
9
674
-
850
4
4
447
918
?ee footnotes at end of table
Source: Texas Water Development Board - Report 41
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES^ OF GROUNDHATER - PRIHARY AQUIFERS
Well
Depth
of
well
(ft.)
Date of
Collection
Silica
(Si02)
Iron
(Fe)
(total)
Cal-
cium
(Ca)
Magne-
sium
(Mg)
Potas-
S od ium s ium
(Na) (K)
Bicar-
bonate
(HCO )
y
Sul-
f ate
(so4)
Chlo-
ride
(Cl)
Fluo-
ride
(F)
Ni-
trate
Dis-
solved
solids
Hard-
ness
as
CaCO
BRAZOS RIVER ALLUVIUM (Continued)
BS-59-28-503
610
BS-59-39-107
109
112
410
426
433
502
509
703
709
809
BS-59-37-105
107
301
307
601
602
607
BS-59-38-102
403
404
~
65?
57
56
—
71
—
59
68
55?
57
—
76
24
30?
57
49
61
286
236?
58
57
61
Aug. 8,
June 27,
Aug. 5,
June 27;
do
June 18.
Aug. 5,
June 27,
July 15,
June 18,
July 6,
June 9 ,
June 18.
July 13,
May 6,
May 15,
June 18.
July 13,
Jure 26,
June 5 ,
do
July 13,
June 26,
do
1963
1963
1964
1963
1963
1964
1963
1964
1963
1964
1955
1963
1964
1955
1%4
1963
1964
1963
1963
1964
1963
13
24
18
20
22
22
20
23
22
24
26
—
21
21
"
42
23
22
24
39
38
19
20
23
-14
12
.03
7.3
4.9
.81
1.0
15
6.9
9.3
9.0
..
7.4
5.2
--
.02
9.4
6.0
5.0
—
-
9.2
3.3
5.7
1.5
272
190
142
244
178
178
188
110
178
179
288
200
132
126
135
338
205
118
39
40
208
153
208
.4
60
20
43
59
73
49
39
43
47
46
73
51
49
11
16
92
73
38
2.1
1.5
54
46
62
n<&
141^
91 3.2
139£/
242H/
175^
196 3.7
79£/
187 2.5
141-'
148 3.9
292^
152H/
124 3.0
240H/
21l£/
276^
189 5.0
76^
428^
479^
187 2.8
76*'
197^
236
868
460
636
596
654
664
812
624
900
890
723
768
600
470
408
698
716
530
350
400
596
576
628
92
174
171
144
332
276
224
2.4
114
27
28
339
156
55
49
82
445
232
80
359
369
283
84
300
60
240
142
115
385
212
212
94
164
125
143
502
175
184
316
282
550
280
69
265
305
252
124
265
.3
.3
.1
.2
.2
.3
.2
.4
.5
.3
.4
—
.2
.4
-
.4
-
.4
.4
.5
.5
.3
.4
.4
.0
.0
6.5
.0
.0
.0
1.2
.0
.2
-.0
.0
—
.0
.2
-
54
1.2
1.8
.0
1.0
4.9
3.0
.0
.0
454
1,340
868
917
1,580
1,260
1,210
825
951
986
1,010
2,217
1,130
864
1,212
1,020
2,070
T.,360
667
1,310
1,430
1,300
787
1,360
5
926
556
532
852
744
646
630
452
638
636
-
709
531
-
403
1,220
812
451
106
106
741
570
774
See footnotes at end of table
Source: Texas Water Development Board - Report 41
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES-' OF GROUNDWATER - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Well
Depth
of
«ell
(ft.)
Date of
Collection
Silica
(Si02)
Iron
(Fe)
(total)
Cal-
cium
(Ca)
Magne-
sium
(Mg)
Bicar-
Potas- bonate
Sodium slum (HCOo)
(Na) (K) b/
Sul~
fate
Chlo-
ride
(Cl)
Hard-
Fluo- Ki- Dis- ness
ride trate solved as
(F) (NO ) solids CaC03
BRAZOS RIVER ALLUVIUM (Continued)
liS-59-38-410
802
905
JR-39-33-701
jR-39-41-101
503
504
604
702
704
903
JR-39-49-301
601
JR-39-50-203
402
410
413
421
423
426
502
504
801
56
56
79
58
45
42
52
3,330
28
22
63
48
43
51
41
61
59
42
41
—
35
--
45
June
Mar.
Jan.
July
May
July
July
Feb.
June
Aug.
May
Apr.
Aug.
Apr.
Apr.
May
Aug.
July
July
June
July
June
July
June
Juno
July
26,
28,
5,
11,
10,
29,
11,
23,
13,
4,
5,
26,
4,
26,
5,
6,
4,
29,
20,
20,
do
2,
20,
29,
20,
20,
2,
1964
1955
1955
1963
1961
1963
1963
1938
1944
1964
1964
1961
1964
1961
1961
1964
1964
1954
1964
1963
1963
1963
1954
1963
1963
1963
21
--
—
23
16
17
23
--
22
27
23
24
24
22
24
21
22
24
24
19
26
15
16
26
3.0
—
--
7.2
--
.02
6.3
--
1.4
.00
6.7
—
--
.07
.11
3.4
3.7
9.6
5.6
9.6
.03
.10
8.7
138
92
110
206
56
185
177
182
193
255
109
142
181
378
55
180
142
111
127
121
134
146
186
79
82
86
200
47
76
44
55
51
34
37
69
69
125
16
42
48
83
12
38
39
35
43
17
28
27
42
35
30
28
44
127-' 592
64-^ 378
4&S./ 522
153^' 636
83 1.1 536
85 — 421
146s-' 728
, 504
2,940s 503
306 4.7 718
101-' 416
293 3.6 738
312 3.7 732
333 5.7 570
6C£' 300
354s-' 420
136 3.3 648
178-' 738
299 3.0 712
135-' 596
123^' 664
15 (f-1 650
218^' 868
42^' 432
63£' 488
60s-' 466
230^' 860
128
96
42
336
43
138
100
4,380
4,330
253
114
247
303
672
34
293
125
56
238
63
5.2
23
12
50
42
50
126
138
170
110
142
16
194
149
1,620
1,580
690
59
222
310
600
17
510
104
97
231
79
118
173
272
14
12
14
244
0.4 0.0 891 538
894
942
0.3 0.0 1,230
.5 41 573
.3 29 889
.4 .0 991
0 9,580
.8 9,620
.5 3.8 2,010
.8 16 648
.3 .0 1,340
.5 1.2 1,540
.4 .2 2,380
.3 13 361
.3 7.4 1,610
.5 13 903
-- 1,214
.3 1.2 1,310
.4 .2 733
.5 .0 760
.4 .0 859
.4 1.0 1,180
652
.6 3.6 488
.5 4.9 489
.4 .0 1,290
Sec footnotes at end of table
Source; Texas Water Development Board - Report
-------
Well
Depth
of
well
(ft.)
Date of
Collection
Silica
(SiO )
2
Iron
(Fe)
(total)
Cal-
cium
(Ca)
Magne-
sium
(Mg)
Potas-
Sodium sium
(Na) (K)
Bicar-
bonate
(HCOQ)
Sul-
fate
(so4)
Chlo-
ride
(Cl)
Fluo-
ride
(F)
Ni- Dis-
trate solved
(N03) solids
Hard-
ness
as
CaCO
3
BRAZOS RIVER ALLUVIUM (Continued)
JR-30-50-804
807
813
814
819
903
906
JR-39-58-204
207
JR-40-48-301
801
901
JY-65-17-702
702
JY-65-18-801
802
JY-65-19-802
JY-65-26-201
304
505
506
602
JY-65-27-202
203
62
60
49
42
30?
32
56
50?
54
45?
2,900?
13
376
67
70
__
90?
575
72
65?
140
400
90
72?
Jan. 10,
July 3,
June 20,
Apr. 26,
June 20,
July 3,
June 20,
June 21,
June 20,
June 20,
May 10,
May 7,
Mar . 3 ,
Apr. 15,
do
Mar. 18,
Mar. 19,
July 15,
Mar. 18,
Apr. 17,
Mar. --,
Mar. 18,
July 28,
July 15,
do
1953
1963
1963
1961
1963
1963
1963
1963
1964
1963
1961
1964
1961
1964
1964
1964
1958
1964
1964
1964
1964
1955
1958
—
21
24
19
16
18
22
28
27
24
19
25
17
29
18
19
30
-
23
26
23
24
27
--
--
—
9.0
7.3
—
.00
.07
2.4
5.4
4.2
5.9
-
.19
—
0.0
.48
.08
.04
.20
.12
1.5
3.5
5.0
-
.1
.25
149
269
205
320
177
432
375
209
165
194
175
5.0
100
48
78
96
79
130
60
83
122
119
106
122
120
48
63
39
136
74
129
140
46
48
43
159
1.3
8.8
4.0
66
31
7.5
36
8.4
15
23
21
16
44
40
177^
281-'
156^
380 4.4
205£/
49(£/
366^
332£/
304 4.3
227£/
205 3.1
288 3.0
3 1-7
23£/
109^
34£/
40^
38^
68 1.8
33c/
95c/
89^
95 2.2
54£/
65£/
881
630
868
574
628
412
594
1,060
878
812
602
512
274
178
698
478
308
532
258
294
362
344
331
551
539
77
186
36
473
224
428
434
120
129
150
408
154
67
8.0
80
24
4.8
17
21
8.8
47
37
32
53
53
108
588
185
880
292
1,340
970
310
308
235
575
52
20
22
24
12
41
56
17
63
184
182
174
58
52
-
0.4
.5
.3
.4
.2
.3
.4
.3
.3
.4
2.3
.2
0.4
.7
.5
.2
--
.4
.2
.3
.3
--
--
--
1,440
0.0 1,720
.0 1,070
.2 2,500
38 1,340
.8 3,040
.0 2,600
1.2 1,570
5.4 1,420
1.2 1,270
14 1,940
.0 783
38 417
1.2 224
15 734
8.2 460
.2 354
.4 573
.0 380
.0 374
.0 672
.0 641
.0 650
.4 720
.4 720
571
930
672
1,360
746
1,610
1,510
710
609
661
1,090
18
286
136
466
367
228
475
184
268
399
384
330
490
465
See footnotes at end of table
Source: Texas Water Development Board - Report 41
-------
Well
JY-65-27-204
205
206
304
305
306
307
308
309
601
602
603
604
KW-58-56-203
KW-59-48-804
l.W-40-14-603
ST-40 22-201
iOl
ST-40-23-501
801
804
ST-40-32-703
802
Depth
of
Well
(ft.)
90?
86
61?
103
72
100
83
104
62
86
83?
78?
78?
80
900?
Spring
41
32
22
32
42
50?
47
Date of Silica
Collection (Si02)
July 15, 1958
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
June 13, 1963 21
June 12, 1963 42
May 17, 1960 21
July 1, 1963 11
do 28
Apr. 24, 1958
July 1, 1963 15
Jan. 31, 1955
Mar. 20, 1963 16
Aug. 3, 1964 19
May 10, 1961 19
July 29, 1963 17
Iron
(Fe)
(total)
-25
.35
.63
.1
.05
.2
.1
.25
.25
.2
.05
1.0
.3
2.8
--
--
0.03
.02
.03
--
1.6
-
2. 2
Cal- M
ciutn
(Ca)
BRAZOS
148
134
156
116
116
110
112
140
136
130
112
120
120
117
20
93
113
300
91
100
60
65
117
113
115
agne-
sium
(Mg)
RIVER
50
40
43
40
40
42
36
46
37
37
35
42
42
18
1.0
5.2
4.4
71
12
15
52
38
25
7.2
19
Potas-
S odium slum
(Na) (K)
ALLUVIUM (Continued)
67£/
49^
72=/
80*'
63^
78^
50^
79£/
4o£/
70^
52^
62£'
5,c/
65 2.3
231^
2;j£/
3l£/
23&S/
5c/
21£/
°f
17 1.8
48 1.6
23£/
Bicar-
bonate
(HC03)
622
588
522
527
534
571
522
536
588
544
544
510
573
464
542
301
316
510
256
328
375
376
414
318
394
Sul-
f ate
(S04)
49
17
36
64
60
47
45
60
19
55
40
60
44
31
.0
12
19
352
43
35
22
17
51
46
48
Chlo- Fluo-
ride fide
(Cl) (F)
92
68
156
65
56
44
36
106
48
66
40
68
52
70 0.4
78 .9
22
34 0.2
518 .3
25
26 .2
14
6.0 .6
26 .4
67 .1
29 .4
Ni-
trate
(N0~)
. 4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.05
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
0.0
.0
18
50
46
18
9.1
.5
25
1.2
Dis-
solved
solids
864
720
876
750
720
720
546
882
600
762
564
738
708
553
640
362
418
1,800
432
391
523
348
462
483
447
Hard-
ness
as
580
500
570
455
455
450
430
540
495
480
425
475
475
366
54
254
300
1,040
273
311
351
318
395
312
365
See footnotes at end of table
Source: Texas Water Development Hoard - Report 41
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES-'' OF GROUNDWATER - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Depth
of
Well
Well (ft.)
Date of
Collection
Silica
Iron
(Fe)
(total)
Cal-
cium
(Ca)
Magne-
sium
(Mg)
Potas-
S od ium s ium
(Na) (K)
Bicar-
bonate
(HCO,)
y
Sul-
f ate
(SO, )
Chlo-
ride
(cl)
Fluo- Ni-
ride trate
(F) (N03)
Dis-
solved
solids
Hard-
ness
as
CaCO
BRAZOS RIVER ALLUVIUM (Continued)
ST-40-40-202
502
505
507
509
601
802
TK-39-58-906
909
910
TK-59-10-201
TK-59-11-205
401
607
WK-39-58-201
203
207
305
307
601
603
604
607
38
35
35
35
44
28
22
46
47
58
662
580
335
268
50?
47
23
15
24
46
52
49
45
May 10, 1961
July 12, 1963
do
Apr. 24, 1958
May 10, 1961
do
July 10, 1963
July 12, 1963
do
do
Oct. 25, 1952
May 12, 1964
May 12, 1964
do
Aug. 5, 1956
Apr. 25, 1961
July 25, 1963
Dec. 10, 1940
Jan. 29, 1941
Jan. 31, 1941
July 17, L963
do
July --, 1963
July 17, 1963
15
18
19
—
20
18
17
32
23
27
17
17
14
17
-
24
21
--
-
--
22
21
24
23
-
.02
.01
-
-
--
.00
1.2
.02
.04
0.01
.14
.04
.16
-
--
1.5
--
-
--
.08
.40
1.0
.15
135
138
145
147
122
142
156
254
200
180
16
14
4.0
33
-
185
119
--
170
124
162
188
180
167
4.5
11
10
16
40
26
6.3
50
28
35
5.1
3.9
.5
5.8
-
31
24
--
50
10
23
51
51
34
33 .9
48^
103*'
125^
77 3.0
116 2.6
67^
221*'
199^
204-7
144 . 0.0
138^
173*'
47 5.0
-
148 2.2
60^
--
310s7
19^
183^
leer
c/
125-
188£
358
420
424
499
438
428
364
364
312
336
276
286
404
164
59
568
538
--
921
250
327
484
544
392
49
84
123
182
149
151
83
448
218
240
0.7
1.2
.4
49
-
119
20
30
189
30
257
229
169
294
36
33
96
76
97
107
66
392
398
360
103
81
40
20
31
238
44
26
250
57
226
277
217
237
.5 50
.7 17
.4 18
-
.4 2.5
.3 76
.4 101
0.4 0.0
.3 1.2
.5 1.2
0.3 0.0
.2 .0
.4 .0
.2 .0
--
0.3 0.2
.5 .0
20
20
93
.3 4.9
.3 1.2
.4 1.5
.4 2.8
500
557
723
1,045
726
849
676
1,580
1,220
1,210
422
396
431
258
-
1,030
554
--
1,422
456
1,060
1,170
1,040
1,140
356
390
403
385
469
462
415
839
614
593
61
51
12
106
110
589
396
--
631
351
498
679
659
556
See footnotes at end of table
Source: Texas Water Development Board - Report 41
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES!/ OF GROUNDUATER - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Well
WK-39-58-902
903
WK-39-59-702
703
WK-59-02-305
306
601
WK-39-03-101
105
202
402
WK-59-03-409
413
502
503
504
507
701
702
703
801
810
905
906
Depth
of
well
(ft.)
48
55
65
70
74
--
60
67
--
683
63
64
58
46
63
55
67
51
58
59
65
51?
70
56
Date of
Collection
July
July
July
Aug.
July
July
July
Feb.
July-
July
Aug.
May
Aug .
May
July
July
Apr.
Aug.
May-
June
Aug .
25,
21,
3,
4,
do
do
12,
25,
12,
--,
18,
18,
14,
26,
4,
26,
9,
18,
26,
do
do
do
4,
25,
21,
11,
1963
1963
1963
1964
1963
1963
1963
1943
1963
1963
1964
1961
1964
1961
1964
1963
1961
1964
1961
1963
1959
Silica
(Si02)
19
21
26
19
37
28
20
26
21
16
17
22
21
21
21
19
21
22
18
--
20
19
20
16
16
--
Iron
(Fe)
(total)
.05
.04
4.9
.02
1.4
13
3.2
8.8
.75
.02
.01
4.6
.03
.03
--
.03
.02
--
--
--
-
3.5
3.7
--
Cal-
c ium
(Ca)
BRA2
220
140
125
123
279
162
184
138
135
6.3
104
162
147
115
117
121
116
94
115
-
120
110
272
154
154
440
Magne-
sium
(Mg)
Bica —
Potas- bonate
Sodium sium (1ICO-,)
(::a) (K) b/
Sul-
fate
(so4)
Chlo-
(Cl)
Fluo- *'i- Dis-
ri.de t*-ate solved
(F) (NO 1 solids
ness
as
fa CO.,
:OS RIVER ALLUVIUM (Continued)
82
33
25
18
19
43
49
35
38
1.5
8.9
43
27
17
17
41
21
8.1
24
--
33
35
88
33
31
133
2la£/ 580
147 1.9 563
59^ 456
69 2.0 368
77 3.4 416
184 2.5 846
255£/ 816
167-/ 854
166^ 816
321 6.0 692
37-7 324
82£/ 728
145 2.4 468
162 2.2 452
151 2.1 446
107 3.2 514
70 2.3 442
87£/ 338
51 2.8 520
628
145 1.9 686
117 3.3 552
261 3.4 684
71 6.1 276
72- 274
394-' 704
526
184
38
72
334
162
274
66
82
1.6
33
74
124
144
123
119
57
35
43
--
128
101
324
317
307
6.56
240
111
92
103
175
87
180
58
69
111
35
52
195
134
141
113
80
101
22
31
49
82
505
89
86
882
.3 .0 1,590
.3 2.0 916
.3 .0 589
.3 11 598
.2 7.2 1,140
.4 .2 1,090
.3 .5 1,360
.3 .0 911
.4 1.8 915
.4 2.0 807
.2 32 426
0.3 13 807
.3 .0 892
.1 9.3 827
.2 1.8 793
.2 1.0 778
.2 3.0 588
.2 1.5 515
.3 1.0 533
--
.3 .0 834
.2 .0 739
.3 1.8 1 .810
.4 .0 82^
.6 .0 802
964
886
485
415
381
774
581
656
488
494
22
296
581
478
357
362
470
376
268
386
420
435
418
1 ,040
520
512
--
F-ce footnotes at end of table
Sourr.u: Texas Water Development Board - Pcpo-t
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES- OF GROUHDWATER - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Well
Depth
of
well
'ft.)
Date of Silica
Collection (Si02)
Iron Cal-
(Fe) cium
(total) (Ca)
Magne-
sium
(Mg)
Bicar-
Potas- bonate
Sodium sium (HC03)
(Na) (K) b/
Sul-
fate
Chlo-
*-ide
(Cl)
Fluo- Ni- Dis-
--ide t--ate solved
(F) (N03) solids
Hard-
ness
as
CaCOj
BRAZOS RIVER ALLUVIUM (Continued)
KK-59-03-913
914
915
917
919
WK-59- 04-701
702
WK-59-11-203
204
304
305
306
310
311
315
316
322
324
325
326
327
605
612
55
50?
-
69
--
1,440
1,275
69
1,250
69
67
66
49
276
55
50
269
-
--
-
68
62
60?
280?
at end of
Apr.
May
May
June
July
Nov.
Feb.
July
July
July
Sep.
July
May
Sep.
Aug.
June
July
June
June
Aug.
table
27,
25,
26,
21,
31,
10,
--,
26,
26,
3,
--,
3,
do
10,
14,
do
7,
21,
do
3,
do
19,
19,
12,
do
1961 21
1961 23
1961 22
1963 20
1963 18
1943 25
1943 6.2
1963 20
1954
1963 19
1955
1963 22
24
1955
1956
--
1964 14
1963 21
20
1963 24
20
1963 19
1963 21
1964 21
170
440
418
5.8 283
4.2 124
.02 3.4
.12 4.8
5.9 160
6
5.0 146
155
5.9 150
7.0 131
12
140
101
9.5
6.8 127
4.3 119
7.3 154
11 232
.66 125
2.0 110
.81 118
84
129
139
74
18
1.8
.8
40
18
34
45
42
35
13
49
34
3.0
27
24
35
68
41
40
39
124 2.1 556
373 7.9 718
326 7.1 610
242-S/ 726
53£/ 308
187.£/ 395
175 7.6 376
16l£.f 812
106^ 275
lll£/ 666
56S' 462
10C£' 604
IIS^/ 774
424£/ 824
262£/ 756
203^ 470
191 2.0 458
152-^' 792
98£/ 594
148£/ 812
180s" 664
lf£l 632
5l£/ 592
57 3.0 624
568
123
570
612
458
136
3.9
2.9
93
9
66
104
128
21
33
182
151
16
28
48
39
328
72
40
45
315
890
820
328
74
48
46
106
32
92
106
96
50
160
220
184
41
57
49
99
258
36
16
20
19
.5 .2 1,100
1.8 2,790
.2 1.8 2,650
.3 1.2 1,760
.4 .0 584
.4 .0 480
.2 2.0 448
.3 .0 980
469
.2 .0 796
958
0.2 0.0 836
.4 .0 761
1,508
1,609
1,161
1.0 .0 503
.4 .0 802
.7 .0 651
.3 4.8 904
.3 .0 1,410
.4 .2 681
.5 .0 570
.4 .0 61.1
770
1,630
1,610
1,010
384
16
16
564
90
504
572
546
471
--
--
--
36
428
396
528
858
480
439
455
408
S onrce: Texas K:ater Development Board - Report 41
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued!
CHEMICAL ANALYSES-'' OF GROUNDWATER - PRIt'ARY AQUIFERS
Well
Depth
of
well
(ft.)
Date of
Collection
Silica
(Si02)
I ron
(Fe)
(total)
Cal-
cium
(Ca)
Magne-
sium
(Mg)
Eicar-
Potas- bonate
Sodium sium (FCOo)
(Na) (K) b/
Sul-
f ate
Chlo-
ride
(CD
Fluo-
ride
(F)
fate
Dis-
solved
solids
ness
BRAZOS RIVER ALLUVIUM (Continued)
t'K-59-11-615
616
UK-59-12-102
110
111
202
410
411
417
423
427
434
435
436
437
438
440
701
702
703
705
709
61
--
61
--
--
57
62
52
58
--
57
-
-
--
--
--
320
300?
68
69
62
65
June 19,
Aug. 12,
May 26,
June 19,
July 17,
June 18,
Aug. 8,
June 19,
Aug. 6,
Mar. 16,
June 18,
June 28,
June 19,
Aug. 8,
June 18,
do
do
June 19,
do
June 18,
Aug. 24,
Aug. 12,
do
June 19,
do
July 3,
June 19,
1963
1964
1961
1963
1964
1963
1963
1963
1964
1950
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1964
1964
1963
1963
1963
15
16
20
22
23
20
21
22
--
20
22
22
18
20
18
24
27
19
11
12
22
20
18
25
.04
.04
8.2
4.1
3.3
3.6
3.9
--
4.6
1.2
7.0
5.8
6.9
2.7
5.9
5.9
3.6
.98
2.3
6.5
4.7
4.8
8.0
120
92
305
294
212
136
218
153
194
196
124
140
164
189
108
150
140
102
14
40
160
166
152
153
24
27
80
75
54
67
73
15
37
67
32
27
51
58
46
40
39
33
3.2
6.9
34
35
42
31
llSi/ 292
55 1.8 408
240 3.8 604
212£/ 764
176 4.9 828
98£/ 604
578
141-/ 548
88 3,3 362
8£/ 738
168£'X 640
47£/ 596
65£/ 640
646
239£/ 662
149£/ 628
8L£/ 546
8fl£/ 760
85£/ 736
73£/ 506
133 3.9 312
35 5.5 180
180
85^7 724
88£/ 704
116S/ 732
85s/ 696
134
68
398
367
147
94
217
166
3
203
13
19
162
170
66
21
31
44
58
38
44
49
61
37
190
40
490
350
218
166
162
335
123
32
278
28
40
38
302
242
83
46
42
60
24
14
18
58
85
99
59
.4
.5
.1
.2
.3
.4
.3
.2
--
0.2
.3
.5
0.3
.2
.3
.5
.4
.3
.2
.2
.5
.3
.2
.3
1.2
.2
2.0
1.0
2.5
.2
1.2
1.8
-
1.5
.5
.2
1.0
1.2
.2
1.2
.2
3.0
.0
.0
.00
.0
.0
.0
744
502
1 ,840
1,700
1,250
879
1,280
749
1,012
1,250
560
649
1,260
1,140
671
737
727
584
400
241
760
790
849
734
398
340
1,090
1.040
751
615
602
844
443
637
764
441
460
480
619
710
458
538
510
390
48
128
120
539
558
552
509
See footnotes at end of table
Texas Water Development Board - 'eport 41
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES-' OF GROUNDWATER - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Well
Depth
of
well
(ft.)
Date of
Collection
Silica
(Si02)
Iron
(Fe)
(total)
Cal- Magne-
cium sium
(Ca) (Mg)
Bicar-
Potas- bonate
Sodium sium ("CO-)
(Na) (K) b/
Sul-
fate
(SO )
Chlo-
ride
(Cl)
Fluo- Ni-
"ide trate
(F) (N03)
Dis-
solved
solids
lla-d-
ness
as
CaC03
BRAZOS RIVER ALLUVIUM (Continued)
WK-59-12-721
722
804
815
828
WK-59-20-101
105
109
110
201
212
214
216
311
526
WK-59-55-904
WK-59-56-103
WK-59-64-201
WK-66-08-102
103
202
WK-66-16-104
201
73
--
70
45
--
65
69
58
75
55
55
75
--
--
73
300
865
728
67?
337
75?
64
120
July
July
July
Feb.
July
July
July
July
July
June
Aug.
Aug.
Apr.
June
Aug.
Aug.
June
June
June
June
Apr .
Apr.
Apr.
3,
3,
19,
16,
8,
27,
19,
17,
18,
19,
8,
6,
27,
19,
8,
1,
28,
14,
13,
23,
18,
8,
do
9,
do
1963
1963
1963
1954
1963
1964
1963
1964
1963
1963
1963
1964
1961
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1963
1960
1964
1964
1964
20
24
19
--
17
25
22
25
22
14
15
23
17
15
19
23
46
21
19
18
24
21
42
2.5
9.8
4.8
-
3.9
4.0
8.4
5.4
4.9
2.1
1.5
--
5.6
5.0
5.5
--
-
0.37
.17
.08
.72
--
.01
146
200
127
160
128
115
156
152
135
61
69
132
228
244
163
76
17
29
92
54
65
134
83
43
49
64
35
28
20
34
29
25
5.3
21
25
82
71
53
13
1.3
6.3
16
16
6.8
30
13
1332/ 620
180S/ 892
204^ 602
28£/ 494
137£/ 582
99 6.9 254
84£/ 684
141 3.4 780
98s-' 708
19& 624
626
262 2.2 648
85 3.2 580
219^ 596
586
347i/ 376
137-' 746
54 7.4 372
209 508
119 3.4 356
34S' 342
134£/ 394
24 1.4 230
52-S^ 602
44 1.5 318
122
137
130
11
74
143
42
65
27
6.4
117
49
269
456
136
18
.2
3.2
34
35
18
32
7.8
138
154
278
113
126
164
75
80
32
56
51
138
72
435
440
618
118
30
60
48
36
93
28
31
59
.2 .0
.2 .0
.4 1.1
--
.3 .0
.3 .0
.4 .0
.3 .2
.2 .0
.6 .0
.4 .2
.2 .0
0.3 0.2
.3 .0
.3 2.0
0.4 0.2
.8 .0
.6 .0
.2 2.0
.3 .2
.2 .2
.3 .2
.3 .8
908
1,180
1,120
859
797
698
750
880
688
646
944
675
1,540
1,940
996
400
584
406
401
544
281
596
407
542
700
580
546
434
370
529
498
440
174
194
258
432
906
890
901
624
243
48
100
296
200
190
458
260
See footnotes at end of table
Source: Texas Water Development Board - Report 41
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES-'' OF GROUNDWATER - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Well
Depth
of
well
(ft.)
Date of
Collection
Silica
(Si02)
Iron
(Ye)
(total)
Cal- Magne-
cium slum
(Ca) (Mg)
Potas-
Sodium slum
(Na) (K)
Bicar-
bonate Sul-
(HCOj) fate
W (S04)
Chlo-
ride
(CD
Fluo- ".i-
"~ide t~ate
(F) (N03)
Dis-
solved
solids
Ha^d-
ness
*s
raro1
BRAZOS RIVER ALLUVIUM (Continued)
YY-59-46-401
502
YY-59-55-703
806
YY-59-56-106
YY-59-63-502
140
701
70
1,674
71?
50?
July
Aug.
July
Aug.
Apr.
30,
do
15,
13,
21,
10,
1964
1963
1942
1964
1964
47
50
28
13
24
15
0.06
.03
.01
.07
3.1
.16
64 3.0
11 .1
104 5.1
10 1.3
119 17
102 38
67 9.3
225£/
29£/
139c/
62 2.0
103^
350 21
352 59
352 5.2
306 .7
463 54
365 57
18
117
33
55
54
201
0.3 0.2
.8 .2
.6 .2
1.6 .0
.2 .0
.4 .0
402
636
378
377
560
691
172
28
280
30
367
411
See footnotes at end of table
Sourr-e: Texas Water Devel opment Board - Report 41
-------
Well
Depth
of
well
(ft.)
Date of Silica
Collection (Si02)
Iron C-il-
(Fe) cium
(total) (Ca)
Magne-
sium
(Mg)
Sodium
(Na)
Potas-
sium
(K)
Bicar-
bonate
(HCO.)
Sul-
f ate
(SV
Chlo-
ride
(Cl)
Fluo-
"•ide
(F)
"~i- D i s -
t^ate solved
("03) solids
Hard-
ness
as
raCO
3
CULF COAST
AP-59-60-702
AP-59-61-402
501
701
803
AP-59-62-501
702
Ap-59-63-701
901
902
905
AP-66-05-102
702
801
901
AP-66-06-102
104
601
603
AP-66-07-501
AP-66-08-105
AP-66-14-202
See footnotes
112
186
180
98
725
132
313
140
75
1,228
565
91
120
160
80
110
121
786
900
28
210
113
at end of
Dec.
Nov.
Mar.
Nov.
Jan
Nov.
Apr.
May
Jan.
Apr.
Jan .
Apr.
Dec .
Dec.
Apr.
Dec.
Apr.
Dec.
Apr.
Feb.
Jan.
Feb.
Jan.
Apr,
2t
30,
do
10,
23,
12,
11,
21,
14,
7,
13,
6,
21,
10,
14,
22,
14,
22,
16,
. 21,
. 19,
5,
. 18,
, 13,
. 22,
1965 27
1965 54
30
1937
1963
1965 49
1937
1965 27
1966 27
1965 30
1937
1964 49
1937
1966 21
1965 24
1965
1966 20
1965
1966 25
1965
1966 28
1944 29
1966 29
1937
1966 20
1966 26
0.08 155
4.9 76
5.1 96
--
44
.52 55
--
.25 94
.23 96
0 65
36
.64 16
-
1.4 120
2.7 100
__
2.5 137
-_
.10 126
-
.05 102
.08 68
.13 46
--
6.8 108
.07 18
2.8
4.5
8.9
-
10
5.1
--
9.6
8.9
4.9
._
1.9
--
3.9
9.4
__
15
__
15
--
5.7
12
11
"
26
2.3
33.0
7J£/
51£/
-
92
94
--
38
48
31
28Q£/
31Q£/
--
24
49
„
92
_.
180
--
38
92
100
--
107
20
1.1
-
--
--
16
12
--
3.9
2.7
1.2
--
--
1.4
1.8
__
5.9
__
2.9
--
1.9
9.1
5.2
--
5.7
1.1
350
364
340
293
342
368
287
350
346
240
695
770
323
374
354
292
300
._
378
--
400
367
311
12
390
72
15
15
21
40
19
12
40
12
11.0
11
32
.2
51
18
14
22
21
__
84
--
6.4
46
50
10
26
5.0
60
37
60
54
71
43
36
46
64
32
68
63
60
30
66
250
245
275
265
--
21
58
52
34
195
22
0.4
.3
.4
--
__
.3
--
.3
.3
.3
.9
--
.4
.6
__
.5
__
.6
--
.4
.2
.2
--
2
.3
96 562
.2 439
.2 434
110 526
463
0 451
-1' 348
0 403
.2 428
.2 294
i'' 758
0 820
-•' 432
9.6 412
0 440
__
.8 685
__
2.0 886
--
.2 401
.2 495
.2 447
72 173
.2 680
4.8 135
398
208
276
--
__
158
--
274
276
182
90
48
-
316
288
410
404
__
376
--
278
219
161
--
376
54
table
S ource: Texas l^ater Deve Lopraent Board - Report 68
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES3" OF GROUNDWATER - PRI!!ARY AQUIFERS
Well
Depth
of
well
(ft.)
Date of
Collection
Silica
(Si02)
Iron
(Fe)
(total)
Cal-
cium
(Ca)
Magne-
s ium
(Mg)
Sodium
(Na)
Potas-
sium
(K)
Bicar-
bonate
(HCO,)
b/
Sul-
f ate
(so4)
Chlo-
ride
(CD
Fluo- >:i-
ride t~ate
(F) (N03)
Dis-
solved
solids
Hai-d-
ness
as
GULF COAST
AP-66-14-801
AP-66-15-101
902
AP-66-16-405
AP-66-22
-301
AP-66-23-102
201
202
205
301
402
602
902
AP-66-24-801
802
YW-59-55-603
604
904
YW-59-56-103
204
501
YW-59-64-202
203
901
74
164
304
102
752
598
941
1,326
116
120
890
120
556
610
96
106
178
350?
850?
147
379
745
868
900?
Dec. 17,
Apr. 21,
Feb. 19,
Feb. 17,
July 29,
June 16,
do
May 13,
do
Feb. 18,
do
May 14,
Feb. 18,
June 16 ,
Feb. 15,
Jan. 20,
Feb. 18,
Jan. 31,
do
June 14,
June 13,
Jan. 28,
June 11,
Feb. 1,
Apr. 5,
Jan. 2,
Jan. 6,
June 14 ,
1965
1966
1944
1966
1955
1965
1965
1966
1965
1966
1965
1960
1966
1966
1966
1963
1963
1966
1949
1966
1944
1930
1930
1965
24
27
22
25
32
28
27
23
32
27
28
33
33
27
27
23
28
-
23
46
21
34
20
19
29
26
1.2
.04
.02
-
--
0
.01
0
-
-
0
-
.0
.07
.02
-
0.05
.17
--
-
0.01
__
.06
--
.02
14
52
48
71
41
41
30
26
51
70
54
72
58
48
50
74
108
-
76
11
46
78
80
30
40
50
28
1.2
2.2
2.8
4.1
3.2
3.3
3.2
2.9
5.1
4.3
5.2
6.9
4.9
3.2
3.2
12
13
-
13
1.3
11
21
18
6.1
11
7.5
5.4
25
24
17
19
26
23
53
125
46
57
50
53
38
19
17
54
57
--
52
209^'
45
«£/
124S/
uS/
23
.9
.9
2.9
1.0
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.3
.9
.7
1.6
.5
.9
1.5
1.4
1.5
-
-
4.7
-
3.4
—
-
--
1.5
41
181
155
212
148
152
148
161
206
184
216
193
208
176
151
149
324
232
360
372
508
264
336
318
370
390
372
129
5.6
6.4
3.4
9.6
7.6
7.8
6.6
10
27
6.8
9.2
12
8.8
8.6
6.0
6.6
12
14
17
18
0.2
18
15
15
6.0
6.7
10
7.2
39
27
29
22
34
32
29
47
112
66
88
69
103
68
33
32
58
168
36
30
60
22
102
98
39
85
66
21
.1 .2
.2 .8
.2 1.2
.2 25
1.0
.2 .5
.3 0
.8 .8
.2 1.5
.2 7.7
.2 0
.2 2.2
.2 1.0
.1 .8
.2 .5
.4 .2
0.3 7.7
-
.4 .2
0.8 0.0
.5 .2
.2
.3 .2
.08 .2
--
.3 2.0
130
230
203
281
246
206
251
420
300
370
315
382
300
213
214
394
510
--
400
584
297
480
452
408
517
451
177
40
139
131
194
115
121
116
88
77
148
192
156
208
165
133
138
234
324
137
243
48
162
281
274
100
145
156
92
See footnotes at end of table
Source: Texas Water Development Board - Report - Report
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES^/ OF GROUNDWATER - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Well
Depth
of
well
(ft.)
Date of
Collection
Silica
(Si02)
Iron Cal-
(Fe) cinm
(total) (ca)
Magne-
sium
(Mg)
Bicar-
Potas- bonate
Sodium slum (HCO-,)
(Na) (K) b/
Sul-
fate
(so4)
Chlo-
ride
(CD
Fluo- Ni-
-ide t'-ate
(F) (N03)
Dis-
solved
solids
Hard-
ness
as
CaC03
GULF COAST (Continued)
YW-60-49-201
502
701
901
YW-59-50-701
703
YW-60-57-101
103
104
506
YW-60-58-105
107
203
YU-65-01-202
403
501
502
503
602
803
902
903
YW-65-02-701
707
See footnotes
218
66
212
111
75
94
570
576
571
558
715
40
300
85
824
842
828
845
959
1,330
1,332
884
392
554
June 11,
do
Apr. 21,
June 11,
do
Feb. 3,
Jan. 28,
Oct.
Mar. 24,
Jan. 26,
June 29,
June 11,
do
Feb. 22,
May 20,
Sep. 8,
Aug. 11,
June 7 ,
July 2,
Aug. 12,
May 12,
Aug. 11,
June 11,
Aug. 12,
Aug. 11,
table
1949
1966
1949
1966
1966
1930
1942
1928
1966
1965
1949
1966
1965
1965
1947
1949
1965
1965
1965
1947
1965
1965
1947
29
32
24
32
42
43
20
10
28
33
21
25
21
44
15
21
25
--
14
22
23
26
-
30
30
--
45
9.8
4.0 26.0
8.4
23
.03 12
.02 35
34
3.8 14
36
.53 31
48
92
35
.21 11
0 42
0 50
-
42
48
.03 48
.01 52
-
.0 71
72
--
8.6
.7
3.6
1.2
5.4
3.9
10
11
2.6
5.5
8.2
4.0
37
4.5
3.8
7.1
8.6
-
6.6
15
6.8
4.0
-
4.6
4.5
--
18s/ -- 192
3&£/ -- 40
33.0 2.2 86
30£/ -- 58
38S/ — 73
57 1.0 63
98 3.7 358
70£/ -- 255
29£/ -- 71
lll^ -- 336
60 2.5 240
32 — 176
220 -- 108
36 -- 131
37 .8 64
83 2.1 238
29 1.6 172
202
34£' -- 169
65 3.9 320
75 2.4 212
91 1.3 182
206
20 1.0 226
215' -- 226
194
4.3
8.0
4.6
3.9
4.1
12
20
23
2
30
15
6.8
95
5.4
.4
7.4
9.2
3
19
17
38
24
3
.8
.8
2
17
43
42
27
70
76
28
36
34
34
22
38
210
50
44
84
55
50
33
35
74
120
44
40
41
36
.2
3.8
.1 .2
2.2
.5
.3 .2
.4 .0
.-
.2 0
--
.5 .2
.3 .2
465
.5
.2 8.3
.3 .0
0.2 0.8
--
.2
.5 .2
.4 .2
.5 .2
--
.2 .0
.2 .5
.5
220
154
167
128
242
236
391
309
169
113
279
241
1,190
247
152
164
264
128
232
364
372
408
--
279
281
--
148
27
80
26
79
46
130
130
46
--
111
136
382
106
43
134
160
--
1 32
182
148
146
128
196
198
135
Source: Texas Water Development Board - Report 68
-------
TABLF AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES!/ OF GROUNDWATER - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Well
Depth
of
well
(ft.)
Date of Silica
Collection (SiO )
Iron Cal- Magne-
(Fe) cium slum
(total) (Ca) (Mg)
Bicar-
Potas- bonate
Sodium sium (HCO.,)
(Fa) (K) b/
Sul-
f ate
(S04)
Chlo-
-ide
v'Cl)
Fluo- Ni-
ride t*-ate
(F) (NO )
Dis-
solved
sol ids
Har-
ness
as
Caro-,
CULF COAST (Continued)
YW-65-09-102
203
204
306
307
308
309
402
502
504
505
506
507
601
604
605
802
805
YW-65-09-902
904
YW-65-10-101
102
936
1,020
839
920
767
641
800?
100
530
760
600
586
--
697
478
653
540
860
530
256
982
585
Aug.
June
May
June
June
Aug.
Nov.
May
Aug.
June
Aug.
May
Aug.
June
May
Aug.
June
Aug.
May
July
Aug.
June
May
12,
11,
24,
11,
7,
--
11,
do
5,
27,
12,
7,
do
14,
20,
12,
7,
17,
14,
22,
30,
17,
21,
do
11,
15,
24,
1947
1965 25
1965 23
1965 23
1949 33
-
1947
--
1948 23
1965 26
1947
1949 28
26
1947
1965 27
1965 26
1949 28
1965 30
1947
1960 22
1965 27
1965 30
1965 29
1947
1965 23
1965 29
.04 47 6.5
0 54 8.1
.02 50 9.5
43 4.9
-
--
-
77 6.2
.02 49 6.3
-
54 3.9
60 9.6
-
.00 60 7.4
58 6.7
48 7.1
50 5.2
-
.19 61 8.1
.02 78 9.1
0 65 5.8
65 5,3
-
.00 45 5.3
.00 62 5.7
194
34 1.1 180
65 2.0 228
44 2.2 200
51-^ -- 217
204
202
186
l^ — 228
36 1.2 176
192
45 -- 180
41 -- 214
208
40 1.3 200
4S£' -- 204
38£/ -- 178
30£' -- 168
190
40 2.2 190
40 1.3 232
31 1.0 216
32£' — 216
216
202
46 1.5 217
28 .9 210
9
5.6
17
15
5.9
2
3
2
6.6
4.8
2
5.3
11
5
8.6
11
12
.2
3
19
8.6
3.4
2.4
2.0
2
8.2
3.2
64
41
78
59
38
48
50
54
28
53
80
67
64
80
67
64
52
51
54
73
81
56
52
53
50
38
46
.2 5.0
.3 .2
.3 .2
1.2
-
--
.8
15
.2 2.5
1.0
1.2
.2
.5
.2 .2
.3 .2
.2
.1 .5
-
.4 .00
.2 .2
0.2 0.0
.2 0
-
.3 .2
.2 .8
1 32
254
360
301
280
--
--
--
298
266
--
292
325
-
376
311
271
250
--
334
359
298
292
-
275
279
144
168
164
127
148
176
189
218
148
128
151
189
155
180
172
149
146
135
186
232
186
184
180
155
134
178
See footnotes at end of table
Source: Texas Water Development Board - Report 68
-------
CHEMICAL ANALYSES-'' OF GROUNDWATER - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Depth
of
well
Well (ft.)
YW-65-10-107 470
402 400?
403 246
YW-66-08-103 337
201 583
602 1,608
902 176
905 1,602
YW- 66 -16- 104 64
105 210
201 120
303 85
Iron
Date of Silica (Fe)
Collection (Si02) (total)
Aug. 11, 1947
do
June 7, 1949 32
June 7, 1949 18 .08
June 14, 1965 23 .17
July 30, 1952 32
June 11, 1965 33
May 28, 1965 26 0.21
June 7, 1949 22
Apr. 9, 1964 21
Mar. 18, 1964 21
Apr. 9, 1964 42 .01
Feb. 24, 1966 24
Location Screened Iron Cal-
of interval Silica (Fe~) cium
Well
Fort Bend County,
30 mi. W Houston
Fort Bend County,
20 mi. SW Houston
Brazoria County,
14 mi . S Hous ton
Brazoria County,
25 mi . S Houston
(ft.) (Si02) (total) (Ca)
7- .- -- 100
172
555-S/ - -- 68
802
1,545- 14 .03^ 14
1,606
?_ -- -- 80
87
590- 18 .04 16
715
Cal-
cium
(Ca)
--
"
64
54
46
19
9.8
22
37
134
48
83
106
Manga-
nese
(Mn)
--
--
--
--
--
Magne- Potas-
sium Sodium sium
(Mg) (Nal (K)
GULF COAST (Continued)
--
-
7.9 35^
16 134£/
12 74 2.8
2.4 235-/
2.3 300£/
4.9 33 1.0
14 US^
30 52-'
4.0 2S£/
13 44 1.5
8.6 67 1.1
Magne- Sodium and
sium potassium
(Mg) (Na 4- K)
10 28
12 35
3.6 119 6.6
28 96
5.0 259
Bicar-
bonate
(HCCO
b/
202
200
231
394
256
431
504
76
269
602
176
318
390
Bicar-
bonate
(HCO,)
b/
290
238
259
427
342
Sul-
f ate
(so4)
3
2
3.3
35
14
90
145
5.8
118
32
8.4
7.8
1.0
Sul-
fate
(S04)
4
10
16
-
1
Chlo- Fluo-
ride ride
(Cl) (F)
46
52
52
93 .3
72 .4
84 .8
84 1.1
55 0.2
86
31 .3
26 .2
59 .3
80 .3
Chlo- Fluo-
(C1-) (F)
78
63
61 1.0
110
240 1.0
Ni- Dis-
f-ate solved
(N03) solids
--
.8
1.2 308
.2 544
.0 370
.5 719
.0 824
4.2 189
.2 557
.2 596
1.0 221
.8 407
1.8 491
Ni- Dis-
t*"at:e solved
(NO,) solids
.5 407
305
.2 363
544
.0 709
Ha^d-
ness
as
C"C03
142
135
192
200
164
58
34
76
150
458
136
260
300
Hard-
ness
as
CaC03
290
219
50
318
60
See footnotes at end of table
Source; Texas Water Commission Bulletin 6305
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES^/ OF GROUNDUATER - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Location
of
Well
3 mi. SE Angleton,
Brazoria County
11 mi. NW Texas
City, Galveston
County
4 mi. W Texas
City, Galveston
County
In Texas City,
Galveston County
10 mi. W Texas
City, Galveston
County
12 mi. VW Texas
City, Calveston
County
In Galveston,
Galveston County
do
11 mi. SW El Campo,
Wharton County
13 mi. N'W El Campo,
Wharton County
11 mi. W Wharton,
Wharton County
Wharton ,
Wharton County
13 mi. SE Wharton,
Wharton County
8 mi. SE Wharton,
Wharton County
15 mi. ' Wharton,
Wharton County
Screened Iron Cal- Mange- Magne- Sodium and
interval Silica (Fe) ciutn nese sium potassium
(ft.) (Si02) (total) (Ca) (Mn) (Mg) (Na + K)
GULF COAST (Continued)
?- 17 .05- 14 -- 5.2 284
235
498-£' 14 .02- 5.4 -- 1.3 184 3.6
576
e/
578- 15 .50 7.7 -- 2.2 265 3.4
700
897- -- -- 39 -- 15 797
1,004
703-£/ 28 -- -- 50 19 561
884
B/
647- 26 -- -- 19 5.6 236
767
?- 17 — -- 18 14 562
397
1,185-S/ 35 -- -- 87 53 2,130
1,310
134-fi 18 -- 105 -- 20 61 2.2
599
110-£/ 39 -- 105 -- 7.2 54 1.0
388
77-S/ 24 - 60 -- 6.7 23 !•'
186
212-S/ -- .15 67 -- 14 32
393
246--' 24 -- 63 -- 17 42 2.5
791
140- 28 — 74 -- 15 39 2.6
532
40- 33 -- 96 .. 7.6 59 1.2
405
Bica —
bonate Sul-
(KCO,) fate
b/ (S04)
428 2
370 2
430 2
350 2
332 0.8
347 2.0
745 1.8
330 .0
291 24
274 16
220 6.0
256 16
292 16
255 14
279 16
"a-d-
Chlo- Fluo- "i- Di =:- ness
*"ide -ide trate solved as
(Cl) (F) (NO^) soUds C»CO,
224 1.3 .8 759 56
79 1.0 .2 471 19
178 1.0 1.2 698 28
1,100 -- 1.2 2,130 159
815 -- 0.2 1,640 203
210 0.6 .0 680 70
490 -- 7.8 ' 480 102
3,400 -- -- 5 870 4^5
158 -- 1.0 5^2 144
121 -- .5 479 292
28 .2 3.2 264 177
47 -- .8 303 225
49 -- .0 359 227
79 .4 .5 411 246
115 -- 1.0 499 270
See footnotes at end of table
Source: Texas Water Commission Bulletin 6305
-------
TABLE AI-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL ANALYSES-'' OF GROUNDWATER - PRIMARY AQUIFERS
Location Screened
of interval
Well (ft.)
12 mi. w Rosenberg, ?-
Fort Bend County 245
Rosenberg, Fort 970-
Bend County 1,590
14 mi. S Rosenberg, 234-
Fort Bend County 1,090
In Brazoria County, 192-
22 mi. SE 837
Rosenberg, Fort
Bend County
In Brazoria County, ?-
19 mi NE Bay 875
City, Matagorda
County
12 mi. NW Freeport, 439-
Brazoria County 468
Freeport, 206-
Brazoria County 247
4 mi . :>£ Bay City, ?-
Mataeorda County 530
16 mi. SE Bay City. 193-
Matagorda County 728
14 mi. S Bay City, 150-
Matagorda County 720
13 mi. W Bay City, 520-
Matagorda County 761
19 mi . SW Bay City, 85-
Matagorda County 466
5 mi. NW Palacios, ?-
Matagorda County 696
4 mi. E Palacios, ?-
Matagorda County 770
Source: Texas Water Commission
a/ mg/1 except where otherwise
b/ Includes the equivalent of
Bicar-
Iron Cal- Mange- Magne- Sodium and bonate Sul-
Silica (Fe) cium nese slum potassium (HCO ) fate
(Si02) (total) (Ca) (Mn) (Mg) ('ia + K) b/ (S04)
GULF COAST (Continued)
20 -- 67 — 20 99 475 14
15 .13 22 .00 6.1 87 2.1 253 .2
19 -- 74 -- 18 185 2.6 278 14
18 -- 36 -- 8.1 128 324 2.8
15 -- 26 -- 9.5 428 382 2.4
14 .96 22 .2 12 357 2.9 382 .4
16 -- 0.4 23 15 302 -- 572 2
24 -- -- 83 27 119 2.3 456 16
22 -- -- 126 35 151 460 44
21 -- -- 37 8.8 143 -- 366 11
28 -- -- 61 19 52 2.7 291 17
28 -- -- 62 30 143 1.9 422 46
21 -- -- 26 16 93 2.3 286 18
17 -- -- 9,9 4.3 177 344 11
Bulletin 6305
spec if ied
any carbon present
Ha*-d
rhlo- Fluo- ^i- Dis- ness
ride *-ide t^ate solved as
(cl) (F) ("0^) solids CaPOj
41 .8 .0 496 249
43 .4 .0 300 80
305 -- 2.5 792 258
93 .5 .0 445 124
508 1.1 .0 1,180 1.04
408 .8 .0 1 010 104
203 -- -- 1 145
134 -- 0.0 630 H8
256 0.3 1.8 935 458
90 -- .2 498 128
68 -- .0 391 230
140 .6 .0 671 278
60 .5 .0 378 1 n
94 -- .0 488 42
c/ Sodium a<-;d potassium calculated as sodium
d/ Iron in solution
e/ Well used for public supply
I/ Well on river terrace or fl
ood plain
e/ Not screened throughout interval
i .rate ban 2
-------
TABLE A 1-2
CHEMICAL ANALYSES^/ OF GROUNBW/.TER - SECONDARY AQUIFERS
Well
BA-26-03-602
RU-24-05-401
JU-29-19-901
JU-29-20-501
UA-29-36-601
UA-29- 36-905
WZ-29-01-601
WZ-29-09-201
WZ-29-10-401
VZ-29-10-503
WZ-29-19-101
WZ-29-19-202
BJ-59-21-301
BJ-59-21-302
r,J-59-21-718
ZK-58-19-802
ZK-58-27-801
LV-32-55-905
LW-32-63-901
Depth
of
V_l 1
C I i
(ft.)
57
60
90
62
165
180
147
285
190
320
Spring
41
Source: Tcxa» Water
»/ ng/1 except where
cl Sodium a
Date of Silica
Collection (SiO )
June
Apr,
Nov.
Oct.
Mar.
Apr.
July
May
Dec.
Dec.
«.y
Nov.
.Juno
Feb.
Mar.
May
Jan.
Corantag
29,
18,
24,
7,
22,
13,
23,
do
do
4,
20,
2,
10,
22,
10,
30,
19,
--,
ion
•pecified
1961 52
1952 12
1942
1943
I960 21
1960 15
1960 25
12
26
1961 14
1943
1943
1938
1942 18
1943 31
1941 10
1941
1960 12
1943 10
Bulletin 6310
Iron - Cal- Magnc- potas-
(total) (ca) (.Mg) (Na) (K)
EDWARDS - TRINITY
118 52 180S-/
180 204 455S-'
SANTA ROSE
84 60 22^'
— 80 , 77 51-'
.00^ 94 27 31 6.0
• 79 12 16 2.0
74 32 ' . 33^'
9.5 4.5 49^
62 19 40s'
" — 30 10 122 2.5
63 21 \(f-!
69 17 31-'
QUEEN CITY
4.8 2.1 485^'
SPARTA
.04 2.0 .3 67-
.73 2.0 .4 84i'
EDWARDS
0.05 124 23 12i'
.02 109 23 6.7-'
' WOODBINE
• . 32 16 308^
0.02^ 2.7 ' 1.1 278 11
Bicar-
bonate
<«co3>
270
344
396
393
258
275
• 351
318
232
326
253
275
1,070
155
172
360
374
307
508
Sul-
f ate
240
1,070
199
193
74
22
67
44
47
68
29
29
6.9
5.7
20
36
40
466
160
Chlo- .
i*i de
(Cl)
270
620
135
69
75
19
21
40
24
32
25
32
72
12
18
35
15
56
35
Fluo- ' Nl- D's-
(F) (KOj) sol'ds
3.5 47 1.100
2.0 .5 2.710
0.2 795
8.4 722
1.6 20 5U
4.0 307
.3 .0 426
.7 .5 416
1.0. 2.2 360
1.7 .0 440
6.9 286
12 325
1.6 .1 1.150
•_
.2 '.0 ' -184
.5 . .0 265
.0 60 484
.2 14 408
0.2 1.040
0.2 2.5 762
Vt-i-
nesfi
f"az
508
1 . 290
456
516
346
246
ST6
42
212
116
244
242
2'
6
6
404
367
146
12
d/ Iron in «oluti«n
-------
123
APPENDIX II
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN SIMULATION MODEL
General
A mathematical model was constructed to simulate hydro-
logic conditions expected in the year 2020. The model
was used to predict surface water quality with salinity
control projects in place. Numerous optional projects
were tested, however, the following discussion will be
restricted primarily to a description of the Corps of
Engineer Plan 4A since this plan appears to produce the
most desirable result. Alternative Plan 4B discussed
in Appendix III is the same as Plan 4A with the reser-
voir at Dam Site 20 deleted.
Model Design
Figure AII-1 is a schematic drawing of the five segments
of the model. Separation into segments was necessary to
adjust to the computer limitations. Each segment can be
operated separately or all segments can be linked to run
sequentially. When the segments are linked, overlapping
or duplicate parts are eliminated. The schematic draw-
ing shows all possible elements for all optional plans
examined. Individual elements may be "zeroed out" when
a specific plan is examined.
The model was first designed to duplicate, as closely as
possible, flow and quality conditions observed during
the period water years (WY) 1941-62. The model was then
modified to include water supply reservoirs and salinity
control structures proposed for construction prior to
the year 2020. Runoff quantity and quality was kept the
same as for the WY 1941-62 conditions. A water supply
and waste water return flow plan (Table AII-1) for the
year 2020, was then imposed on the system.
The model is designed to simulate mean monthly flow and
quality conditions. Each month (season) is examined as
a separate time frame. It is assumed that runoff from
the upper most point in the model will flow to the
lowermost point in the model during a single time frame,
provided it is not captured in a reservoir or diverted
out of the system.
Answers or model output is produced in the form of sta-
tistical information concerning the probable consequences
-------
SEGMENT "A"
SEGMENT "B"
SEGMENT "C"
SEGMENT "D1
SEGMENT "E"
[42 C]
LEGEND
—D
•
O
(MOO)
A
[70]
WASTE LOADING POINT
JUNCTION OR TEST POINT
U.S.G.S. STATION
U. S G. S. STATION NUMBER
EXISTING RESERVOIR (2020 CONDITIONS)
PROPOSED RESERVOIR
OR POSSIBLE DIVERSION
OVERLAPPED STREAM REACH
DUPLICATE COORDINATES
MODEL
COORDI-
SEGMENT NATE
A
B
W A
4
8
12
15
19
24
27
3
5
9
10
14
19
20
23
24
30
31
34
35
single reserve
RESERVOIR
C/E Dam Site 1
C/E Dam Site 2
White River
C/E Dam Site 23
C/E Dam Site 4
C/E Dam Site 24
C/E Dam Site 20
C/E Dam Site 24
C/E Dam Site 20
C/E Dam Site 25
C/E Dam Site 10
C/E Dam Site 14
C/E Dam Site 16
C/E Dam Site 18
C/E Dam Site 22
Substitute for Test Point
C/E Dam Site 27
C/E Dam Site 19
Substitute for Test Point
Substitute for Test Point
ir has been used in the model
MODEL COORDI-
SEGMENT NATE
C 2
4
7
11
16
17
21 a/
24
27
30
34
39
D 3
5 a/
9
12 a/
14
to represent the affect
MODEL
RESERVOIR SEGMENT
White River E
C/E Dam site 10
C/E Dam Site 14
C/E Dam Site 19
Millers Creek
Potential Diversion Dam
Fort Phantom Hill
(Sweetwater , Abilene,
Kirby, Cisco)
Diversion Dam
Stamford
Breckenridge
Hubbard Lake
Lake Graham
Substitute for Test Point
Possum Kingdom Lake (Palo
Pinto Ck., Mineral Hells)
Potential Off-Stream Storage
Lake Granbury (Pat Cleburne)
Lake Whitney
of a combined group. Storage volumes are added
COORDI-
NATE
3
6
8
14
18
20
24
28
30
31
32
37
42
44
47
RESERVOIR
Lake Granbury
Lake Whitney
Aquilla Creek
a/ Waco Lake (Stephenville)
a/ Proctor Lake (Leon)
Bel ton Lake
Still house Hollow Lake
North San Gabriel Lake
South San Gabriel Lake
Laneport
Cameron
Somerville Lake
Navasota 2
Hi 11 i can
Diversion Dam
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN - TEXAS
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN
SIMULATION MODEL SCHEMATIC
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE All-l
-------
TABLE A II-]
a/
WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE WATER RETURN FLOW PLAN -
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN SIMULATION MODEL
(2020 CONDITIONS)
Area
White River
Sub-Area 1
Seymour
Benjamin
Munday
Baylor Co. Other
Haskell Co. Other
Knox Co. Other
Olney
Young Co. Other
Haskell
Anson
Irrigation
Young Co. Other
Abi 1 ene
Sweetwater
Sweetwater
Nolan Co. Other
Stamford
Ham! i n
Haskell Co. Other
Throckmorton
Young Co. Other
Abilene
Sweetwater
Stamford
Albany
Shackelford Co. Other
Abilene
Fisher Co. Other
Breckenridge
Eastland Co. Other
Stevens Co. Other
Scurry Co. Other
Graham
Graham
Steven Co. Other
Ranger
Eastland Co. Other
Jack Co. Other
Parker Co. Other
Mineral Wells
Palo Pinto Co. Other
Granbury
Hood Co. Other
Johnson Co. Other
Glen Rose
Somerville Co. Other
Cleburn
McGregor
Waco
Waco
McLennan Co. Other
Marl in
Falls Co. Other
McLennan Co. Other
Irrigation
Hillsboro
Hill Co. Other
Meridian
2020
Requirement
AF/YR
3,600
1,149
120
631
24
1,436
326
1,753
6,350
1,436
1 ,701
12,000
1,750
11,300
1 ,700
2,400
285
600
1 ,532
1 ,435
432
10,758
31 ,900
6,200
1,835
789
379
11 ,900
118
3,000
26
122
1,323
6,400
2,100
59
1,229
21
77
539
10,085
1,533
798
124
1,462
394
64
12,756
4,322
40,100
20,000
13,239
3,498
1,061
4,021
50,985
5,366
498
907
Ground
Water
AF/YR
120
24
1,436
326
285
1 ,532
1 ,435
5,358
118
26
122
1,323
59
1,229
21
77
539
124
394
64
1,249
498
907
Surface
Water
AF/YR
3,600
1,149
631
1 ,753
6,350
1,436
1,701
12,000
1 ,750
11,300
1 ,700
2,400
600
432
5,400
31 ,900
6,200
1,835
789
379
11,900
3,000
6,400
2,100
10,085
1,533
798
1,462
12,756
3,073
40,100
20,000
13,239
3,498
1,061
4,021
50,985
5,366
Model Coordinate
Groundwater
Return Flow
13C
13C
13C
13C
22C
28C
28C
13C
22C
41 C
41C
41 C
41C
2E
2E
2E
2E
4E
4E
4E
12E
9E
12E
Model Coordinate
Surface Water
Return Flow
IDA
25B
14C
14C
14C
14C
29C
29C
18C
18C
23C
23C
23C
29C
18C
18C
23C
23C
29C
18C
18C
23C
40C
37C
37C
IE
IE
5E
5E
5E
13E
15E
15E
15E
15E
15E
15E
15E
IDE
Reservoir
White River
(Out of Basin)
Millers-Elm Cr.
Millers-Elm Cr.
Millers-Elm Cr.
Millers-Elm Cr.
Millers-Elm Cr.
Millers-Elm Cr.
Div. Dam Coord. 17
Div. Dam Coord. 17
Ft. Phantom, Hill
Sweetwater
Oak Cr. (Ft. Phantom
Stamford
Breckenridge
Breckenridge
Breckenridge
Breckenridge
Breckenridge
Breckenridge
Breckenridge
Hubbard Creek
Hubbard Creek
Graham Reservoir
Possum Kingdom
DeCordova Bend
DeCordova Bend
DeCordova Bend
DeCordova Bend
DeCordova Bend
Whitney
Whitney (PK)
Whitney (PK)
Whitney (PK)
Whitney (PK)
Whitney (PK)
Whitney (PK)
Whitney (PK)
Aquilla
Diversion
Number
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
H.)
1
2
2
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
Notes
k/
c/
c/
c/
b/
-------
:AELE A II-l (Continued)
2020
Requi rement
Area
Bosque Co. Other
Coryell Co. Other
Stephenville
Erath Co. Other
Hamilton Co. Other
Irrigation
Be 11 mead
Waco
Hearne
Robertson Co. Other
Comanche Co. Other
Gatesville
Coryell Co. Other
Erath Co. Other
Hamilton
Hamilton Co. Other
Eastland Co. Other
Comanche
McLennan Co. Other
Eastland
Irrigation
Cisco
Waco
Bel ton
Ki 1 een
Copperas Cove
Temple
Irrigation
Burnet
Lampasas
Lampasas Co. Other
Bell Co. Other
Irrigation
Georgetown
Irrigation
Taylor
Irrigation
Irrigation
Williamson Co. Other
Cameron
Mi lam Co. Other
Lee Co. Other
Freestone Co.
Leon Co. Other
Hex i a
Limestone Co. Other
Teague
Bryan
College Station
Caldwell
Burleson Co. Other
Mi lam Co. Other
Brazos Co. Other
foavasota
Grimes Co. Other
Walker Co. Other
Brenham
Washington Co. Other
Rockdale
Bellville
AF/YR
6
31
11
45
3
2
1
2
2
4
1
25
5
12
3
22
11
3
5
31
4
6
4
8
1
2
3
1
31
12
1
4
2
4
2
224
17
,885
403
52
,250
,806
,587
,010
874
537
,372
96
227
,161
116
200
,031
226
,133
,600
,454
,000
,913
,277
,030
,409
,500
472
,400
215
,476
,000
,609
,500
,798
,900
,796
,200
422
147
123
90
,671
,206
954
,886
,444
991
471
258
380
,447
186
101
,381
,414
,167
,870
Ground
Water
AF/YR
224
17
2,000
403
52
3,010
874
537
96
227
1,161
116
200
226
472
3,776
1 ,796
123
90
1,206
954
20,000
5,000
991
471
258
101
4,381
2,414
4,167
2,870
Surface
Water
AF/YR
4,800
31,250
11,806
45,587
2,372
2,031
2,133
4,600
1,454
25,000
5,913
12,277
3,030
22,409
11 ,500
3,400
215
1 ,700
31 ,000
4,609
6,500
4,798
6,037
2,885
2,200
422
T7
3,671
11 ,886
7,500
380
1,447
186
Model Coordinate
Groundwater
Return Flow
12E
12E
12E
12E
12E
16E
16E
26E
26E
26E
26E
26E
26E
26E
23E
2GE
26E
40E
40E
40E
40E
34E
34E
34E
34E
34E
45E
45E
45E
45E
45E
Model Coordinate
Surface Water
Return Flow
13E
13E
15E
15E
19E
19E
19E
19E
19E
15E
21E
21E
21 E
21E
21E
23E
23E
22E
22E
29E
29E
27E
27E
27E
33E
33E
39E
40E
35E
35E
39E
39E
39E
Diversion
Reservoir Number Notes
Waco
Waco
Waco
Waco
Proctor
Proctor
Proctor
Proctor
Proctor
Belton
Bel ton
Belton
Belton
Belton
Belton
Still house Hollow
Stillhouse Hollow
Stillhouse Hollow
Stillhouse Hollow
N. San Gabriel
N. San Gabriel
Laneport
Laneport
Cameron
Cameron
Cameron
Some rvi lie
(Trinity Basin)
Millican
Millican
Millican
Millican
Mi 1 1 ican
1
i
>
>
j
>
>
)
1 e/
1
>
j
>
3
3
'- !/
> f/
I
3
j
3
?
3
3
?
?
?
1
1
•>_
I
I
-------
TABLE A II-l (Continued)
Area
Washington Co. Other
Austin Co. Other
Hempstead
Walker Co. Other
Rosenberg
Richmond
Fort Bend Co. Other
Coastal
202C
Requirement
AF/YR
598
1,030
5,728
1 ,170
25,068
17,181
3,600
829,900
Ground
Water
AF/YR
598
1,030
5,728
1,170
25,068
17,181
3,600
Surface
Water
AF/YR
829,900
Model Coordinate
Groundwater
Return Flow
45E
45E
45E
45E
45E
45E
45E
Model Coordinate
Surface Water
Return Flow
Reservoir
Diversion
Number
Notes
45E
Diversion Dam
a/ This distribution of supply only includes an account of surface water resources that contribute to the main stem resources above Richmond.
It does not include possible imports from East Texas.
b/ Resource to basin is represented by return flow of 40,688 AF/YR introduced at waste site 1 Coordinate 25 of model segment 'B'. No other
sub-area 1 conditions are included in the basin model.
£/ Only 11,300 AF/YR is drafted from Fort Phantom Hill Reservoir. Return flow is increased to represent waste returned from Sweetwater area
generated from Sweetwater and Oak Creek Reservoir supplies.
d_/ Due to the segmentation of the basin model, diversion of 2100 AF/YR could not be returned to the Graham area. This quantity is drafted
from P.K. with zero return flow. Return to system is represented by increasing the quantity of return flow from diversion at Lake Graham.
e/ Due to the segmentation of the basin model, diversion of 1454 AF/YR could not be returned to the Cisco area. This quantity is drafted
from Proctor with zero return flow. Return to system is represented by waste returned at waste site 5 Coordinate 41 in model segment 'C'.
f_/ The 3615 AF/YR requirement is drafted by diversion two. No waste is returned. Model limitation of only three diversions made this repre-
sentation necessary.
San Jacinto-Brazos (Brazos System)
Irrigation
Municipal and Industrial
San Jacinto-Brazos (Houston System)
Municipal and Industrial
Total Diversion
332,700
413,600
83,600
-------
128
of the implementation of proposals under study. Con-
sequences evaluated are water quality, streamflow and
reservoir levels. The model yields statistical mo-
ments and probability distributions of these
consequences.
Model Operation
The 2020 model with salinity control plans 4A and 4B
was operated to satisfy surface water demands speci-
fied in Table AII-1. Since only three explicit
withdrawals (diversions) could be made from a single
reservoir, it was often necessary to specify one with-
drawal for satisfying the combined needs of a large
area. The quantity and quality of each diversion was
modified to represent conversion of the water supply
to waste water (Table AII-2). The waste water was
then returned to the system for use further downstream.
The quality of municipal and industrial waste water was
generated by arbitrarily increasing the concentration
of water supply mineral constituents as follows:
chloride 75 mg/1; sulfate 30 mg/1 and total dissolved-
solids 222 mg/1. Irrigation water supply
concentrations were tripled to represent waste water
concentrations. Where groundwater supplies were used,
the quality of the supply was estimated and the proce-
dure described above was used to convert the supply to
waste water. Waste water from use of groundwater sup-
plies is injected into the system at waste loading
points (Table AII-3).
Basically local surface water needs are supplied by
reservoirs closest to the point of demand. Supplies
surplus to local demands are systematically moved
downstream through the main stem of the Brazos River to
points of heavy demand. Demands in the lower basin
below the mouth of the Navasota River are satisfied
first from resources above the Little River system and
uncontrolled runoff, then from the Little River system,
and then from the Navasota River system.
-------
TABLE AII-2
SURFACE HATER DISTRIBUTION ^
UATER SUPPLY AND WASTE HATER RETURN FLOU PLAN
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN SIMULATION MODEL
(2020 CONDITIONS)
SURFACE UATER DISTRIBUTION
SEASONAL DIVERSION QUANTITY (cfsm) -
Reservoir
Uhite River
Millers Creek
Diversion Dam
Fort Phantom Hill
Stamford
Breckenridge
Hubbard Lake
Graham
Possum Kingdom Lake
Lake Granbury
Lake Hhitney
Aquilla Creek
Waco Lake
Proctor Lake
Bel ton Lake
Stillhouse Hollow Lake
North San Gabriel Lake
Laneport
Cameron
Somerville Lake
Millican
Reservoir
Coordinate
12A
16C
16C
17C
21C
27C
30C
30C
30C
34C
34 C
39C
5D
3E
3E
6E
6E
6E
8E
14E
14E
14E
18E
18E
18E
20E
20E
20E
25E
25E
28E
28E
31 E
31 E
32E
32 E
37 E
44E
44E
Return Model
Flow Diversion
Coordinate Number
10A 1
14C 1
290 2
18C 3
23C 2
29C 2
23C 1
180 2
29C 3
23C 1
40C 2
37C 2
6D 2
5E 2
IE 3
15E 1
13E 2
15E 3
10E 2
13E 1
15E 2
13E 3
19E 1
19E 2
19E 3
15E 1
21E 2
21E 3
22E 2
22E 3
29E 2
29E 3
27E 2
27E 3
33E 2
27E 3
39E 2
35E 1
39E 2
Annual
Diversion
3,600
9,883
3,137
13,750
11,300
600
38,100
7,000
1,835
11,900
3,000
6,400
2,100
15,016
11,618
81,919
3,073
50,985
5,366
4,800
57,393
31,250
1,454
6,536
4,600
25,000
43,629
11,500
5,315
31 ,000
4,609
6,500
4,798
6,037
2,622
2,885
147
19,386
2,013
Fraction
Diversion
Returned
0.00
0.56
0.49
0.17
0.57
0.46
0.48
0.46
0.45
0.49
0.51
0.73
0.00
0.61
0.60
0.54
0.56
0.19
0.60
0.59
0.56
0.20
0.00
0.50
0.20
0.57
0.51
0.20
0.16
0.20
0.46
0.20
0.55
0.20
0.51
0.20
0.00
0.50
0.50
Annual
Return
Flow (AF)
0
5,534
1,537
2,338
6,441
276
18,288
3,220
825
5,831
1,530
4,672
0
9,160
6,971
44,236
1,721
9,687
3,220
2,832
32,140
6,250
0
3,268
920
14,250
22,251
2,300
850
6,200
2,120
1,300
2,639
1,207
1,337
577
0
9,693
1,006
Oct
4.97
15.55
4.94
4.42
12.54
0.94
42.28
7.77
2.04
13.21
3.33
10.07
3.30
17.90
13.86
97.69
3.66
30.47
7.02
5.72
68.45
2.69
1.76
7.90
1.95
29.82
52.03
4.90
6.33
13.20
5.50
2.76
6.68
2.57
3.65
1.23
0.20
28.50
2.97
Nov
4.97
9.66
3.07
5.06
11.04
0.59
37.23
6.84
1.79
11.63
2.93
6.25
2.05
14.50
11.16
78.70
2.95
4.96
6.04
4.61
55.14
0.88
1.32
5.95
0.77
24.02
41.92
1.94
5.10
5.24
4.43
1.09
5.09
1.02
2.78
0.48
0.16
24.01
2.50
Dec
4.97
10.31
3.27
0.57
10.85
0.63
36.60
6.73
1.76
11.43
2.88
6.68
2.19
14.70
11.35
80.05
3.00
0.40
5.95
4.69
56.09
0.36
1.25
5.63
0.12
24.43
42.64
0.32
5.19
0.87
4.50
0.18
4.53
0.17
2.48
0.08
0.14
24.33
2.53
Jan
4.97
8.68
2.75
0.64
10.48
0.53
35.34
6.49
1.70
11 .04
2.78
5.62
1.84
14.50
11.16
78.70
2.95
0.00
5.69
4.61
55.14
0.57
1.08
4.87
0.15
24.02
41.92
0.38
5.10
1.03
4.43
0.22
5.01
0.20
2.74
0.01
0.15
23.05
2.40
Feb
4.97
8.02
2.55
1.89
9.73
0.49
32.82
6.03
1.58
10.25
2.58
5.19
1.70
12.90
10.0
70.56
2.64
18.20
5.24
4.13
49.43
1.71
1.06
4.76
0.30
21.53
37.58
0.76
4.57
2.05
3.97
0.43
4.61
0.40
2.52
0.19
0.14
21.13
2.20
Mar
4.97
8.68
2.75
6.33
12.16
0.53
41.02
7.54
1.98
12.81
3.23
5.61
1.84
14.90
11.74
82.77
3.10
16.97
5.51
4.84
57.99
12.37
1.16
5.19
2.41
25.26
44.08
6.04
5.37
16.26
4.66
3.41
4.69
3.17
2.56
1.52
0.14
24.01
2.50
4.97
9.17
2.91
6.97
12.72
0.56
42.91
7.88
2.07
13.40
3.38
5.94
1.94
!6.10
12.51
88.20
3.30
13.58
6.40
5.16
61.79
13.04
1.30
5.85
3.10
26.92
46.97
7.77
5.72
20.95
4.96
4.39
5.56
4.08
3.04
1.95
0.17
23.05
2.40
4.97
9.49
3.01
9.50
15.22
0.58
53.01
9.74
2.55
16.56
4.17
6.15
2.01
19.40
15.01
105.84
3.97
58.22
7.64
6.20
74.15
19.57
1.61
7.25
6.80
32.30
56.37
17.01
6.87
45.85
5.95
9.61
5.56
8.93
3.04
4.28
0.17
27.21
2.83
Jun
4.97
16.70
5.30
30.38
21.52
1.01
72.58
13.33
3.49
22.67
5.71
10.81
3.54
27.50
21.36
150.62
5.65
236.28
8.44
8.82
105.52
118.43
2.96
13.32
21.34
45.97
80.22
53.36
9.78
143.83
8.47
30.16
7.23
28.01
3.95
13.44
0.22
28.50
2.97
Jul
4.97
22.75
7.22
86.07
25.82
1.38
87.09
16.00
4.19
27.20
6.86
14.74
4.83
36.60
28.29
199.47
7.48
330.36
11.82
11.68
139.75
191.78
4.12
18.51
27.05
60.87
106.24
67.64
12.94
182.34
11.22
38.23
9.30
35.51
5.08
17.04
0.28
33.62
3.50
4.97
22.75
7.22
56.94
26.95
1.38
90.88
16.70
4.38
28.38
7.16
14.74
4.83
36.60
28.29
199.47
7.48
94.91
11.20
11.68
139.75
133.24
4.12
18.51
9.62
60.87
106.24
24.06
12.94
64.85
11. JZ
13.60
12.24
12.63
6.68
6.06
0.37
34.26
3.56
Sep
4.97
21.94
6.96
18.99
17.59
1.33
59.32
10.90
2.86
18.53
4.67
14.21
4.66
22.80
17.70
124.83
4.68
40.16
7.91
7.31
87.46
22.98
2.34
10.50
2.52
38.10
66.49
6.30
8.07
16.00
7.02
3.56
8.98
3.31
4.91
1.58
0.27
28.50
2.97
Annual
Diversion
(cfsm)
59.64
163.70
51.95
227.76
187.12
9.95
631.08
115.95
30.39
197.11
49.68
106.01
34.73
248.40
192.43
1356.90
50.86
844.51
88.86
79.45
950.66
517.62
24.08
108.24
76.13
414.11
722.70
190.48
87.98
512.47
76.33
107.64
79.48
100.00
43.43
47.86
2.41
320.17
33.33
Diversion Dam
829,900
1145.54 1145.54
1145.54 1145.54
1145.54 1145.54 1145.54 1145.54
a/ This distribution of supply only includes an account of surface water resources that contribute to the main stem resources above Richmond. It does not include possible imports from East Texas. Hater requirements in sub-areas 1 and 2 are not fully
satisfied.
b/ Cubic feet per second month (cfsm) X 60.37 = Acre Feet.
-------
TABLE A II-3
GROUNDWATER
GROUNDWATER RETURN FLOW
WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE WATER RETURN FLOW PLAN
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN SIMULATION MODEL
(2020 CONDITIONS)
SEASONAL RETURN FLOW (cfsm) I/
Return
Flow
Coordinate
25B
13C
22C
28C
41 C
2E
4E
9E
12E
16E
23E
26 E
34 E
40 E
45E
Return
Flow
(AF/YR)
40687 a/
3213 ~
136
1379
1409 b/
1055
353
431
2892
3756
211
4123
13282
2621 c/
57073
Oct
34.37
2.82
0.13
1.28
1.31
1.01
0.34
0.46
2.78
4.03
0.20
3.96
13.86
2.73
37.83
Nov
31.68
2.61
0.12
1.19
1.21
0.90
0.30
0.42
2.49
3.43
0.18
3.55
12.76
2.52
34.83
Dec
33.02
2.82
0.15
1.48
1.52
1.07
0.36
0.44
2.92
3.72
0.21
4.17
12.98
2.56
35.43
Jan
38.42
2.98
0.15
1.55
1.59
1.14
0.38
0.51
3.11
3.85
0.23
4.44
15.40
3.04
42.04
Feb
49.87
3.09
0.19
1.92
1.96
1.36
0.45
0.61
3.74
4.06
0.27
5.33
15.40
3.04
54.65
Mar
87.61
5.43
0.26
2.63
2.68
1.94
0.65
0.68
5.32
5.36
0.39
7.58
20.02
3.95
420.00
Apr
99.07
7.40
0.31
3.15
3.23
2.57
0.86
0.95
7.04
6.65
0.52
10.04
25.74
5.08
70.26
May
112.55
7.40
0.32
3.29
3.36
2.57
0.86
0.90
7.04
7.06
0.52
10.04
33.88
6.68
92.48
Jun
63.35
7.13
0.21
2.15
2.19
1.61
0.54
0.64
4.41
6.28
0.32
6.28
24.86
4.91
67.86
Jul
45.82
5.05
0.15
1.53
1.56
1.26
0.42
0.56
3.45
6.77
0.25
4.92
18.48
3.65
50.44
Aug
41.79
3.14
0.13
1.35
1.38
1.01
0.34
0.49
2.78
6.32
0.20
3.96
14.08
2.78
38.43
Sep
36.39
3.35
0.13
1.32
1.35
1.03
0.34
0.48
2.83
4.68
0.21
4.03
12.54
2.47
34.23
a/ Includes return from 37,700 AF/YR surface water supply.
b/ Includes return from 1,454 AF/YR surface water from Proctor Reservoir.
c/ Includes return from 3,671 AF/YR surface water supply.
d/ Cubic feet per second month (cfsm) X 60.37 = Acre Feet.
Annual
Return Flow
(cfsm)
673.94
53.22
2.25
22.84
23.34
17.47
5.84
7.14
47.91
62.21
3.50
68.30
220.00
43.41
978.48
-------
131
Reservoir Rules
Each reservoir is operated according to specified rules,
Brief descriptions of the rules are presented below.
The typical operation for a reservoir is as follows:
1. The current inflow and start of the season
storage are added and the quality of the con-
tents blended.
2. The evaporation loss or rainfall addition is
then considered and the quality re-constituted,
3. The required diversions are then withdrawn
from the total assets.
4. Specified releases are made.
5. Resources in excess of capacity or conserva-
tion storage is spilled.
6. When a test site is encountered where a target
flow has been specified, releases are made
from designated reservoirs to supply supple-
mental needs.
NOTE: (Refer to Table All-2 for Diversions)
White River (Coord. 12A)
a. Local demands are withdrawn by diver-
sion No. 1.
b. Excess above capacity is spilled.
Corps of_ Engineers Dam Site 2_0 (Coord. SB)
a. Excess above capacity could be spilled.
However, the reservoir is sized so that
no spills occur. This reservoir was
deleted for Plan 4B.
Corps of_ Engineers Dam Site 1_0 (Coord. 10B)
a. Pump a maximum quantity water of 11
cfsm to Corps of Engineers Dam Site 19.
-------
132
Pump only the quantity Dam Site 19 will
hold without spilling. If possible,
pump all water out of Dam Site 10.
b. Excess above capacity could be spilled.
Corps p_f Engineers Dam Site 1_4_ (Coord. 14B)
a. Pump a maximum quantity water of 18 cfsm
to Corps of Engineers Dam Site 19.
Pump only the quantity Dam Site 19 will
hold without spilling. If possible,
pump all water out of Dam Site 14.
b. Excess above capacity could be spilled.
Corps of_ Envineers Dam Site 1_9_ (Coord. 3IB)
a. Excess above capacity could be spilled.
Diversion Dam (Coord. 17C)
a. Diversion No. 3 is made to meet local
demands.
Millers Creek (Coord. 16C), Fort Phantom Hill
(Coord. 21C) , Stamford (Coord. 27C) , Brecken-
ridge (Coord. 30C), Hubbard (Coord. 54C, and
Graham (Coord. 39C)
a. Diversions Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are made in
sequence to meet local demands. Reser-
voirs can be drafted down to dead
storage.
b. Excess above capacity will be spilled.
Possum Kingdom Lake (Coord. 5D)
a. Divert a maximum quantity water of 500
cfsm to Coordinate D6. Divert only the
quantity Granbury Lake will hold with-
out spilling. Only divert when Possum
Kingdom storage is above 9200 cfsm.
-------
133
b. Diversion No. 2 is made to meet local
demands.
c. Excess above capacity will be spilled.
Lake Granbury (Coord. 3E)
a. Divert a maximum quantity water of 500
cfsm to Whitney Lake. Divert only the
quantity Whitney Lake will hold without
spilling. Only divert when Lake
Granbury storage is above 1200 cfsm.
b. Diversions Nos. 2 and 3 are made to
meet local demands.
c. Excess above capacity will be spilled.
Whitney Lake (Coord. 6E)
a. Diversions Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are made in
sequence to meet local demands. Reser-
voirs can be drafted down to dead
storage.
b. Excess above conservation pool level
will be spilled.
c. A monthly (seasonal) target flow of 342
cfsm was set at Coordinate 7E. This
target is equal to the expected annual
supply the basin above this point will
provide. Releases are made first from
Whitney Lake and then from Aquilla to
meet this target. Targets are also set
further downstream at Coordinate 46E.
Whitney Lake can be drafted to meet
these targets also if the lower basin
cannot supply demands below Coordinate
7E.
Proctor Lake (Coord. 18E)
a. Diversions Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are made in
sequence to meet local demands. Reser-
voirs can be drafted down to dead
storage .
-------
134
b. Excess above conservation pool level
will be spilled.
c. A monthly (seasonal) target flow of 7
cfsm was set at Coordinate 19E. This
target is equal to the expected annual
yield that is excess to local demands.
Releases are made seasonally to meet
this target. Resources are moved down-
stream.
Belton Lake (Coord. 20E)
a. Diversions Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are made in
sequence to meet local demands. Reser-
voir can be drafted down to dead storage.
b. Excess above conservation pool level will
be spilled.
c. A monthly (seasonal) target flow of 128
cfsm was set at Coordinate 22E. This
target is equal to the expected annual
supply the basin above this point will
provide. Releases are made first from
Belton Lake and then from Stillhouse
Hollow Lake to meet this target. Another
target of 141 cfsm was set at Coordinate
27E. Releases are made first from
Stillhouse Hollow and then from Belton to
meet this target.
Stillhouse Hollow Lake (Coord. 24E)
a. Divert a maximum quantity water of 300
cfsm to Coordinate 22E. Divert only the
quantity Cameron will hold without
spilling. Only divert when Stillhouse
Hollow Lake storage is above 1000 cfsm.
b. Diversions Nos. 2 and 3 are made to meet
local demands.
c. Excess above conservation pool level will
be spilled.
-------
135
d. A monthly (seasonal) target flow of 128
cfsm was set at Coordinate 22E. Releases
are made first from Belton Lake and then
from Stillhouse Hollow Lake to meet this
target. Another target of 141 cfsm was
'set at Coordinate 27E. Releases are made
first from Stillhouse Hollow and then
from Belton to meet this target.
North San Gabriel Lake (Coord. 28E), Laneport
(Coord. 5 IE]
a. Diversions Nos. 2 and 3 are made in
sequence to meet local demands. Reser-
voir can be drafted down to dead storage.
b. Excess above conservation pool level will
be spilled.
Cameron (Coord. 52E)
a. Diversions Nos. 2 and 3 are made in
sequence to meet local demands. Reser-
voir can be drafted down to dead storage.
b. Excess above conservation pool level will
be spilled.
c. A monthly (seasonal) target flow of 270
cfsm was set at Coordinate 33E. This
target is equal to the expected annual
supply the basin above this point will
provide. Releases are made from Cameron
Reservoir to meet this target. A second
target of 763 cfsm is set at Coordinate
35E. When main stem resources cannot
meet this target releases are made from
Cameron (Little River system). A third
target of 1285 cfsm is set at Coordinate
39E to be satisfied by releases from
Millican then Cameron. A fourth target
of 1335 cfsm is set at Coordinate 46E to
be satisfied by releases from Cameron,
Whitney Lake and then Millican.
-------
136
Somerville Lake (Coord. 37E)
a. Diversion No. 2 is made to meet local
demands. Reservoir can be drafted down
to dead storage.
b. Excess above conservation pool level will
be spilled.
c. A monthly (seasonal) target flow of 49
cfsm was set at Coordinate 38E. This
target is equal to the expected annual
yield that is excess to local demands.
Releases are made seasonally to move
resources downstream.
Navasota 2_ (Coord. 42E)
a. Divert a. maximum quantity water of 3000
cfsm to Coordinate 43E. Pump only the
quantity Millican will hold without
spilling. Only divert when Navasota
storage is above 6000 cfsm.
b. Excess above conservation storage will
be spilled.
Millican (Coord. 44E)
a. Diversions Nos. 1 and 2 are made to meet
local demands.
b. Excess above conservation storage will
be spilled.
c. A monthly (seasonal) target flow of 1285
cfsm was set at Coordinate 39E. If the
basin above this point does not supply
adequate resources to meet this target,
then releases are made first from
Millican and then Cameron to satisfy the
target. A second target of 1335 cfsm is
set at Coordinate 46E to be satisfied by
releases from Cameron, Whitney Lake and
then Millican.
-------
137
Diversion Dam (Coord. 47E)
a. Diversion No. 1 is made to meet demands
in the San-Jacinto Brazos Coastal Basin
service area.
-------
138
APPENDIX III
ALTERNATIVE PLAN 4B
Project Description
Alternative Plan 4B involves construction of only three
of the reservoirs included in Plan 4A. Plan 4B does not
include the reservoir at Dam Site 20 on the main stem of
the Salt Fork Brazos River (See Figures III-l and III-2).
All reservoirs in Plan 4B are located on tributaries.
Site 10 is located on Croton Creek, site 14 is on Salt
Croton Creek and site 19 is on North Croton Creek. The
reservoirs at sites 10 and 14 will be used only for col-
lection and temporary storage. Water collected in these
reservoirs will be pumped into site 19 for permanent
storage. The reservoir at site 14 will be dry much of
the time. All three reservoirs are adequately sized to
prevent passage of any surface flow past the dam sites.
Water Quality Control (Plan 4B)
Figures AIII-1, AIII-2, and AIII-3 graphically depict
the projected quality of water resources in the main
stem of the Brazos River after the Plan 4B salinity con-
trol project is in place and the year 2020 water supply
and waste water return flow plan (Appendix II) is
operating. Quality curves for Plan 4A are also shown
for comparison. The graphs do not reflect improvements
in quality conditions that will accrue from reduction of
pollution from oil production. Graphs are shown on each
figure to describe the quality condition expected at
five locations - USGS (stream gage and quality) Station
No. 825 Brazos River at Seymour, Texas; USGS (stream gage)
Station No. 890 Brazos River near Palo Pinto 20 miles
downstream from Possum Kingdom Dam; USGS (stream gage)
Station No. 965 Brazos River at Waco, Texas, 2 1/2 miles
downstream from the Bosque River; USGS (stream gage and
quality) Station No. 1090 Brazos River near Bryan,
Texas; USGS (stream gage and quality) Station No. 1140
Brazos River at Richmond, Texas, river mile 93.
Table AIII-1 presents values excerpted from the graphs
and predictions of future quality conditions.
If the quality of water expected at Station No. 825 is
measured with the potability scale (Table VIII-4), the
quality would range from fair to unacceptable and would
-------
USGS STATION No. 825
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
USGS STATION No. 890
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
USGS STATION No. 965
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
USGS STATION No. 1090
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
USGS STATION No. 1140
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
0 10 20 30 40 50 6O 70 80 90 100
LEGEND
NOTE I
O H D J M A M J J A S
ONDJFHAMJJAS
ONOJ MAMJJAS
SEASONS
ONDJFHAMJJAS
ONDJFMAMJJAS
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY CURVE REPRESENTING QUALITY CONDITIONS
ASSUMING 2O2O BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITH SALT CONTROL (PLAN 48)
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY CURVE REPRESENTING QUALITY CONDITIONS
ASSUMING 2O20 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITH SALT CONTROL (PLAN 4A)
RANGE OF MEAN MONTHLY CONCENTRATIONS ONE STANDARD DEVIATION
ABOVE AND BELOW THE MEAN CONCENTRATION FOR THE PERIOD OF
RECORD ASSUMING 2020 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITH SALT CONTROL
WATER YEARS 1941-62 STREAMFLOW RECORDS WERE USED
FOR SIMULATION OF MATHEMATICAL MODEL FLOW
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN- TEXAS
MEAN MONTHLY CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS
(MATHEMATICAL MODEL SMULATON) - PLAN 4B
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE Alll-l
-------
USGS STATION No. 825
800
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
USGS STATION No. 890
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
.0 10 2O 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
USGS STATION No. 965
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
_0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
USGS STATION No. 1090
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
0000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
USGS STATION No. 1140
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LEGEND
ONDJFMAMJJAS
ONDJFMAMJJAS
ONDJFMAMJJAS
SEASONS
ONDJFMAMJJAS
ON DJ FMAMJJ AS
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY CURVE REPRESENTING QUALITY CONDITIONS
ASSUMING 2020 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITH SALT CONTROL (PLAN 4B)
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY CURVE REPRESENTING QUALITY CONDITIONS
ASSUMING 2020 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITH SALT CONTROL (PLAN 4A)
RANGE OF MEAN MONTHLY CONCENTRATIONS ONE STANDARD DEVIATION
ABOVE AND BELOW THE MEAN CONCENTRATION FOR THE PERIOD OF
RECORD ASSUMING 2020 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITH SALT CONTROL
NOTE '. WATER YEARS 1941-62 STREAMFLOW RECORDS WERE USED
FOR SIMULATION OF MATHEMATICAL MODEL FLOW
\
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN- TEXAS
MEAN MONTHLY SULFATE CONCENTRATIONS
(MATHEMATICAL MODEL SIMULATION )-PLAN 4B
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE AIII-2
-------
USGS STATION No. 825
4OOO
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9O 100
USGS STATION No. 890
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
USGS STATION No. 965
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
_0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
USGS STATION No. 1090
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
USGS STATION No. 1140
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
3OOO| | I |I Ii i
LEGEND
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY CURVE REPRESENTING QUALITY CONDITIONS
ASSUMING 2020 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITH SALT CONTROL (PLAN 4B)
NON-EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY CURVE REPRESENTING QUALITY CONDITIONS
ASSUMING 2020 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITH SALT CONTROL (PLAN 4A)
RANGE OF MEAN MONTHLY CONCENTRATIONS ONE STANDARD DEVIATION
ABOVE AND BELOW THE MEAN CONCENTRATION FOR THE PERIOD OF
RECORD ASSUMING 2020 BASIN DEVELOPMENT WITH SALT CONTROL
NOTE! WATER YEARS 1941-62 STREAM FLOW RECORDS WERE USED
FOR SIMULATION OF MATHEMATICAL MODEL FLOW
SALINITY CONTROL
INTERIM REPORT FOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN- TEXAS
MEAN MONTHLY TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS
(MATHEMATICAL MODEL SIMULATION )-PLAN 4B
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI DALLAS, TEXAS
FIGURE AIII-3
-------
Station
(Figure V-2)
Stream and Location
TABLE AIII-1
SURFACE WATER QUALITY PREDICTION (PLAN 4B)
Quality Prediction (2020 Conditions)
Simulation Model Quality
825 Brazos River at Seymour
Sulfate
Chloride
Dissolved Solids
890 Brazos River near Palo Pinto
Sulfate
Chloride
Dissolved Solids
965 Brazos River at Waco
Sulfate
Chloride
Dissolved Solids
1090 Brazos River near Bryan
Sulfate
Chloride
Dissolved Solids
1140 Brazos River at Richmond
Sulfate
Chloride
Dissolved Solids
Potability Scale Classification
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unacceptable
% of Time Mean Monthly
Concentration Will Be In Class
20 14 66
16 66 18
12 52 36
42 53 5
48 46 6
Percent of Time
10 25
Mean
(2020
630
1260
3100
345
315
1035
250
215
825
150
145
600
135
155
610
Equaled or
50
Exceeded
75 90
Monthly Concentration (mg/1)
Conditions With 1941-62 Runoff)
560
1000
2625
315
290
960
195
180
710
110
115
490
105
115
440
435
660
1750
275
245
830
120
115
490
75
70
340
65
65
300
325 245
320 180
1125 825
210 105 -
215 175
735 585
80 55
75 55
375 280
40 30
45 30
230 175
40 30
40 25
225 185
-------
143
be unacceptable approximately 66 percent of the time,
poor approximately 14 percent of the time and fair only
20 percent of the time. Development of municipal sup-
plies at this point would not be recommended. The
quality would be acceptable for other uses such as
selective use for irrigation, livestock watering and
mining.
At Station 890 the quality will range from Good to Poor,
is poor approximately 18 percent of the time, fair ap-
proximately 66 percent of the time and good approximately
16 percent of the time. Satisfactory municipal supplies
could be withdrawn at this point by selective pumping.
The quality compares favorably with municipal supplies
currently in use in the general locality. Larger munic-
ipalities could use water from this point for mixing
with existing supplies.
At Station No. 965 the quality will range from Excellent
to Fair, is fair approximately 36 percent of the time,
good approximately 52 percent of the time, and excellent
approximately 12 percent of the time. Municipal supplies
withdrawn at this point would be very satisfactory. The
quality compares favorably with municipal groundwater
supplies currently used in the general locality, in fact,
in many instances the Brazos River water would be more
desirable than the groundwater supplies and would meet
U. S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards -
1962 approximately 50 percent of the time.
At Station No. 1090 the quality will range from Excellent
to Fair, is fair approximately 5 percent of the time,
good approximately 53 percent of the time and excellent
approximately 42 percent of the time. Municipal supplies
withdrawn at this point would meet U. S. Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards - 1962 approximately
78 percent of the time.
At Station No. 1140 the quality will range from Excellent
to Fair, is fair approximately 6 percent of the time, good
approximately 46 percent of the time, and excellent ap-
proximately 48 percent of the time. Municipal supplies
withdrawn at this point would meet U. S. Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards - 1962 approximately 76
percent of the time.
It can be concluded from our study that construction of
the proposed salinity control project (Plan 4B) will
-------
144
result in a substantial reduction of the degradation of
main stem resources. Brazos River Basin water resources
transported in the main stein could be withdrawn at any
point from Possum Kingdom Reservoir to the mouth of the
river for municipal water supplies. Plan 4A will provide
more desirable quality conditions than Plan 4B, the lat-
ter plan will allow full utilization of the main stem
resources in and below Granbury Lake. It may also be
possible to gain full utilization of resources above
Granbury Lake to include Possum Kindgom Reservoir
resources through selective pumping and mixing with other
supplies .
------- |