Volume 1
Sections 1-2
SELECTED TECHNICAL REFERENCES
AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Prepared in Conjunction With
Report to Congress
Class V Injection Wells
• Current Inventory
• Effects on Groundwater
• Technical Recommendations
Compiled For
U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
November, 1987
Respectfully Submitted By:
ENGINEERING
ENTERPRISES, INC.
WATER RESOURCES SPECIALISTS
Under EPA Contract No. 68-03-3416
Assignment No. 0-5
-------
SELECTED TECHNICAL REFERENCES
AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Volume 1
Sections 1-2
Prepared in Conjunction With
Report to Congress
Class V Injection Wells
o Current Inventory
o Effects on Groundwater
o Technical Recommendations
November 19 87
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Foreward xv
Acknowledgements xvi
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1 - 1
1.1 Objective and Scope 1-1
1.2 Background 1-1
1.3 Contents of Report 1-1
SECTION 2 DRAINAGE WELLS 2-1
2.1 Agricultural Drainage Wells (5F1)... 2-2
2.1.1 *"Identified Class V Injection
Well Inspection Reports,"
An Assessment of Class V
Wells in Georgia 2-3
2.1.2 A Synopsis of Material from Two
Texas Department of Water Reports
Dealing in Part with Agricultural
Drainage Wells in that State 2-28
2.1.3 Iowa Agricultural Drainage Well
Assessment Report 2-33
2.1.4 *From Inventory of Class V
Injection Wells in the State of
Colorado 2-64
2.1.5 Assessment of Agricultural Return
Flow Wells in Arizona 2-83
2.1.6 *Assessment of Wells Used for
Recharge of Irrigation Wastewater
in California 2 - 146
2.1.7 A Synopsis of Reports on
Agricultural Drainage Wells in
Idaho Prepared by the Idaho
Department of Water Resources 2-178
* Not listed in Appendix E, Report to Congress
+ Title Page/Abstract/or Short Excerpt
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
2.1.8 *Inspections-Case Studies:
Agricultural Drainage Wells in_
Idaho 2 - 196
2.2 Stormwater and Industrial Drainage
Wells (5D2, 5D4) 2 - 364
2.2.1 Evaluation of Storm Water
Drainage (Class V) Wells, Muscle
Shoals Area, Alabama 2 - 3 65
2.2.2 +Storm Water Drainage Wells in
the Karst Areas of Kentucky and
Tennessee 2-402
2.2.3 +Study of the Effects of Storm
Water Injection by Class V Wells
on a Potable Ground Water System. 2 - 404
2.2.4 +Results of Dry Well Monitoring
Project for a Commercial Site in
the Phoenix Urban Area 2-406
2.2.5 A Case Study of Dry Well
Recharge 2 - 4 08
2.2.6 Evaluation of Sump Impacts on
Ground Water in East Multnomah
County 2-469
2.2.7 +The Impact of Stormwater Runoff
on Groundwater Quality and
Potential Mitigation 2 - 524
2.3 Improved Sinkholes (5D3) 2 - 526
2.3.1 *Notification of Threat to Under-
ground Source of Drinking Water.. 2 - 527
2.3.2 *From Assessment of Class V Wells
in the State of Virginia 2 - 534
2.3.3 *Overview of Sinkhole Flooding:
Bowling Green, Kentucky 2-540
* Not listed in Appendix E, Report to Congress
+ Title Page/Abstract/or Short Excerpt
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
2.3.4 *Storm Water Drainage Wells in
the Karst Areas of Kentucky and
Tennessee 2 - 553
2.4 Special Drainage Wells (5G30) 2 - 568
2.4.1 *From Florida Underground
Injection Control Class V Well
Inventory and Assessment Report. 2 - 569
2.4.2 *From Inventory of Class V
Wells in the State of Montana... 2 - 586
SECTION 3 GEOTHERMAL WELLS 3-1
3.1 Electric Power and Direct Heat
Reinjection Wells 3-2
3.1.1 From Reporting on Class V
Injection Well Inventory and
Assessment in California 3-3
3.1.2 *+Injection Well Procedures
Manual: A Case Study of the
Raft River Geothermal Project,
Idaho 3 - 18
3.1.3 *Problems of Utilizing Ground
Water in the West Side Business
District of Portland, Oregon.... 3-28
3.1.4 *Low Temperature Geothermal
Resource Management 3-83
3.2 Heat Pump/Air Conditioning Return
Flow Wells 3 - 133
3.2.1 *Ground-Water Heat Pumps in
Pennsylvania 3 - 134
3.2.2 *Ground-Water Heat Pumps in
the Tidewater Area of South-
eastern Virginia 3 - 145
* Not listed in Appendix E, Report to Congress
+ Title Page/Abstract/or Short Excerpt
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
3.2.3 *+Report to the Wisconsin
Legislature on Experimental
Groundwater Heat Pump Injection
Well Project 3 - 180
3.2.4 *From Underground Injection
Operations in Texas: A
Classification and Assessment
of Underground Injection
Activities, Report 291 3 - 186
3.2.5 Summary of Heat Pump/Air
Conditioning Return Flow Wells
From Various State Reports 3 - 200
3.2.6 *1981 Inventory of the
Utilization of Water-Source
Heat Pumps in the Conterminous
United States 3 - 209
3.2.7 Understanding Heat Pumps,
Ground Water, and Wells -
Questions and Answers for the
Responsible Consumer 3 - 251
3.3 Aquaculture Return Flow Wells
(5A8) 3 - 297
3.3.1 Draft Report of Investigation
Class V Injection Well
Inspections, Oahu and Hawaii
Islands, Hawaii 3 - 298
SECTION 4 DOMESTIC WASTEWATER DISPOSAL WELLS 4-1
4.1 Raw Sewage Waste Disposal Wells
and Cesspools (5W9, 5W10) 4-2
4.1.1 From An Assessment of Class V
Underground Injection in
Illinois, Interim Report.
Phase One: Assessment of Current
Class V Activities in Illinois.. 4-3
* Not listed in Appendix E, Report to Congress
+ Title Page/Abstract/or Short Excerpt
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
4.1.2 Contamination of Underground
Water in the Bellevue Area 4-9
4.1.3 Report of Investigations Class V
Well Inspections, Oahu and
Hawaii Islands, Hawaii 4-36
4.2 Class V Septic Systems (5W11,
5W31, 5W32) 4-70
4.2.1 Industry-Owned Septic Systems:
San Fernando Valley Basin 4-71
4.3 Domestic Wastewater Treatment
Plant Effluent Disposal Wells
(5W12) 4 - 100
4.3.1 *+Deep-Well Artificial Recharge
Experiments at Bay Park, Long
Island, New York (Geological
Survey Professional Papers
751-A through 751-F) 4 - 101
4.3.2 Notification of Threat to Under-
ground Source of Drinking Water. 4 - 114
4.3.3 *"Assessment of Recharge Wells,"
Assessment of Class V Wells in
the State of Virginia 4 - 121
4.3.4 *"Assessment of Recharge Wells,"
Underground Injection Operations
in Texas: A Classification and
Assessment of Underground Injec-
tion Activities, Report 291 4 - 126
4.3.5 From Assessment of Class V
Injection Wells in the State of
Wyoming 4 - 13 0
4.3.6 *"Waste-Water Injection:
Geochemical and Biochemical
Clogging Processes, "Ground
Water, vol. 23, No. 6 4 -179
Not listed in Appendix E, Report to Congress
Title Page/Abstract/or Short Excerpt
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION-5 MINERAL AND FOSSIL FUEL RECOVERY
RELATED WELLS 5 - 1
5.1 Mining, Sand, or Other Backfill
Wells (5X13) 5 - 2
5.1.1 inspection of Slurry Injection
Procedures at the Old Darby
Mine Works (or Black Mountain
Mine) 5 - 3
5.1.2 *Inventory and Assessment of the
Disposal of Coal Slurry and Mine
Drainage Precipitate Wastes
into Underground Mines in West
Virginia 5-11
5.1.3 *In-Depth Investigation Program:
Acid Mine 5 - 77
5.1.4 *From Underground Injection
Operations in Texas: A
Classification and Assessment of
Underground Injection Activities,
Report 291 5 - 88
5.1.5 *From Missouri Underground
Injection Control Program Class V
Assessment 5 - 96
5.1.6 *Backfill Monitoring Methods 5 - 107
5.2 Solution Mining Wells (5X14) 5 - 111
5.2.1 *Letter to Mr. Mark Bell of the
Colorado Department of Health,
Denver, Re Underground Injection
Control Permit Requirements 5 - 112
5.2.2 *From Assessment of Class V
Injection Wells in the State of
Wyoming 5 - 117
5.2.3 *"Chapter 7: In Situ Uranium
Leaching," Assessment of Class V
Injection Wells in the State of
Wyoming 5 - 122
* Not listed in Appendix E, Report to Congress
+ Title Page/Abstract/or Short Excerpt
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
5.2.4 From Report on Class V Injection
Well Inventory and Assessment
In Arizona 5 - 214
5.3 In Situ Fossil Fuel Recovery
Wells (5X15) 5 - 246
5.3.1 Organic Groundwater Contaminants
from Underground Coal
Gasification 5 - 247
5.3.2 "Underground Coal Gasification
(Experimental Technology),"
Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells in the State of Wyoming.... 5 - 271
5.3.3 "Oil Shale In Situ Retorting
(Experimental Technology),"
Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells in the State of Wyoming.... 5 - 304
5.3.4 Rio Blanco Oil Shale Company,
MIS Retort 5 - 329
5.3.5 MIS Retort Abandonment Program... 5 - 338
5.3.6 Groundwater Pollutants from
Underground Coal Gasification.... 5 - 344
5.4 Spent Brine Return Flow Wells
(5X16) 5 - 352
5.4.1 From Final Design for Arkansas'
Class V Injection Well Inventory
and Assessment 5 - 353
5.4.2 Memorandum to Wayne Thomas,
Technician for the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology 5 - 366
5.4.3 *+Development of a Two Aquifer
Contaminant Plume: A Case
History 5 - 373
* Not listed in Appendix E, Report to Congress
+ Title Page/Abstract/or Short Excerpt
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION 6 INDUSTRIAL, COMMERICAL, UTILITY WELLS... 6-1
6.1 Cooling Water Return Flow
Wells (5A19) 6 - 2
6.1.1 *"Cooling Water Return Flow
Wells," Final Design for
Arkansas' Class V Injection
Well Inventory and
Assessment 6-3
6.1.2 Summaries of Assessments of
Cooling Water Return Flow Wells
from Selected State Class V
Reports 6-10
6.2 Industrial Process Water and Waste
Disposal Wells (5W20) 6 - 19
6.2.1 Effluent Discharge Study,
Components, Inc., Kennebunk,
Maine 6-20
6.2.2 Field Trip Report - Southern
Maine Finishing Company 6-44
6.2.3 From Revised Interim Report:
Maine's UIC Program 6-62
6.2.4 Initial Environmental Assessment,
Eastern Air Devices, Inc.
Facility, Dover, New Hampshire... 6-64
6.2.5 Inspection Report No. 3 From
Report on Inventory and
Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells in Puerto Rico 6 - 112
6.2.6 Inspection Report No. 5 From
Report on Inventory and
Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells in Puerto Rico 6 - 117
* Not listed in Appendix E, Report to Congress
+ Title Page/Abstract/or Short Excerpt
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
6.2.7 Inspection Report No. 10 From
Report on Inventory and
Assessment of Class V
Injection Wells in Puerto Rico... 6 - 123
6.2.8 Inspection Report No. 19 From
Report on Inventory and
Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells in Puerto Rico 6 - 126
6.2.9 Inspection Report No. 23 From
Report on Inventory and
Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells in Puerto Rico 6 - 130
6.2.10 New York Automobile Dealer
Inspection Trip Report 6 - 132
6.2.11 Summary of New York State Dept.
of Environmental Conservation,
SPDES Permit Compliance System
Data, "Limits and Measurement
Data for Nassau and Suffolk
Facilities Which Discharge to
Groundwater" 6 - 137
6.2.12 Assessment of Lehigh Portland
Cement Co., From State of
Maryland Class V Injection
Well Inventory and Assessment... 6 - 149
6.2.13 Assessment of Applied Electro-
Mechanics, Inc., From State of
Maryland Class V Injection
Well Inventory and Assessment... 6 - 153
6.2.14 Assessment of Hammermill Paper
Co., From Underground Injection
Control Program Class V Well
Assessment 6 - 157
6.2.15 Assessment of Rodale (Square D)
From Underground Injection
Control Program Class V Well
Assessment 6 - 162
* Not listed in Appendix E, Report to Congress
+ Title Page/Abstract/or Short Excerpt
x
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
6.2.16 Assessment of National Wood
Preservers, Inc., From
Underground Injection Control
Program Class V Well
Assessment 6 - 164
6.2.17 Assessment of Highway Auto
Service Station (Butler Mine
Tunnel) From Underground
Injection Control Program
Class V Assessment 6 - 168
6.2.18 Assessment of Franklin A.
Holland & Son, From Assessment
of Selected Class V Wells in
the State of Virginia 6 - 171
6.2.19 "Reverse Osmosis Brine Wells,"
Florida Underground Injection
Control Class V Well Inventory
and Assessment Report 6-176
6.2.20 Technical Evaluation for
American Cyanamid Company
Injection Well Nos. 1 and 2 6 - 186
6.2.21 Industrial Disposal Well Case
Study: Unidynamics,
Phoenix, Inc 6 - 225
6.2.22 Industrial Disposal Well Case
Study: Honeywell, Peoria Avenue
Facility 6 - 257
6.2.23 Industrial Disposal Well Case
Study: Puregro-Bakersfield,
California 6 - 281
6.2.24 Industrial Disposal Well Case
Study: Mefford Field, Tulare,
California 6 - 299
6.2.25 Industrial Disposal Well Case
Study: Kearney, KPF - Stockton,
California 6 - 328
+ Title Page/Abstract/or Short Excerpt
xi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
6.2.26 Industrial Disposal Well Case
Study: T.H.A.N. - Fresno,
California 6 - 363
6.2.27 Refinery Waste Disposal Wells
From Reporting on Class V
Injection Well Inventory and
Assessment in California, Draft. 6 - 413
6.2.28 Tables From Reporting on Class
V Injection Well Inventory and
Assessment in California,
Draft 6 - 450
6.3 Automobile Service Station Waste
Disposal Wells (5X28) 6 - 463
6.3.1 *Subsurface Injection of
Service Bay Wastewater is a
Potential Threat to Groundwater
Quality 6 - 464
SECTION 7 RECHARGE WELLS 7 - 1
7.1 Aquifer Recharge Wells (5R21) 7-2
7.1.1 "Class V Connector Wells,"
Florida Underground Injection
Control Class V Well Inventory
and Assessment Report 7-3
7.1.2 "Assessment of Irrigation Dual
Purpose Wells," Underground
Injection Operations in
Texas: A Classification and
Assessment of Underground
Injection Activities,
Report 291 7-25
7.1.3 National Artificial Recharge
Activity - Past and Present
Projects, Demonstrations,
Pilot Projects, Experiments,
and Studies 7-31
* Not listed in Appendix E, Report to Congress
+ Title Page/Abstract/or Short Excerpt
xii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
7.2 Salt Water Intrusion Barrier
Wells (5B22) 7 - 41
7.2.1 "Injection/Extraction Well
System - A Unique Seawater
Intrusion Barrier,:
Ground Water, Vol. 15, No. 1... 7-42
7.3 Subsidence Control Wells (5-523).. 7 - 63
7.3.1 "Case History No. 9.11,
Alabama, USA," Guidebook to
Studies of Land Subsidence
Due to Ground-Water
Withdrawal 7-64
7.3.2 "Case History No. 9.12, The
Houston-Galveston Area, Texas,
USA, "Guidebook to Studies of
Land Subsidence Due to
Ground-Water Withdrawal 7-72
7.3.3 "Case History No. 9.13, San
Joaquin Valley, California,
USA, "Guidebook to Studies of
Land Subsidence Due to
Ground-Water Withdrawal' 7-83
7.3.4 "Case History No. 9.14, Santa
Clara Valley, California, USA,
"Guidebook to Studies of Land
Subsidence Due to Ground-Water
Withdrawal 7-99
SECTION 8 MISCELLANEOUS WELLS 8-1
8.1 Radioactive Waste Disposal
Wells (5N24) 8 - 2
8.1.1 Subsurface Disposal of Liquid
Low-Level Radioactive Waste
at Oak Ridge, Tennessee 8-3
Not listed in Appendix E, Report to Congress
+ Title Page/Abstract/or Short Excerpt
xiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
8.1.2 *"Subclass 5N-Nuclear Waste
Disposal Wells, "Underground
Injection Control Class V
Inventory 8 - 24
8.1.3 *"Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Well, "Idaho
Assessment of Class V Wells.... 8-28
8.1.4 From Disposal of Hanford
Defense High-Level, Transuranic
and Tank Wastes, Volume 3 8 - 31
8.1.5 Report on Findings of NRC/EPA-
Underground Injection Liaison
Group: Radioactive Waste
Injection and In Situ Mining
of Uranium 8 - 37
8.2 Experimental Technology
Wells (5X25) 8 - 57
8.2.1 Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage
Experiments at the University
of Minnesota, St. Paul,
Minnesota, USA 8-58
8.2.2 "Mound of Water Present Following
Air Injection Test," The Cross
Section, Vol. 31, No. 7 8-64
8.3 Aquifer Remediation Related Wells
(5X26) 8 - 68
8.3.1 From Oklahoma Class V Well Study
and Assessment 8 - 69
8.3.2 From Inventory of Class V
Injection Wells in the State of
Colorado 8-76
8.3.3 "Cleaning up Chemical Waste,"
Engineering News Record 8-80
8.4 Abandoned Drinking Water/Waste
Disposal Wells (5X29) 8-84
* Not listed in Appendix E, Report to Congress
+ Title Page/Abstract/or Short Excerpt
xiv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
8.4.1 "Abandoned Wells," Inventory and
Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells in Minnesota 8-85
8.4.2 Permanent Well and Test Hole
Abandonment 8-98
8.4.3 From American Water Works
Association Standard for Deep
Wells, Section Al-13: Sealing
Abandoned Wells 8 -108
xv
-------
Foreword
These references and documents were compiled by Engineering
Enterprises, Inc. from data gathered during preparation of Report
to Congress Class V Injection Wells: Current Inventory, Effects
on Groundwater, Technical Recommendations (EPA 570/09-87-006)
under EPA Contract No. 68-03-3416. The references are
representative of data gathered by the States, Territories, and
Possessions of the United States in fulfilling the regulatory
requirement of 40 CFR 146.52 (b). The EPA project manager was L.
Lawrence Graham, and the EEI project officer was Lorraine C.
Council.
xv
-------
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their thanks to several
individuals and groups for their contributions to this report.
Contributing EPA Headquarters staff members included Mr. Lawrence
Graham and Ms. Rosemary Workman along with other staff members of
the Office of Drinking Water. We would also like to thank
individuals from the USEPA Regional offices including Tom Burns,
Region I; Leon Lazarus, Region II; Mark Nelson and Stu Kerzner,
Region III; John Isbell, Region IV; Gary Harmon, Region V;
Stephanie Johnson, Region VI; John Marre, Region VII; Paul
Osborne, Region VIII; Nathan Lau and Glenn Sakamoto, Region IX;
and Harold Scott, Region X. The EPA Class V Work Group is also
gratefully acknowledged.
All states who submitted information including final
reports, drafts reports, and inventory figures are greatly
appreciated. Several state contacts are also thanked for their
cooperation including John Poole, Alabama Department of
Environmental Management; Bob Krill, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources; Stephen Burch and John Nealon, Illinois State
Water Survey; Michael Baker, Ohio EPA, Division of Water Quality
Monitoring and Assessments; William Klemt and Steve Musick along
with their associates, Texas Water Commission; Guy Cleveland,
Texas Railroad Commission; William Graham, Idaho Department of
Natural Resources; Charles "Kent" Ashbaker, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality; and Burt Bowen, Washington Department of
Ecology.
xv i
-------
The following Engineering Enterprises, Inc. personnel
contributed to the report: Ms. Sheila Baber, Mr. Craig Bartlett,
Mr. Gary Cipriano, Ms. Lorraine Council, Mr. John Fryberger, Mr.
Hank Giclas, Mr. J. L. Gray, Ms. Denise Lant, Mr. Raj
Mahadevaiah, Ms. Mary Mercer, Mr. Michael Quillin, Mr. Philip
Roberts, Mr. Talib Syed, and Mr. Bill Whitsell. Special thanks
goes to the Engineering Enterprises Inc. support staff: Ms.
Raechel Bailey, Mr. Chuck Bishop, Ms. Donna Blaylock, Ms. Kara
Brown, Ms. Jolene Cradduck, Ms. Deborah Horsman, Ms. Kim Gant,
Ms. Cindy Jondahl, Ms. Sharron Moore, and Ms. Nancy Simpson.
Additional assistance was provided by Dr. Richard Tinlin, Mr.
Jeffrey Mahan, Dr. William Doucette, Mr. Jim Gibb, and Mr. Clark
Fulton of Geraghty and Miller, Inc. Dr. Gray Wilson and Dr.
Kenneth Schmidt, consultants to Engineering Enterprises, Inc.,
also contributed to this report.
xvii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
-------
CLASS V INJECTION WELLS
SELECTED TECHNICAL REFERENCES
AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
This compilation of selected technical references and
supporting documents represents information collected by
Engineering Enterprises, Inc. and provided by the UIC programs of
the States, Territories, and Possessions of the United States on
Class V injection wells. Specifically, this report identifies
representative case studies and assessments of individual Class V
well types. These studies and assessments, among others, were
used by Engineering Enterprises, Inc. in conjunction with the
United States Environmental Protection Agency to prepare Report
to Congress Class V Injection Wells: Current Inventory, Effects
on Groundwater, Technical Recommendations (EPA 570/09-87-006).
Many of the studies are listed in Appendix E of the Report to
Congress. The studies and assessments are presented here and
intended for use as reference documents for future Class V
injection well study.
1.2 BACKGROUND*
On December 14, 1974, Congress enacted the Safe Drinking
Water Act (PL 93-523) to protect the public health and welfare of
persons and to protect existing and future underground sources of
* Contains excerpts from Report to Congress
1-1
-------
drinking water (USDW). In Part C of the Act, Congress directed
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to
develop regulations for the protection of underground source(s)
of drinking water from contamination by the subsurface injection
or emplacement of fluids through wells. In 1980, USEPA
promulgated these regulations under 4 0 CFR Parts 144 through 146
and Part 124. The regulations specify minimum standards and
technical requirements for the proper siting, construction,
operation, monitoring, and plugging and abandonment of injection
wells.
The Act also mandated the development of a Federally
approved Underground Injection Control (UIC) program for each
State, Possession, and Territory. Approval of a particular
program is based on a finding that the program meets minimum
standards and technical requirements of SDWA Section 1422 or
Section 1425 and the applicable provisions set forth in 40 CFR
Parts 124 and 144 through 146. States whose programs were
submitted to and approved by USEPA are known as Primacy States.
These states have primary enforcement responsibility for the
regulation of injection wells in their States. In those
instances where a State has opted not to submit a program for
approval or where the submitted program does not meet the minimum
standards and technical requirements, Lhe program is promulgated
and administered by USEPA. States with Federally administered
programs are known as Direct Implementation (DI) States and are
subject to the regulations set forth in 40 CFR Parts 124 and 144
through 146. There are 22 DI States, Possessions, and
-------
Territories at present. Reports on the Class V programs in the
DI states and recommendations were prepared under the direction
of the "Director" of that State program, i.e., the Regional
Administrator. All underground injection is unlawful and subject
to penalties unless authorized by a permit or rule.
The UIC regulations define and establish five classes or
categories of injection wells. Class I wells inject hazardous
and non-hazardous waste beneath the lowermost formation
containing, within one-quarter mile of the well bore, an USDW.
Class II wells are used in conjunction with oil' and gas
production. Class III injection wells are used in conjunction
with the solution mining of minerals. Class IV wells inject
hazardous or radioactive wastes into or above a formation which
is within one-quarter mile of an USDW. (Class IV wells are
prohibited by 40 CFR 144.13.) Class V wells include any wells
that do not fall under Classes I through IV. Typically, Class V
wells are used to inject non-hazardous fluids into or above
underground sources of drinking water.
In 1980, USE PA chose to defer establishing technical
requirements for Class V wells. Instead, these wells are
authorized by rule. That is, injection into Class V wells is
authorized until further requirements under future regulations
are promulgated by USEPA. However, Class V wells are prohibited
from contaminating any USDW or adversely affecting public health.
Therefore, wells which are found to be violating this prohibition
are subject to enforcement or closure. Some Primacy States
-------
require injection well permits while others currently implement
authorization by rule or law.
The Agency has not established specific requirements for
Class V wells for several reasons. By definition, the category
of Class V encompasses a variety of well types ranging in
complexity from radioactive waste disposal wells to storm water
drainage wells. At the time of the original promulgation, little
was known about the operation of these wells. The Agency
reasoned that due to the large number and types of Class V wells
in existence, the variability of injection fluids and volumes,
and the lack of knowledge concerning the consequences of bringing
them under regulation, technical requirements could not be
established that effectively would assure that operations of all
Class V wells would not endanger USDW. Therefore, the Agency
concluded that it was necessary to develop an assessment of Class
V injection well activities prior to any regulatory development.
Under 4 0 CFR Section 144.3, a "well" is defined as a bored,
drilled, or driven shaft, or dug hole, whose depth is greater
than its largest surface dimension. "Well injection" is defined
as the subsurface emplcement of fluids through a bored, drilled,
or driven well; or through a dug well where the depth of the dug
well is1greater than" its largest surface dimension. A "fluid" is
any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in
semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or any other form or state. The
definitions of the five injection well classes are found in 40
1-4
-------
CFR 144.6. A list of Class V well types recognized by USEPA for
the purpose of this study is presented in Table 1-1.
As can be seen in Table 1-1, the Class V injection well
category is large and diverse. This is due to the broad
definition of Class V wells. If a well does not fit into one of
the first four classes and meets the definition of an injection
well, it is considered a Class V well.
Although included in Table 1-1 as Class V injection wells,
air scrubber waste and water softener regeneration brine disposal
wells, types 5X17 and 5X18, are not included in the inventory and
assessment portion of this report. At the time the State Class V
injection well reports were written, air scrubber waste and water
softener regeneration brine disposal wells were categorized as
Class V injection wells. As a result, however, of a July 31,
1987, USEPA policy decision, these well types, in certain
situations, may fall under the Class II category rather than
Class V. This was determined to be the case with those 5X17 and
5X18 wells inventoried in the State reports.
Generally, Class V injection is into or above USDW. An USDW
is defined as an aquifer or its portion which supplies any public
water system or which contains a sufficient quantity of ground
water to supply a public water system and currently supplies
drinking water for human consumption or contains fewer than
10,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids, and which is not an exempted
aquifer. Certain special Class V facilities are known to inject
1-5
-------
TABLE 1-1
CLASS V INJECTION WELL TYPES
WELL
CODE NAME OF WELL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION
DRAINAGE WELLS (a.k.a. DRY WELLS)
5F1 Agricultural Drainage Wells - receive irrigation
tailwaters, other field drainage, animal yard, feedlot,
or dairy runoff, etc.
5D2 Storm Water Drainage Wells - receive storm water runoff
from paved areas, including parking lots, streets,
residential subdivisions, building roofs, highways,
etc.
5D3 Improved Sinkholes - receive storm water runoff from
developments located in karst topographic areas.
5D4 Industrial Drainage Wells - include wells located in
industrial areas which primarily receive storm water
runoff but are susceptible to spills, leaks, or other
chemical discharges.
5G30 Special Drainage Wells - are used for disposing water
from sources other than direct precipitation. Examples
of this well type include: landslide control drainage
wells, potable water tank overflow drainage wells,
swimming pool drainage wells, and lake level control
drainage wells.
GEOTHERMAL REINJECTION WELLS
5A5 Electric Power Reinjection Wells - reinject geothermal
fluids used to generate electric power - deep wells.
5A6 Direct Heat Reinjection Wells - reinject geothermal
fluids used to provide heat for large buildings or
developments - deep wells.
5A7 Heat Pump/Air Conditioning Return Flow Wells - reinject
groundwater used to heat or cool a building in a heat
pump system - shallow wells.
5A8 Groundwater Aquaculture Return Flow Wells - reinject
groundwater or geothermal fluids used to support
aquaculture. Non-geothermal aquaculture disposal wells
are also included in this category (e.g. Marine
aquariums in Hawaii use relatively cool sea water).
1-6
-------
WELL
CODE
5W9
5W10
5W11
5W31
5W32
5W12
TABLE 1-1
CLASS V INJECTION WELL TYPES (CONT.)
NAME OF WELL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION
DOMESTIC WASTEWATER DISPOSAL WELLS
Untreated Sewage Waste Disposal Wells - receive raw
sewage wastes from pumping trucks or other vehicles
which collect such wastes from single or multiple
sources. (No treatment)
Cesspools - including multiple dwelling, community, or
regional cesspools, or other devices that receive
wastes and which must have an open bottom and sometimes
have perforated sides. Must serve greater than 20
persons per day if receiving solely sanitary wastes.
(Settling of solids)
Septic Systems (Undifferentiated disposal method) -
used to inject the waste or effluent from a multiple
dwelling, business establishment, community, or
regional business establishment septic tank. Must
serve greater than 20 persons per day if receiving
solely sanitary wastes. (Primary Treatment)
Septic Systems (Well Disposal Method) - are used to
inject the waste or effluent from a multiple dwelling,
business establishment, community, or regional business
establishment septic tank. Examples of wells include
actual wells, seepage pits, cavitettes, etc. The
largest surface dimension is less than or equal to the
depth dimension. Must serve greater than 20 persons
per day if receiving solely sanitary wastes. (Less
treatment per square area than 5W32)
Septic Systems (Drainfield Disposal Method) - are used
to inject the waste or effluent from a multiple
dwelling, business establishment, community, or
regional business establishment septic tank. Examples
of drainfields include drain or tile lines, and
trenches. Must serve more than 20 persons per day if
receiving solely sanitary wastes. (More treatment per
square area than 5W31)
Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Disposal
Wells - dispose of treated sewage or domestic effluent
from small package plants up to large municipal
treatment plants. (Secondary or further treatment)
1-7
-------
TABLE 1-1
CLASS V INJECTION WELL TYPES (CONT.)
WELL
CODE NAME OF WELL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION
MINERAL AND FOSSIL FUEL RECOVERY RELATED WELLS
5X13 Mining, Sand, or Other Backfill Wells - are used to
inject a mixture of fluid and sand, mill tailings, and
other solids into mined out portions of subsurface
mines whether what is injected is a radioactive waste
or not. Also includes special wells used to control
mine fires and acid mine drainage wells.
5X14 Solution Mining Wells - used for in-situ solution
mining in conventional mines, such as stopes leaching.
5X15 In-situ Fossil Fuel Recovery Wells - used for in-situ
recovery of coal, lignite, oil shale, and tar sands.
5X16 Spent-Brine Return Flow Wells - used to reinject spent
brine into the same formation from which it was
withdrawn after extraction of halogens or their salts.
OIL FIELD PRODUCTION WASTE DISPOSAL WELLS
5X17 Air Scrubber Waste Disposal Wells - inject wastes from
air scrubbers used to remove sulfur from crude oil
which is burned in steam generation for thermal oil
recovery projects. (If injection is used directly for
enhanced recovery and not just disposal it is a Class
II well.)
5X18 Water Softener Regeneration Brine Disposal Wells -
inject regeneration wastes from water softeners which
are used to improve the quality of brines used for
enhanced recovery. (If injection is used directly for
enhanced recovery and not just disposal it is a Class
II well.)
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL/UTILITY DISPOSAL WELLS
5A19 Cooling Water Return Flow Wells - used to inject water
which was used in a cooling process, both open and
closed loop processes.
1-8
-------
TABLE 1-1
CLASS V INJECTION WELL TYPES (CONT.)
WELL
CODE NAME OF WELL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION
5W20 Industrial Process Water and Waste Disposal Wells - are
used to dispose of a wide variety of wastes and
wastewaters from industrial, commercial, or utility
processes. Industries include refineries, chemical
plants, smelters, pharmaceutical plants, laundromats
and dry cleaners, tanneries, laboratories, petroleum
storage facilities, electric power generation plants,
car washes, electroplating industries, etc.
5X28 Automobile Service Station Disposal Wells - inject
wastes from repair bay drains at service stations,
garages, car dealerships, etc.
RECHARGE WELLS
5R21 Aquifer Recharge Wells - used to recharge depleted
aquifers and may inject fluids from a variety of
sources such as lakes, streams, domestic wastewater
treatment plants, other aquifers, etc.
5B22 Saline Water Intrusion Barrier Wells - are used to
inject water into fresh water aquifers to prevent
intrusion of salt water into fresh water aquifers.
5S23 Subsidence Control Wells - are used to inject fluids
into a non-oil or gas producing zone to reduce or
eliminate subsidence associated with overdraft of fresh
water and not used for the purpose of oil or natural
gas production.
MISCELLANEOUS WELLS
5N24 Radioactive Waste Disposal Wells - include all
radioactive waste disposal wells other than Class IV
wells.
5X25 Experimental Technology Wells - include wells used in
experimental or unproven technologies such as pilot
scale in-situ solution mining wells in previously
unmined areas.
5X26 Aquifer Remediation Related Wells - wells used to
prevent, control, or remediate aquifer pollution,
including but not limited to Superfund sites.
1-9
-------
TABLE 1-1
CLASS V INJECTION WELL TYPES (CONT.)
WELL
CODE NAME OF WELL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION
5X29 Abandoned Drinking Water Wells - include those
abandoned water wells which are used for disposal of
waste.
5X27 Other Wells - include any other unspecified Class V
wells.
1-10
-------
fluids below USDW. Potential for contamination to USDW varies
and is dependent upon where injection occurs relative to USDW;
well construction, design, and operation; injectate quality; and
injection volumes. Class V injection practices which discharge
directly into USDW are potentially more harmful to USDW than
Class V injection above or below USDW because some protection of
USDW may be provided by injection above or below USDW.
1.3 CONTENT OF REPORT
Under 40 CFR 146.52 (a), USEPA requires owners and operators
of Class V injection wells to notify the Director of the State of
the Direct Implementation UIC program of the existence of all
Class V wells under their control and to submit pertinent
inventory information (as required under 40 CFR 144.26(a)). The
Directors then are required, under 40 CFR 146.52(b), to complete
and submit to USEPA a report containing the following:
1. Information on the construction features of Class V wells
and the nature and volume of injected fluids;
2. An assessment of the contamination potential of Class V
wells using hydrogeological data available to the State;
3. An assessment of the available corrective alternatives where
appropriate and their environmental and economic
consequences; and
4. Recommendations both for the most appropriate regulatory
approaches and for remedial actions where appropriate.
1-11
-------
The reports were required to be submitted no later than three
years after the effective date of the State's UIC program
approval. Several of the reports were not due until November
1987. Selected excerpts from and supporting data submitted with
these reports are presented in this document and intended for use
as references in future Class V injection well study.
In the initial draft of the Report to Congress, these
studies were included as part of the Report to Congress in a
series of appendices. For the sake of convenience, they were
removed and listed in Appendix E of the final Report to Congress.
Since preparation of the initial draft, however, numerous addi-
tional studies have been identified. The reader will note that
the Table of Contents for these volumes is much more extensive
than the list in Appendix E, Report to Congress. Studies inclu-
ded here since preparation of Appendix E, Report to Congress are
marked with asterisks {*) in the Table of Contents for these
volumes.
The reader may also note that a few of the studies listed in
Appendix E, Report to Congress have been omitted from these vol-
umes. For example, case studies concerning oil field production
waste disposal wells were omitted due to reclassification of
these particular wells to Class II. Where other studies were
omitted, efforts were made to replace them with studies of simi-
lar concern. Due to the length of some studies, only title pages
or abstracts of studies were included in some cases. These
studies are marked with (+) in the Table of Contents.
1-12
-------
Sections Two through Eight present selected technical
references and supporting documents in order of well type (as
listed in Table 1) . Within each well code they are arranged by
USEPA Region and alphabetical order by State within each Region.
Brief summary pages listing the following information for each
entry are included on colored pages:
Title of Study (or Source of Information)
Author (or Investigator)
Date
Facility Name and Location
Nature of Business
Brief Summary/Notes
1-13
-------
SECTION 2
Drainage Wells
[2-1]
-------
Section 2.1
Agricultural Drainage Well Supporting Data
-------
SECTION 2.1.1
TITLE OF STUDY:
(OR SOURCE OF INFORMATION)
AUTHOR (OR INVESTIGATOR):
DATE:
Identif ied
Inspection
Assessment
Georgia
Class V Injection Well
Reports From An
of Class V Wells in
J.C. Adams, Ralph M. Lamade
19 86
STUDY AREA NAME AND LOCATION: Georgia, USEPA Region IV
NATURE OF BUSINESS:
BRIEF SUMMARY/NOTES:
Not applicable
Twenty-three agricultural drainage
wells were located in the state.
Inspection reports are completed
for each of these wells.
Construction details and well usage
information accompany location and
ownership information.
[2-3]
-------
IV. SUMMARY
Included in separata binders are the responses from the mail surveys.
These responses have been collated according to the survey target classification.
The respondents who claimed to know of an injection well are grouped in one of
the binders.
Because of the additional wells found during its field trips, the Georgia
Tech project team believes there are far more wells used by Georgia's
agricultural sector than were identified by the survey. These drainage wells
provide a valuable service to fanners for irrigation systems, land reclamation,
and mosquito control. Because most of the irrigation systems traverse fields
via tractor tires, it is important that large open fields be maintained in a
well-drained condition. Such wet areas can cause the tractor-traverse systems
of the large water sprinklers to literally bog down, thus requiring maintenance.
Also, it was observed that many of the field irrigation wells exist in
depressions. 8ecause these wells are not grouted, contaminated seepage can
occur around the well casing and into the underlying aquifer. Also, during
rainy seasons, many farmers can conceivably utilize their low-lying irrigation
wells as drainage wells. This is easily accomplished by disconnecting the
discharge pipe from the well casing, thus allowing accumulated water to backfeed
into the wel1.
In that the above conditions are generally applicable to very flat land
(where lower cost drainage is not possible), the southwest quarter of the state
is the most probable location for these practices.
The study also identified another condition which may affect aquifer water
quality. It was observed that several fanners are fortunate enough to possess
lime sinks on their property. Although naturally occurring, they can function
similarly to drainage wells, i.e., they provide field drainage to low-lying
cultivated land. These natural geologic features thus provide a mechanism
allowing agricultural chemicals to enter aquifers.
7
[2-4]
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location: Highway 91, south of Albany, Georgia
Baker County
Red Store Crossroads Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 1,2,3
Well Owner and Address: Possibly -- Nilo Farm (912) **35-3170
Nilo Plantation
Albany, Georgia 31700
Well Construction Details: Three (3) cased wells, easily seen from highway
within 150' of each other
General Usage Information: Agricultural drainage
Note: Pictures and the mapped location(s) appear on the following page(s)
r 9-ki
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location: South of Savannah, Georgia, shore of Qgeechee
River, near Ford Island
(k) Chatham County
Richmond Hill Quadrangle
(5) Bryan County
Richmond Hill Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 4, 5
Well Owner and Address: State of Georgia (?)
Well Construction Oetails: Hand dug, rock cased, artesian wells
NOTE: two wel1s
General Usage Information: Currently accepting salt water at high tide.
Wells not inspected, but were roughly located on
a map.
Reported by W. L. Hunter
Note: The mapped location for this well appears on the following page
12-6]
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location:
Colquitt, Georgia
Miller County
Colquitt Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 20
Well Owner and Address: Roger Gay (912) 753-3958
Route 1
Colquitt, Georgia 31737
Well Construction Details: The well is k" in diameter, cased design. Depth is
excess of 751 -
General Usage Information: Originally used to drain a hog pen. Land is
currently overgrown and unused. The well currently
accepts continuous water form the low-lying area
including highway run off. Estimated flow of water
is 5-10 gpm.
Note: Pictures and the mapped Jocation(s) appear on the Following page(s)
[2-7]
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location:
Colquitt, Georgia, 1 mile west of Woodrow Kirkland'
wel i
Miller County
Dawsonville Northeast Quadrangle
Index Number(s):
21
Well Owner and Address:
Paul Crowser (the project team was unable to reach
this person)
Grimsely Road
Enterprise Community
Colquitt, Georgia 31737
Well Construction Details: Similar to Woodrow Kirkland's. (Well index number
22), b", cased we 11
General Usage Information: Agricultural drainage
Note: Pictures and the mapped location(s) appear on the following page(s)
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location: Colquitt, Georgia
Miller County
Dawsonville East Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 22
Well Owner and Address: Wocdrow Kirkland (912) 758-2160
Enterprise Community
Colquitt, Georgia 31737
Well Construction Details: The well is a cased, 4" diamter, agricultural field
drainage well. The well provides drainage for about
5 acres of land that is currently under cultivation.
General Usage Information: Note: The well also provides drainage to prevent
flooding a home within 300' of the site.
The owner claims to have a permit for the
wel 1 .
Note: Pictures and the mapped location(s) appear on the following page(s)
[2-9,
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location:
Colquitt, Georgia
Miller County
Boykin Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 23, 2k
Well Owner and Address: J. o. Shepard (912) 7-58 3536
Bainbridge Highway ~7S" •
Colquitt, Georgia 31737
Well Construction Details: 4" in diameter, cased well. A 6" diameter cased
well is adjacent to it.
General Usage Information: The well provides continuous drainage for a
commercial peat mining operation. Average flow is
about 5~10 gpm for each well. Mining operation
has been discontinued for several years.
Note: Pictures and the mapped location(s) appear on the following page(s)
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location: Four CO miles east of 8aconton, Georgia
Mitchell County
Sale CTty Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 25
Well Owner and Address: Jim Vinson (912) 787-5259
Route 1
Baconton, Georgia 31716
Well Construction Details: V diameter cased well, approximately 75 feet deep.
Very old well as upper casing is not attached due
to rust. The well does not serve any useful pur-
pose. The owner is currently in the process of
plugging it.
General Usage Information: Originally used as field drainage. Currently, the
field has overgrown into a forest and the weil
(apparently) does not accept any water.
Note: Pictures and the mapped location(s) appear on the following page(s)
[2-11]
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location:
Camilla, Georgia
Seminole County
Dawsonville East Quadrangle
Index Number(s):
26
Well Owner and Address: Homsby Farm
Iron City
Camilla, Georgia 31730
(912) 7^-2377
Well Construction Details: Reported by Brad Hornsby; however, a site visit was
not made as the well is not on his property. The
owner is said to be Percy Hornsby.
General Usage Information: Agricultural field drainage
Note: The mapped location for this well appears on the following page
[2-12]
-------
IDENTIFIED CUSS V INJECTION WEIL
General Location:
Baconton, Georgia
Mitchell County
Putney Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 27
Well Owner and Address:
Larry Morey
Route 1
Baconton, Georgia 31716
Well Construction Details: 3" in diameter, cased well
General Usage Information: Agricultural drainage in pond area next to pecan
orchard
Note: Pictures and the mapped location(s) appear on the following page(s)
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location:
Camilla, Georgia, 3 miies north of Route 3
Mitchell County
Baconton South Quadrangle
Index Number(s):
28
Well Owner and Address:
Robert Bennett
Route 2, Box 139
Meigs, Georgia 31765
Well Construction Details: Field drainage tile
General Usage Information: Agricultural field drainage.
Mr. Bennett who leases this property gave us permis-
sion to walk the land, but could not accompany us.
He knows of no drainage well. However, ne did state
that he heard that the field has drain tile in it.
The field was inaccessible due to standing water.
Note: Mapped location(s) appear on the following page(s)
[2-14]
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location:
Cam 111a, Georgia
Mitchell County
Newton Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 29
Well Owner and Address:
Jimmy Harden
Route 1, Highway 37
Cami1 la, Georgia 31730
Well Construction Details: 4-inch diameter cased well
General Usage Information: Mr. Hardin had a drainage well on his land (V i.n.,
b2' deep) plugged with neet cement about 10 years
ago. Someone told him that the chemicals would
leach into his nearby supply well. After he plugged
the well, he cut the casing 5' below land surface.
Note: The mapped location for this well appears on the following page
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location:
Three (3) miles west
Mitchell County
Newton Quadrangle
of State Route 3
Index Number(s): 30
Well Owner and Address:
Judson Drewry
Route 1
Camilla, Georgia 31730
Well Construction Details: 3" diameter, cased well, cut-off k feet below
ground surface. Plugged with neet cement.
General Usage Information: Originally used for field drainage
Note: The mapped location for this well appears on the following page
[2-16]
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location:
Camilla, Georgia
(36) Mitchell County
Newton Quadrangle
(37,38) Mitchell County
Baconton South Quadrangle
Index Number(s)
36, 37, 38
Well Owner and Address:
jf A***
James Hoi ton
25b S. Harney Street
Camilla, Georgia 31730
(912) 336-8168
Well Construction Details:
6" diameter, cased well with a gravel silt barrier.
Two (2) additional wells were seen from the road on
property believed to belong to Mr. Hoi ton.
General Usage Information: Well continuously being used to reclaim about 25 acres
of pasture land (horses and cattle). The waste stream
contains excretion from farm animals.
NOTE
t I I
Several other potential drainage well sites
were noticed on property believed to belong
to the Hoi ton family.
Also, a woman (Mrs. Virgil Hoi ton) on some adjacent
property has had quality problems with her drinking
water. This has been reported to the county sanitarian.
She believes that wells on the Hoi ton property and/or
Beaumont Farms property are causing the problems.
Note: Pictures and the mapped location(s) appear on the following page(s)
[2-..]
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location:
Camilla, Georgia
Mftchell County
Camilla Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 3^, 35
Well Owner and Address:
Danny Morrel1
Route 1
Camilla, Georgia 31730
Well Construction Details: 6" diameter, cased well. An additional 6" well is
located adjacent to this one.
General Usage Information: Agricultural field drainage. The owner reports one
well is not functioning.
Note: Pictures and the mapped location(s) appear on the following page(s)
[2-18]
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location: Camilla, Georgia
Mitchell County
Baconton South Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 33
Well Owner and Address: J. L. Adams (912) 336-8298
U.S. Highway 19
Camilla, Georgia 31730
Well Construction Details: Underground agricultural field drainage type
General Usage Information: The well is reported nonfunctioning. Oitch
drainage is currently being employed.
Note: Pictures and the mapped location(s) appear on the following page(s)
[2-19]
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location: Highway 300, north of Albany, Georgia
Dougherty County
Albany Northeast Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 18
Well Owner and Address: Unknown
Well Construction Details: 6" in diameter, flexible-plastic drain tile
General Usage Information: Agricultural field drainage
Note: Pictures and the mapped location(s) appear on the following page(
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location: South of Albany, Georgia. 500 feet up dirt road
off Antioch Road, east of U.S. 19
Dougherty County
Putney Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 17
Well Owner and Address: Unknown
Well Construction Details: 6" cast iron perforated casing extending to ground
level from 1 ft x 2i ft hole, about 2-j ft deep.
General Usage Information: Drain system utilized to dispose of rain run-off.
Note: Pictures and the mapped location(s) appear on the following page(s)
[2-21]
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location: Bainbridge, Georgia
Decatur County
Bainbridge Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 16
Well Owner and Address: Waymon Heard
Bainbridge, Georgia 31717
Well Construction Details: Field drainage via tile to a lime sink. The system
has been in operation for 6-7 years
General Usage Information: Agricultural field drainage.
Note: The mapped location for this well appears on the following page
[2-22
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location: Bainbridge, Georgi.a
Decatur County
Bainbridge Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 16
Well Owner and Address: Waymon Heard
Bainbridge, Georgia 31717
Well Construction Details: Field drainage via tile to a lime sink. The system
has been in operation for 6-7 years
General Usage Information: Agricultural field drainage.
Note: The mapped location for this well appears on the following page
[2-23]
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location: (12)Southwest of Colquitt, along a stream
Co 1 qui tt County
Hartsfield Quadrangle
(l3)Four [k) miles north of Colquitt
Colqui tt County
Hartsfield Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 12,13
Well Owner and Address: Larry Arrington
Moultrie, Georgia 31768
Well Construction Details: Two (2) supply wells, 12" diameter
General Usage Information: Both wells are agricultural supply wells. One
(north of Colquitt) has a number of empty
pesticide cans in immediate area.
Note: Pictures and the mapped location(s) appear on the following page(s).
[2-24]
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location: Highway 91, just south of Highway 37 intersection,
about one mile south of Newtor, Georgia, on right
side of highway (heading southward)
Baker County
Newton Quadrangle
Index Number(s): ^3, M
Well Owner and Address: Possibly Heard Farms (located about 20 miles south
of this location on Route 253, near Bainbridge and
Steadman Store)
Well Construction Details: Two (2) wells. From the highway, it appears to be
^-6" diameter, cased wells
General Usage Information: The two wells were sighted from the road. Another
well may exist in the same field. Wells used for
field drainage
Note: Pictures and the mapped location(s) appear on the following page(s)
[2-25]
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location:
Camilla, Georgia
Mi'tchell County
Newton Quadrangle
Index Number(s): ^7,
Well Owner and Address: Unknown. Possibly Beaumont Farms
Well Construction Details: Several 6" diameter wells seen from the roadway
of River Road. Construction is similar to that
of James Hoi ton's well(s).
General Usage Information: Agricultrual field drainage
Note: Pictures and the mapped location(s) appear on the following page(s)
-------
IDENTIFIED CLASS V INJECTION WELL
General Location: Highway 91, south of Albany, Georgia
Baker County
Red Store Crossroads Quadrangle
Index Number(s): 50
Well Owner and Address: Unknown
Well Construction Details: May be a lime sink. Mo other details aside from the
depression is seen
General Usage Information: Agricultural drainage
Note: Pictures and the mapped iocation(s) appear on the following page(s)
[2-27]
-------
SECTION 2.1.2
TITLE OF STUDY:
(OR SOURCE OF INFORMATION)
AUTHOR (OR INVESTIGATOR)
A Synopsis of Material from Two
Texas Department of Water Reports
Dealing in Part with Agricultural
Drainage Wells in that State
DATE:
Synopsis compiled by
VII, UIC Section
November, 19 86
EPA, Region
STUDY AREA NAME AND LOCATION: Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas,
USEPA Region VI
NATURE OF BUSINESS:
BRIEF SUMMARY/NOTES:
Not applicable
Hydraulic continuity occurs between
the three water-bearing zones in
the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
However, on a local scale, they are
relatively discrete with different
water qualities. The shallow zone,
which is highly mineralized and the
only zone used for the injection of
irrigation water via ADW's, shows
very high nitrate levels which are
probably due to the agricultural
practices in the region. The
middle and lower zones could be
used for domestic, stock, and even
public supplies if they were the
only sources available. It is
recommended that only the upper
zone be used for disposal of
irrigation waters. Also, it is
recommended that observation wells
be established in the study area to
monitor water levels and water
quality for the shallow, middle,
and lower zones. Existing wells
adjacent to agricultural areas
could be monitored for additional
data.
[2-28]
-------
The following is a synopsis of two reports, by the Texas Department of Water
Resources, which dealt in part with agricultural drainage wells (ADWs) in
that state.
There is only one place in Texas where the conditions are right for the
need for ADWs. They were first installed in Hidalgo County in the 1950s,
in the lower Rio Grande Valley, where zones of montmorillonite clay
prevent good vertical drainage. Water evaporates, leaving behind salts
which hinder proper plant growth. Here subsurface tiles collect surface
water, bring it to vertical wells which drain past the montmorillonite
zones into an accepting formation. Almost all the 90 wells which have
been located are in southwest Hidalgo County. Those investigated by the
Texas Water Commission (formerly Department of Water Resources) are in
the citrus growing region. The mean annual rainfall in the region is 23
inches. Fourteen inches fall during the growing season. Citrus farmers
need 45 to 50 inches a year. Irrigation supplies the extra 30 inches.
The irrigation water comes from two sources on the Rio Grande. Total
Dissolved Solids (TOS) in the river's water varies from 700 to 1,500
mg/1. TDS in one sample from an irrigation canal was 1,284 mg/1.
About 325 pounds of fertilizer, usually ammonium nitrate, sometimes
ammonium sulfate, is applied to each acre annually. Occasionally herbicides
are mixed with the fertilizers. Pesticides are sometimes applied without
fertilizer.
Ground water in the area occurs in the Gulf Coast aquifer "which includes
the Goliad Lissie and Beaumont formations and recent alluvial deposits.
Locally the water bearing zones "are separated by layers of less permeable
sediments."^
Water quality in the study area varies greatly. The uppermost zone, used
for ADW disposal, occurs from 50 to 100 feet, and is highly mineralized -
1,220 to 14, 674 mgl. Water of less than 3,000 mg/1 TDS occurs in the
southern and north-central portions of the area. Nitrates are very high
throughout the region. They exceeded EPA's 45 mg/1 (NO3) MCL in five
wells sampled. "These levels of nitrate in ground water may indicated
agricultural pollution."1
The middle water-bearing zone (1001 to 300' deep) ranges from 1,214 to
7,004 mg/1 TDS. It is "fresh to slightly saline,"! and had two of eight
samples in excess of 45 mg/1 nitrate.
The deep zone's TDS ranges from 1,150 to 4,262 mg/1 and exhibited nitrate
levels lower than the EPA standard.
The well systems consist of parallel spacings of drain tiles abuot six
feet deep and 75 to 225 feet apart. They are usually plastic, sometimes
clay or concrete. They are perforated, packed gravel, and have nylon
[2-29]
-------
filter cloth over the holes. "Drain tiles lead to a central collector,
which in turn leads to a discharge point or drainage well."l There are
three types of drainage well design in the area. Figure 1 shows a cistern
with the well pipe inside. Figure 2 shows a cistern with an adjacent
well. This system allows for easier well maintenance. The third type of
design is rarely used because it requires extra equipment and is much
more costly. Four inch steel well casing is mostly used, and slotted
pipe suffices for the well screen. Most wells are about 70 feet deep,
and inject into the shallow ground water zone described above.
Chemical analyses of fluid going down the ADWs showed all to be in excess
of EPA Safe Drinking Water Act standards, with respect to TDS, sulfate,
chloride, and nitrate. The following tabled shows the sample ranges
compared to EPA standards:
Constituent
Total Dissolved
Solids
Range of Drainage
Fluid Concentration
(mg/1)
1,754 - 6,510
EPA Recommended
Maximum Concentration
for Drinking Mater
(mg/1)
500
Sulfate 571 - 1,361 250
Chloride 371 - 2,520 250
Nitrate 68 - 203 45
Eleven samples were taken for pesticides analysis, eight from drainage
well systems, and three from supply wells. Twenty-three different
pesticides were sought. Twenty-one could not be detected. Bromacil and
Simazine were found in six drainage wells; none were detected in the
supply wells. The Bromacil found ranged from 1.2 to 16 ug/1, Simazine
from 5.5 to 16 ug/1. EPA has no standards for these in water.
It was observed in June 1982, that each of these wells was disposing of
one to three gallons of fluid per minute.
Contamination Potential 1
"Introduction of high concentrations of nitrate, dissolved solids,
and pesticides into groundwater can have negative health effects if the
water is consumed. Health effects of human consumption of high nitrate
waters have been extensively documented. Infant cyanosis (methemoglobinemia)
or "blue baby" syndrome has been attributed to high nitrate concentrations
in water supplies. There is evidence that consumption of high nitrate
water can produce intestinal pathological conditions resulting in diarrhea.
Major objections to high concentrations of dissolved solids in drinking
water are the laxative effects of excessive sulfate and the generally
unpleasant mineral taste of the water. A variety of insecticides, herbicides,
and fungicides are used on crops in the study area at different times
during the year. Pesticide analyses of fluids entering drainage
2
[2-30]
-------
wells confirmed the presence of 8romacil and Simazine in most of the drainage
well samples. Bromacil and Simazine are persistent herbicides, but are
relatively nontoxic to mammals. The EPA has no standards for Bromacil
and Simazine levels in water."
Alternates to APMs
since they require maintenance and are expensive to drill, the local
residents are considering two alternatives to drainage wells.
First: In 1975, Hidalgo County passed a proposition to construct a main
drainage ditch. The ditch now extends into the eastern part of the
county. But, in 1982, a proposal to improve and extend the ditch was
defeated. If it is ever completed, drainage tiles could discharge into
the ditch rather than into wells.
Second: The U.S. Soil Conservation Service is proposing discharging the
drain tile fluids into caliche pits in southern Hidalgo County.
Regulatory Potential
There are eight drainage districts and 33 irrigation districts in the
Lower Rio Grande Valley. They each can levy and collect taxes for
construction and improvement in the districts. There are soil and water
conservation districts. The Lower Rio Grande Development Council was
formed in 1967 to organize pooling the strengths of local governments.
ASCE, of the Department of Agriculture, "has established design specifications
for drainage wells in the National Handbook of Conservation Practices (U.S.
Soil Conservation Service, 1978). These design standards specify that
the practice of drainage well use is applicable only in locations where a
determination has been made that it will not cause pollution of underground
waters. "1
Conclusions and Recommendations
Hydraulic continuity occurs between the three water-bearing zones in the
Lower Rio Grande Valley. However, on a local scale, they are relatively
discrete with different water qualities. The shallow zone, which is very
highly mineralized and the only zone used for the injection of irrigation
water via ADWs, shows very high nitrate levels which are "probably due to
the agricultural practices in the region."2 y^e middle and lower zones
could be used for domestic, stock, and even public supplies if they were
the only sources available. It is recommended that only the upper zone
be used for disposal of irrigation waters. Also, it is recommended that
"the Department* establish observation wells in the study area to monitor
water levels and water quality for the shallow, middle and lower zones."2
Existing wells adjacent to agricultural areas could be monitored for
additional data.
* Now the Texas Water Commission
3
[2-31]
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Knape, B.K. (compiler), 1984, Underground injection operations in
Texas - A classification and assessment of underground injection
activities: Texas Department Water Resources, Report 291.
Molofsky, S.J., 1985, Ground-Water Evaluation from Test Hole Drill
Near Mission, Texas: Texas Department Water Resources, Report 292
-------
SECTION 2.1.3
TITLE OF STUDY: Iowa Agricultural Drainage Well
(OR SOURCE OF INFORMATION) Assessment Report
AUTHOR (OR INVESTIGATOR): University Hygienic Laboratory,
University of Iowa
DATE: January, 19 87
STUDY AREA NAME AND LOCATION: Iowa, USEPA Region VII
NATURE OF BUSINESS: Not applicable
BRIEF SUMMARY/NOTES: The quality of water draining into
the eight ADW's monitored for
this study showed the effects of
current row-crop agricultural
practices in Iowa. Trace levels of
ammonia nitrogen were detected in
all of the wells at different
sampling events, while significant
concentrations of nitrate nitrogen
were detected in all of the wells
each time they were sampled. The
concentrations of pesticides
detected were low and never
exceeded the Safe Drinking Water
Act Maximum Contamination Level for
pesticides. Alachlor and carbofuran
concentrations detected in ADWs
exceeded the proposed maximum
contaminant level goals (0 and 36
ug/L, respectively).
[2-33]
-------
Iowa Agricultural
Drainage Well
Assessment
Report
fT'7_;pj-v>%v,"-
i ;VV-; LV-._- V\V-«,£ i-
7-„- f-' .-- ... .. ~
~t . i t ^ci-'
—, ; ' » -n 4V~"*£\t»-^ «
j\
•5 .••sv.nrti
V I *»)«•«
I -JL- i
£V::'OAKDALE CAMPUS
[2-34]
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The agricultural drainage well (ADW) was first used over 100 years
ago to drain surface and subsurface water from areas where low topographic
relief and poorly drained soils caused wet conditions not conducive to
crop production.
As an alternative to tile and ditch drainage systems, ADWs are
drilled into shallow aquifers that have the capacity to receive large
amounts of water, such as fractured carbonate strata of limestone or
dolomite. In some parts of Iowa, the low, flat topography of
north-central Iowa in particular, where soils are classified as poorly to
somewhat poorly drained, land could not be used for agricultural purposes
without the surface and subsurface drainage provided by agricultural
drainage wells. Most land drained by ADWs in Iowa is intensively farmed,
and fertilizers and pesticides are used to produce row crops such as corn
and soybeans.
However, aware of the benefits ADWs produce, there exists a concern
that they are a source of groundwater contamination (Baker and Austin,
1984; Libra and Hallberg, 1985). ADWs discharge surface runoff, along
with sub-surface drainage, which allows agricultural chemicals to enter
into aquifers (see Figure 1). Because agricultural chemicals may enter
the groundwater there exists the potential for drinking water
contamination in surrounding areas.
Groundwater is an abundant natural resource within the state of Iowa
and is an important source of drinking water, especially in rural areas.
[2-35]
-------
Figure 1.
S percolation ? ' f draloag. *•«
Major Sources of Inflow:
Percolation and Surface Runoff
Source: Cooperative Extension Service. Iowa State University
2
[2-33]
-------
Groundwater in Iowa occurs in sand and gravel formations, and in bedrock
formations. Even though groundwater is relatively abundant throughout
Iowa, it is very susceptible to deterioration and depletion from a variety
of huaan activities.
The quality of water draining into the eight ADWs monitored for this
study showed the effects of current row-crop agricultural practices in
Iowa. Trace levels of anrcr.ia nitrogen were detected in all of the wells
at different sampling events, while significant concentrations of nitrate
nitrogen were detected in all of the wells each time they were sampled.
Nitrate nitrogen concentrations exceeded the 10 mg/L drinking water
standard for 67 percent of the samples. Pesticides" detected were
Atrazine, cyanasine (Bladex), oetolachlor (Dual), alachlor (Lasso), Senear
and carbofuran (Furadan) at maximum concentration levels of 5.2, 2.8, 5.9,
0.29, 0.73, 0.2 yg/L, respectively. The four most heavily used herbicides
in Iowa according to the "1985 Iowa Pesticide Survey, Preliminary Report,"
were alachlor (Lasso), cyanazine (Bladex), atrazine, and metolachlor
(Dual) accounting of 69.2 percent of the total pounds of herbicides used
in the state. The concentrations of pesticides detected were low and
never exceeded the Safe Drinking Vater Act (SDWA) Maximum Contamination
Level (MCL) for pesticides now regulated. Alachlor (Lasso) and carbofuran
exceeded
(Furadan) concentrations detected in ADWs during this study -ABftaoti.
C0n+3mirisn+ goals \.ftCLGs)
proposed hwhich are BBS) and W ®g/L, respectively.
O 3b
Previous ADW Projects in Iowa
Since 197S there have been four major investigations conducted in
Iowa to assess the aerial extent of ADWs impact on groundwater quality and
potential alternatives to ADWs.
3
[2-37]
-------
In the Impact of Agricultural Drainage Wells on Groundwater Quality
(Baker and Austin, 1984) the authors stated that the lack of proper
criteria was one of the difficulties of assessing the impact of ADWs on
groundwater. This report brought up several questions regarding the
establishment of guidelines pertaining to water quality and ADWs that are
still being asked and pondered over today:
1. Should water being recharged by ADWs meet drinking water
standards?
2. Should standards be applied to the highest concentrations
recorded or to the average concentrations?
3. Should no acceptable levels of pesticides (zero concentrations)
be allowed in the recharge water?
Questions such as these are complicated, there are no quick solutions
or answers. Guidelines for water quality criteria pertaining to ADWs in
Iowa is further complicated by the farm crisis extending throughout the
Midwest. Farmers are facing some of the roughest economic times since the
depression, and matters concerning any regulation of ADWs need to be
handled delicately. However, farmers are more informed about the hazards
of farm chemicals today than ever before. A recent survey conducted by
Dr. Steve Padgitt, a rural sociologist with Iowa State University, of
farmers and non-farmers in northeast Iowa showed that farmers are open to
the idea of regulations on agricultural chemicals and will accept taxes on
them if the revenues will go to helping solve the problem of groundwater
contamination by agricultural chemicals. Results of the survey, which
were published November 11, 1986, in an article titled "Economic Interest
vs. Environment" in the Cedar Rapids Gazette, also showed that
4
[2-38]
-------
preservation of water quality and prevention of soil erosion were rated as
highly as maintaining profitability.
Another problem with assessing the impact of ADWs is the lack of an
accurate inventory. Although many methods have been utilized (see Table
1) to try and inventory ADWs in Iowa, no method has proved very
successful, and a large discrepancy exists as to the actual number of ADWs
that have been estimated to exist in Iowa.
Early investigations by Musterman (Musterman, Fisher, and Drake,
1981) estimated that as many as 700 ADWs existed in Iowa. The Iowa
Geological Survey (IGS) mailed out a postal, veil-inquiry questionnaire
designed to ask each property owner or tenant about the number and type of
wells on their property during 1983 and 1984 property re-assessment
(Hallberg, et. al., 1985). Two hundred fifty thousand questionnaires were
sent out. There were a total of 103,000 (41%) cards returned which noted
the presence of 197 drainage wells, which they felt to be 60 percent of
the total ADWs in Iowa. The IGS estimated from the card inventory that
there are 328 drainage wells. However, this estimation (Hallberg, et.
al., 1985) is qualified with the statement that, "No accurate check on the
number of drainage wells presently exists...". The most current edition
of the Federal Underground Injection Control Reporting System (FURS)
230
Inventory notes 90. ADWs for Iowa.
Regulation of ADWs
ADWs are regulated by Iowa law, Chapter 455.B of the Code of Iowa,
under the rules of the Department of Natural Resources. It is stated that
all drainage wells, must be permitted, regardless of their construction.
Under these rules it is also stated that it is illegal to discharge any
pollutant into Iowa's groundwater, other than heat.
5
[2-39]
-------
Table 1. Number of ADWs in Iowa
Method
Infrared Photography
Statistical Survey
Aerial Photography
Thermal Differential Photography
Voluntary Registration
Well Inventory Cards
Projection Based on Numbers
of Known Wells
Estimated Number of Wells
Ineffective: < 1 /3 of known wells found
700-900 wells estimated
Ineffective: < 1 /10 of known wells found
Ineffective: < 1 /3 of known wells found
Ineffective: < 100 wells registered
Partially effective: 150-300 cards
Estimate minimum of 300-400 wells
Source: R.D. Kelley, "Agricultural Drainage Wells and Groundwater Quality," 1986, p. 7.
6
[2-40]
-------
Because ADWs are considered injection wells they are regulated under
the Underground Injection Control (UIC) section of the Safe Drinking Water
Act. The federal government enacted this policy in an effort to avoid
further deterioration of the nation's groundwater.
An UIC program was to be developed and administered by each state
based on the following minimum federal requirements:
1. Prohibit unauthorized underground injection, effective within
three years of enactment of the program;
2. Require the injection applicant to bear the responsibility for
sharing protection of groundwater sources of drinking water;
3. Provide assurance that no regulation would allow endangerment of
underground sources of drinking water;
4. Provide inspection, monitoring, record-keeping and report
requirements for injection wells;
5. Provide control over injection by federal agencies, whether or
not the injection occurs on property owned or leased for the
federal government;
6. Provide non-interference with oil and gas production, unless
such requirements are essential to assure protection of
underground sources of drinking water.
Federal UIC regulations also grouped all injection wells into the
following five classes:
Class 1 - wells that inject hazardous waste below an underground
source of drinking water;
Class 2 - wells used for brine disposal or enhanced recovery
processes in the production of oil and gas;
7
[2-41]
-------
Class 3 - special process wells used insitu mining of copper, sulfur,
etc.;
Class 4 - wells that inject hazardous waste above or into a
underground source of drinking water; and
Class 5 - other injection wells such as hydrocarbon storage wells,
cooling water return wells, and agriculture drainage wells.
Agricultural drainage wells fall into the Class 5 category. The
2.1*3
most recent edition of the FURS inventory showed that .of the total
230
underground injection wells in Iowa, 2SL (88%) are ADWs.
In states that do not have the resources to develop their own
underground injection program, the U.S. EPA, as required by federal law,
initiates and enforces an underground injection program. Iowa, along with
22 other states, has opted for a program administered by the U.S. EPA.
SUMMARIES OF FINDINGS FROM PREVIOUS ADW STUDIES
The Baker and Austin Report, 1984
Between 1978 and 1983 extensive research was conducted to assess
various aspects of agricultural drainage wells in Iowa (Mustennan, Fisher,
and Drake, 1981; Baker and Austin, 1984).
Groundwater Quality
Musterman, Fisher, and Drake identified three main areas with high
concentrations of ADWs (Figure 2), and estimated that there could be 700
wells in the state.
Baker and Austin proceeded to conduct a study of four ADWs in
Humboldt County. Humboldt County is located in north-central Iowa, which
8
12-42]
-------
Figure 2.
0S3CU OiCa-IOft
Crt'OMl
ICCCIJ*
C*AelC«0 Ci«CU
VOMO^A
NC**0t 1 I*«U#
CtClIU*
potential (or
drainage well
0 high
Q moderate
use
Potential for Agricultural Injection Well Use in Iowa
Source: Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa Slate University
9
[2-43]
-------
is one of the geographic locations Musterraan, et. al.t identified as
having a high concentration of ADWs.
All four wells monitored in Humboldt County received drainage from
row-cropped areas (corn and soybeans). It was pointed out that 95 percent
of the cropland in Humboldt County is row-cropped. Therefore, ADWs
potential to contaminate groundwater is increased because row-cropped land
is treated with larger amounts of chemicals than less intensively farmed
land used to raise crops such as oats or hay (Baker and Austin, 1S84).
Baker and Austin sampled the wells for their study mainly in the
spring for two reasons: 1) Flow was highest, and 2) Farmers had just
applied agricultural chemicals to their fields.
The results of Baker and Austin's samples showed that bacterial
levels and pesticide concentrations were lower in the two wells receiving
only subsurface flow, especially when sampled following a week without
rain. Conversely, pesticide and bacteria count levels were higher in the
two wells that had surface runoff sources, especially after a rainfall
event when runoff or ponding occurred. Pesticides were detected in the
samples with concentrations observed in the low parts per billion ( ug/L)
range. Alachlor, atrazine, carbofuran, chlordane, cyanazine, 2,4-D,
dicamba, dieldrin, and metribuzin were all detected at different times at
maximum concentrations of 55, 0.5, 0.6, 1.8, 80, 0.4, 12, 0.028, and 0.41
yg/L, respectively. However, over half of the samples analyzed for
pesticides had no pesticides above detectable limits.
Results also showed that nitrate concentrations entering the wells
were high. Eighty-five percent of the samples exceeded the 10 mg/L
standard. The overall average concentration was 16 ag/L. Hitrate
concentrations were found to be higher when conditions were conducive to
10
[2-44]
-------
subsurface drainage and were found to be lower when conditions were
conducive to surface flow.
At least three of the four wells monitored were drilled into the
Mississippian aquifer, at depths of 37 m, 49 m, and 87 m. The
Mississippian aquifer is an upper bedrock aquifer and is used as a source
for community and farm water supply in the study region (Baker and Austin,
1984).
Baker and Austin also tested farm home supply wells three times for
NO^-N to see if ADWs affected groundwater quality in the area. The farm
wells tested were split into three geographic areas.
Area 1 had 38 inventoried ADWs. Forty-seven farm home supply wells
were tested and the average NO^-N concentration for wells tested was 10.9
mg/L. Thirty-seven percent of the wells had an average greater than or
equal to 10 mg/L.
Area 2 had 24 inventoried ADWs. Sixty-six farm wells were tested and
the average NO^-N concentration was 8.7 mg/L. Thirty percent of the wells
had an average greater than or equal to 10 mg/L.
Area 3 had no ADWs within the sampling area. Fifty-seven farm wells
were sampled and the average NO^-N was 3.0 mg/L; only 9 percent of the
wells had an average greater than or equal to 10 mg/L.
Because of the higher average NO^-N concentration levels for areas 1
and 2 compared to the lower NO^-N concentration level for area 3, it was
concluded that when ADWs were in a concentrated area they impacted the
quality of the water in the surrounding area.
Baker and Austin realized ADWs allowed NO^-M, bacteria and pesticides
to enter the groundwater system and suggested several options to lessen
the impact of ADWs.
n
[2-45]
-------
1. Better nitrogen management; lower and better timed applications.
It was also pointed out that a reduced nitrogen application rate
from 150 to 75 kilograms per hector would decrease net return
for corn around $26 per acre at current corn and nitrogen
prices.
2. Pesticide incorporation at application and the use of soil
conservation practices, along with the use of more strongly
adsorbed pesticides could decrease pesticide losses.
3. Closing surface outlets and forcing surface water to infiltrate
through the soil would decrease transport of bacteria and
moderately and strongly adsorbed pesticides into aquifers
(although ponding would result froo slower drainage and increase
wetness problems).
It was also projected that if ADWs were closed with no alternative
drainage the crop losses would be at least $128 per acre depending on the
weather. If alternative drainage was provided by use of tile mains and
drainage ditches, along with the use of pumps where needed, draining 5500
acres would cost an average of $236 per acre (range from $90 to $320 per
acre), estimated on the known locations of 54 ADWs in Humboldt and
Pocahontas Counties (Baker and Austin, 1984).
IGS STUDIES, 1984 and 1985
The Iowa Geological Survey has conducted three studies, one directly
related to ADWs and two indirectly related to ADWs, but pertinent to the
geohydrology of the current study area of Floyd County, Iowa. The first
simply was a study where questionnaires were mailed out to ascertain the
12
[2-46]
-------
total number and type of wells that exist in Iowa (Hallberg, et. al.t
1985). The details of this study were addressed in the Executive Summary.
The second two studies, Hvdrogeologic Observations From Multiple Core
Holes and Piezometers In the Devonian-Carbonate Aquifers In Flovd and
Mitchell Counties. Iowa' (Libra and Hallberg, 1985), and Stratigraphic
Framework For The Devonian Aquifers In Floyd and Mitchell Counties, Iowa
(Witzke and Bunker, 1984) were undertaken to better define and understand
the Devonian-Carbonate stratigraphic influence on the extent and degree of
groundwater contamination, as well as to provide a general stratigraphic
framework for the Devonian aquifers.
IGS realized that in north-central Iowa, where they conducted their
studies, ADWs presented a potential source of ground water contamination.
Four core-holes were drilled into the Devonian Sequence in Floyd and
Mitchell Counties to better assess the impact of ADWs on groundwater
contamination.
The study by Vitzke and Bunker provided detailed stratigraphic data
derived from four core holes in Floyd and Mitchell Counties. Data
obtained from these core holes were critical in describing and delineating
the extent of Devonian aquifers in the region. This study demonstrated
the Devonian units within north-central Iowa form a three-aquifer system.
Witzke and Bunker suggested the individual carbonate aquifers within Floyd
County are separated by shales or shaley carbonate units that are likely
to have low permeabilities. The exact regional extent and effectiveness
of these confining units are not well known.
6eoloaic
iSSgSPBS logs of core samples taken within the study area
demonstrated that the lower aquifer within the area is of the Spillville
Formation. It is believed that the Spillville Formation is approximately
13
[2-47]
-------
60 to 70 feet thick near the Floyd-Mitchell County border and tapers off
in the southern portion of Floyd County to approximately 25 to 45 feet in
In other words there is a continual thinning of the Spillville
Formation from north to the southwest within the study area. At all sites
that have been studied in this area, The Spillville Formation is overlain
by the Wapsipinicon Formation which is believed to be a confining bed of
shale, carbonates and shaley carbonates that is approximately 30 to 40
feet in thickness.
The middle aquifer within this area is believed to be approximately
60 to 75 feet in thickness. This middle aquifer is overlain and confined
by the Chickasaw shale, which has a thickness of approximately 20 feet.
The IGS grouped together the overlying Devonian carbonates and referred to
them as the upper aquifer, because they found no regionally persistent
confining bed present within these strata. However, shale or shaley
carbonate horizons were found within this area and may act locally to
subdivide the upper aquifer into relatively isolated hydrological units.
It has been estimated that the thickness of this upper aquifer varies from
120 to 180 rrrUBfaffl
In water quality analyses conducted in conjunction with the IGS
study, it was determined that detectable concentrations of nitrate
nitrogen and pesticides occurred mainly within the aquifer lying above the
Chickasaw shale. Detectable concentrations of nitrate and pesticides
occurred within relatively deeply buried (50 feet) bedrock aquifers in a
monitoring site located in mid-central Floyd County, and suggested that
ADWs in that area may be impacting groundwater quality.
14
-------
Figure 3. Geologic Regions in Floyd and Mitchell Counties
rtOYO
mow
ItlSW
Rirw m«w ' ais*
*17* mew
1 I Deep Bedrock
~ Shallow Bedrock
I I Karst
I 'il! I Incipient Karst
• IGS Test Core Hole Sites
scale
20 iniles
5 25 kilometers
RISW
Source: G.G. Ressmeyer. R.D. Libra, G.R. Hallberg. Iowa Geological Survey. 1984.
15
[2-49]
-------
CURRENT IOWA ADW ASSESSMENT
Study Area
Samples were taken from eight agricultural drainage wells in Floyd
County during June, July,"and September of 1986 (See Figure 4). The
following information on the wells construction features and locations was
provided by Kernait Voy, soil scientist of the USDA Soil Conservation
Service in Charles City.
Geohydrology of the Study Area
Detailed geohydrologic and stratigraphic information of the study area has
been addressed in the previous section.
Well Construction Features
Well #1 is located approximately 2060 feet south and 35 feet east of
the NW corner of Sec. 22, T96N, R16W in the east road ditch, just south of
the railroad track. The cistern is 69 inches in depth and four feet in
diameter, and sits about a foot above ditch level. Two tile systems, one
approximately 12 inches in diameter, the other 6 inches, outlet into the
receiving tank of the well. The well casing is approximately 6 inches in
diameter. Entrance to the well is gained through a chained and padlocked
manhole. The well sits high on a nearly level landscape on the
interstream divide between the Cedar River and Flood Creek. Host of the
soils here are poorly drained. The thickness of the glacial and
cretaceous materials overlying the creviced Cedar Valley bedrock is about
50 feet.
16
-------
The University of Iowa
Hygienic Laboratory
Figure 4. ADW Study Area in Floyd County
Cedar River
Nora Springs
Rudd
Floyd
Charles City
~ Rockford
~ 4
A 6
Marble Rock
Shell Rock River
Source: The University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, 1986
Scale in Miles
0 5
1= I
IOWA
17
[2-51]
-------
Well #2 is located approximately 930 feet west and 50 feet north of
the SE corner of Sec. 22, T95N, R16W. The cistern is 54 inches in depth
with about 18 inches above'ground level. Two tile outlets, a 14 inch and
a 12 inch, empty into a round cementthat is approximately 72
inches in diameter. The vel^^j^gj»f%»ining the cistern is 9 inches in
probS-bl\
diameter. This well sits in th^same section as well #1 and —1
isttt horizon
the same geological
Well #3 is located approximately 2570 feet west and 80 feet north of
the SE corner of Sec. 29, T95N, H16W. The cistern's inside dimension is
62 inches by 62 inches, and is 74 inches deep. The cistern sits 6 inches
above ground level. Two eight inch tile outlets enter from the east side
12 inches above the bottom of the cistern. Four feet east of the cistern
a tile line blowout receives surface water. This well is located lower on
the landscape than wells #1 and #2. Soils above the well are poor or very
poorly drained. The thickness of glacial and cretaceous materials
overlying the Cedar Valley limestone should be less than 50 feet.
Well #4 is located about 1100 feet south and 250 feet west of the NE
corner of Sec. 15, T95N, R17W, along the eastside of a waterway about 3300
feet east of Flood Creek. The surface evidence of the well is a 5 inch
well casing pipe which extends 2 inches above ground level. It appears
tile outlets directly into the side of the well casing. (It could not be
determined whether or not the cistern was buried). A waterway just to the
west of the well is about 15 inches below the top of the casing. It is
estimated that this well drains 30 to 40 acres. This well also drains
poorly drained soils. Depth to the Cedar Valley bedrock is in the range
of 10 to 20 feet depending on the depth of the prior bedrock valley.
About 2500 feet to the west limestone bedrock outcrops at the surface at a
18
[2-52]
-------
somewhat higher elevation.
Well #5 is located approximately 320 feet west and 25 feet north of
the SE Corner of Sec. 10, T95N, R17W, in the north road ditch. The cement
cistern is about 60 inches by 92 inches. A tile main 10 inches in
diameter empties into the cistern on the north. A small cistern receiving
surface runoff sits to the south, and drains into the well cistern through
a 5 inch pipe. This well sits about 1100 feet north of well #4 and 3325
feet east of Flood Creek. Again most of the soils in this area are poorly
drained, and sediments overlying the Cedar Valley limestone are probably
10 to 20 feet in thickness. Limestone bedrock - outcrops at the surface
2900 feet to the southwest, at a slightly higher elevation.
There are six sinkholes within 700 to 2500 feet of this well and well
#4. Fifteen hundred feet to the NE of well #5, in Sec. 11, where the
poorly drained soils lie higher on the landscape, they are drained by tile
into a sinkhole at the lower end of a blind valley.
Well #6 is located 2400 feet west and 30 feet north of the SE corner
of Sec. 34, T95N, R17W in the road ditch on the north side of the road.
This well's water-receiving receptacle is an 81 inch upright corrugated
metal pipe with a diameter of 20 inches. The top of the well casing,
which is 6 inches in diameter, is at 51 inches. This well sits in a small
valley where the soils above the well are predominantly poor to somewhat
poorly drained. Depth to the Cedar Valley limestone is estimated to be 10
to 20 feet depending on the thickness to the cretaceous materials.
Well #7 is located approximately 500 feet south and 320 feet east of
the NW corner of Sec. 10, T94N, R17W. This well is located in a sinkhole.
A 10 inch diameter corrugated metal stand pipe is the receiving receptacle
for this well. The stand pipe extends 54 inches above the bottom of the
19
[2-53]
-------
sinkhole. One tile line enters this well at a depth of about 54 inches.
Surface water may enter through holes cut into the pipe. (A well in a
sinkhole about 1000 feet to the south serves as the tile outlet for legal
drainage district #2). Depth to limestone for this well is estimated to
be 8 to 15 feet.
Well #8 is located approximately 800 feet north and 200 feet east of
the S'v corner of Sec. 12, T94\, R17*. Tne concrete cistern is 40 incr.es
in diameter. The depth of the cistern is 81 inches with 6 inches
extending above the ground. It is believed that two tile lines enter tne
cistern. This well sits lo- on t'^e landscape about a mile '-est of Fiooc
Creek. Depth to limestone bedrock is estimated, at this location, to be
less than 10 feet.
Characteristics of Injected Fluids
Data for the parameters measured for the water entering the eight
agricultural drainage wells in Floyd County is displayed in Tables 2, 3,
and 4. Ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen were detected in all wells.
There seemed to be no direct relationship to the concentrations measured
for amaonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen to rainfall or to whether water
entered the well by surface or subsurface drainage. Concentrations of
nitrate nitrogen exceeded the 10 mg/L drinking water standard for 67
percent of the samples. Although the concentrations measured for nitrate
nitrogen were from drainage water, it does have a bearing on drinking
water supplies as the drainage water is also entering the groundwater.
Some pesticides were also detected in water entering the agricultural
drainage wells. The pesticides detected were Atrazine, Bladex, Dual,
Lasso, Sencor, and Furadan at maximum concentrations levels of 5.2, 2.8,
20
[2-54]
-------
Table 2. Analytical Report for Samples Taken, 10 June 1986
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
No 1
No. 2
No 3
No 4
No 5
No. 6
No. 7
No 8
Ammonia (as N) mg/L
0.11
004
<0 01
001
0 06
0 05
0 06
NO.-NO, (as N) mg/L
13
19
13
11
8
7
16
Atrazine ^g/L
<0.1
2.3
0 80
0 15
0 20
1.2
075
3 3
Bladex mS^L
2 8
<0.1
<0 1
<0.1
<01
<0 1
<0.1
<0 1
Dual ng/L
5 9
0.98
0 14
<0 1
1.5
0 23
<0.1
061
Lasso pg/L
0 12
0 14
0 27
<0 1
021
0 29
<0 1
023
Sencor ng/L
0 73
<0.1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
0 12
<0 1
<0 1
Treflan ^g/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Counter ^g/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 I
<0 1
Diazmon fig/L
<0 1
<01
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Dyfonate
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Lorsban pg/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Malathion pg/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Mocap
<01
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Thimei ^g/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Furadan /ig/L
<0.1
02
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Sevin hq/L
<0.1
<0.1
<0 1
<0.1
<0.1
<0 1
<0.1
<0 1
Source The University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory. 1936
Table 3. Analytical Report for Samples Taken, 18 July 1986
Well
Well
Well
Wed
Wefl
Well
Well
Well
No 1
No. 2
No 3
No 4
No. 5
No 6
No 7
No 8
Ammonia (as N) mg/L
0 05
0.01
001
001
0 01
004
001
0 06
NO;-rNO) (as N) mg/L
8
25
16
12
25
17
7
13
Atrazine mQ/L
<0 1
3.1
0 60
0 14
0 54
0 81
0.46
<0 1
Bladex /ig/L
<0.1
<01
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Dual pg/L
0 73
1 6
<0 1
<0 1
1 3
017
<0 1
0 99
Lasso mQ/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0.1
<0 1
Sencor ^g/L
0 16
<0 1
0 28
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Treflan ng/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0 1
Counter jig/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0.1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Diazinon ftg/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<01
<0.1
<0 1
<0 1
Dyfonate jjg/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Lorsban ^g/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Malathion yug/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0.1
<0 1
<0 1
Mocap Mg/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Thimet ^g/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0.1
<0 1
<0 1
Furadan yg/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Sevm ^g/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Source The University of
Iowa Hygienic Laboratory
1936
21
[2-55]
-------
Table 4. Analytical Report for Samples Taken, 1 6 September 1986
Well
Well Well Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
No 1*
No 2 No
3* No 4
No 5
No 6*
No 7*
No 8"
Ammonia (as N) mg/L
<0 01
0 88
0 02
NO:+NOj (as N) mg/L
31
02
1
Atrazine pg/L
5 2
0 22
0 15
BlacJex pg/L
<0 1
0 12
<0 1
Dual fig/L
1 4
<0 1
<0 1
Lasso m9/l
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Sencor pg/L
<0.1
<0.1
<01
Treflan p.g/L
<0.1
<0.1
<0 1
Courrier pg/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Diazinon /ig/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Dyfonate mEJ/I-
<0.1
<0 1
<0 1
Lorsban ^g/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Malathion nq/L
<0 1
<0.1
<0 1
Mocap pg/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0.1
Thimet ng/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
Furadan jig/L
0 18
<0 1
<0 1
Sevin pg/L
<0 1
<0 1
<0 1
• This well was dry on 16 September 1986
Source: The University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory. 1986
22
[2-55]
-------
5.9, 0.29, 0.73, 0.2 pg/L, respectively. Alachlor (Lasso), cyanazine
(Bladex), atrazine, and mecolachlor (Dual) are the four most heavily used
herbicides in Iowa, according to the "1985 Iowa Pesticide Survey,
Preliminary Report," accounting for 69.2 percent of the total pounds of
herbicides used in the state. Sencor is also fairly widely used,
accounting for another 3 percent of total usage. Carbofuran (Furadan), a
carbamate insecticide, is the fifth most widely used soil insecticide in
Iowa, according to the report. Thus it is not surprising to see these
particular compounds in the runoff and/or groundwater in these drainage
veils.
The graph in Figure 5 is a compilation of data that the University of
Iowa Hygienic Laboratory has developed by analyzing private drinking water
wells in Floyd County over a five year period. The graph depicts the
percentage of samples that tested unsafe for nitrates from all the samples
sent in to the Hygienic Laboratory from Floyd County for that year. The
data in Table 5 is a numerical depiction of the same information shown on
the graph.
Potential Impacts From Contaminated Groundwater
The primary impact associated with the contamination of groundwater
by agricultural drainage wells (ADWs) sterna from the potential human
health risks from consuming these contaminated waters.
There are very few documented human health impacts from direct
ingestion of nitrate nitrogen in adults. Nitrogen-related human health
problems are most frequently associated with the ingestion of nitrites.
Upon the ingestion of nitrate, it has been found a portion of the nitrate
is converted to nitrites (National Research Council, 1978). It is
22
[2-57]
-------
Figure 5.
Private Well Water Quality for
Floyd County
All Samples Received by the UHL, 1980—1985
-------
believed that bacteria within the mouth, and to a lesser degree bacteria
associated with other areas of the digestive system, convert (reduce)
nitrate to nitrite. The actual percentage of nitrate converted to nitrite
in the body apparently varies from individual to individual, and there is
no precise estimate of the human conversion factor for a given population.
It has been concluded from investigations into this matter that bacterial
reduction of nitrate nitrogen in the saliva of those people ingesting high
nitrate contaminated waters is probably the major source of nitrite
(National Research Council, 1978).
Methemoglobinemia is the best documented example of a human health
risk from the ingestion of nitrate nitrogen. In infants less than six
months of age, nitrate is reduced to nitrite in the digestive tract,
apparently due to the lack of acidity in the stomach and upper part of the
newborn intestinal tract. The nitrite ion in infants is absorbed directly
into the blood stream via the gut and chemically couples with the
hemoglobin to produce methemoglobin, which has substantially reduced
oxygen carrying capacity. Drinking water supplies that contain in excess
of 10 mg/L of nitrate as nitrogen can be fatal to infants, particularly
within the first few months of life. The actual documented deaths in the
infant population of the United States from methemoglobinemia are quite
low and the disease is considered rare, however, the true incidence rate
of the disease is not known because the morbidity from this disease is not
required by law to be reported.
The oncogenic properties of nitrites have been investigated, but a
, gai^Tines
more direct linkage to cancer has been found vrith nitroeSBBUB which are
formed when nitrites combine with other chemical moeities such as amines.
The opinion is held in wide agreement among most researchers that there is
25
[2-59]
-------
no question that nitrosoamines are very potent oncogens for a wide range
of target organs in many animal species (National Research Council, 1981).
The degree of human health risk associated with the ingestion of
potable water containing pesticide residues has recently been a much
studied, but by no means, a well answered question. By their very nature,
pesticides are designed to be toxic to certain forms of life, and because
most of these compounds are not completely selective in their actions,
they have a potential to adversely affect human health. There are a great
many unanswered questions and uncertainties regarding the human health
risk as associated with the ingestion of trace quantities of pesticides
for a number of reasons.
For many years it has been very easy to evaluate the acute toxicity
of pesticides in the laboratory as well as to study the acute effects from
accidental pesticide poisonings, however, no methodology exists to develop
meaningful risk assessments for the ingestion of trace quantities of
pesticides such as those that might be associated with contaminated
potable water from groundwater sources. The latency of human diseases
associated with chronic pesticide poisoning take years or even decades to
develop. Even using sophisticated retrospective epidemiological
investigations, cause-effect relationships are difficult to readily
demonstrate and relate back to pesticides ingested In trace concentrations
over a chronic exposure period.
Recent investigations have very conclusively shown that certain
pesticides are harmful to human health. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) has recently cancelled the uses of two nematicides,
ethylene dibromide (EDB) and dibromochloropropane (DBCP), due to the
overwhelming evidence that these two compounds both demonstrate mutagenic,
26
[2-60]
-------
teratogenic and oncogenic effects on humans (U.S. EPA, 1985). Both EDB
and DBCP were found in groundwater resources in various parts of the
country. Alachlor, a widely used acetanilide herbicide, has teen found in.
groundwater in four states and has been found through laboratory research
to have strong oncogenic properties (U.S. EPA 19S5).
The triazine herbicides are common groundwater -.contaminants that are
now thought to be oncogens as well as suspected of causing long term
central nervous system disorders (U.S. Department of. Agriculture, 1986).
In similar studies, the widely used phenoxy acid herbicides such as 2,
4-D, and 2,4,5-T, and 2,4,5-TP are suspected of causing central nervous
system disorders and a variety of other' chronic health problems.
Although the environmental toxicological data are imperfect in that
it is hard to clearly link mutagenic, teratogenic or ocogenic properties
to pesticides or nitrates, especially at the concentrations found in
potable water, good sound scientific judgement would strongly suggest that
the presence of either pesticides or nitrates in potable water supplies
certainly may pose human health risks. It is with this scientific and
philosophical stance that the U.S. EPA has proposed recommended maximum
9oa)5" CmCL6.s)
contaminant levels-for a variety of synthetic organic carbon
3 r & +o
compounds that VBB8 be regulated under the recent revisions to the Safe
Drinking Wat2r Act. Only two synthetic organic constituents found in this
Haveejfist-ino/^CL&s-(3j/O.
current study/\ alachlor^ and carbofuran<\ .aJiwwi
(O-uf/O
Due to the documented evidence from previous studies conducted in the
state of Iowa, as well as other states, which suggest there are human
health risks associated to the ingestion of pesticides and nitrates, the
27
-------
Iowa Department of Natural Resources recently drafted a groundwater
protection strategy. The goal of this strategy is nondegradation of all
groundwater resources within the state of Iowa. One of the mechanisms in
which they hope to achieve nondegradation is requiring all ADWs to be
plugged along with all abandoned wells by the year 2000. In conjunction
with this groundwater protection strategy, an elaborate groundwater
monitoring program has been proposed which would monitor any contamination
of groundwater supplies from synthetic organic chemicals as well as
nutrients regardless if they were entering via ADWs or by percolation.
28
[2-32]
-------
REFERENCES
Baker, J. L., T. A. Austin, Impact of Agricultural Drainage Wells on Ground-
water Quality, Completion Report 1981-1983, Departments of Agricultural
Engineering and Civil Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa,
1984.
Hallberg, G. R., B. E. Hoyer, M. Dorpinghaus, G. A. Ludvigson, Estimates of
Rural Wells in Iowa, Open File Report 85-1, Iowa Geological Survey, Iowa
City, Iowa, 1985.
Libra, R. D., G. R. Hallberg, I. Hydrogeologic Observations From Multiple
Core Holes and Piezometers in the Devonian-Carbonate Aquifers in Flovd
and Mitchell Counties, Iowa; II. Stratigraphic Framework for the Devo-
nian Aquifers in Flovd and Mitchell Counties, Iowa, Open File Report
85-2, Iowa Geological Survey, Iowa City, Iowa, 1985.
Musterman, J. L, R. A. Fisher, L. Drake, Underground Injection Control in
Iowa, Project Termination, Annual Progress Report, Office of Drinking
Water, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Environmental
Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 1980.
National Research Council, Drinking Water and Health. National Academy of
Sciences, 1977.
Nielsen, E. G., L. K. Lee, "The Magnitude and Costs of Groundwater Contamina-
tion from Agricultural Chemicals, A National Perspective," U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1986.
Voy, "Well - Landscape Observations, Floyd County LA 1986," Agricultural
Drainage Wells Test Project, Soil Conservation Service, Charles City,
Iowa, 1986.
Wintersteen, W., R. Hartzler, 1985 Iowa Pesticide Use Survey. Preliminary
Report, Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa,
1986.
[2-63]
-------
SECTION 2.1.4
TITLE OF STUDY:
(OR SOURCE OF INFORMATION)
AUTHOR (OR INVESTIGATOR):
DATE:
From Inventory of Class V Injection
Wells in the State of Colorado
SMC Martin
1985
STUDY AREA NAME AND LOCATION: San Luis Valley and High Plains,
Colorado, USEPA Region VIII
NATURE OF BUSINESS:
BRIEF SUMMARY/NOTES:
Not applicable
This section briefly cites an
irrigation- related pollution
problem in the San Luis Valley and
High Plains. Contamination is
attributed to the back flow of
irrigation water (containing
fertilizers) through an extraction
well. Backflow occurs if check
valves malfunction or the system is
misal1igned.
-------
The chemical irrigation-related pollution problem in
the San Luis Valley and High Plains (Figure 2) is a prime
example of the drawbacks of aquifer recharge by injection
wells (Appendix E). Mr. Ralph Curtis, of the Rio Grande
Water Conservation District, and Mary Gearhart, of the State
Board of Health, provided much valuable information on this
subject. Agricultural irrigation is intensively practiced
in these regions, and center-pivot irrigation systems are
commonly used. In this technique, a 75- to 100-foot deep
extraction well feeds the pivot for a revolving structure of
wheeled towers which support a perforated water pipe, fed by
the central well. This revolving mechanism distributes
water to a circular field whose radius is equal to the
length of the water distributing pipe. There are an
estimated 1,700-1,800 of these center-pivot systems now in
use in the San Luis Valley and about 2,800 in the High
Plains.
If the outflow from the central well stops due to
misalignment of the system and if check valves on the
center-pivot do not function, then the potential exists for
injection as irrigation fluid runs back through the
center-pivot into the extraction well. This in itself may
not seem significant, but in many of the center-pivot
systems, fertilizers and pesticides are added to the
irrigation water in the distribution pipe. If fluid runs
from this pipe down the central well, then fertilizers and
23
[2-55]
-------
pesticides may find their way into the ground-water system.
This problem is part of chemigation-related pollution which
has been addressed in work by the USGS in Pueblo (Zdelman
and Buckles, 1984) and the Water Quality Control Commission
of Colorado (1934) . Since the center-pivot system acts as
an injection well only when it malfunctions, it is nearly
impossible to define individual irrigation installations as
Class V wells. Therefore, center-pivot 'injection wells'
cannot be identified or inventoried. The environmental
impact of center-pivot injection is, however, serious and
real. Fertilizers, if they enter the ground water, increase
nitrogen as nitrate plus nitrite in the shallow aquifer
underlying the irrigation region. The environmental impact
of pesticides on ground water is complex and deleterious.
In addition to the aforementioned problem with
irrigation well backflow, there is also strong evidence to
suggest that some former water supply wells in the San Luis
Valley are now being used for aquifer recharge. Most
aquifer recharge in this region occurs via infiltration of
surface waters from ponds and/or ditches. However, some
farmers are thought to utilize former water supply wells in
an aquifer recharge capacity. Surface runoff from
irrigation is directed to field corners where former
extraction wells may be in place and be used for injection
recharge. An estimate of "no more than 50" such wells was
made by Ralph Curtis. Wells may be converted from
24
[2-531
-------
extraction to injection use simply by removing the pimp and
related hardware and lowering the casing to ground level so
water can flow freely in. Identification of individual
sites is impossible without on-site inspection, since no
record exists of such conversions.
These unverified wells have the same potential
environmental impacts as other aquifer recharge wells. The
main problems are the possibilities of air injection, solids
introduction, and contamination of ground water by chemical
and/or biological impurities, particularly fertilizers and
pesticides.
In summary, it appears that the San Luis Valley and the
High Plains may have numerous agriculture-related injection
wells, none of which are verifiable without on-site
investigation. These wells, if they exist, pose the
potential of ground-water pollution by a variety of
contaminants.
4. Class VX - Wells Associated with In Situ Oil Shale
Recovery and Experimental Wells in the Piceance Basin
(Howard types 15, 16 - see Table 1)
The Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation
in the Piceance Basin (Figure 3) has been the location of
experimental and production-oriented oil shale extraction
projects since 1955. Although some of the project sites are
temporarily or permanently abandoned, others are presently
(2/35) active. In these projects, three distinctly
25
[2-37]
-------
Review of Chemigation in Colorado
[2-63]
-------
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH
Richirfl 0 Lamm
Governor
'
-------
5/18/84
CKEMICATION: Issues and Options
DRAFT
SUMMARY
In the last 12-18 months, considerable attention has been focused on
our ground water resource and hov various activities do or can lapact
those resources. In Colorado, there is a growing question among
ground vater users in agricultural areas about contamination (existing
or potential) of the ground vater due to agricultural practices.
The question was initially raised in regard to nitrates, vhlch are
found in commercial fertilizers. With the increase in the number of
other chemicals used for pest control and veed control, the scope of
the issue appears to have expanded. Nitrate is an inorganic chemical
for which a maximum contaminant level (MCL) in drinking vater has been
established at 10.0 ag/1 as nitrogen (parts per million).
Historically, an elevated nitrate level In ground vater in and around
agricultural areas has been due to non-point source percolation of the
fertilizer dovn into the aquifer. However, a relatively new chemical
application nethod has provided a direct connection betveeen the
ground vater and agrlchemlcals, vhlch includes commercial
fertilizers. The method is called "chealgatlon" and it utilizes a
standard center pivot irrigation system to apply agrlchemlcals to the
crops. The center pivot systems are connected to water wells and,
because the systems vere initially designed to move vater only, there
are no safety precautions required to keep the agrlchemlcals from
being discharged into Che ground vater through the veil head.
Host of the pesticides used for agricultural purposes are not limited
In the drinking water regulations. There axe on-going studies by EPA
to determine the potential health hazards due to those chemicals.
Because of the chance for direct contamination of the ground vater,
the agricultural community has approached the High Plains Technical
Coordinating Committee to research the Impacts to ground vater of
ehemlgatlon and to provide technical, regulatory and educational
options for minimizing the risk of contamination from this practice.
This document will summarize the Issues associated with ehemlgatlon
and the options for dealing with the Issues.
E-2
[2-70]
-------
OVERVIEW OF CHEMIGATION
Geographic
Figure 1 (attached) Is a schematic diagram of the mechanical
modifications which make a center pivot system useable for
chealgatlon. The valves and piping shown on this diagram are
not required but are suggested by some injection unit
manufacturers as safety devices. Figure 2 (attached) Is a
•chematlc diagram of a chemical injection unit.
In Colorado, chemigatlon is practiced quite extensively in
the north and central eastern plains (referred to as the High
Plains area of the Ogallala aquifer), in the San Luis Valley,
and it vill also be used in the San Juan Basin. In 1963, six
northeastern Colorado counties irrigated approximately
500,000 acres of cropland through some mechanical means. Of
this amount, 48,000 acres were treated vlth three
agrichemicals which were labelled for chemigatlon. It is
projected that in 1984 the amount of acreage in those six
counties which vlll be treated via chealgatlon vlll Increase
by five hundred percent to about 230,000 acres. (Reference:
CSU Extension Service, Akron, CO.)
Based on 1983 information from the State Engineer's Office,
there were about 4600 veils permitted for irrigation in those
same six counties. Because each veil could be mechanically
¦odlfied for chemigatlon, each veil is a potential
contamination source. It is important to note here that if
one gallon of fertilizer vere spilled into an aquifer, it
could increase the nitrate level to 10 mg/1 (the Drinking
Vater Standard) in 100,000 gallons of vater. The compound
effect of all the irrigation veils could be very
significant. The trend Is tovards increased use of
chemigatlon in Colorado.
The people vho uae ground vater for irrigation and drinking
vater do so because it is the only vater available at a
reasonable cost. (Most of the private veils for household
use in agricultural areas are drilled into the same vater
source as the irrigation veils.) It is essential to be avare
of the potential for contamination and to be responsive to
the needs of the agricultural community by Improving
chemigatlon and reducing the risk to the environment and to
public health.
E-3
[2-71]
-------
Whv Chenlgation is Used
Many states have conducted research concerning chenlgatlon and have
found chat there are tvo basic reasons for using chenlgatlon. The
first is a practical one. It allovs the farmer to apply the chemicals
to the crops at the same tlae as Irrigation is accomplished, thereby
reducing the time required to do both. The second reason Is
economics. In today's market a farmer could save about $4.50 per acre
per year using the center pivot system for chemical application
instead of other traditional methods. One reason for the cost savings
Is that the chemicals are applied uniformly to the crops and
misapplication to some areas Is avoided. Chemlgatlon Is a viable,
practical method for agricultural use. If certain precautions were
taken to prevent direct ground vater contamination the benefits to the
farmer could far outvelgh the risks
Some of the potential difficulties associated vlth chemlgatlon are
related to environmental concerns. One, of course, Is the direct link
to ground vater through the veil head. Other problems are associated
vlth the misapplication of agrichemlcals because of peculiarities In
the sprinkler system equipment. The specific studies vhlch provide
the background for this paper are listed In the attached bibliography.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
The method of chemlgatlon is not specifically regulated by the
federal government. However, several federal lavs regulate the
use of the chemicals. These lavs are prlaarly environmental lavs
and are discussed belov. The enforcement of all or part of these
lavs has been delegated to the State and the discussion describes
the delegations.
A. FIFRA [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act, 1947
(amended by the Federal Pesticide Act in 1978)]
1. FIFRA regulates pesticides, including those used for
agriculture. All pesticides must be registered vlth
EPA. EPA also has the authority to classify a pesticide
or certain uses of It as restricted and/or ban a
pesticide and certain uses of It. Under FIFRA,
directions for use are required to be on a pesticide
label. These directions include: 1) the sites of
application and associated target pests, 2) the dosage
rate assoclsted vlth each site and pest, and 3) the
method of application, Including instructions for
dilution.
The 1978 Federal Pesticide Act amended the FIFRA so that
a method of application may be used unless it is
specifically prohibited on the label. This had the
effect of *1loving many more pesticides to be applied
through center pivot Irrigation systems than those vhlch
were labelled for this use.
1-4
[2-72]
-------
Prior to passage of the 1978 amendment, there were only
•lx herbicides registered for use In c.p. systems and
one Insecticide.
Since 1978, six additional pesticides have been
registered for chemlgatlon use. Many chemical companies
are actively marketing pesticides for use In chemlgatlon
because that use has not been specifically prohibited or
restricted.
FIFRA does not provide authority to Inspect application
equipment but It does have provisions regarding misuse.
2. Colorado currently licenses only for hire applicators of
agrlchemlcals. The state has no authority to regulate
private applicators. The program Is housed In the
Colorado Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Section.
The authority is through the Colorado Pesticide
Applicator's Act.
CERCLA [The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund)]
1. CERCLA Is designed to deal with emergency cheoical
releases. CERCLA states that:
No person (including the United States or any state) may
recover under authority of this section for any response
costs or damages resulting from application of a
pesticide product registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodentlclde Act.
Under this act, the release of hazardous substances in a
reportable amount (one pound or the amount Identified in
section 311(b)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act) must be reported to the National Response Center.
This means that one pound of certain agrlchemlcals
should be reported when spilled. Spills include
backflow into water wells.
2.
Colorado has sot aasuaed the Superfund program as yet.
-------
C. FVPCA [Federal Water Pollution Control Act]
1. The FVPCA Hats a number of chemicalB aa hazardous.
Some of these are registered pesticides. Under FVPCA,
the person responsible for contaminating the water with
one or any of those chemicals is liable for all cleanup
costs. Although CEHCLA has replaced the FVPCA aB the
eaforceaent tool for any environmental damage, FVPCA can
be specifically applied to the Injection of fertilisers
into surface water.
2. Colorado has assumed the functions of the Federal Vater
Pollution Control Act. The Colorado Department of
Health administers the prograa through the Vater Quality
Control Division (VQCD) under the authority of the
Colorado Water Quality Control Act (WQCA). Although the
VQCA was designed to protect ground water (in addition
to surface waters) from pollution, no specific
regulations are in place for accomplishing that
function. A co-ordinated ground water protection plan
is expected to be endorsed by the Water Quality Control
Commission in 1984. The program will be
prevention—based and will be designed to protect
beneficial uses.
D. RCRA [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976]
1. This law deals with hazardous waste disposal. This law
has generally been used to address ground water
contamination due to hazardous waste disposal and is not
easily extrapolated to chemlgatlon.
2. Colorado is expected to have full delegation of the RCRA
prograa during 1984 but Is not expected to address
chemlgatlon specifically. The prograa will be housed
vlth the Waste Management Division of the Colorado
Department of Health.
E. 5EWA [Safe Drinking Vater Act of 1974]
1. Under SDWA, public vater supplies are required to
monitor the water at the tap. A public water supply is
one having at least 15 service connections or regularly
serving at least 25 individuals.
SDWA also authorizes underground injection control
programs (UIC). Since the State of Colorado has not
been authorized to assume the UIC program for four of
the five classes of wells, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has promulgated a federally-administered
prograa for those four classes. One of the UIC
classifications for injection wells is Class IV,
"Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes Injected Into or Above
Fresh Water," which EPA has proposed to ban.
[2-74]
-------
2. The Drinking Water Section in the Colorado Departoent of
Health administers the Safe Drinking Water Act under the
general public health statutes. Although the Safe
Drinking Water Act regulates water purveyors, Article 11
of the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations
prohibits hazardous cross-connections in public water
systems. The section provides for annual inspection of
¦echanical devices that protect systems from
cross-connections.
OPTIONS
The most important aspect of the issues regarding chemlgation is that
the proper equipment changes the risk of contamination from a
potential problem to a preventable problem. Recommendations for
equipment used in chemlgation are listed belov.
The letters in parentheses refer to Figure 1.
A. Irrigation system equipment standards
1.(74B) The irrigation system should be equipped with ar
anti-back syphon (check valve) and vacuum relief
breaker. This valve will prevent back flow frocn
entering the well. The valve should be located
between the well and the injection point on the
main pipe. It should be constructed or coated with
corrosion relstant material. The seal should be as
chemically resistant as possible and It should be
replaceable. The entire valve should be Installed
so that frequent inspection and parts replacement
can be done with minimal effort. The valve should
be either diaphragm-activated by hydraulic line
pressure, spring loaded or weight loaded to provide
drip tight closure. The spring or weight loading
should be sufficient to bold at least one pound per
square inch in the direction of flow. Also a drain
valve should be located at the lowest point ahead
of the check valve.
2.{K) The irrigation pumping plant and the chemical
Injection puap should be Interlocked so that if the
irrigation pumping plant stops the chemical
injection pump also stops. This will prevent the
filling the entire Irrigation pipeline with the
chemical mixture from the supply tank. The
sprinkler should be operated on the automatic
setting.
E-7
12-75]
-------
3.(M) A check valve in the chemical Injection line Is
needed to stop flow of water from the irrigation
system into the chemical supply tank. If this
check valve were onltted or malfunctioned and the
In lection pump stopped, irrigation water could flow
back through the chemical line into the chemical
supply tank, overflowing the tank and causing a
spill around the irrigation well.
B. Chemical Injection equipment standards
The letters in parentheses refer to Figure 2.
1.(7) The pump's accuracy is critical. It should be able
to pump with less than II error in rate. It should
show a great deal of resistance to chemical
breakdown and allow precision and dependable flow
rate adjustment. It should allow adjustment
without disassembly of equipment which could result
In spills.
2.(Q,X,S) The chemical nurse tank should be completely
drainable for cleaning, etc. It should be a closed
system - air vented but sealed to prevent outside
contamination. The tank should have as much
resistance to chemicals and structural damage
(puncture and collision) as possible.
3.(0,U,W) Fittings, hoses, filters, and seals should
demonstrate a high degree of chemical and
structural damage resistance. Explanation: Teflon
and nylon are both rated as the most chemical
resistant material while P.V.C. (polyvinylchloride)
shows less resistance. They should allow maximum
pressure of system with a built In safety factor
for transient high pressure. They should have a
size and capacity rating to facilitate the
equipment and application volume.
4.(T) On-off valves should be accurate and reliable (no
leakage). They should be able to withstand the
maximum pressures of the system. Again they should
be chemical and structural damage resistant.
5.(P) The calibration devise should allow precision
aeasurlng accuracy.
1-3
[2-731
-------
The protection of irrigation water supplies requires
several separate pieces of safety equipment. It is not
adequate to choose only one or tvo from the list
previously discussed. Rather, the proper protection of
an Irrigation wr.ter supply requires the use of aJ.1 of
the pieces of safety equipment. Chemlgatlon safety is
dependent on the right equipment regularly maintained.
C. Conclusions
Chemlgatlon can be a safe, economical method for application
of chemicals. There are questions, however, that can best be
answered by the agricultural conaunlty so that the best
available protection is afforded. Those questions are:
* How can the state best serve the needs of all three
groups?
* Should a concentrated effort be made to develop
equipment standards?
* Are the suggestions Bade for equipment Improvements
acceptable and will they prevent environmental
hazards?
E-9
[2-77]
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
Bibliography
1. Todhunter, John A., Ph.D. (author)1984. Regulatory and Safety
Considerations in Chealgatlon. A report to the Chealgatlon
Comalttee of the NAAA.
2. Upper Republican Natural District, Nebraska 1986. Rule 5:
Application of Agricultural Chemicals through Ground Water
Irrigation Systems.
3. Young, J.R. (editor) 1981. Proceedings of the National Symposium
on Chemlgatlon. Sponsored by Univ. of Georgia, College of
Agriculture, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Coop. Ext.
Ser./Rural Development Center, Tlfton, Georgia. Aug. 20-21, 1981.
4. Young, J.R. and D.R. Sumner (editors) 1982. Second National
Symposium on Chealgatlon. Sponsored by Univ. of Georgia College
of Agriculture, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Coop. Ext. Ser./
Rural Developaent Center, Tlfton, Georgia. August 18-19, 1982.
The following references are specific papers vithin the above
¦ymposlua proceedings that have specific lnformat on as to equipment
for chealgatlon.
5. Hook, J.E. 1981. Coordination of Irrigation and Chemlgatlon.
Proceedings of National Symposium on Chemlgatlon. Rural
Developaent Center, Tlfton, Georgia, p. 96-103.
6. Stansell, James R. 1981. Chealgatlon Injectors: Selection,
Calibration and Use. Proceedings of National Symposium on
Chemlgatlon. Rural Develop Center, Tlfton, Ceorgla. p. 103-109.
7. Harrison, Kerry A. 1981. Why Use Chealgatlon. Proceedings of
National Symposium on Chealgatlon. Rural Developaent Center,
Tlfton, Georgia, p. 109-113.
8. Davis, Claude-Leonard. 1981. Liability Considerations In
Chealgatlon. Proceedings of National Symposium on Chealgatlon.
Rural Developaent Center, Tlfton, Georgia, p. 113-120.
9. Threadgill, E.D. 1982. Chealgatlon—Why Its Use Is Grovlng.
Proceedings 2nd National Syaposlua on Chealgatlon. Rural
Developaent Center, Tlfton, Georgia, p. 1-4.
E-10
-------
10. Helkes, Eugene. 1982. Application of Herbicides Through Center
Pivot Sprinkler Systems. Proceedings of 2nd Natloa&l Symposium on
Chealgatlon. p. 74-80.
11. Harrison, D.S. 1962. Selection, Operation, Calibration and
Maintenance of Chealgatlon Equipment. Proceedings of 2nd National
Symposium on Chealgatlon. p. 74-80.
12. Flshbach, P.E. 1982. Applying Chenical Through Irrigation
Systems: Safety asd Environaental Considerations. Proceedings
2nd National Symposium on Chealgatlon. p. 80-88.
13. Kundell, J.E. and L.A. Varner. 1982. Legal Aspects of
Chealgatlon. Proceedings of 2nd National Symposiua on
Chealgatlon. p. 88-95.
Other References...
14. ASAE Engineering Practice: ASAE EP409. Safety Devices for
Applying Liquid Chealcals Through Irrigation Systems. Adopted and
published by American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.
Joseph, Michigan. January, 1981.
15. ILaun, E.S. 1979. Pest Management using Center Pivots. Irrigation
Age. May-June, 1979 p. 17-18.
16. LarBen, Ron, 1983. Chealgatlon apears to be the nev revolution In
Irrigation. Irrigation Age. April, 1983. p. 6-7.
Z-ll
[2-73]
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
Participants
1. Water Quality Subcommittee of the High Plains Technical
Co-ordinating Committee (U.S.C.S., Colorado Departaent of
Agriculture, Colorado Departaent of Health, CSU Co-operative
Extension Service)
2. Colorado Aerial Applicators Association
3. Colorado Departaent of Natural Resources
4. D.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Till
5. Federal Eaergency Management Agency
6. Agrl-Inject
E-12
12-80]
-------
FlGURt 1 C£NT[R PIVOT IRRIGATION SYSTEM
'0.ua
<••!« Ik> • OfctmtitM M«
l"Pr|U !«!••
W--IK1**'*' CUitnc UM'tl
(••Ixt'iKt (l«cIfU»l !/»'"•
L-» I»JK < '»• knit
u lit w>«u >*Uf
mil • wlit
E-13
-------
FIGURE 2 CHEMICAL INJECTION UNIT
M--lrvLine Oeck Valve M
N -Air Loci Bleed Valve V---
0--ldylort nose
f. -Calibration C/Hndcr
Q--VJursc Tank
R--Nurse Tank Ltd - Vented
^--Orain .
t-On-OFf ValVa* 1
\J--Pi Iter
V--Threaded UyIo* C»oplcfs - (4)
> -Ora-inable Plfitforr*
^-•Conc Dlifhrefv Injection Pui*p
E-14
-------
SECTION 2.1.5
TITLE OF STUDY:
(OR SOURCE OF INFORMATION) Assessment of Agricultural Return
Flow Wells in Arizona
AUTHOR (OR INVESTIGATOR):
L. G. Wilson, Consultant
DATE:
September, 1986
STUDY AREA NAME AND LOCATION: Arizona, USEPA Region IX
NATURE OF BUSINESS:
Not applicable
BRIEF SUMMARY/NOTES:
No irrigation return flow wells
could be
located in Arizona,
probably because (1) water is a
scarce commodity in most of che
irrigated areas, (2) the 1980
Ground Water Management Act
mandates water conservation in the
Active Management Areas, and (3)
for economic reasons as farmers
cannot afford to waste water.
However, pollution from
agricultural wells is still
possible. Of particular concern
are wells with poor surface seals
or with cascading water.
[2-33]
-------
ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL RETURN FLOW WELLS IN ARIZONA
BY
L.G. WILSON. CONSULTANT
TUCSON, ARIZONA
A REPORT SUBMITTED TO
ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA
PREPARED FOR
USEPA REGION IX, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
UNDER EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7011
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 9-12
REVISED
SEPTEMBER 29, 1986
[2-34]
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
OVERVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN ARIZONA 2
HYDROGEOLOGY OF AGRICULTURAL AREAS AND AQUIFER SENSITIVITY. 5
Aquifer Sensitivity in Central Basins 9
Salt River Valley 9
Upper Santa Cruz Valley 10
Lower Santa Cruz Valley 11
Aquifer Sensitivity in Southeast Basins 11
Safford Valley 11
Sulfur Spring Valley 12
Aquifer Sensitivity in Highlands Basins 13
Verde Valley 13
Aquifer Sensitivity in West Basins 14
Lower Gila River in Pinal County 14
The Yuma Area 14
OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING
AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT IN ARIZONA 15
Groundwater Management Act of 19 80 16
Chapter 20 Regulations 19
The Environmental Quality Act of 19 86 20
METHODS 20
[2-35]
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE TWO
RESULTS 20
Arizona Department of Water Resources 21
Arizona Department of Health Services 21
University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Services.. 22
United States Soil Conservation Service 22
Drillers 23
Irrigation Water Supply Agencies 23
Private Consultants 24
County Health Officers 24
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES OF WELL-WATER POLLUTION IN IRRIGATED
AREAS IN ARIZONA 24
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2D
REFERENCES 32
APPENDICES
A Irrigation Wells in Arizona with Detected VOC Pollution
B Contacts and Summary of Comments During Assessment
of Irrigation Return Flow Wells in Arizona
[2-85]
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE THREE
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Water Provinces in Arizona 3
2 Categories of Geohydrologic Basins in Arizona, Based
on Regional Patterns of Aquifer Lithology 7
3 Generalized Basin Structure and Stratigrapny witnin
the Five Geohydrologic Categories of Alluvial Basins
in Arizona 8
4 Active Management Areas (AMA's) and Irrigation Non-
Expansion Areas (INA's) in Arizona 17
5 Formation of Perched Ground Water Under Conditions
of Recharge from Irrigation Seepage 27
6 Formation of Perched Ground Water Under Conditions
of a Rapidly Declining Water Table 28
LIST OF TABLES
1 Water Quality in Selected Cascading Wells Sampled by
the Salt River Project 30
[2-37]
-------
INTRODUCTION
As defined in the Part 143-National Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations, Class V injection wells are those injection wells
not included in Classes I, II, III, or IV. In other words, Class
V wells are those wells used to discharge nonhazardous waste into
or above an underground source of drinking water. Included among
such wells are those used to dispose of agricultural wastewater.
Wells used to dispose of waste fluids above a water table are
frequently called "dry wells". Dry wells and other wells used to
inject agricultural waste fluids either into the vadose zone or
into water bearing formations are designated agricultural return
flow wells. Wells used for direct disposal to groundwater are
similar to artificial recharge wells, used to replenish
groundwater. These wells .should not be confused with extraction
wells equipped with pumping (extraction) facilities for lowering
high water tables and for controlling salinity levels m the root
zone of crops. Such wells are commonly called "drainage wells".
However, these "drainage wells" are not used for injecting fluids
into the subsurface and hence are not classified as injection
wells pursuant to the Part 143 Regulations. In Arizona,
extraction drainage-wells are used in the Buckeye Irrigation
District, near Phoenix, and in the Wei1 ton-Mohawk Irrigation
District, near Yuma.
The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of an
assessment of the extent that agricultural return flow wells are
used in the State of Arizona for disposing of agricultural waste
1
[2-38]
-------
fluids. Included among agricultural waste fluids are salinity-
thigh TDS), nitrate, pesticides, and possibly volatile organics.
OVERVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN ARIZONA
In Arizona, irrigated agriculture is concentrated primarily
in the Basin and Range hydrologic province, occupying the
southern half of the state (see Figure 1). Water use in this
area accounts for 95% of the total usage in the State. The
principal irrigated areas in the State include the Salt River
Valley, the Verde Valley, the Lower Gila Valley in Pinal County
and in the Yuma area, the Sulfur Springs Valley, the Safford
Valley, and the Santa Cruz Valley. Sources of surface water
include surface water diversions from control structures along
the Salt-Gila river systems in central Arizona, and from the
Colorado River along the western boundary of the state. Many
agricultural areas such as the Santa Cruz Valley rely completely
on groundwater. The Central Arizona Project has already begun
water deliveries to the Phoenix area, and the aqueduct for
delivering water to Tucson is under construction.
The favorable climate in Arizona and productive soils are
conducive to successful agriculture. Crops grown through
irrigation include cotton, alfalfa, grains, vegetables, and tree
crops (Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1985).
2
[2-33]
-------
UTAH
( Plateau Uplands
COCONINO
MOHAVE
Kingman
Parker
LA PAZ
YUMA
Gila Band j
Tuma
i
Tuba Clly j
C.linia
1
NAVAJO | APACHE
Wlnslow
Hal brook
•
| - £[aqsiaff
•
^ YAVAPAI J
\ • I
\ Prsscotl
\ ^ v/-
/^Central Highlands
\ ^ GILA j
MARICOPA \
"xJ.
I
1
S( Johns
\
I Desert Lowlandsr> j
• \ v
Pho.«li| \ # r
\
J
J <
k/
1 &
» Glot>»
PINAL
V
Casa Grande
,Tucson
J
SANTA CRUZ
l£
I
\|Morenc
\'
GRAHAM \
• \ \
Sallord^^
^
. Wllco*
COCHISE
.Oouqia
Nogai««
FIGURE 1. WATER PROVINCES IN ARIZONA
ENGINEERING
ENTERPRISES. INC.
3
[2-90]
-------
Until the advent of the 1980 Groundwater Management Act, and
its management implications, irrigation efficiencies in the state
had generally been low, particularly in areas receiving surface
water. In the Phoenix Active Management Area (AMA) historic
irrigation efficiencies range from 55% to 85% (Arizona Department
of Water Resources, 1984). In the period 1975-1979, irrigation
water duties averaged almost 6 acre-feet per acre in the Phoenix
AMA.
Besides poor management practices a reason for the low
efficiencies is that excess water is applied to reduce salt
concentrations in the root zone of crops. This "leaching
fraction" contributes to the volume of deep percolation, i.e.,
irrigation return flow to groundwater. In the Phoenix AMA, the
volume of agricultural deep percolation and recharge in 1980 was
estimated to be 690,000 acre-feet, out of 2.38 million acre feet
delivered (Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1984). In the
same year, the volume of recharge from distribution-canal seepage
was estimated to be 180,000 acre-feet.
In addition to the passage of agricultural return flows
through the vadose zone, another source of recharge is from
wells. Such incidental recharge occurs as a result of poor
surface seals allowing water to flow around and down the well
casing. Another source of incidental recharge is from cascading
water (i.e., water which "cascades" down the inside of a well
casing) entering cracks in the casing or dewatered perforations.
Commonly, cascading water occurs in regions of the vadose zone
4
[2-91]
-------
where perched water has developed above flow-restricting
sediments (e.g., clay lenses).
Deep percolation and recharge of agricultural wastewaters
have contributed to the pollution of groundwater in the State.
For example, excessive salinity and nitrate levels have been
observed in large areas of the Phoenix AMA (Arizona Department of
Water Resources, 1984). Organic pollutants have also been
detected in groundwater pumped from numerous wells in the State
(see Appendix A). Although most of these pollutants are of
industrial origin, many wells are contammanted with agricultural
chemicals, most notably DBCP and EDB.
HYDROGEOLOGY OF AGRICULTURAL AREAS AND AQUIFER SENSITIVITY
As depicted on Figure 1, Arizona is divided into three
hydrological provinces: the Plateau Uplands, the Central
Highlands, and the Desert Lowlands. The Plateau Uplands is
underlain by consolidated sedimentary rocks. These formations do
not yield water readily. Groundwater in the Central Highlands is
derived from thick alluvial deposits in local areas; from layered
sandstone, limestone and conglomerate; from thin alluvial
deposits along local streams; and locally from fractured
crystalline and sedimentary rocks (United States Geological
Survey, 1984) .
The aquifer systems of the Basin and Range hydrological
province in Arizona were characterized by the United States
Geological Survey during the Southwest Alluvial Basin Regional
5
[2-92]
-------
Aquifer Assessment Program (SWAB/RASA). Poole (1985) described
the principal aquifers in these basins as follows:
The main aquifers of the study area are composed of
three sedimentary units - pre-Basin and Range
sedimentary rocks of Tertiary age, basin fill, and
stream alluvium. The pre-Basm and Range sedimentary
rocks are structurally disturbed and discontinuous;
therefore, they are not an important water-bearing unit
in all basins. Basin fill is the most widespread and
dominant water-bearing unit in the study area. The
stream alluvium is restricted to areas near the present
stream channels, is generally about 100 feet thick, and
is the most permeable of the wacer-bearing units.
During the SWAB/RASA study, the United States Geological
Survey grouped the basins into five categories: central, west,
southeast, Colorado River and highland (see Figure 2). Generic
cross-sections of the basins in each category are depicted in
Figure 3. Among the principal agricultural areas, the Salt River
Valley and the Santa Cruz Valley are central basins. The Safford
Valley and the Sulfur Spring Valley are southeast basins. The
Verde Valley is a highland basin. The Lower Gila Valley in Pinal
County and the Yuma area are west basins.
Aquifer sensitivity to pollution from drainage wells
discharging into the vadose zone depends on such factors as the
thickness of the vadose zone (i.e., depth to groundwater), nature
of the layered deposits in the vadose zone, degree of confinement
-------
UTAH
COLORADO 2
-RIVER
.S ^
! r-PART OF-"
'v, V-^outheast
Tuba City
Chmie
COCONINO
NAVAJO | APACHE
Wlnslow
«
Holbroo* |
i
Si Joins
OHAVE
i i
,'HIGHLAND
YAVAPAI
Kingman
rMcott
ParVflf
LA PAZ
WEST
ARICOPA
noeni t
* uiooe
orenc
V
UTKEASTN
I S GRAHAM
i
Sal lord
Gila Bend
aia .Grands
Yuma
Tucso
P. MA
COCHISE
SANTA CRUZ
4
Nogai*j
FIGURE 2 CATEGORIES OF GEOHYDROLOGIC
BASINS IN ARIZONA. BASED ON REGIONAL
PATTERNS OF AQUIFER LITHOLOGY
(FROM POOLE. 1985)
ENTERPRISES, INC
[2-94]
-------
Stream Alluvium
6000 R
10 to 25 Mies
looer Baan fii
Lcywef saan nd
BS ~
vaocnt
2000 Ft
4 10 14 MteS"
A CENTRAL BASINS
B. WEST 3 AS INS
U»er Saan fia^, am
Alluvium
"f/r.
2000 Ft
¦Upper 3aan fill-
5 to 18 Mlas-
2000 Ft
s Lower 3asin Fill
S to U Wles •
a SOUTHEAST BASINS
0. COLORADO RIVER 3 AS INS
Stream Alluvium
Basin Fill
500 Ft
I 0 to 3 Mies 1
E HIGHLAND 8AS1NS
EXPLANATION
Pre-oasn and range aeoosits
3e
-------
of groundwater, and ambient groundwater quality. Aquifer
sensitivity from wells discharging directly to groundwater
depends on ambient groundwater quality. The focus of this report
is on the aquifers of the Basin and Range Lowlands province,
which contains 95% of the irrigated land.
Aquifer Sensitivity in Central Basins
Salt River Valley
The Salt River Valley includes the principal communities of
central Arizona, including Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, and Mesa.
In the Salt River Valley, groundwater levels in index wells of
the United States Geological Survey (1985) vary from over 500
feet in the east basin to 20 feet in the west basin (e.g., near
Buckeye). Ostensibly the regions of shallow groundwater are more
sensitive to pollution ttian the areas with deep groundwater
because of the shorter travel distance to groundwater. However,
the shallow groundwater is already highly saline and not suitable
for most uses. Accordingly, the shallow groundwater is insensi-
tive to further pollution from salinity.
As shown on Figure 3, the alluvium comprising the Central
Basins includes stream alluvium, upper and lower basin fill, and
mudstone and evaporite deposits. Groundwater generally occurs
under water table conditions. Water table aquifers are more
sensitive to pollution than aquifers confined by slowly permeable
sediments. The highly-layered alluvium generally contains
abundant clays, capable of- attenuating cationic pollutants, but
not necessarily volatile organics and certain pesticides. The
9
[2-96]
-------
layering also retards deep percolation of irrigation water in
some areas, leading to the formation of perched groundwater.
In general, groundwater in most subregions is of suitable
quality to serve as a source of drinking water. Hence, these
subregions are sensitive to pollution. However, several
groundwater areas m the Salt River Valley have been polluted
with trace organics and nitrate. Naturally high concentrations
of chromium are also found in some regions. Finally, groundwater
in the Buckeye area, and in an area south of Tempe is highly
saline (Wilson et al., 1986). Such areas are sensitive to
pollution from organics but not salinity.
Upper Santa Cruz Valley
The Upper Santa Cruz Valley includes the cities of Nogales
and Tucson. In the agricultural areas of the Santa Cruz Valley,
water levels in index wells are generally less than 100 feet in
the upper reaches of the valley and from 100 to 200 feet in the
lower reaches (United States Geological Survey, 1985). The
regions with shallow water tables are more sensitive to pollution
than the regions of deeper groundwater. Water levels in the
adjoining Avra Valley are as deep as 500 feet below land surface.
As is the case in the Salt River Valley, the alluvium in these
basins is highly layered with lenses of clays and silt
interbedded with coarser material. The finer-grained deposits
are effective in attenuating cationic pollutants, but not
necessarily mobile trace organics and pesticides. The
groundwater is generally of very good quality for drinking and
10
[2-97]
-------
other purposes, and, accordingly, sensitive to pollution.
Lower Santa Cruz Valley
The lower Santa Cruz Valley includes the communities of Casa
Grande, Coolidge, and Florence. Groundwater levels in the
agricultural areas are generally quite deep, ranging from 110
feet to 439 feet below land surface in 1984 (United States
Geological Survey, 1985). Accordingly, the travel distance to
groundwater of pollutants originating in the vadose zone is
greater than in some of the other agricultural areas of the
State. The fine-grained deposits within the vadose zone are
capable of attenuating cationic pollutants but not mobile
organics. In general, groundwater is of suitable quality for
drinking and other purposes. However, local regions in the
vicinity of Case Grande and Coolidge are underlain by saline
groundwater (see Wilson et al., 1986). Such groundwater areas
are insensitive to pollution from saline pollution sources.
Aquifer Sensitivity in Southeast Basins
Safford Valley
The Safford Valley of southeastern Arizona includes the
communities of Safford, Thatcher, and Gila. Groundwater levels
in all except one index well are less than 100 feet below land
surface (United States Geological Survey, 1985). Water levels in
these wells range from 8 feet to 68 feet below land surface. In
the exceptional well, the groundwater level was 158 feet below
land surface. The shallow wells are sensitive to pollution.
The aquifer systems of the southeast basins comprise two
11
[2-33]
-------
water-bearing units separated by a fine-grained unit consisting
of lower and upper basin-fill sediments. The fine-grained
sediments form a leaky confining layer overlying the lower part
of the aquifer (Anderson, 19 85). Shallow, unconfmed water-
bearing units are more sensitive to pollution from drainage wells
discharging into the vadose zone than is the deeper aquifer. The
highly-layered alluvium contains fine layers capable of retarding
the movement of cationic pollutants.
Groundwater is generally saline throughout the Valley, with
TDS ranging from 3000 mg/1 to over 10,000 mg/1 (Wilson et al.,
1986). Accordingly, groundwater in the valley is insensitive to
pollution by additional salinity, but may be subject to
degradation from organic chemicals.
Sulfur Spring Valley
The Sulfur Spring Valley includes the community of Wilcox.
In 1984, groundwater levels in index wells ranged from 27 feet
below land surface to 331 feet below land surface (United States
Geological Survey, 1985). The shallower water levels are m the
vicinity of the Wilcox Playa. Groundwater in this area is more
sensitive to pollution than the areas of deeper groundwater. The
highly-layered alluvium contains fine-grained sediments capable
of attenuating cationic pollutants, but not mobile organics.
Groundwater is generally of good quality except for a large
region near the Kansas Settlement containing TDS levels exceeding
10,000 mg/1 (Wilson et al., 1986). Given that groundwater with
12
[2-99]
-------
these concentrations is relatively useless for most purposes, the
aquifer in this local region is insensitive to pollution.
Aquifer Sensitivity in Highlands Basins
Verde Valley
The Verde Valley includes the community of Camp Verde. In
1984, groundwater levels in index wells in the valley ranged frorr
24 feet below land surface to 437 feet below land surface.
Groundwater in the shallow system is insensitive to pollution
from vadose-zone drainage wells.
The basin fill unit in highland basins is fairly shallow and
groundwater appears to be confined m some areas (Poole, 1985).
Groundwater under confined conditions is not particularly
sensitive to pollution from vadose zone disposal wells because of
the presence of slowly-permeable confining layers. Groundwater
occurring within stream alluvium is unconfined and, accordingly,
susceptible to pollution from shallow disposal wells. The fine-
grained alluvium is capable of attenuating cationic pollutants
but not mobile organics.
Groundwater is generally of satisfactory quality for
drinking and other purposes, except for the presence of arsenic
in some regions. The system is sensitive to pollution from
salinity and mobile organics.
13
[2-100
-------
Aquifer Sensitivity in West Basins
Lower Gila River in Pinal County
This area includes the community of Gila Bend. Groundwater
levels in key wells ranged from 14 feet below land surface to 451
feet below land surface in 1984. Shallower levels are along the
Gila River. Because of the shorter travel distance, groundwater
in these areas is more sensitive to pollution from vadose zone
drainage wells than areas of deeper groundwater.
A representative cross-section through a west basin is
depicted on Figure 3. As shown, the upper basin fill generally
lies above the water table. According to Anderson (1985), the
upper basin fill consists of a thin layer of heterogeneous
sediments. This region includes sufficient fine-grained material
to retard the movement of cationic pollutants but not mobile
trace organics. The water table is generally unconfined.
Consequently, the aquifer is more sensitive to pollution than if
confined conditions existed.
Groundwater quality is generally suitable for drinking and
for most agricultural crops. However, high fluoride levels are
found in groundwater throughout the area, and there are local
regions of high salinity (Wilson et al., 1986). These regions
are insensitive to further degradation from salinity, but they
are sensitive to pollution from mobile trace organics.
Yuma Area
This area includes the City of Yuma. Groundwater levels are
generally shallow throughout the area. In fact agricultural
14
[2-101]
-------
soils are subject to water-logging, requiring the use of drainage
systems. Water levels in index wells within the region of
shallow groundwater ranged from 9 feet to 90 feet below land
surface in 1984 (United States Geological Survey, 1985).
Accordingly, the travel distance to groundwater from a drainage
well within the vadose zone is limited in tnese areas.
Elsewhere, water levels are as deep as 290 feet. The travel
distance of pollutants in these areas is greater, unless drainage
wells are also deep.
As indicated for the Pinal County area, the upper basin fill
generally lies above the water table and consists of a thin layer
of heterogeneous sediments. This region includes sufficient
fine-grained material to retard the movement of cationic
pollutants but not mobile trace organics. The water table is
generally unconfined. Consequently, the aquifer is more
sensitive to pollution than if confined conditions existed.
Groundwater quality in this area is generally poor, with
salinity levels greater than 3000 mg/1 (Wilson et al., 1986).
Accordingly, the aquifers are insensitive to additional pollution
from salinity. The entire system is sensitive to pollution from
mobile organics and pesticides.
OVERVIEW OP LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING
AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT IN ARIZONA
In recent years the State of Arizona Legislature has passed
legislation and regulations on water management in the State to
15
[2-102]
-------
control both water usage and water quality. These include the
Groundwater Management Act of 1980, Chapters 20 and 21 of the
Arizona Compilation of Rules and Regulations, and HB 2518, the
Environmental Quality Act. Each of these items has an effect on
water management practices and water quality in the agricultural
sector of the State.
Groundwater Management Act of 1980
In 1980, the Arizona State Legislature enacted the Arizona
Groundwater Management Act, described as the most comprehensive
groundwater management plan of any western state (Wallace, 1986).
In essence, the Act is a comprehensive groundwater management
plan that includes restrictions on new groundwater uses, and also
conservation requirements for existing water uses. The major
purpose of the Groundwater Management Act of 1980 is to obtain
safe yield within overdrafted areas of the State by 2025. Safe
yield is defined in the Act as a long-term balance between
groundwater withdrawals and natural and artificial groundwater
recharge.
Four Active Management Areas (AMAs) and three Irrigation
Non-expansion Areas (INAs) were established in the most critical
groundwater regions of the State (see Figure 4). The AMAs are
geographical areas in which intensive groundwater management is
needed because of a large and continuous overdraft (Arizona
Department of Water Resources, 1984). The INAs are areas in
which irrigation with groundwater is restricted to lands which
were irrigated in the five years prior to January 1, 1980. The
-------
Irrigation nonexpansion area UNA)
FIGURE 4. MANAGEMENT AREAS (AMA'S) AND
IRRIGATION NON-EXPANSION AREAS (INA'S)
IN ARIZONA
ENGINEERING
ENTERPRISES. INC
Chime
COCONINO
MOHAVE
NAVAJO
APACHE
Wlnsiow
Kingman
01 brook
YAVAPAI
JOSEPH
CITY INA
St.Johns
.rescoit
PRESCOTT
AMA
Parker
MARICOPA,
'/I/IWII/I
'PHOENIX^
7/AM A////
« Globe
GRAHAM
YUMA
Casa Grand
Saltord
Yuma
inal AMA^Z
Wilcox
'/III///ruesonx .
Sri i
PIMA
COCHISE
! DOUGLAS
| INA C
Nogaies
Douglas
Active management area (AMA)
-------
Act mandated that a set of management plans must be developed for
each AMA to achieve the goal of safe yield. The first management
plan was aimed at developing procedures for conserving water m
the various water-use sectors including agriculture. A manor
approach for reducing groundwater usage in agriculture was to
assign an irrigation water duty for each farm unit ana to require
metering of wells. The irrigation water duty is defined as the
average annual irrigation requirement per acre for crops grown in
a farm unit within an AMA from 1975 through 197 9 (Arizona
Department of Water Resources, 1984). Improvements m irrigation
efficiencies to comply with the assigned duties requires the
implementation of Best Management Practices such as level-basm
and trickle irrigation. For the purposes of the 1980 Act,
irrigation efficiency is defined as the ratio of the total
irrigation requirement to the total volume of water applied
(Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1984). According to Erie
and Dedrick (1979), level-basin irrigation is a gravity method
whereby water is applied to leveled soil surfaces over a short
period of time. Fields are "dead leveled" by means of drag
scrapers controlled by a laser leveller. Drip/trickle irrigation
is the slow, precise application of water through emitters placed
on a lateral plastic line located near growing plants (Bucks and
Nakayama, 1984). From the viewpoint of water quality, a
reduction in deep percolation will postpone the load of chemicals
entering the groundwater system (Gordon, Daniel, and Turner,
1984) .
The requirements of the Act are administered by the Arizona
18
[2-105]
-------
Department of Water Resources. An important responsibility of
the ADWR under the Act is to regulate well construction practices
to protect groundwater quality.
Chapter 20 Regulations
Chapter 20 of the Arizona Compilation of Rules and
Regulations requires the issuance of a Groundwater Quality
Protection Permit for all disposal activities that may adversely
affect groundwater quality. "Activity" is defined as follows
"... any human activity including institutional, commercial,
manufacturing, extraction, agricultural, or residential land use
which may involve disposal of wastes or pollutants which may
result in pollution of groundwaters in the State". Operators of
waste disposal facilities are required to submit a Notice of
Disposal describing the disposal activities at the site. If the
facility is deemed to have no adverse affect on groundwater a
permit will be issued. Alternatively, a more formal permit
application may be required, including a hydrogeological report
and disposal impact assessment. Subsequently, a monitoring plan,
a post-closure plan, and a contingency plan may be required. By
definition, agricultural return flow wells are considered to be
an "activity" which may result in groundwater pollution,
consequently requiring a Notice of Disposal.
The permit program is administered by the Arizona Department
of Health Services, which maintains records of all NOD's and
permits issued.
19
[2-106]
-------
The Environmental Quality Act of 1986
The Environmental Quality Act of 1986 was passed by the
Arizona State Legislature in May, 1986. This Act authorized a
new Department of Environmental Quality. One of the powers and
duties of the Director of this department is to "Adopt, by rule,
the permit program for underground injection control described in
the Safe Drinking Water Act". The Director is also required to
adopt an aquifer protection permit program to control discharges
of pollutants to groundwater. Injection wells are included among
the class of discharging facilities requiring a permit. This new
permitting program will supercede and strengthen the Chapter 20
program.
METHODS
The approach used in this study involved (1) contacting
knowledgeable individuals in the State for information on
irrigation return flow wells, and (2) reviewing the literature
for citations on the use of such wells in Arizona. The
individuals contacted for information are listed in Appendix B.
These individuals are associated with State agencies responsible
for monitoring waste disposal activities in the State, county
agricultural extension specialists, county health agencies,
private consultants, drillers, the Soil Conservation Service, and
miscellaneous individuals.
RESULTS
A review of the comments of each of the individuals
20
[2-107]
-------
contacted during the study is included in Appendix B. Following
is a summary of these comments:
Arizona Department of Water Resources
Officials in ADWR were contacted because of their well-
inventorying program and their ongoing water-level measurement
program, which involves site visits to irrigation wells in the
AMA's and elsewhere in the State. Officials in the AMA's were
contacted for corroboration.
According to each of the individuals contacted in this
agency, there are no wells being used for disposing of
irrigation return flows in the State. The consensus was that the
Ground Water Management Act was promoting more efficient
irrigation by farmers and that surplus water, if present at all,
would drain into ditches for downstream water users, or be
discharged to rivers. Pollution from agricultural wells might
occur, however, because of poor surface seals or casing cracks,
allowing perched water to short-circuit to the water table.
Arizona Department of Health Services
Officials in this agency were contacted because of their
responsibility for permitting facilities with the potential for
polluting groundwaters of the State. Agricultural disposal wells
fall within the category of units requiring a Notice of Disposal
pursuant to the Chapter 20 Regulations.
Each of the contacted individuals indicated that no NOD's
have been submitted for irrigation return flow wells in the
21
[2-103]
-------
State. One incident was reported of wells on the Planet Ranch
being used for mixing of a herbicide (GENEP EPTC 7EC) with
groundwater prior to pumping for irrigation. The Plant Ranch is
located along the Bill Williams River, near Parker Arizona.
Details of this incident are included in Appendix B.
University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Service
County agents in the Cooperative Extension Service were
contacted because of their broad experience with farmers in their
respective counties. Again the overwhelming consensus was that
wells for disposing of irrigation return flows do not exist in
the State. Several agents pointed out that farmers in some
counties are deficit irrigating, i.e., irrigating with less than
enough water to meet crop needs. Accordingly, there simply are
no surpluses of water in these areas.
One agent (Ron Cluff, in the Safford Valley) indicated that
many years ago one farmer had attempted to recharge irrigation
water in a well, but that the pump bowls became badly clogged and
the practice was discontinued.
United States Soil Conservation Service
Mr. Roy Ard with the Soil Conservation Service in Wilcox was
contacted for information on irrigation return flow wells in
Cochise County. Some confusion had occurred with other
individuals contacted in the area about the use of such wells for
artificial recharge. Mr. Ard pointed out that some consideration
was given to recharging stormwater runoff into wells in the
Wilcox Playa. However, nothing came of the idea. Farmers in the
22
[2-109]
-------
area rely completely on groundwater and are more likely to
conserve water than to get rid of surpluses down a well.
Drillers
McGuckin Drilling Corporation was contacted because of an
extensive experience in drilling dry wells in the State. More
than 5000 dry wells have been installed by this company m the
Phoenix area alone for disposing of urban runoff. No contacts
have been made with the company by farmers or others for
constructing dry wells for disposing of irrigation waste waters.
Irrigation Water Supply Agencies
Two agencies supplying irrigation water to farmers were
contacted for information on disposal wells. These agencies
include the Salt River Project, a major irrigation water supplier
in the Phoenix area, and the Cortaro Water Users Association in
the Tucson area.
Neither agency uses tail water disposal wells and expressed
doubt that individual irrigators would dispose of water by such
means. Both districts collect tail water m ditches and canals
for delivery to downstream farmers.
The contact with the Cortaro Water Users Association, Mr.
Robert Condit indicated that farmers were becoming more
conservation minded, not only because of the requirements of the
1980 Groundwater Management Act but also because of the poor
agricultural economy.
-------
Private Consultants
Four- private consultants with extensive irrigation and
hydrological experience in the State were contacted for
information on irrigation tail water wells. None of these
individuals has encountered such wells. Again, their feeling is
that farmers are more likely to conserve water than to get rid of
it into a well. Several consultants indicated their concern that
groundwater pollution may be occurring in some areas of the State
from cascading wells. Cascading wells are described in a later
section of this report entitled "Alternative Routes of Well-Water
Pollution in Irrigated Areas m Arizona".
County Health Officers
Two county health officers were contacted for information on
incidences of groundwater.pollution from agricultural sources
that could include disposal wells. The official from Pima County
indicated that he was unaware of irrigation disposal wells in the
County. The official from Cochise County appeared to confuse
irrigation tail water disposal wells with wells used with septic
tanks. As discussed in other paragraphs, follow on discussions
with SCS personnel and others in Cochise County indicated an
absence of irrigation disposal wells in the County.
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES OF WELL-WATER POLLUTION
IN IRRIGATED AREAS IN ARIZONA
As indicated in the previous section, it appears that there
are no documentable tail water disposal wells in Arizona. If
such wells do in fact exist (eg. as unreported disposal units),
24
[2-111]
-------
their number would appear to be very small. Based on the
conversations with the individuals contacted during this study,
it appears that a more serious source of well-water pollution in
Arizona from agricultural sources, aside from deep percolation,
is from factors associated with irrigation water-supply wells
themselves. (Strictly speaking, irrigation wells are extraction
wells, and, hence, not subject to Part 143 Regulations.) For
example, the pollution of groundwater in the Phoenix area by DBCP
was attributed by Love (1979) to the following routes: "(1) an
opening in the casing beneath the pump base, (2) reversal of
contaminated discharge flow, (3) an opening surrounding the
outside of the casing, and, (4) access to the groundwater table
by means of the gravel pack. Another possible route to the
groundwater table is cascading water through shallow perforations
or vertical movement through a continuous gravel pack in the
absence of a proper well seal". As defined earlier, cascading
water refers to water which pours or "cascades" down the inside
of a well casing from a saturated region of the vadose zone that
is exterior to the casing. Inasmuch as recharge from cascading
wells is not deliberate, classification of these wells as Class V
wells requires clarification. Another avenue is direct injection
of agricultural chemicals down a well casing to promote mixing
with groundwater, such as occurred in wells on the Planet Ranch.
The Planet Ranch injection activity appears to have been an
isolated incident.
Of the potential sources of well water pollution in the
State the major source would appear to be cascading water within
25
[2-112]
-------
wells in regions underlain by perched groundwater. According to
Schmidt (-1981) there is an extensive perched groundwater region
in uhe East Basin of the Salt River. Other areas with perched
groundwater include the Coolidge area and the Santa Cruz Basin
(Halderman, 1986).
As described by Smith et al. (1982) two of the requisite
conditions for perched groundwater are (1) strata of low
permeability in the vadose zone, and (2) deep percolation at a
rate greater than the hydraulic conductivity of the impeding
layer. Perched water may develop either as a result of deep
percolation of irrigation water or as water "hung up" in the
vadose zone as regional water levels decline. These two
conditions are depicted in Figures 5 and 6, respectively.
Perched groundwater may occur in dry wells that have been
completed in permeable regions above the regional water table.
Alternatively, perched groundwater may be manifested as cascading
water in wells that have ruptured casing or perforations that
were exposed as water table levels declined.
The Salt River project has undertaken a program to sample
cascading water in irrigation wells which have been shut down for
pump renovation (Small, 1982). In practice, such wells are video
logged after the pump assembly has been removed to scan the well
bore for cascading water. If cascading water is detected a water
sample is obtained for chemical analysis. Subsequently, the hole
is natural gamma logged in an attempt to define the perching
26
[2-113]
-------
n
Cascading Water o0o°q-
Zone ~—^Q."
d^AJO
a <^o -
o • *• *%
O • *o
* o * *
«• •. . o • 0o»
o •. o , -
• • o . o
' * o"« % P • ,
Irrigation Seepage
O
-ccQ*".'
g^-;:v°o6>o
.OiO^PvU-'o * '
Perched Water Table
-z-5^-— - Mil j—r= -=~ "=— —Relatively Impermeable Layer
. Oo*" ° O O Q
o ".os.O/y.
: O*-!
JL *<» 0
.•oe-Oo • *
°.V0°o°...0
O-'-
0P.*°
°'aO
o.#. •
o o, • O
'O. • *o
O V.'?."
• • • ~ o * #
^•Q ° B ••
P oo
£JO°6-.?«»
oo..a-"::v.
• o OO o O o s o>
• . . o o . i* • • • - •
o r> .- -. a - " o . o.
°»-o
"o--- -
w, — ¦
•o. o.
• • •«
^ •> ^ • *
op O,
• - 5c.°o.
.. Q-. '." Q° '
S^-OO.--*
(TvO .
- vJ«« • «
—S, • O O • _ • •
0#,'o 9 •• *
o-o?--v^P-
9 • i** 'J*.®
°o?-*o-- C>-
^ o
FIGURE 5 FORMATION OF PERCHED GROUND WATER
UNDER CONDITIONS OF RECHARGE FROM IRRIGATION
SEEPAGE (AFTER SMITH ET AL. 1982)
[2-114]
-------
(~N „ *.0
T^r.-
.cRo-o.~
• ••.; - O O* o/o
S£-
_•• oo
*» o o *• .
• O.v- • n
® LJ
O X" - •
\
\
•X
•• o *
• «o
OS.-/
;of!
- #.a
o..*
•°o.° *-*"••.
"* "o • ¦• o\* * ° -. - •
.o3°.'i*:Vo: Water Table - 1920
.;e>o--0\
*o *—" °^-o ~Z~
0 O o *• ChV.r^
1 • . 3 . * c~ lO
^=-.-iT ~r=E^~-^^--_~. Relatively Impermeable Layer
'•o° i960
p?° -tetfB.-
o -*o
/
/
* 1 ~a-
SoOOio"o'a •
r^'a&P. 'O-'
.'a . "c, • '?6o * ' . •
— o*> * ••* o
«Oo 5of
O •* m »o
a».A • *o
••jo.©!-;
. :^o o.f""
0?>:"
S*." *- "" -•«¦">*
Oo. ..
• * O j—K?.
FIGURE 6 FORMATION OF PERCHED GROUND WATER
UNDER CONDITIONS OF A RAPIDLY DECLINING WATER
TABLE (AFTER SMITH ET AL. 1982)
[2-115]
-------
zone. According to Small (1982), the logs indicate that the
perching units are thinly-bedded, low permeability materials.
Water quality data from cascading wells in the Salt River
Valley have generally shown mixed results. Representative
chemical analyses of cascading water samples from wells in the
Salt River Valley, and pumped groundwater from the same wells,
are included in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, in some cases the
quality of cascading water is poorer than underlying groundwater.
The source of the poor quality perched water appears to be either
from deep percolation of irrigation water or as water held up in
the vadose zone during recession of the regional groundwater
system. In other cases, the quality of perched water is actually
better than the groundwater. The source of the better quality
water is probably canal seepage.
Mack and Roessel (1984} reported that cascading water in a
Salt River Project well contained TCE at a concentration of 1035
ppb. According to these authors "The perched aquifer is probably
the primary source of contamination at the well, and perched
water cascading down the well has contaminated the regional
aquifer in the vicinity of the well". The source of the TCE
appears to be from an industrial site.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The assessment conducted during this study showed that
apparently there are no irrigation return flow wells in Arizona.
The reasons for the lack of such units are that (1) water is a
29
[2-115]
-------
TABLE 1
Water quality in selected cascading wells sampled
by the Salt River Project
(After Smith et al., 1982)
3E-14.8N 23.6E-6N 24E-0.1S 25.5E-3.5N 26E-3.9N 31.1E-1S
Cascading
Punped
Cascading
Punped
Cascading
Punped
Cascading
Punped
Cascading
Pimped
Cascading
Pimped
Na
71
46
254
173
262
208
121
173
103
178
190
267
Ca
46
44
126
90
51
79
45
67
47
61
84
103
Mg
154
124
40
40
30
30
14
21
16
20
27
29
CI
318
289
288
312
283
306
132
284
138
241
275
398
HCOj
228
146
317
243
439
305
206
227
196
250
272
281
so4
78
38
120
88
96
82
64
51
70
60
100
131
l»3
30
40
52
26
17
12
3
13
0
19
18
32
IDS
816
657
1212
858
965
875
486
721
477
708
830
1109
Date
11/5/81
7/21/80
12/8/81
5/4/78
11/15/81
9/18/78
11/5/81
3/15/71
9/28/81
6/22/81
1/7/82
7/10/81
-------
very scarce commodity in most of the irrigated areas, (2) the
19 80 Ground Water Management Act mandates water conservation in
the Active Management Areas, and (3) for economic reasons the
farmers cannot afford to waste water.
The absence of irrigation return flow wells in the State
does not mean that pollution from agricultural wells is not
occurring. In one isolated case, for example, a farmer was
dripping herbicide into his wells to promote mixing with
groundwater. A more general cause for concern are wells with
poor surface seals or with cascading water. As described in an
earlier paragraph, cascading water is fairly common in wells m
some areas of the State. Accordingly, it is recommended that
future efforts to determine pollution from wells in Arizona
should focus on problems associated with existing irrigation
wells rather than attempt to isolate the location of tail water
disposal wells. The classification of irrigation wells with
cascading water as Class V injection wells requires
clarif ication.
31
[2-118]
-------
REFERENCES
Anderson, T.W., Geohydrology of the southwest alluvial basins,
Arizona, American Water Resources Association Special
Publication, In Press, 1985.
Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1984 Arizona
Agricultural Statistics, The University of Arizona and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1985.
Arizona Department of Water Resources, Management Plan First
Management Period 1980-1990, Phoenix Active Management Area,
1984.
Bucks, D. A. and F.S. Nakayama, Problems to avoid with
drip/trickle irrigation systems, Proceedings of the
Specialty Conference, Irrigation and Drainage Division,
ASCE. Flagstaff, Arizona, July 24-26, 1984.
Erie, L.J. and A.R. Dedrick, Level-basm irrigation: A method
for conserving water and labor. United States Department of
Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Farmers
Bulletin Number 2261, 1979.
Gordon, A.J., D.L. Daniel, and T.M. Turner, Effect of Arizona's
groundwater code on the prevention of groundwater
degradation from agriculcural practices, in: Innovative
Means of Dealing with Potential Sources of Ground Water
Contamination, Proceedings of the Seventh National Ground
Water Quality Symposium, September 26-28, 1984, Las Vegas,
32
[2-119]
-------
Nevada, National Water Well Association, pp. 237-245, 1984.
Halderman, A., Personal communication to L.G. Wilson, 1986.
Love, T.D., Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) Well Sampling Program for
Maricopa County, Arizona (June 11-September 25, 1979),
Bureau of Water Quality Control, Arizona Department of
Health Services, Phoenix, Arizona, 1979.
Mack, R.B. and R.W. Roessel, Trichloroethylene Investigation
Indian Bend Area, SRP Well 23.6E-6N, Salt River Project
Water Resources Operations, 1984.
Schmidt, K.D., Results of the Initial Groundwater Quality
Monitoring Phase (November 1979-January 1981), Consultants
report to the Maricopa Association of Governments, 208 Water
Quality Program, Phoenix, Arizona, 1981.
Poole, D.R. , Aquifer geology of alluvial basins of Arizona,
American Water Resources Association Special Publication,
1985 .
Small, G.G., Groundwater Quality impacts from cascading water in
the Salt River Project Area, in: Proceedings of the Deep
Percolation Symposium, October 26, 1982, Arizona Department
of Water Resources Report Number 4, pp. 41-47, 1982.
Smith, S.A., G.G. Small, T.S. Phillips, and M. Clester, Water
Quality in the Salt River Project, A Preliminary Report,
Salt River Project, Water Resources Operations, 1982.
33
[2-120]
-------
United States Geological Survey, Annual summary of ground water
conditions in Arizona, Spring 1983 to Spring 1984, Open-File
Report 85-410, 1985.
Wilson, L.G., K.L. Olson, M.G. Wallace, and M.D. Osborn,
Inventory of sources of available saline waters for
microalgae mass culture in the State of Arizona, A report by
the Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona,
for the Solar Energy Research Institute, 1986.
34
[2-121]
-------
APPENDIX A
IRRIGATION WELLS IN ARIZONA WITH DETECTED VOC POLLUTION
[2-122]
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
1. No VOC's = no VOC's detected in resample
2. COT = City of Tempe
3. COM = City of Mesa
4. COP = City of Phoenix
5. COG = City of Glendale
6. COS = City of Scottsdale
7. GMWC = Glendale Municipal Water Company
8. COM,FF = City of Mesa, Falcon Field
9. SRP = Salt River Project
Abbreviations Under Status Column
1.
CO =
County
2.
ATI
= Arizona Testing Incorporated
3 .
MAG
= Maricopa Association of Governments
4 .
WTI
= Western Technologies, Inc.
5.
ELT
= Engineering Testing Laboratories
[2-123]
-------
LEGAL WELL NAME
DESCRIPTION
CONSTITUENT
(A-I-l)
26caa
Don Wright
EDB
(A-l-2)
14bbc
Roosevelt Irr.
Dist
1,1-DCA
(A-l-2)
14tt>c
10E-3.7N
t-l,2-DCE
(A-l-2)
14bbc
10E-3.7N
TCE
(A-l-2)
16dbb
Roosevelt Irr.
Dist
EDB
(A-l-2)
17ddd
SRP 2E-9N
TCA
(A-l-2)
18add2
SRP 7E-3N
ICE
(A-l-2)
18add2
SRP 7E-3N
TCA
(A-l-2)
24ddc
SRP 11.8E-2N
ICE
(A—1—3)
lddd
SRP 18E-5N
TCE
(A—1—3)
9ada
Eastlake Be 16
St
&
Jefferson
1,1-DCE
(A-l-3)
9ada
Eastlake He 16
St
&
Jefferson
1.1-DCA
(A—1—3)
9ada
Eastlake Pk 16
St
&
Jefferson
t-1,2-DCE
(A-l-3)
9ada
Eastlake Pk 16
St
&
Jefferson
CHCL3
(A-l-3)
9ada
Eastlake Pk 16
St
&
Jefferson
1,1,1-TCA
(A-l-3)
9ada
Eastlake Pk 16
St
&
Jefferson
Q12CL2
(A-l-3)
9ada
Eastlake He 16
St
&
Jefferson
ICE
(A-l-3)
9ada
Eastlake Pk 16
St
&
Jefferson
PCE
(A-l-4)
laba
SRP 23.6E-6N
ICE
(A-l-4)
laba
SRP 23.6E-6N
TCE
(A-l-4)
laba
SRP 23.6E-6N
PCE
(A-l-4)
lbcb
Motorola Farm Well
ICE
(A-l-4)
lcda
SRP 23.5E-5.3N
TCE
(A-l-4)
lcda
SRP 23.5E-5.3N
PCE
(A-l-4)
2dbb
SRP 22.5-5.5N
ICE
(A-l-4)
19acc
SRP
CJ1C3CL
(A-l-4)
24bcc
SRP 23E-2.9N
ICE
(A-l-4)
24bcc
SRP 23E-2.9N
PCE
(A-l-4)
27aaa
SRP 22E-1.9N
ICE
(A-l-4)
27aaa
SRP 22E-1.9N
PCE
(A—1—5)
lad
SRP 29.9E-5.5N
DBCP
(A—1—5)
?hhh
SRP 29.9E-5.5N
TCE
(A—1—5)
2bbb
SRP 29.9E-5.5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
2bl±>
SRP 29.9E-5.5N
freon 113
(A— 1 — 5}
21±)b
SRP 29.9E-5.5N
t-1,2-DCE
CONC. SAMPLE STATUS LAB/COL USE OOUMY
UG/1 DATE
0.002
6/11/84
IRR
MARICOPA
>4.3
IRR
MARICOPA
>4.3
IRR
MARICOPA
2.3
IRR
MARICOPA
0.002
6/12/84
IRR
MARICOPA
13.8
no vocs
IRR
MARICOPA
1.6
IRR
MARICOPA
2.8
no vocs
IRR
MARICOPA
2.6
IRR
MARICOPA
5.4
IRR
MARICOPA
>3.4
IRR
MARICOPA
>4.3
IRR
MARICOPA
>4.3
IRR
MARICOPA
<4.5
IRR
MARICOPA
<4.4
IRR
MARICOPA
<6.3
IRR
MARICOPA
61.1
IRR
MARICOPA
5.2
IRR
MARICOPA
848
9/85
IRR
MARICOPA
1400
IRR
MARICOPA
33
IRR
MARICOPA
449.5
unused
IRR
MARICOPA
349
IRR
MARICOPA
212
IRR
MARICOPA
38
IRR
MARICOPA
442
IRR
MARICOPA
17.4
5/22/84
SRP/SRP
IRR
MARICOPA
4.4
5/22/84
SRP/SRP
IRR
MARICOPA
0.8
IRR
MARICOPA
0.3
IRR
MARICOPA
0.12
IRR
MARICOPA
10
1985
MAG
IRR
MARICOPA
0.8
1985
MAG
IRR
MARICOPA
1.6
1985
M£G
IRR
MARICOPA
2.9
1985
MAG
IRR
MARICOPA
-------
LEGAL WELL NAME
DESCRIPTION
CONSTITUENT
(A-1-5)
2hbb
SRP
29.9E-5.5N
1,1-DCA
(A-l-5)
2cbb2
SRP
28E-5.5N
TCA
(A-l-5)
2cbb2
SRP
28E-5.5N
t-1,2-DCE
(A-l-5)
2cbb2
SRP
2BE-5.5N
TCE
(A-l-5)
2<±>b2
SRP
28E-5.5N
ICE
(A-l-5)
2chb2
SRP
28E-5.5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
2cbb2
SRP
28E-5.5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
2cdd
SRP
28.5E-5N
TCE
(A-l-5)
2odd
SRP
28.5E-5N
TCA
(A-l-5)
2cdd
SRP
28.5E-5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
2dbb
SRP
28.6E-5.5N
TCE
(A-l-5)
2dbb
SRP
28.6E-5.5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
2ddc
SRP
28.8E-5.5N
ICE
(A-l-5)
2ddc
SRP
28.8E-5.5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
3ddc
SRP
27.9E-5N
TCE
(A-l-5)
3ddc
SRP
27.9E-5N
TCE
(A-l-5)
3ddc
SRP
27.9E-5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
3ddc
SRP
27.9E-5N
TCA
(A-l-5)
4ddd2
SRP
26.9E-5N
ICE
(A-l-5)
4ddd2
SRP
26.9E-5N
TCA
(A-l-5)
13bbc
SRP
29E-3.8N
ICE
(A-l-5)
16cc
SRP
26.3E-3N
TCE
(A-l-5)
16cc
SRP
26.3E-3N
frean 113
(A-l-5)
16cc
SRP
26.3E-3N
t-1,2-DCE
(A-l-5)
16cc
SRP
26.3E-3N
1,1-DCE
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
TCE
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
TCA
(A-l-5)
30baa
SRP
24.2-2.N
ICE
(A-l-5)
30baa
SRP
24.2-2.N
PCE
(A-l-5)
30bdd
SRP
24.1.5N
ICE
(A-l-5)
30bdd
SRP
24.1.5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
30bdd
SRP
24.1.5N
t-],2-DCE
(A-l-5)
34ddd
SRP
28E-ON
TCE
(A-l-5)
SRP
28R-ON
TCE
(A-l-5)
SRP
28E-ON
PCE
ro
ro
O'l
CONC. SAMFLE STA1TJS LAB/COL USE GCUNlY
UG/1 DATE
4.0
1985
MAG
IRR
MARICOPA
178
IRR
MARICOPA
0.8
1985
MAG
±RR
MARICOPA
127
IRR
MARICOPA
6.3
1985
MAG
IRR
MARICOPA
7.1
1985
MAG
IRR
MARICOPA
23
IRR
MARICOPA
9.4
IRR
MARICOPA
1.4
IRR
MARICOPA
16.7
IRR
MARICOPA
2.6
IRR
MARICOPA
0.2
IRR
MARICOPA
2.3
IRR
MARICOPA
0.9
IRR
MARICOPA
6.2
IRR
MARICOPA
4.2
1985
MAG
IRR
MARICOPA
4.6
1985
MAG
IRR
MARICOPA
6.5
IRR
MARICOPA
1.9
IRR
MARICOPA
6.1
IRR
MARICOPA
1.5
IRR
MARICOPA
1.4
85
blPC
IRR
MARICOPA
0.7
85
MAG
IRR
MARICOPA
2.0
85
t-w;
IRR
MARICOPA
0.6
85
MAG
IRR
MARICOPA
4.6
IRR
MARICOPA
0.3
IRR
MARICOPA
8.6
IRR
MARICOPA
7
IRR
MARICOPA
5
IRR
MARICOPA
14
IRR
MARICOPA
6.7
IRR
MARICOPA
1.8
IRR
MARICOPA
10.8
9/23/85
IRR
MARICOPA
35
IRR
MARICOPA
1.8
IRR
MARICFOA
-------
IiBGAL WELL NAME
DESCRIPTION
CONSTITUENT
(A-l-5)
SRP
28E-ON
PCE
(A-l-5)
SRP
28E-ON
TCA
(A-l-5)
SRP
28E-QN
TCA
(A-l-6)
SRP
30.5E-5N
TCE
(A-l-6)
Roosevelt Water Conservation
DBCP
(A-l-6)
SRP
DBCP
(A-l-6)
Roobevelt Water Ccnservation
DBCP
(A-l-6)
SRP
DBCP
(A-l-6)
SRP
32.5E-ON
TCE
(A-l-6)
SRP
32.5E-ON
TCA
(A-l-6)
SRP
32.5E-ON
PCE
(A-2-1)
SRP
4.5E-9.8N
TCA
(A-2-1)
SRP
3E-9.5N
TCE
(A-2-1)
SRP
2E-8N
TCE
(A-2-1)
SRP
2E-8N
TCA
(A-2-1)
SRP
0.5E-3N
TCE
(A-2-1)
SRP
0.5E-3N
TCA
(A-2-2)
SRP
0.5E-3N
TCE
(A-2-2)
SRP
0.5E-3N
PCE
(A-2-2)
SRP
6E-8.3N
TCE
(A-2-2)
SRP
16E-8N
TCA
(A-2-2)
SRP
16E-8N
PCE
(A-l-5)
SRP
28.5E-1N
TCA
(A-l-5)
SRP
28.5E-1N
TCE
(A-l-5)
SRP
28.5E-LN
PCE
(a-l-5)
2ddc
SRP
28.8E-5.5N
TCE
(A-l-5)
2ddc
SRP
28.8E-5.5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
3ddc
SRP
27.9E-5N
TCE
(A-l-5)
3ddc
SRP
27.9E-5N
1CA
(A-l-5)
4ddd2
SRP
26.9E-5N
TCE
(A-l-5)
4ddd2
SRP
26.9E-5N
TCA
(A-l-5)
13bbc
SRP
29E-3.8N
TCE
(A-l-5)
16cdc
SRP
24.3E-3N
ICE
(A-l-5)
18cdc
SRP
24.3E-3N
TCE
(A-l-5)
18odc
SRP
24.3E-3N
ICE
(A-l-5)
18cdc
SRP
24.3E-3N
PCE
CONC. SAMFLE STAHJS LAB/COL USE OCUNTY
UG/1 DATE
745
IRR
MARICOPA
ND
IRR
MARICOPA
17
IRR
MARICOPA
1.6
IRR
MARICOPA
0.37
7/31/79
IRR
MARICOPA
0.10
6/11/79
IRR
MARICOPA
0.03
7/31/79
IRR
MARICOPA
0.14
8/1/79
IRR
MARICOPA
38.5
IRR
MARICOPA
18.9
IRR
MARICOPA
1.4
no
VCjCS
IRR
MARICOPA
3.0
IRR
MARICOPA
1.5
no
vocs
IRR
MARICOPA
1.5
IRR
MARICOPA
1.9
no
vacs
IRR
MARICOPA
1.6
IRR
MARICOPA
2.8
IRR
MARICOPA
115
IRR
MARICOPA
21
IRR
MARICOPA
2.1
IRR
MARICOPA
1.6
IRR
MARICOPA
1.6
IRR
MARICOPA
1.6
5/2/84
IRR
MARICOPA
1.1
IRR
MARICOPA
0.7
IRR
MARICOPA
2.3
IRR
MARICOPA
0.9
IRR
MARICOPA
6.2
IRR
MARICOPA
6.5
IRR
MARICOPA
1.9
IRR
MARICOPA
6.1
IRR
MARICOPA
1.5
IRR
MARICOPA
ND
1/5/82
ADHS/ADUS
IRR
MARICOPA
ND
3/12/84
ADHS/ADHS
IRR
MARICOPA
ND
6/8/84
SRP/SRP
IRR
MARICOPA
0.3
SRP/SRP
IRR
MARIOOPA
-------
LEGAL WELL NAME
DESCRIPTION
CONSTITUENT
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
ICE
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
TCA
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
TCA
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
TCE
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
TCE
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
TCA
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
1,1-DCE
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
C11CL3
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
TCE
(A-l-5)
19acc2
SRP
24.5E-2.5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
30baa
SRP
24.2-2.N
ICE
(A-l-5)
30baa
SRP
24.2-2N
PCE
(A-l-5)
30bdd
SRP
24.1.5N
ICE
(A-l-5)
30bdd
SRP
24.1.5N
PCE
(A-l-5)
30bdd
SRP
24.1.5N
t-1,2-DCE
(A-l-5)
34ddd
SRP
28E-ON
TCE
(A-l-5)
34ddd
SRP
28E-QN
ICE
(A-l-5)
34ddd
SRP
28E-ON
PCE
(A-l-5)
34ddd
SRP
28E-ON
PCE
(A-l-5)
34ddd
SRP
28E-ON
TCA
(A-l-5)
34ddd
SRP
28E-QN
TCA
(A-l-6)
7 abb
SRP
30.5E-5N
TCE
(A-l-6)
4dcd
Roosevelt Water
Conservation
DBCP
(A-l-6)
4dcd
Roosevelt Water
Conservation
DBCP
(A-l-6)
6bab
SRP
DBCP
(A-l-6)
9add
Roosevelt Water
Conservation
DBCP
(A-l-6)
17dbb
SRP
DBCP
(A-l-6)
33cdd
SRP
32.5E-ON
ICE
(A-l-6)
33cdd
SRP
32.5E-ON
1CA
(A-l-6)
33cdd
SRP
32.5E-ON
PCE
(A-2-1)
14bdd
SRP
4.5E-9.8N
rJCA
(A—2—1)
15cab
SRP
3E-9.5N
'ICE
ro
I
|N>
N
GONC. SAMEloE STAHJS LAB/COL USE COUNTY
UG/1 DATE
4.6
1983
IRR
MARICOPA
0.3
1983
IRR
MARICOPA
8.6
1983
IRR
MARICOPA
2.7
6/5/84
SCHMIDT
IRR
MARICOPA
0.7
6/5/84
SCHMIDT
IRR
MARICOPA
1.4
6/8/84
ATI/SRP
IRR
MARICOPA
0.7
6/8/84
ATI/SRP
IRR
MARICOPA
2.4
6/8/84
ADHS/SRP
IRR
MARICOPA
0.8
6/8/84
ADHS/SRP
IRR
MARICOPA
<0.5
6/8/84
ADHS/SRP
IRR
MARICOPA
<0.5
6/8/84
ADHS/SRP
IRR
MARICOPA
<0.5
6/8/84
ADHS/SRP
IRR
MARICOPA
4.1
6/8/84
SRP/SRP
IRR
MARICOPA
3.6
6/8/84
SRP/SRP
IRR
MARICOPA
7
IRR
MARICOPA
5
IRR
MARICOPA
14
IRR
MARICOPA
6.7
IRR
MARICOPA
1.8
IRR
MARICOPA
10.8
9/23/85
IRR
MARICOPA
35
IRR
MARICOPA
1.8
IRR
MARICOPA
745
IRR
MARICOPA
IO
IRR
MARICOPA
17
IRR
MARICOPA
1.6
IRR
MARICOPA
0.37
7/31/79
IRR
MARICOPA
3.58
85
MAG
IRR
MARICOPA
0.10
6/11/79
IRR
MARICOPA
0.03
7/31/79
IRR
MARICOPA
0.14
8/1/79
IRR
MARICOPA
38.5
IRR
MARICOPA
18.9
IRR
MARICOPA
1.4
no vocb
IRR
MARICOPA
3.0
IRR
MARICOPA
1.5
no vocb
IRR
MARICOPA
-------
LEGAL WELL NAME
DESCRIPTION
CONSTITUENT
A-2-1)
2 (ma
SRP
2E-8N
ICE
A-2-1)
20ddd
SRP
2E-8N
TCA
A-2-1)
30ddd
SRP
0.5E-3N
ICE
A-2-1)
30ddd
SRP
0.5E-3N
TCA
A-2-2)
18ddd
SRP
7E-9.6N
ICE
A-2-2)
18ddd
SRP
7E-9.6N
PCE
A-2-2)
19ccb
SRP
6E-8.3N
ICE
A-2-2)
22ddd
SRP
16E-8N
TCA
A-2-2)
22ddd
SRP
16E-8N
PCE
A-l-5)
35ba
SRP
28.5E-1N
TCA
A-l-5)
35ba
SRP
28.5E-1N
TCE
A-l-5)
35ba
SRP
28.5E-1N
PCE
A-2-2)
23ccc
SRP
4E-8N
TCE
A-2-2)
27acb
SRP
9.5E-7.7N
TCE
A-2-2)
27acb
SRP
9.5E-7.7N
TCE
A-2-2)
27acb
SRP
9.5E-7.7N
PCE
A-2-2)
27acb
SRP
9.5E-7.7N
PCE
A-2-2)
29dbb2
SRP
7.5E-7.5N
TCE
A-2-2)
29dbb2
SRP
7.5E-7.5N
PCE
A-2-3)
24aad
SRP
18E-8.8N
TCE
A-2-3)
24aad
SRP
18E-8.8N
PCE
A-2-3)
25bbb2
SRP
17E-8N
TCA
A-2-3)
25bbb2
SRP
17E-8N
TCA
A-2-3)
25bbb2
SRP
17E-8N
TCE
A-2-3)
25bbb2
SRP
17E-8N
TCE
A-2-3)
25bbb2
SRP
17E-8N
PCE
A-2-3)
25t±>b2
SRP
17E-8N
PCE
A-2-3)
25cbb2
SRP
17.1E-7.4N
TCA
A-2-3)
25cbb2
SRP
17.1E-7.4N
PCE
A-2-3)
25daa
SRP
17.9E-7.5N
TCE
A-2-3)
25daa
SRP
17.9E-7.5N
PCE
A-2-3)
25daa
SRP
17.9E-7.5N
PCE
A-2-4)
12daa2
SRP
24E-10.5N
1.1
A-2-4)
12daa2
SRP
24E-10.5N
1,1
A-2-4)
25bcb
SRP
23.5E-7.5N
TCE
A-2-4)
25bcb
SRP
23.5E-7.5N
PCE
to
I
ro
co
CONC. SAMRiE STATUS LAB/COL USE COUNTY
UG/l DATE
1.5
IRR
MARICOPA
1.9
no vocs
IRR
MARICOPA
1.6
IRR
MARICOPA
2.8
IRR
MARICOPA
115
IRR
MARICOPA
21
IRR
MARICOPA
2.1
IRR
MARICOPA
1.6
IRR
MARICOPA
1.6
IRR
MARICOPA
1.6
5/2/84
IRR
MARICOPA
1.1
ERR
MARICOPA
0.7
IRR
MARICOPA
1.5
IRR
MARICOPA
48
1983
5/84
IRR
MARICOPA
163
IRR
MARICOPA
0.8
IRR
MARICOPA
1.8
IRR
MARICOPA
108
IRR
MARICOPA
8
IRR
MARICOPA
9.2
IRR
MARICOPA
0.3
IRR
MARICOPA
ND
7/83
6/84
IRR
MARICOPA
3.7
IRR
MARICOPA
ND
IRR
MARICOPA
1.7
IRR
MARICOPA
20
IRR
MARICOPA
66.7
IRR
MARICOPA
1.2
IRR
MARICOPA
10.3
IRR
MARICOPA
0.5
7/83
5/84
IRR
MARICOPA
53
IRR
MARICOPA
65
IRR
MARICOPA
3.3
1983
SRP/SRP
IRR
MARICOPA
ND
1984
SRP/SRP
IRR
MARICOPA
86
IRR
MARICOPA
0.3
1983
IRR
MARICOPA
-------
L.EGAL
DESCRIPTION
WELL NAME
COIJSTriUEOT
CONC.
UG/1
SAMPLE STATUS
DATE
LAB/COL
USE
COUNTY
(A-2-4)
30a ad-
SRP 19E-7.6N
ICE
1.2
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-4)
30acc
SRP 18.5E-7.5N
ICE
2.8
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-4)
30cdd
SRP 18.5E-7N
1CA
12.4
8/12/83
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-4)
30cdd
SRP 18.5E-7N
ICE
21.7
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-4)
30odd
SRP 10.5E-7N
PCE
6.0
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-4)
31ddb
Morgan Well
CHCL3
1.4
5/14/85
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-4)
31ddb
Morgan Well
1.1,1-TCA
TR
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-4)
31ddb
Morgan Well
TCE
TR
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-4)
3 lddb
Morgan Well
b rcmod i chl orcrne than e
TR
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-4)
35bba
SRP 22.3E-7N
ICE
25
1983
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-4)
35bba
SRP 22.3E-7N
1CA
16
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-4)
35bba
SRP 22.3E-7N
PCE
1.0
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-4)
35dccl
SRP 22.5E-6N
ICE
188
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-4)
35dccl
SRP 22.5E-6N
PCE
32
IRR
MARIOOPA
(A-2-4)
35dcc2
SRP 22.5E-6N
PCE
33
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-l-5)
31dc
SRP 30.5E-6N
DBCP
4.74
1985
MAG
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-6)
31cdd
SRP
DBCP
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-6)
32acd
SRP 31.8E-6.5N
TCE
2.3
1983
IRR
MARIOOPA
(A-2-6)
32acd
SRP 31.8E-6.5N
PCE
0.9
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-6)
32acd
SRP 31.8E-6.5N
DBCP
0.36
10/82
IRR
MARIOOPA
(A-2-6)
32acd
SRP 31.8E-6.5N
DBCP
1.14
1985
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-6)
32acd
SRP 31.8E-6.5N
LDB
0.006
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-2-6)
34cbb
Citrus Heights
DBCP
0.01
8/27/79
IRR
MARIOOPA
(A-3-1)
3 aba
Citrus Heights
DBCP
0.18
6/15/84
IRR
MARIOOPA
(A-3-1)
3 abb
Bodine Produce
DBCP
1.3
6/15/84
IRR
MARIOOPA
(A-3-1)
3 abb
Bodine Produce
EDB
0.006
IRR
MARIOOPA
(A-3-2)
30dad
City ofGlerdale
DBCP
3.3
6/7/84
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-4-1)
23aab
Fletcher Farms
DBCP
0.21
1979
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-4-1)
23adb
Hillcrest Farms
DBCP
0.14
1979
IRR
MARIOOPA
(A-4-1)
23caa
Fletcher Farms
DBCP
0.21
1979
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-4-1)
23daa
Ar rev/head Ranch
DBCP
0.02
1979
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-4-1)
24bdb
Hillcrest Farms
DBCP
0.05
1979
IRR
MARIOOPA
(A-4-1)
25aad
Arrowhead Ranch
DBCP
0.02
1979
IRR
MARIOOPA
(A-4-1)
34 abb
Bodine Produce
DBCP
IRR
MARIOOPA
(A-4-1)
34adb
Bodine Produce Co.
DBCP
1.60
79 6/15/84
IRR
MARIOOPA
(A-4-1)
34adb
Bodine Produce Co.
DBPC
1.60
IRR
MARICOPA
-------
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
WELL NAME
CONSTITUENT
OONC.
UG/1
SAMPLE ST All J S LAB/COL
DATE
USE
COUNTY
(A-4-1)
35hbb
Bodine Produce Co.
DBCP
0.98
79 6/15/84
IRR
MARICOPA
(A—4—1)
35bhb
Bodine Produce Co.
DBCP
1.2
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-4-])
35hbc
Bodine Produce
DBCP
IRR
MARICOPA
(A-4-2)
30cdd
Arrowhead Ranch
DBCP
0.01
1979
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-l-1)
2bcb
Bocoks
toluene
2
10/84
IRR
MARICOPA
(B-l-1)
lOchb
Park Shadows
TCE
5.6
9/3/82
IRR
MARICOPA
(B-l-1)
7 aba
Roosevelt Irr. Dist.
EDB
0.004
6/14/84
IRR
MARICOPA
(B-l-1)
17aad2
Smith
TCE
3
10/84
IRR
MARICOPA
(B-l-1)
17bcb
R. R. Woods
EDB
0.019
6/14/84
IRR
MARICOPA
(B-l-1)
19bba
Phillips
TCE
10
10/84
IRR
MARICOPA
(B-l-1)
20fcfc>bl
Wood
ICE
3
10/84
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-l-3)
6a'ad
SRP 13E-0.1S
DBCP
3.8
79 6/7/84
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-l-3)
6 a ad
SRP 13E-0.1S
DBCP
1.9
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-l-3)
6dbc
SRP 13E-0.1S
DBCP
4.5
79 6/8/84
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-l-3)
6dbc
SRP 13E-0.1S
DBCP
0.012
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-l-4)
3bbb2
SRP 21.IE-OS
TCA
1.9
83 5/21/84
no
vocs
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-l-5)
8acc
SRP 26.5E-1.5S
ICE
96
1983
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-l-5)
8acc
SRP 26.5E-1.5S
PCE
4
6/84
no
vocs
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-l-5)
15bba
SRP 27.3E-2S
ICE
111
1983
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-l-5)
15bba
SRP 27.3E-2S
PCE
16
5/8/84
no
vocs
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-l-5)
35adc
SRP 28.9E-5.5S
'ICE
4.0
1983
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-l-6)
5ccc
SRP 31.1E-1S
ICE
1.5
83 5/3/84
no
vocs
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-l-6)
18cac2
SRP 30.1E-1S
ICE
1.9
83 5/8/84
no
vocs
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-2-5)
llccc
SRP 28.1E-8S
'1CA
4.7
1983
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-2-7)
31cdb
Chandler Heights Irr. S3
DBCP
0.24
8/1/79
IRR
MARICOPA
(D-13-13)
27cddl
U of A
1,1-DCE
1.5
IRR
PIMA
(D-13-13)
27odd2
U of A
] ,2-DCA
0.64
IRR
PIMA
(D-13-13)
27cdd2
U of A
1, 1,1-TCA
2.1
IRR
PIMA
(D-13-13)
27odd2
U of A
1,1-DCE
12
IRR
PIMA
(D-15-13)
lcaa2
Apollo
die hlorof1uorame thane
IRR
PIMA
(D-13-13)
ccd2
Town and Country
IRR
PIMA
(C-8-22)
33ccc
BLM
DBCP
0.01
IRR
YUMA
(C-8-23)
21cad
City of Yuna
EDB
0.003
IRR
YUMA
(C-8-23)
29ccb
M. Rutledge
DBCP
0.01
IRR
YUMA
(C-8-24)
27 aba
U of A
DBCP
0.011
IRR
YUMA
(C-8-24)
27 aba
U of A
LDB
0.003
IRR
YUMA
-------
LEGAL WELL NAME
DESCRIPTION
CONSTITUENT
(C-9-23)
3cda
Yuma Golf and Country Club
DBCP
(C-9-23)
3cda
Yurra Golf and Country Club
EDB
(C-9-23)
5cda
Yuma Co. Water
DBCP
(C-10-22)
6cc±>
Wyne and Connoll Fullerton
DBCP
(C-10-23)
llddb
Frank Booth
DBCP
(C-10-23)
15aaa
Tony Maricone
DBCP
(C-10-23)
15bdd
MCP Ranchers Inc.
DBCP
(C-10-23)
16dbd
MCP Ranchers Inc.
DBCP
(C-10-23)
20baa
D.G. Griswold
DBCP
(C-10-23)
21aaa
D.G. Griswold
DBCP
(C-10-23)
21daa
D.G. Griswold
DBCP
(C-10-23)
28ccd
D.G. Griswold
DBCP
(C-10-23)
29add
D.G. Griswold
DBCP
(D-6-7)
8add
Abandoned Well
1,2-DCA
(D-6-7)
8 add
Abandoned Well
1,1,1,-TCA
(D-6-7)
8add
Abandoned Well
benzene
(D-6-7)
8add
Abandoned Well
toluene
(D-7-6)
6dcd
Abandoned Well
toluene
(D-7-6)
6dcd
Abandoned Well
acetone
(D-7-6)
6dcd
Abandoned Well
4,4-DDE
(D-7-6)
6dcd
Abandoned Well
1,1-DCE
(D-7-6)
6ddd
Abandoned Well
PCE
(D-7-6)
6ddd
Abandoned Well
ICE
M
I
U
C0N2. SAMPLE STAHJS LAB/OOL USE COUNTY
UG/1 DATE
0.006
IRR
YUMA
0.019
IRR
YUMA
0.03
IRR
YUMA
0.002
5/16/84
IRR
YUMA
0.03
5/16/84
IRR
YUMA
2.7
5/31/84
IRR
YUMA
0.02
5/16/84
IRR
YUMA
3.1
5/16/84
IRR
YUMA
3.5
5/16/84
IRR
YUMA
0.006
6/3/84
IRR
YUMA
0.009
6/3/84
IRR
YUMA
.005
6/3/84
IRR
YUMA
0.011
6/3/84
IRR
YUMA
2.1
IRR
PINAL
3.2
IRR
PINAL
2500
IRR
PINAL
2300
IRR
PINAL
31
IRR
PINAL
24
IRR
PINAL
0.67
IRR
PINAL
6.2
IRR
PINAL
5.4
IRR
PINAL
11
IRR
PINAL
-------
APPENDIX B
CONTACTS AND SUMMARY OF COMMENTS DURING ASSESSMENT OF IRRIGATION
RETURN FLOW WELLS IN ARIZONA
[2-132
-------
Assessment Interviews
The following section contains abbreviated comments from
contacts made during the assessment of irrigation return flow
well practices in Arizona.
1. Arizona Department of Health Services;
Chuck Gordon
Contacted 5/12/86
Mr. Gordon is familiar with some of the earlier efforts by
DHS to inventory wells in Arizona for the UIC program. According
to Mr. Gordon the departmental survey is not complete and nothing
has been published. He is not aware of any dry wells for
agricultural drainage in the State. However, he did mention that
one of SRP's irrigation water-supply wells in the Indian Bend
Wash area was shown to have cascading water with TCE. Although
the TCE was derived from an industrial source, a similar effect
from cascading wells in agricultural areas is also possible.
(Inasmuch as the presence of cascading water with TCE is
unintentional, classification of the associated well as a Class V
injection well is moot.) This point is emphasized in the report.
Mr. Gordon mentioned that ADHS obtained information from
ADWR that the herbicide GENEP EPTC 7EC was being dripped directly
into irrigation wells on the Planet Ranch for the purpose of
mixing with ground water as wells were being pumped to deliver
irrigation water. Mr. Gordon indicated a willingness to submit
[2-133
-------
documentation on this case. Also requested was a list of wells
in the state with known pollution. This information has been
received and will be summarized in the report.
Mr. Gordon indicated that under the new ground-water quality-
legislation (i.e., The Environmental Quality Act), the State
would initiate steps for Ari~cna to assume primacy for trie UIC
program in the state.
Roger Kennett
Contacted 5/19/86
Mr. Kennett was contacted to determine if any Notices of
Disposal had been submitted for irrigation return flow wells in
Arizona. He indicated that none have been filed to his
knowledge. It is his perception that irrigators may use
impoundments to store tail water or discharge to canals.
Mr. Kennett commented that he has observed cascading water
m areas near Chandler, the Lower Hassayampa area, and near Casa
Grande. He indicated that a contractor in the Phoenix area, Buck
Weber, has video scanned wells with cascading water. High
nitrates in ground water in the Chandler area may be related to
cascading wells.
2. Arizona Department of Water Resources
Greg Wallace, Chief Hydroloqist
Contacted 5/21/86
Mr. Wallace has recently arrived from Oklahoma where he was
involved in a UIC program. To his knowledge there are no
[2-134
-------
irrigation disposal wells in the State.
Bruce Hammond, Basic Data Division
Contacted 5/22/86
Mr. Hammond was contacted because of his experience in
inventorying wells in Arizona for ADWR. ADWR is responsible for
inventorying wells in all of the AMA's and in other selected
basins. According to Mr. Hammond, ADWR has taken over the well
inventorying program initiated by the USGS. Well data on the
USGS System 2000 were transferred onto the ADWR system in 1984,
and since that time the data have been updated.
In his experience, including his field activities, Mr.
Hammond has not encountered wells deliberately used for disposing
of irrigation return flows. He mentioned that he has observed
drainage around abandoned wells and also cascading wells. He
plans to check with his associates for additional information.
Inasmuch as he did not call back, it appears that additional
details were not forthcoming.
Gary Hanson, Planner, Phoenix Ac tlve Management Area,
Phoenix
Contacted 5/21/86
Mr. Hanson is unaware of irrigation return flow wells in the
Phoenix AMA. He indicated that it is his perception that farmers
tend to send tail water to other fields or to drain surplus water
to the river system. This perception was supported by the
comments of Mr. Condit of the Cortaro Water Users Association,
presented in a later section of this appendix.
[2-135]
-------
Tom Carr, Pinal Active Management Area, Casa Grande, AZ
Contacted 5/21/86
During the inventory of wells in the Pinal AMA no dry wells
or irrigation return flow wells were found. Farmers tend to use
pump back systems. He did mention that the City of Casa Grande
uses dry wells for stormwater drainage from streets and other
paved areas. He also indicated that some of the irrigation wells
in Pinal County have evidence of pesticide pollution, possible
from poor surface seals and spillage near the wells. These wells
do not comply with the definition of Class V wells.
Lester Snow, Director Tucson Active Management Area, Tucson
Contacted 5/21/86
Mr. Snow is unaware of any irrigation tail water wells in
the Tucson AMA.
3. University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Service
Woody Winans, Director, Univers1ty of Arizona Cooperative
Extension Service, La Paz County
Contacted 5/21/86
Mr. Winans was contacted for information on the existence of
irrigation return flow wells in La Paz County, located along the
Colorado River. Mr. Winans indicated that to the best of his
knowledge there are no such wells in La Paz County.
Richard Harris, Director, University of Arizona Cooperative
Extension Service, La Paz County
Contacted 5/21/86
[2-133]
-------
Mr. Harris was contacted for information on irrigation
return flow wells in Santa Cruz County. He is unaware of such
wells in Santa Cruz County. He briefly discussed che problem m
Nogales, Arizona, of sewage flows entering the area from across
the border.
Rick Gibson. Univers1ty of Arizona Cooperative Extension
Service, Pinal County
Contacted 5/21/86
Mr. Gibson is not aware of any irrigation return flow wells
in Pinal County. Traditionally farmers in Pinal "deficit"
irrigate and it is unlikely that they would dispose of any
surplus water back underground.
Ron Cluff, Director^. University of Arizona Cooperative
Extension Service, Graham County
Contacted 5/21/86
Mr. Cluff is unaware of irrigation return flow wells m
Graham County. He indicated that several years ago he
encountered a farmer who attempted to recharge flood water but
that the sediment and trash plugged the bowls and any further
attempts were abandoned.
Barry Tickes, Extension Specialist, Yuma County, University
of Arizona Agricultural Extension Service
Mr. Tickes is unaware of dry wells for drainage of
irrigation tail water in Yuma County. He pointed out that
extensive pumping is going on in the Yuma area for draining
[2-137]
-------
irrigated areas. He indicated that he will check further and
call back.
Chuck Fa rr, Extension Specialist, Maricopa County,
Universi ty of Arizona Agricultural Extension Service
Mr. Farr has been a specialist in Maricopa County for more
than 20 years. He indicated that he is unaware of dry wells for
agricultural drainage in Maricopa County, and was surprised that
such wells were being used for draining urban runoff in Maricopa
County.
4. United States Soil Conservation Service
Mr. Roy Ard, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Wilcox, A2
Contacted 5/16/86
Mr. Ard is a long-time SCS soils specialist in the Wilcox
area. He indicated that' he was not aware of dry wells for
agricultural drainage in the Wilcox area. He also indicated that
farmers are more likely to conserve water than to dispose of it.
Pump-back systems are used. He mentioned that several years ago
the City of Wilcox expressed an interest m constructing wells
for artificial recharge. Others investigated the idea of
recharging runoff normally discharging to the Willcox Playa, but
nothing came of the idea.
5. Private Drillers
Steve De Tomasso, McGuckm Drilling, Phoenix
Contacted 5/12/86
Mr. De Tomasso is a manger for McGuckin Drilling. McGuckin
has installed thousands of dry wells in the Phoenix area and some
12-138
-------
in the Tucson area for disposing of urban runoff. Mr. De Tomasso
has been with McGuckin for several years and is familiar with dry
well activities in the state. He was approached for information
on dry wells constructed by his firm for agricultural drainage.
He indicated that he is not aware of any such wells in the state
and that because of their experience they would nave been
contacted by interested parties.
Mr. Dr Tomasso indicated that some time ago the City of
Wilcox was in touch with McGuckin Drilling for constructing dry
wells for disposing of stormwater in agricultural areas.
However, there were no follow on activities and he is not aware
of another driller constructing drainage wells. Obviously,
stormwater runoff in agricultural areas could pose a threat to
groundwater quality.
Mr. De Tomasso pointed out that water for irrigation is a
scarce resource in Arizona, and that the new Groundwater
Management Act seems to be working, i.e., farmers are conserving
water by using pump back systems, laser levelling of fields, and
so forth to conserve water. He also refereed to a piece of
legislation that was introduced in the state legislature to
attempt to regulate cascading wells. He did not know of the date
of the legislation, but indicated that it had not been
successful. Research is underway to determine the name and
wording of this legislation.
6. Irrigation Districts
[2-139]
-------
Gary Small, Groundwater Planning Division, Sal t River
Proj ect, Phoenix
Contacted 5/12/86
Mr. Small indicated that SRP does not use dry wells for
disposing of irrigation return flows. By SRP statutes, water is
delivered to the high point in each quarter section. Tail water
from the low point in the 1/4 section is collected into laterals
and delivered to downstream 1/4 sections.
SRP started the practice of surveying wells in the Project
for cascading water several years ago. The approach taken is to
videotape wells that are removed from service for pump
renovation. The presence of cascading water is determined from
the tapes. The wells are subsequently logged with natural gamma
to determine the locatipn of perching layers. Samples of
cascading water are obtained for chemical analysis. Results of
the program were reported by Small during the Deep Percolation
Symposium in 1982. According to Small representative wells are
still checked. There is no intent to publish results. Wells m
the Project are not longer cascading because of water level rises
in the past several years.
Small's paper will be reviewed in the report together with
reports by Mack and Roessel and Smith and others dealing with
water quality in the Project.
Rober t Condi t, Manager, Cortaro - Marana Irrigation
District, Cortaro Arizona
Contacted 5/21/86
[2-140]
-------
The Cortaro-Marana Irrigation District delivers irrigation
water to 12, 000 acres in the Cortaro area of southern Arizona.
The district owns and maintains canals, laterals, and more than
50 irrigation and domestic wells. Private wells with capacities
of more than 50 gallons per minute are prohibited by
Association/District deed restrictions.
Mr. Condit, Manager of the district, indicated that inasmuch
as the farmers are prohibited from drilling water production
wells of more than 50 gpm, he doubted that there were any wells
constructed specifically for drainage purposes. He said that
normal practice in the district is to divert tail water back into
the delivery system and sell it to downstream irrigators. The
last farmer on line takes all the residual tail water whether he
wants it or not, but at nq cost. He also receives storm water
from the system. The excess water is stored in ditches or in
ponds, and undoubtedly also drains into the Santa Cruz River.
Mr. Condit briefly discussed water usage in the district.
He pointed out that farmers are tending to be more conscious of
conservation at this time and that water use is down due both to
a conservation ethic and to the present economic bind. Better
management is required or the farmers won't survive. He feels
that DWR would like to take the credit for the reduced water
usage but that the principal factor is economics.
7. Private Consultants
Allen Halderman, Irrigation Engineer
Contacted 5/12/86
[2-141]
-------
Mr. Halderman was an irrigation specialist at the University
of Arizona for about 30 years, and is intimately familiar with
irrigation practices throughout the State. Currently, he is a
private consultant. He does not know of any dry wells for
agricultural drainage in Arizona. He pointed out that he felt
that sucn wells are illegal. (In fact, such wells wcuid require
a permit under the State's Chapter 20 Regulations.)
For additional information, Mr. Halderman recommended
contacting Chuck Farr, an irrigation specialist in the University
of Arizona Extension Service in Maricopa County, as well as Barry
Tickes, a specialist in Yuma County, and Larry Sullivan in
Cochise County.
He was also unaware of pesticides being injected into ground
water, such as reported for Planet «anch.
He indicated skepticism over the use of dry wells for
agricultural drainage in Maricopa County because of his view that
farmers will spend money to capture water and not get rid of it.
He also indicated that he is unaware of many cascading wells
at this time, but that from time to time he has noticed them.
Don Greene, Hydrologist, Errol Montgomery and Associates,
Tucson
Contacted 5/16/86
Mr. Greene indicated that he has not come across such wells
during his many years as a professional hydrologist in Arizona.
[2-142]
-------
He mentioned that there are 11 drainage wells in the Buckeye area
for controlling water levels, which are only 2 to 3 feet below
land surface along the Gila River. (These wells are for
extraction of groundwater and not injection. Hence, they do not
comply with the definition of Class V injection wells.)
Montgomery and Associates are currently involved in a study for
ADWR to determine whether to remove the Buckeye area from the
Phoenix AMA.
Leonard Halpenny. President Water Development Corporation,
Tucson, A2
Contacted 5/21/86
Mr. Halpenny is a long time hydrologic consultant in
Arizona, and has worked for several irrigation districts in the
State. He indicated that,it is his experience that farmers do
not want to waste water once they have pumped it to the surface.
Accordingly, it is unlikely that they will dispose of surplusses
down a well. Instead pump back systems are used.
8. County Health Officers
Jack Hinslev, Health Officer, Pima County Department of
Health
Contacted 5/21/86
Mr. Hinsley is associated with a program being conducted by
Pima County Department of Health to sample all drinking water
wells in Pima County for VOC's. He is unaware of either
irrigation return flow wells or dry wells being used for disposal
of tail water in Pima County.
[2-143]
-------
Frank Binieski, Cochise County Health Department
Contacted 5/16/86
Mr. Binieski implied that dry wells may be used in
conjunction with septic tanks. He referred to the Dos Cabassos
area. He is not familiar with irrigation runoff. One farmer
that he knows of runs water down the road, but he did not
indicate if this is stormwater or tailwater. He implied that an
out of state driller may come into the area periodically for
illegal construction of some type of disposal well. Given his
uncertainty of what is meant by irrigation drainage wells, it is
unclear if the illegal wells are for septic tank usage or for
drainage wells. (Follow-on discussions with Brad Derdorff,
Section 9, and Roy Ard, Section 4, indicate that the wells are
probably not used for agricultural drainage.)
9. Miscellaneous
Mr. Brad Derdorff, Farmers Home Administration, Willcox, AZ
Contacted 5/16/86
Mr.Derdorff was contacted at the suggestion of Frank
Binieski, who felt that Mr. Derdorff would know if farmers in the
area were using dry wells. Mr. Derdorff indicated that he was
unaware of such wells. He felt that Mr. Binieski may be confused
about the type of wells of concern for this study.
Ken Zehentner, South East Arizona Council of Governments
Mr. Zehentner indicated that dry wells may be used around
the Wilcox Playa for stormwater drainage, but he does not know
the exact location. He has heard them discussed. He suggested
[2-144]
-------
contacting Roy Ard with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Mr.
Ard in a long SCS specialist in the area, and according to
Zehentner would know if such wells were in existence in the
Wilcox area (see Section 4 for summary of the discussions with
Roy Ard).
[2-145]
-------
SECTION 2.1.6
TITLE OF STUDY:
(OR SOURCE OF INFORMATION)
AUTHOR (OR INVESTIGATOR):
Assessment of Wells Used for
Recharge of Irrigation Wastewater
in California
Kenneth Schmidt, Prepared for
Engineering Enterprises, Inc.
DATE:
November, 19 86
STUDY AREA NAME AND LOCATION: California, USEPA Region IX
NATURE OF BUSINESS:
BRIEF SUMMARY/NOTES:
Not applicable
The report discusses the use of
wells for disposal of
wastewater from irrigation in
California. The types of wells
used for irrigation water disposal
are dry wells, abandoned water
wells, and active water wells. The
author concluded that agricultural
drainage wells would most likely be
found in areas characterized by:
1) relatively inexpensive
irrigation water? 2} lack of
cheaper method for disposal; 3)
presence of restricting layers
which limit percolation from ponds;
4) moderately deep water levels.
[2-143]
-------
ASSESSMENT OF WELLS USED FOR
RECHARGE OF IRRIGATION WASTEWATER
IN CALIFORNIA
Draft Report - For Review Purposes Only
Prepared For
Engineering Enterprises, Inc.
Norman, Oklahoma
by
Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates
Groundwater Quality Consultants
Fresno, California
November 1986
[2-147]
-------
ASSESSMENT OP WELLS USED FOR
RECHARGE OP IRRIGATION WASTEWATER
IN CALIFORNIA
INTRODOCTION
This report discusses the use of wells for disposal of
wastewater from irrigation irt California. Much of the irrigated
land in the state is centered in the Central Valley, which lies
between the Coast Ranges on the west and the Sierra Nevada on the
east (Figure 1). The southern part of the Central Valley (south
of Sacramento) is termed the San Joaquin Valley. This report
primarily focuses on the San Joaquin Valley for reasons that are
explained later. Other important major agricultural areas in
California include the Imperial and Coachella Valleys in the
Colorado Desert Area and a number of alluvial basins (i.e., Santa
Maria and Salinas Valleys) in the Central and South Coastal
Areas.
Crops in the Central Valley are irrigated by basins,
furrows, sprinklers, and to a limited degree, drip emitters. In
general, costs of water are lower in the Sacramento Valley and in
most of the eastern part of the San Joaquin Valley, where
relatively inexpensive canal water or shallow groundwater is
available. In such areas, basin and furrow irrigation are
predominant. In contrast, in the western and southern parts of
the San Joaquin Valley, water is more expensive, and sprinkler
[2-143]
-------
OREGON ff
EXPLANATION
NC - NORTH COASTAL
SF - SAN FRANCISCO BAY
CC - CENTRAL COASTAL
SC - SOUTH COASTAL
,'P
I CENTRAL
; VALLEY
DELTA
S** IOAQU1N
40
NL- NORTH LAHONTAN
SI - SOUTH LAHONTAN
CD - COLORADO DESERT
^ VCtf
SL
35
120
CD
\ SC
Albert tqual-irM protection
SCALE
200 MILES
100
200
300 KILOMETRES
100
Figure 1.—Subregions arid landforms of California Region
[2-149]
-------
3
irrigation is predominant. Drip irrigation has been more widely
practiced in recent years, particularly in areas where water
costs are high and/or subsurface drainage problems are present.
CALIFORNIA GROaNDWATER BASINS
Most of the groundwater reservoirs of the California region
are in the valleys and plains that receive runoff and debris from
the mountains. The longest and highest mountain range is the
Sierra Nevada, a broad tilted block of relatively impermeable
igneous and metamorphic rocks extending for about 400 miles. To
the west, the great Central Valley of similar length is composed
partly of alluvial sediments that now contain fresh groundwater
to depths of up to 4,000 feet below sea level. The Coast Ranges
comprise folded and faulted sedimentary and metamorphic rocks
generally parallel to the Pacific coastline. Most of the ground-
water reservoirs in the Coast Ranges are in the intervening
valleys and coastal plains. The coastal valleys and mountains
are included in four subregions—North Coastal, San Francisco
Bay, Central Coastal, and South Coastal—of the California Region
(Figure 1). The North Coastal subregion has the greatest
precipitation and runoff; its groundwater reservoirs are recharged
each winter and maintain perennial flow of streams in the summer.
Water deficiency is prevalent in the South Coastal subregion,
where groundwater reservoirs are recharged in the winter, but
where the water may remain underground and not reach streams.
[2-150]
-------
4
East of the Sierra Nevada and the Transverse Ranges (farther
south), are the Mojave Desert, the Colorado Desert, and the
valleys and ranges of the Great Basin in California, designated
the North and South Lahontan subregions. Separated from the
Pacific Ocean by high mountains, these areas are the most arid
lands of the region, and are all basins of interior drainage,
except for a narrow zone along the Colorado River. Small stream
channels are dry except when rare torrential storms cause floods
of short duration or during brief snowmelt seasons. Groundwater
reservoirs are found under the valleys and plains and may be
recharged chiefly by precipitation from intense storms or flood
runoff. Discharge from these groundwater reservoirs may be by
springs, by evapotranspiration where water is at shallow depth,
or by subsurface movement toward a lower area.
In the northeastern part of the California Region, the Modoc
Plateau consists of a thick accumulation of lava flows and tuffs
and small volcanic cones. Many of these volcanic rocks are
excellent aquifers, readily recharged by precipitation and
permeable enough to store and subsequently discharge water at
numerous large springs. Most of the plateau is semiand.
However, most of this is primarily highlands and slopes undesir-
able for drilling wells or using the water from them. The
important groundwater reservoirs in this volcanic area are the
plains or valleys, where groundwater development is active or
1ikely.
[2-151]
-------
5
TYPES OF WASTEWATER FROM IRRIGATION
There are several major types of wastewater related to
irrigation practices. One of these is termed "tail water", which
comprises surface runoff at the lower end of irrigated fields.
This water has generally been exposed to pollutants only at the
soil surface. Pollutants may be present in the irrigation water
due to natural factors or may be introduced into the irrigation
water as part of fertilizer or pesticide management practices. In
addition, water running over the land surface may pick up
additional contaminants from both natural sources (i.e., selenium
or nitrogen in the soil) or man-made sources (pesticides and
fertilizers applied directly to the crop or soil). In some
areas, tail water is allowed to drain into canals, streams, or
other drainageways, whereas in other areas, it is recycled. Tail
water is often recycled by means of a sump at the lower end of
a field, where water is collected and pumped back into the
irrigation water-supply system, usually through underground
pipelines.
Another type of wastewater from irrigation is seepage of
some of the applied water that passes downward through the root
zone. This water is termed "irrigation return flow", and
comprises the part of the water applied for irrigation that is
not consumed by the crop or evaporated (evapotranspiration). In
areas underlain by shallow water, some or all of this water may
be intercepted by tile or ditch drainage systems. This inter-
cepted water is commonly termed "subsurface drainage". Some
[2-152]
-------
6
parts of California where extensive tile drainage systems are
present are in the Imperial Valley (south of the Salton Sea) and
in the western part of the San Joaquin Valley, west of Fresno.
The part of the irrigation return flow that moves deeper into the
subsurface (i.e., is not intercepted by drains) and eventually
reaches the groundwater is termed "deep percolation of irrigation
return flow", where tile drains are not present, most of the
deep percolation eventually recharges the groundwater. Irriga-
tion return flow can contain pollutants derived naturally from
the irrigation water and soil, and from chemicals added to the
water, crops, or soil.
Another type of water encountered in some irrigated areas is
shallow groundwater. This water can either be the uppermost part
of a regional groundwater body, or a localized perched zone.
Perched water is normally characterized by a relatively thin
saturated zone that is underlain by an unsaturated zone, which
separates the perched zone from the main aquifer. This shallow
groundwater is important because tile drains in some areas may
intercept it, as well as water moving downward from irrigation.
In addition, shallow wells have been drilled in some places to
try to drain this shallow water by gravity, so that it will not
interfere with crop growth.
[2-153]
-------
7
TYPES OF WELLS USED FOR DISPOSAL
Dry Wells
Dry wells are commonly used to handle storm runoff from some
urban areas and along major freeways in part of California. One
of the major problems with some of these wells is that they tend
to clog. This clogging is often due to sediment and other
constituents, such as oil, that are present in the storm runoff.
"Dry wells", by definition are supposed to not be deep enough to
reach the water table. However, dry well drillers often don't
know how deep the groundwater is at a particular site. In
addition, seasonal and long-term changes in depth to water in
California alluvial basins are often in the range of tens of
feet. Thus the bottom of a well that was dry when it was origin-
ally drilled may extend into the groundwater during periods of
shallow water levels (i.e., in the winter or during a series of
wet years).
Dry wells have historically been almost unregulated in most
parts of California, unless they were drilled to be used as a
seepage pit for a septic tank. Seepage pits for septic tanks are
normally regulated by the local County Health Department. Dry
wells have also been used for the disposal of industrial process
wastes, storm runoff from industrial facilities, cooling water
from commercial and industrial areas, and irrigation tail water.
Permits for drilling wells are normally required by most counties
only for water-supply wells. Waste discharge permits are issued
by the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (nine
[2-154]
-------
8
regions) for potential sources of pollution that may signifi-
cantly impact the groundwater. However, discharge permits have
rarely been issued for disposal wells. One of the major reasons
is probably that their existence and potential threat to ground-
water was unknown.
In order for dry wells to function, the potential clogging
problem must be satisfactorily addressed. One way to do this is
to place the dry well within a settling basin, where most or all
of the suspended solids can be removed before the water enters
the dry well. Some of the basins used for disposal of storm
runoff in the Fresno urban area are equipped with dry wells.
These are usually placed in the lower parts of the basins, but
are constructed so that they aren't clogged with sediment.
Another approach used for a number of dry wells along major
freeways is to place the intake one foot or more above the land
surface, and to not place these wells in the lowest topographic
areas, where sediment would accumulate. Many dry wells are
constructed by filling a hole with gravel or larger size materials.
In this case, rocks or gravel can be periodically removed and
replaced to address the clogging problem. This procedure is
reportedly used for dry wells for storm runoff in the Modesto
urban area (about 90 miles north of Fresno). Another approach is
to design a dry well with a special settling chamber (to remove
suspended material) and with overflow devices (to remove float-
[2-155]
-------
9
able materials). This is the procedure commonly used for dry
wells used for disposal of storm runoff from commercial areas in
Phoenix, Arizona.
Dnused Wells
Abandoned or unused wells, both of which tap the main
groundwater body, have also been used in some areas for waste-
water disposal. Some of this has been intentional, and some has
been incidental. The California Department of Water Resources
(DWR), San Joaquin District, investigated a case of disposal of
tailwater into an unused well in Madera County, just north of
Fresno. A pesticide was discovered in water from a domestic
well, which led to an investigation by the DWR. They found that
tail water was being disposed into the casing of a nearby
abandoned irrigation well just above the land surface.
There is probably a high potential for clogging these unused
wells, when recharging wastewater, if sediment, bacteria, and
nutrients are allowed to enter the well. The casings in some
unused wells have been cut off below the ground surface. If an
underground connection were made, this wastewater disposal would
not be observable at the land surface. There are thousands of
unused wells in the San Joaquin Valley and many have never been
properly destroyed (i.e., filled with cement or other appropriate
material). As such, some of them have the potential to be used
for wastewater disposal.
[2-153]
-------
10
Active Wells
Active wells themselves may also be used for disposal of
wastewater. This can be done intentionally or incidentally by a
number of methods. For example, holes can be cut in the casing
and wastewater disposed down the annular space between the well
casing and the pump column. When wells discharging into pipeline
systems are not pumping, water in the pipeline can be induced to
flow into the discharge line and directly down the well, if no
control valve to prevent backflow is installed. These valves are
commonly installed on public-supply wells, but not on irrigation
wells. An example of this was observed in the early 1970's, near
a major urban area in the San Joaquin Valley, where sewage
effluent was placed in an underground pipeline system for use for
irrigation at a farm adjacent to the wastewater treatment
facility. Several irrigation wells on the farm were directly
connected to the same pipeline system. When enough pressure was
placed in the pipeline system loaded with effluent, at a time
when the wells were not pumping, water would flow directly down
the well. The wells and nearby standpipes were being used in
this case as a pressure regulator. Local health authorities
stopped this practice when they learned of it. This cross-
connection problem could be significant in some areas.
If no backflow prevention device is installed at the well
discharge, water in the discharge pipe and possibly elsewhere in
the distribution system, could fall back down the well when the
[2-157]
-------
11
pump is shut off. Chemicals used in irrigated areas could be
allowed to enter the main groundwater body almost instantan-
eously .
GRODNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY
The Central Valley groundwater reservoir comprises numerous
water-bearing strata, much of it deposited by streams issuing
from the mountains. The permeable, coarse-grained strata are
normally interbedded with interstream or lake deposits of silt
and clay. Both shallow unconfined and deep confined aquifers are
present, and are separated from each other by extensive thick
clay strata. For overall water-resource studies and planning,
the Central Valley is divisible into at least two subregions—the
Sacramento basin to the north and the San Joaquin basin southeast
of the valley's outlet to San Francisco Bay. It has been divided
additionally to form the Delta, where the valley floor is
approximately at sea level (Figure 1).
The San Joaquin Valley is discussed in more detail because
it comprises the major agricultural area where well disposal of
wastewater is considered likely. Depth to water is less than one
hundred feet beneath much of the eastern part of the San Joaquin
Valley, but exceeds several hundred feet beneath much of the
western and southern parts. The uppermost alluvial deposits are
often coarse-grained, with sand or gravel predominant. The major
sources of recharge in irrigated areas are 1) canal seepage, and
2) deep percolation of irrigation return flow. Depths of most
wells in the eastern part of the valley do not exceed 500 feet,
[2-158]
-------
12
but depths of large-capacity wells in the western and southern
parts of the valley commonly exceed 1,500 feet. Groundwater
generally moves toward the valley trough beneath most of the
valley. Thus beneath the eastern part of the valley, groundwater
normally moves to the southwest. North of Fresno, groundwater is
often shallow and often flows into the ma]or streams. However,
south of Fresno, water levels are deeper and streamflow seepage
normally recharges the underlying groundwater. A conjunctive use
system is used in many irrigated acres in the eastern part of the
valley, whereby streamflow is used when available (through
canals), and groundwater is used to supplement this supply.
Average rainfall in much of the San Joaquin Valley ranges from
about six to twelve inches, and decreases to the west and south.
IRRIGATED CROPS
A great variety of crops are grown in the San Joaquin
Valley. Major crops include cotton, vineyards, almonds and other
nuts, fruit trees, grain crops, sugar beets, and numerous
vegetables.
STUDY APPROACH
A number of individuals, knowledgeable about irrigation and
drainage, were contacted during this survey. These included farm
advisors, researchers in government agencies and universities,
staff of regulatory agencies, and consulting firms. A summary of
the discussions is presented in the Appendix. The primary
geographic areas covered were the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Valleys and the Salinas Valley (a Central Coastal Basin about
[2-159]
-------
13
100 miles southwest of Fresno). In contacting these individuals,
care had to be taken to use terminology that they clearly
understood, particularly with regard to "drainage". Thus an
attempt was made to segregate subsurface drainage from tail
water. Overall, very few of these individuals knew of the use of
any wells for disposal of tail water or irrigation drainage.
However, this does not necessarily mean that they are not
present. Because of the lack of past permitting of such wells,
and because few owners or drillers prefer to openly discuss such
wells, awareness of the problem may be limited.
Locations of Well Disposal
During this investigation, the use of dry wells for disposal
of tail water was reported in Tulare County, which is located in
the eastern part of the San Joaquin Valley, about 60 miles south
of Fresno. Most of these wells are located between Tulare and
Lindsay, where tight soils or deeper restricting layers (layers
limiting downward movement of water) are present. The exact
number of these dry wells is unknown, but is probably in the
dozens or hundreds. They were reportedly drilled with bucket
augers that are commonly used in the valley for drilling seepage
pits for septic tanks. Most of the dry wells are about three
feet in diameter and are reportedly in tail water sumps. The
Tulare County Health Department reportedly wrote a letter some
years ago to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Central Valley Region, expressing concern about the lack of
permits or controls for such wells.
[2-130]
-------
14
There was some indication that dry wells may be used for
tail water disposal near Modesto, in some areas where hardpan
layers are present at depth. However, no details could be
obtained. In addition, there was one report that some irrigation
districts may have dry wells in sumps near the ends of their
distribution systems. Some of the water ending up in these sumps
could be tail water, although operational spills of good quality
water are probably a more important source.
Based on this survey, several areas appeared to have little
potential for the use of dry wells. This was because of shallow
water levels (Kings County and Imperial Valley), local soils
conditions (Salinas Valley), or high water costs (much of Kern
County).
The use of dry wells to drain shallow perched water was
reported near Gustine (west of Merced). The Patterson Water
District apparently drilled about one-half dozen dry wells in the
1950's in an attempt to drain perched water to deeper strata. The
wells were reportedly at least partially successful.
Subsurface drainage from tile systems was reportedly
disposed to some nearby active irrigation wells in at least two
cases (Turlock I.D. and Modesto I.D.). Personnel of the Univer-
sity of California Extension Service apparently worked on this
project. There were reportedly some problems with algae and
bacterial growths. The wells may still be used for this purpose..
[2-151]
-------
15
Regulatory personnel indicate that there is no subsurface
drainage at present in the Sacramento Valley. Also, a survey by
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central
Valley Region, indicated that no irrigation districts in the San
Joaquin Valley reported the use of dry wells for disposal of
subsurface drainage. All of the irrigation districts in the
valley were surveyed during that program.
Although not directly related to irrigation, dry wells are
apparently used at some pesticide spraying facilities in the
Central Valley. Rinse water and runoff from spills and leaks
could contribute significant contents of some pesticides to the
groundwater. Investigations are underway at a number of these
sites to determine impacts on groundwater.
CONCLUSIONS
Following are some overall conclusions based on this survey.
Tailwater
First, in many areas where irrigation water is expensive
(exceeding about $20 per acre-foot), there is little incentive to
dispose of the tail water. Instead, there is incentive to
recycle the tail water in this case. This situation is present
in much of the western and southern parts of the San Joaquin
Valley. Areas most likely to have wells for disposal of tail
water are in areas of relatively cheap water (i.e., eastern part
of the valley), where there is little incentive for recycling of
this water.
[2-162]
-------
16
Second, if nearby drainageways or streams are present, to
which tail water or subsurface drainage can be readily disposed,
then there may be no need to use wells for this purpose. This
situation is probably common in wetter parts of the Central
Valley, such as in the Sacramento Valley. Areas that don't have
such drainageways are located in more arid areas, such as the
western and southern parts of the San Joaquin Valley. However,
there are some parts of the eastern part of the San Joaquin
Valley that are relatively arid and are not located near drainage-
ways. Thus areas without extensive surface drainage would be
more likely candidates for use of wells for disposal of waste-
water.
Third, disposal wells are probably used in situations where
small ponds do not percolate a sufficient amount of tail water.
Restricting layers (layers of low permeability that hinder
downward movement of water), such as hardpan layers or clays,
present within the upper 20 feet of the alluvium, may be present
in some areas. Such layers could greatly restrict percolation of
tail water from a pond. Wells could be used to bypass the
restricting layer and to allow greater percolation of water
through the layer. Leaky Acres is a recharge facility in the
Fresno Urban Area, where large amounts of excellent quality canal
water are recharged. A restricting layer is present beneath
Leaky Acres, and wells have been used on an experimental basis to
enhance recharge.
[2-133
-------
17
Fourth, dry wells would normally be used where water levels
are moderately deep. In areas of shallow water, such as much of
Kings County, dry wells would not function.
In conclusion, wells used for disposal of tail water would
most likely be found in areas characterized by the following:
1) Relatively inexpensive irrigation water.
2) No other readily available, cheaper method for disposal
(i.e., drainageways).
3) Presence of restricting layers at depth, which limit
percolation from ponds.
4) Moderately deep water levels (greater than 30 to
40 feet).
Subsurface Drainage
Subsurface drainage is normally of a different quality than
tail water, because of concentration of salts due to evapotrans-
piration. In areas where subsurface drainage is of poor quality
for irrigation (i.e., high total dissolved solids or boron),
there was probably little incentive to re-cycle the water in the
past. Recent concerns over subsurface drainage in the Westlands
Water District (west of Fresno) have produced such an incentive,
however, because the drains that were formerly used were plugged
to stop the flow of drainage water into Kesterson Reservoir.
Historically, large amounts of subsurface drainage were apparently
disposed to streams and drainageways. However, future controls
that are to be implemented to protect the quality of water in the
San Joaquin River and its tributaries will likely minimize the
[2-154]
-------
18
opportunity for this disposal option. Subsurface drainage is
probably much easier to dispose of in a well than is tail water,
because the suspended sediment and bacteria content in this water
content are likely small compared to tail water. In much of the
area where subsurface drainage problems are present, water levels
are shallow. However, dry wells could be used in areas of
perched water. In areas where perched water is not present,
unused or active wells could be used for disposal. Water levels
in many of the deeper wells in the Westlands Water District stand
from 50 to 200 feet below the ground surface.
Areas favorable for using shallow wells to drain perched
water (by gravity flow) are probably primarily near the trough of
the San Joaquin Valley. Shallow clay layers within the upper
fifty feet of the deposits may create conditions favorable for
development of perched water.
Active and Onused Wells
Active and unused wells probably have more potential to
pollute groundwater through intentional or incidental disposal
practices than do dry wells. This is because they are normally
directly connected to the ma]or groundwater system, and pollu-
tants can be directly discharged with little or no attenuation,
such as would occur if water first had to migrate through an
unsaturated zone. Several cases of pesticide poisoning have been
reported due to:
1) disposal or irrigation tailwater down an unused well, in
close proximity to a domestic well.
[2-135]
-------
19
2) Cross-connection, where a pesticide added at the
discharge line from the well was introduced into the
groundwater, thence into a nearby domestic well.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Follow-up work could be done to obtain more information on
the use of wells for disposal of tail water or irrigation water.
The Tulare County Health Department has offered assistance in
this regard. It may be possible to determine locations, numbers,
and depths of such wells from drillers in local areas. Most of
these wells have apparently been drilled with bucket augers.
Firms with such equipment are normally located in the phonebook.
If some operating wells can be located and owners cooperate, both
tail water and water from nearby wells could be sampled. Water
quality monitoring could be conducted for specific constituents,
such as pesticides. Monitoring of nearby wells may be possible
in some cases, even if the dry well owners are not cooperative.
[2-165]
-------
APPENDIX
[2-167]
-------
Sargent J. Green, Agricultural Wastes
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Fresno, California
209-^5-5116
Phone call 10:20 a.m., July 10, 1986
Sarge Green is responsible for the Regional Water Quality
Board's activities regarding agricultural sources in the southern
and central parts of the San Joaquin Valley. He has been with
the Regional Board since the raid-1970's and is very familiar with
irrigation practices in the valley.
Sarge stated that the Regional Board had received some
applications for dry wells possibly related to agricultural tail-
water. He said that the Board frowns on this practice for
disposal of tailwater. However, some proposals have been
received for dry well disposal of canal water or operational
spills, and have been viewed more as recharge projects. Some
canal water may contain tailwater as a component.
He stated that he thinks there are dry wells used for
tailwater in Tulare County (about 60 miles south of Fresno). He
referred me to the Tulare County Environmental Health Division
(Tony Maniscalco, Sanitarian) on this matter. Sarge thinks that
sometimes dry wells are placed in tailwater sumps, particularly
where hardpan layers are present at depth. In addition, some
irrigation districts may have similar dry wells in sumps near the
ends of their distribution system.
In some places infiltration galleries are used to filter
canal water, prior to recharging down wells. This has been done
in a pilot project at the City of Fresno Leaky Acres recharge
facility. Sediment, bacteria, and possibly numerous other
pollutants could thus be removed by percolation through some
alluvium, prior to injection.
Sarge stated that dry wells may be used in part of the
valley to dran shallow perched water to deeper strata. He
believes that near Gustine (about 80 miles northwest of Fresno)
this was done years ago. Shallow, perched groundwater is present
in this area and has caused subsurface drainage problems (this is
near the famous Kesterson Wildlife Refuge in Merced County). He
referred me to Verne Scott, professor in the Air, Land, and Water
program at U. of California at Davis and Jewell Meyer, with the
U. of California Extension Service in Riverside, for further
information.
[2-133]
-------
2
Sarge stated that the Regional Board office in Sacramento is
pursuing a study of thousands of dry wells used for disposal of
urban storm runoff in Modesto, California (about 90 miles north
of Fresno). This could be indirectly related to agricultural
sources because runoff from urban irrigation could enter the dry
wells. Jerrold A. Bruns would be in charge.
Sarge stated that the Madera Irrigation District (about 20
miles north of Fresno) once was investigating using dry wells to
recharge canal water. This is because hardpan layers are present
beneath many parts of their canals and drainage ways, and
recharge in these facilities was limited. He doesn't believe
they ever instituted such a program.
[2-133]
-------
Vic Mclntyre
California Dept. of Water Resources
San Joaquin District
Fresno, California
209-445-5372
Phone call 1:10 p.m., July 10, 1986
Vic has worked in the Water Quality Section of the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) since the 1960's.
He specialized in drainage studies for many years. He isn't
aware of any dry wells used for disposal of tailwater. However,
he was involved in an investigation in the 1960's at a large
ranch north of Fresno in Madera County that involved tailwater
disposal. Tailwater was being disposed down an unused water well
for recharge. An adjacent domestic well became polluted with
some pesticide due to this practice. The DWR studied the problem
and found out what was occurring. He will check with his field
personnel on any dry wells they may have encountered.
Vic called back on July 14 and said that he found a slide
showing the well used for disposal - but can't find any files.
[2-170
-------
Tony Naniscalco, Retired, Exeter, California
Former Sanitarian
Tulare County Environmental Health
Visalia, California
209-592-3282
Phone call a.m., July 11, 1986
Tony worked for many years with the Tulare County
Environmental Health Dept., and just retired within the last
year. He explained that some years ago (probably in the 1960's
or 1970's) that the Health Dept. had discovered a number of
seepage pits (these are three to four foot diameter holes filled
with rocks) that were not drilled for septic tank use. The
County requires a permit from Environmental Health for each
seepage pit associated with a septic tank. Their building
inspectors in the Public Works Department implement the County
Plumbing Code. Dry wells would appear on plans - but were not
for septic tanks. The County Health discovered this and when
investigating, found that a number of these pits were for
irrigation tailwater. Tony wrote a letter to the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region,
requesting that some type of permit be required, because the
County was worried about pesticides and possibly other chemicals
being introduced to the groundwater. No response was ever
received, according to Tony.
Tony stated that most of these pits were used in the
Lindsay-Tulare area (about 60 miles south of Fresno), where
holding ponds built at the lower end of fields would not
percolate enough water. On the east side of the San Joaquin
Valley, water is relatively cheap, and there is less incentive to
recycle tailwater. Some farmers not near drainage ways have no
place to dispose of the tailwater, and they don't like to build
large ponds that take farmland out of production. The companies
that normally drilled these pits are listed under "Septic Tanks",
in the phone directory. Tony had some names to contact, if we
desire to follow up on this. No drilling or other permit has
been required, as long as the pit wasn't used with a septic tank.
He stated than an engineer in the Public Works Dept. of Tulare
County (Glandon DeMasters) probably had some more information on
these dry wells. Jim Waters of the Tulare County Health Dept.
also was involved with discovering some of the seepage pits used
for tailwater disposal. He is on vacation until July 21, 1986.
Tony believes that most of these wells are placed in tail
water sumps - this helps keep the sediment out of the well, which
otherwise would cause clogging.
[2-1711
-------
Jan Krancher, Supervising Sanitarian
Tulare County Environmental Health
Visalia, California
209-733-6441
Phone call a.m., July 12, 1986
Jan worked for a number of years in Fresno County (with the
Environmental Health). He took Tony Maniscalco's position with
Tulare County Environmental Health. He was very cooperative and
said that we could look at their files on the seepage pits used
for irrigation tailwater whenever we need to.
[2-172]
-------
Joe Summer3
Consulting Engineer
Hanford, California
209-582-9237
Phone call a.m., July 11, 1986
Joe has been involved with subsurface drainage problems for
most of his career (nearly 40 years). He is the National
Chairman of the U.S. Committee on Irrigation and Drainage. A lot
of his experience is in the Tulare Lake Basin, which is about 60
to 80 miles south of Fresno. This basin receives overflows from
streamflow in wet years, and there is normally no surface outlet.
Subsurface drainage problems have developed in recent decades,
and evaporation ponds have been built for disposal of tile
drainage, since the 1970's.
Joe has never seen dry wells used for disposal of tailwater.
He says that they would quickly silt up. He says that where
hardpans are present, such as north of Modesto, they have blasted
holes in it to try to improve draining of shallow perched water.
He believes such a practice is followed in localized problem
areas, but doesn't think it occurs over large areas.
[2-173]
-------
David Ririe, Farm Advisor
Agricultural Extension Service,
University of California
Monterey County
Salinas, California
408-758-4637
Phone call a.m. July 11, 1986
Dave has been a farm advisor, working mainly in the Salinas-
Castroville area, for several decades. He and I went on several
overseas work assignments together in the 1970's. He doesn't
know of any dry wells in the area and doesn't believe that there
is a need for them. He believes that tail water sumps are used
and the tailwater is either re-cycled or percolates through the
sump bottom itself. Irrigation water is generally more expensive
in the Salinas area compared to in the eastern part of the San
Joaquin Valley. Only groundwater is available in most areas,
and some water is pumped from aquifers up to 1,500 feet deep.
[2-174]
-------
George Ferry, Farm Advisor
Agricultural Extension Service,
University of California
Kings County
Hanford, California
209-582-3211
Phone call 3:00 p.m., July 11, 1986
George has been a farm advisor in the San Joaquin Valley for
decades, most recently in Kings County and earlier in Kern
County. Kings County covers much of the Tulare Lake Basin, an
area generally of interior drainage. George says he knows of no
dry wells used for tailwater or for draining shallow groundwater
in Kings County. He believes that the water is so shallow in
much of the area that a "dry well" can't be drilled. He thinks
if dry wells are used anywhere, it would be more on the east side
of the San Joaquin Valley where water levels are deeper. He was
very cooperative and seems very knowledgable.
[2-175]
-------
Jewell Myer
University of California Extension Service
Soils 4 Environmental Sciences
UC Riverside, California
714-787-5522
Phone call p.m., July 11, 1986
Jewell has been with the U of California for decades, and
for a long time worked in Merced County and nearby parts of the
San Joaquin Valley. He worked on two cases where tile drain
water was taken to a nearby irrigation well for injection. They
had some problems with bacterial growth and buildup of algae.
One was in the Modesto I.D. and another was in the Turlock I.D.
In both cases the farmers were trying to get rid of tile
drainage. He thinks they could still be in use.
Jewell stated that the Patterson Water District drilled
about six dry wells in the 1950's, in order to drain perched
water. They couldn't pump enough water to lower the water table,
so they tried to drain it. The wells were drilled, cased, and
filled with rocks. It apparently was at least partially
successful in lowering the water table. Jewell said that Les
Stromberg (now retired), the former Farm Advisor from Fresno
County could be a good contact regarding dry wells in Fresno
County.
Jewell stated that the Inter-agency Drainage Project,
formerly headed by Lou Beck (now Chief of San Joaquin District of
California Department of Water Resources in Fresno) may have
investigated drainage wells as an alternative to controlling
subsurface drainage. He said it may still be under investigation
in the on-going San Joaquin Valley Drainage Studies by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation.
[2-176]
-------
Dennis Westcot
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Sacramento, California
916-445-0270
Phone call 3:15 p.m., July 14, 1986
Dennis has been with the Regional Board since the early
1970's, working both in the Fresno office and Sacramento. He is
the Agricultural Specialist in the Sacramento Regional office and
explained to me that he covers agricultural drainage throughout
the Central Valley. Dennis believes that dry wells are rarely
used for drainage. He has surveyed all of the San Joaquin Valley
irrigation districts, and none report using dry wells. In the
Sacramento Valley, no tile drain systems are in place at
present, thus there is no tile drainage in the Sacramento Valley
that can be put in dry wells.
As for tailwater, Dennis believes there are some old dry
wells, but they usually are clogged with silt. They used to be
used more in the past, but the practice isn't common any more.
He believes that a more common practice may be to dispose of
tailwater down unused wells, by just cutting a hole in the casing
and channeling the water into the well. He has come across
several dry wells used for disposal of rinse water at pesticide
spraying facilities.
[2-177]
-------
SECTION 2.1.7
TITLE OF STUDY:
(OR SOURCE OF INFORMATION)
AUTHOR (OR INVESTIGATOR)
A Synopsis of Reports on Agri-
cultural Drainage Wells in Idaho
prepared by the Idahc Department of
Water Resources
Reports by Graham, et al., Depart-
ment of Water Resources, Idaho.
Synopsis compiled by EPA, Region
VII, UIC Section
DATE:
November, 19 86 (Synopsis)
STUDY AREA NAME AND
LOCATION: Snake River Plain,
USEPA Region X
eastern Idaho,
NATURE OF BUSINESS:
BRIEF SUMMARY/NOTES:
Mot applicable
320,000 acres of agricultural land
in the eastern Snake River
Plain drains irrigation fluids into
disposal wells that discharge into
fractured basalt aquifers (which
alternate with unfractured,
impermeable basalt layers).
Studies review occurrence of
turbidity, fecal coliform bacteria,
chemical quality of injected water,
and various hydrogeologic para-
meters .
[2-173]
-------
A SYNOPSIS OF REPORTS
ON AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WELLS IN IDAHO
PREPARED BY
THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Synopsis Compiled by EPA, Region VII, UIC Section, November, 1986
[2-179]
-------
The following is a synopsis of reports on Agricultural Drainage Wells
prepared by the Idaho Department of Water Resources:
In a June, 1977, report! by Graham, Clapp and Putkey, Department of
Water Resources, Boise, Idaho, the authors state that 320,000 acres of
agricultural land in the eastern Snake river plain of eastern Idaho is
drained of irrigation water and surface water by channeling it down disposal
wells. The wells discharge into fractured-basalt aquifers which alternate
with unfractured, impermeable basalt layers.
Their studies found that the initial quality of the water entering the
study project wells was within Idaho's drinking water standards with respect
to pesticides and trace metals. However, the fecal and total coliform
bacteria and the sediment levels were found to be in excess of the standards.
This was also seen to be the case in the recharge zone. Deeper percolation
was seen to filter out the solids, but not bacteria.
Producing useable farm land by employing drainage wells is a common
practice in Idaho, but the injected aquifer is the main source of water for
140,000 people. The wells are prevalent in four counties in south central •
and three counties in southeastern Idaho. The investigators conclude from
their studies and from the studies of others that sediment and bacteria are
the main threat to the degradation of ground water quality in Idaho.
Idaho recognized the economic need for the drainage wells. It was felt
the wells should be allowed to continue to operate, but operate within
established limits. The limits were to be established by data collected,
in part, thru the studies that resulted in the subject report. The studies
were designed to:
"1) Further define the quality of irrigation wastewater
2) Determine the areal extent of the saturated recharge zone resulting
from discharges to the disposal zone
3) Determine the ability of successive basalt flows intercalated
with unconsolidated interbeds to remove contaminants from irrigation
wastewater
4) Determine water quality changes within the groundwater system
resulting from the use of agricultural disposal wells".!
Since it was clear from the findings of the report that the use of
these wells could lead to pollution of domestic supplies, the following
recommendations were made:
1
[2-180]
-------
"frequent monitoring of the Snake Plain aquifer be conducted in areas
of intensive drainage well use". i~
They also recommended that further research investigate possibilities
of removing sediment and bacteria before injection; and refine the use of
indicator bacteria for locating pathogens in groundwater.
Another Idaho study^ by Graham and Leach and compiled into a report
by William Graham found that the turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria
levels in three disposal well monitoring areas usually exceeded acceptable
limits. They also found that reducing turbidity seemed to reduce bacteria
levels. Further, the chemical quality of the water in the disposal well
areas was inferior to that in the control area. Excessive bacteria levels
were found in domestic supplies only during the irrigation season, in all
but one instance. The area studied often has more than two disposal wells
per square mile. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation installed most of the
wells in the area, and irrigation districts operate and maintain them.
Turbidity levels exceeded maximum contaminant levels 78% of the time
for injected water, but only twice in domestic supply samples. Chloride
and nitrate levels in domestic supplies, while below mcl's, were found to be
higher than the injected water. Also, the chemical quality of the groundwater
in irrigated areas was found to be inferior to that of undeveloped areas or
recharge zones. However, even though disposal wells were concluded to result
in some degradation of groundwater, the principal source was thought to be
percolating irrigation water and inseeping canal water (Seitz, et a]_, 1977).3
Only 2% of the recharge in the area came from disposal wells. Soluble
salts in subsurface materials overlying the aquifers was considered the
most probable source of the chemicals countributing to groundwater degradation
in the domestic supplies.
The recommendations that arose from the study were that the public
should be made aware that groundwater may be degraded by bacteria in an area
where disposal wells are in extensive use; domestic supplies should be
sampled periodically; settling ponds should be investigated as a source for
removing sediment and, hopefully, bacteria; levels of pathogens in groundwater
reserves for domestic use should be determined, alternative methods of
disposal must be developed where injection wells have a large adverse impact
on groundwater.
In May of 1983, Idaho published An Analysis of Feasible Alternatives to
Current Irrigation Disposal Well Practices.
This paper, by VI. Graham, I. Sather and G. Galmatowas designed to
report the construction alternatives to disposal wells. It was hoped they
would be economically feasible. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
2
[2-181]
-------
guided the studies that resulted in the report. The TAC consisted of
irrigation district personnel and farmers—both of whom use disposal wells,
public officials and government representatives at the federal, state and
local levels.
The studies that resulted in this report (4) had led to the following
conclusions:
"1. Coliform bacteria and suspended solids as measured by turbidity were
the only contaminants found in irrigation wastewater in excess of
Idaho's primary drinking water standards.
2. Bacteria capable of causing disease in humans are present in irrigation
wastewater.
3. Wastewater discharged to the permeable unsaturated zones traveled
laterally at a rapid rate and received little purification.
4. Vertical infiltration of wastewater discharged to the unsaturated zones
resulted in the gradual reduction of both bacteria and turbidty.
5. Bacterial contamination of domestic groundwater supplies likely occurs
in areas of intensive disposal well use". ^
(Research had been conducted by: Whitehead, 1974; Graham, 1977; Graham,
et aj_; Seitz, et_ £l_, Graham, 1979.)
The study area--A & B irrigation districts—is greater than 120 square
miles in areal extent, and like the rest of the upper Snake River plain is
underlain by successive basalt lava flows 10 to 15 feet thick, highly
fractured near their surfaces. They are overlain by low permeability loess
soils. The topography 1s rolling with depressions which tend to pond water
so it is drained by wells which inject through the loess into the fractured
basalt.
The wells in general are typically 6 to 12 inches in diameter, twenty
to 300 feet deep. Twenty five per cent inject below the regional groundwater
table and twenty percent within 50 feet of that level. They are cased from
as little as five feet to more than 200 feet. Many have screened inlets;
most have settling ponds, but most of the ponds are too small to be effective,
or are built incorrectly. A typical well is shown in figure 1. The greatest
concentration of the estimated 1,000 wells used to drain 500 square miles
of agricultural land "occurs in Gooding, Lincoln, Jerome, Minidoka, Jefferson,
Bonneville, and Bingham counties in Southern Idaho." (Figure 2)4 There are
78 wells in the study area. Collectively they drain 120 cubic feet of tail-
water per second.
3
[2-182]
-------
In conjunction with this study, a detailed pesticide study of drainage
well water was performed from May to July, 1981.
Eighteen pesticides or toxic daughter elements were found: 2, 4-0 in
79% of samples, PCP in 61%, dieldren in 48%, PCNB in 31% and dicamba in
20%. But none exceeded a present or recommended drinking water standard.
The possible corrective alternatives or remedial actions are (1) on-
farm sediment and bacterial reduction, (2) district sediment and bacterial
reduction, (3) alternatives to drainage wells, and (4) deep well injection.
The first two are designed to reduce or eliminate sediment and bacteria;
the third describes alternatives to wells. The TAC eliminated two of them:
rerouting water to the Snake river, the third alternatives and deepening
existing wells the fourth alternative.
Appendix 1 shows the discussion (p.113 of report the conclusions
(p.127 of report 4) and tables 53 thru 55 (pp.114 thru 119 of the report 4).
"Most active deep injection wells in Idaho are Class V (a) wells 5
V(a)'s which receive not only irrigation tailwater but also highway runoff.
A penrn t is required by Idaho to operate, modify or construct a new Class
V(a) well
The two-sheet permit application asks for general and specific information,
is obtainable through the state office, and must be accompanied by a $50
filing fee. A third, "final action" page is added denoting the Department's
decision to grant or deny.
When an application is received, a draft permit is prepared in the
state office. A public notice is published, a thirty day comment period is
put into effect. A fact-finding hearing may be needed, requiring another
public notice thirty days prior to the hearing. The Director has final say
on approval or denial. Those feeling they have been unjustly denied a
permit may request a Board hearing within thirty days of denial.
Conditions for operating are affixed to all permits, draft or final.
Conditions are in three parts. The parts cover general conditions for all
injection wells in Idaho, and specific requirements for other Class V wells.
The part on general conditions has five sections covering application,
construction, operation, abandonment and monitoring. Violating any of
these conditions "may result in cancellation of the injection well permit,
issuance of a restraining order or court injunction, and pursuit of civil
remedies or cnminal prosecution as provided by law". 5
[2-183]
-------
Owners or operators must notify the Department of completion of a
well, of abandonment or intent to abandon, of any legal change such as
ownership or of any change of use.
Fluids injected into drainage wells must meet drinking water standards
at the point of injection i.e. the well head, except non-persistent chemicals
or bacteria. Total and fecal coliform and turbidity are on sliding scales
to.reflect die-off and attenuation. There are fixed standards for color,
taste and total organic carbon.
5
[2-184]
-------
Disposal W« ' i ' > i i '» ' I I I
» , . . ' ' • • - «
-«ik*
» 4 ' 4 . f r f 4 « ' 4
%*V*4 » ' s' •/' 1
Trrr-rTT^-r
f . . 4 » * » * V »4 V4 «»'
I
p> t . .«» »
k ' 4 4 * * < «
* ' 4 - "*•»%* 7. «
Y^WjVo}; r * *
* 4ro«n4waf«r y'. i
"»,•*. *¦*«»» '/* , <
' > -MOV* ¦»•¦! ^
^
< » " > * J * * k a w * A<,r>v-
v.-1«- •Ny.fer:' •:¦••': :::.* :>:.v-v.-;
V -; r.'• : ','• •/ 7 - .V '• •.':: v,\7 - -;
* * * * « « *> * > * L I > * * * > * 4 > ^ I ?\'fc r « k k *
FIGURE 1 Subsurface Movement of Fluids Injected into a Typical ^
Irrigation Disposal Well Penetrating Stratified Basalts. —
[2-185]
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Irrigation Wastewater Disposal Wei] Studies Snake Plain Aquifer:
W. Graham, D. Clapp, T. Putkey; Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, Statehouse,
Boise, Idaho 837220, June, 1977
2. The Impact of Intensive Disposal Well Use on the Quality of Domestic
Groundwater Supplies in Southeast Minidoka County, Idaho:
W. Graham; Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, Statehouse, Boise, Idaho 83720,
Decemaber, 1979
3. "Effects of drain wells on the ground water quality of the Snake Plain
Aquifer, Idaho: H. Seitz, M. Lasala, and J. Moreland, U.S. Geol. Survey
Open File, 1977
4. An Analysis of Feasible Alternatives to Current Irrigation Disposal
Wei 1 Practices: W. Graham, I. Sather, G. Galinato; Idaho Dept. of Water
Resources, Statehouse, Boise, Idaho 83720, May, 1983
5. A Guide to the Idaho Injection Well Program: State of Idaho, Dept". of
Water Resources, Statehouse, Boise, Idaho 83720, April, 1986
[2-185]
-------
X. DISCUSSION
Results of the analyses of alternatives to current irriga-
tion disposal well practices are summarized in Tables 53 through
56.
On-farm management practices are designed to solve a
specific problem or meet certain field conditions. Consequently,
no one individual practice is recommended for state or district-
wide implementation.
The vegetative filter strip is the most feasible method of
removing soil from irrigation tailwater because land is not taken
out of production (Table 53). However, this practice is not
effective on fields with C slopes (greater than two percent).
The buried drain is suggested for fields with convex ends.
Implementation of this alternative permanently corrects this con-
dition and permits the end of the field to be brought back into
production. Additional acreage can also be farmed by eliminating
the tailwater ditch.
Sediment basins are suggested where slopes and cropping
patterns result in high erosion rates, or where the captured
soils can be utilized by the farmer to improve production.
These practices will reduce the suspended sediment load in
tailwater leaving the farm by 40 to 85 percent. Reduced levels
of suspended sediment would have a positive effect on the
existing wetland habitat and would also reduce the irrigation
district's costs for maintaining the drains.
Tailwater recovery pumpback combines the sediment basin
practice with a system to recirculate the tailwater. In addi-
tion to providing the advantages of the sediment basin and
eliminating irrigation runoff, tailwater reuse can reduce the
irrigation demand placed on the District's delivery system.
Side-roll sprinklers can eliminate erosion while allowing
additional land to be brought into production through elimination
of the head ditch. Capital and energy costs are high, but this
method of irrigation may be viable when applied to fields with
C slopes .
Tailwater recovery pumpback and the 3ide-roll sprinkler
both require additional electrical energy and both would have a
negative effect on wetland habitat, if implemented district-wide.
However, these are also the only on-farm practices that could
solve the drain well problem without implementation of a district
alternative.
-113- i
[2-187]
-------
TABLE 53. Summary of Analytical Results: On-Farm Sediment Reduction
Alternative
Additional Annual
Cost-Per AcreJ/
(Range)
Change in Net
Return-Per Acre
Sediment Retention
Rate
Solves Drain Well
Problem (with
district-wide
implementation)
Requires Additional
Electrical Energy
Effect on Wetland
Habitat
Sediment Basin
$ 5.802/
22 .00
-14%
-53*
85*
No
No
+ 3/
-114-
Mi n1-Baa i n
2.601/
5 .30
-6*
-13*
40*
80*
No
No
+
l-^
Vegetative Filter Strip
1 .602/
-2%
45*
502
No
No
+
Buried Drain
18.002/
20.00
-374
-»ni
40*
80*
No
f/o
+
Side-Roll Sprinkler
5^.002/
-10251
100*
Yes
Yes
_
Tallwater Recovery Pumpback
28 .002/
42 .00
-67*
-101*
10056
Yes
Yea
-
Gravity Improved Management
10.002/
21 .00
-2 '1 *
-50*
67*
No
No
0
Semi-Automated Gated Pipe
79.002/
-166*
67*
No
No
0
J/ Costs ahown are in addition to gravity baseline coat.
2/ Ranges of weighted averages; averages dependent on slope and/or rotation,
•v? 3/ o = no effect; + = positive effect: - = negative effect.
i
C4
CJ
-------
TABLE 5*1. Summary of Analytical Results: District Sediment and Bacterial Reduction
rH
c
05
t—1
o
H
C
•o
nd
¦n
i—1
O
C
PN
a>
4-J
0)
/^N
•H t-.
nJ
t.
C
c
4-J 0)
rH
C 0)
4-3
CJ
a>
x:
<£ C-.
0J
<«;
¦O
c
4-)
*o
•H
X) (Jj
a>
o
2
u
—
1
4-J
cd
c
c u
H
cl,
¦U
Q
4->
c
CO O
o
O
i
c
e
o
0)
O *r-i
4-J
O* 0)
0)
c
0)
V)
a)
n)
¦U 1 trt
bo
L
a
0)
i—1
u
0)
•r4 4->
O 4-J
•w 4-> C
C
a
O)
>
D O
0) -rH
•o io m
rd
*0
4->
H
o
V)
a
«y o
&
¦o OK
.c
-------
TABLE 55. Summary of Analytical Results: Alternablves.to Injection Wells
Alternatlve
ri
c
m
o
i—i
c >>
T3
cd
•*—4
t—i
O bo
c
0)
4->
Q> o
¦rl (h
m
c<~ I
t.
c
3 c
C Jtl'H
x> CO
a)
o
z
a>
•W ¦ 4->
•a
1—t
t-,
ro 5 5 ra
<«: rH
cd
C 0)
U ^ l 4J
c
c u
i
« 4J C
to o
o
O 0)-^
1
n
BOO)
H) ¦<-(
Jj
¦¦h
W rt
4-> 1 bo
bo
0
OH (< 01
•W +->
O 4J
—t •<-> c
C 3
•H JO 4-> rH
3 O
a) -h
¦o n ni
(fl -P
TJ -P
»—1 O (/) o.
cr a)
r-i
-------
TABLE 56. Summary of Analytical Results: Combined Management Practices
District Option
1—i
c
at
r~~i
o
rH
c >.
•a
ClJ
•rH
H
O t£
c
CJ
d) "N
ro
c«-|
t.
c
c
4J d)
>—(
C 01
4J a
QJ
£ 0) O
C
+j
<5 U
0) "33
+->
C +J t) H
XJ w
0)
U
z
a>
r-4 >«-i r-| 4^
X3
rH C
t-
pc
nj s 3 ro
c
a)
« 1 bo
bo L,
a
t)H L, (V
•rl 4J
O 4J
•¦H C
C 3
•H d)
> XI -U «H
3 CJ
a) —t
t) n id
fd 4->
T3 4->
i—1 O (A 0.
cr o)
X3
•o OK '
SZ 0)
a) m
o l. a
(L> rH
(m ro
<£ U —
u cc
co ce
to CL. "O -H
PC UJ
w n:
District Option l5/ with:
Irrigation Scheduling Service $17.0oii/
32 .00
i
I**
Vegetative Filter Strip
Sediment Basin
Irrigation Scheduling Service
and Sediment Basin
15.002/
20.002/
36 .00
24.002/
41 .00
~ 16*
+58*
25%
Yes
No
-25%
-47*
45*
50*
Yes
No
-62%
-64*
85*
Yes
No
-1%
+ 41*
90*
Yes
Yes
No
03/
ro
i
-------
TABLE 56. Summary of Analytical Results: Combined Management Practices (cont'd)
District Option
l—1
c
o
fH
c
-a
m
•rl
H
o
bo
c
a>
-p
a>
j»-N
•rj
L,
rd
c—|
u
c
3:
c
-P
0)
H
C 0)
-U
o
a)
XI
a>
o
•n
C
4->
u
C
-t-1
na
TJ
cu
J
c
B
O
-P
H
o
a
0) rH
•a w
cd
¦p
-a p
i—i
o
a
cr
0)
•O OK
X2
0)
0) rd
o
L
•H
0
0)
H
Ch rd
¦a: cj ^
O
cc
to
CO
(X,
XI
•H
PC
UJ
CJ x
GJ
I
I
District Option 11^/ with:
Irrigation Scheduling Service $11. Ooii^
25.00
6.902/
Vegetative Filter Strip
Sediment Basin
Irrigation Scheduling Service
and Sediment Basin
11.002/
27 .00
18 .00 3/
35.00
District Option III^/ with:
Irrigation Scheduling Service $ 9.70ii/
24 .00
1 .802/
io
-------
TABLE 56. Summary of Analytical Results - Combined Management Practices (cont'd)
Footnotes:
J/ Costs shown are in addition to the gravity baseline system cost.
2/ Ranges of weighted averages; averages dependent on slope and/or rotation.
3/ o = no effect; + = positive effect; - = negative effect,
i!/ Range dependent on rotation.
5/ District Option I = Installation of Sediment BasinsJand Sand Filters at All Existing
Disposal Well Sites; District Option II = Installation of Sediment Basins and Sand
Filters in Closed Basins and Acquisition of R-O-W for Seepage on Existing Ponds;
District Option III = Acquisition of R-O-W for Seepage.
i
vO
I
1-^
fO
CJ
-------
XI. CONCLUSIONS
^ .
8
irrigation disposal well practic
W hha nni' a an/H cfanHarHc r\ f
Many current
2. Implementation of on-farm management practices can reduce the
suspended sediment load in tailwater leaving the farm by 40
to 100 percent.
3. Irrigation scheduling service could reduce erosion by 25
percent and irrigation runoff by 30 percent. Furthermore,
implementation could have an overall positive effect on net
returns to. the farmer because of increased yields, better
crop quality, and labor savings.
4. The sediment "basin with sand filter appears to be a viable
alternative that could allow continued use of an irrigation
disposal well that discharges into or near an underground
drinking water source.
5. Acquisition of R-O-tf for seepage is the most cost-effective
alternative to continued use of irrigation disposal wells
within the A and B Irrigation District, but implementation
would remove agricultural land from production.
6. Combining irrigation scheduling service with on-farm manage-
ment practices and district option II (installation of sedi-
ment basins with sand filters at all drain well sites within
the closed basins and acquisition of R-O-W for seepage at the
termini of the main drains) would likely provide a viable
cost-effective alternative to current irrigation disposal
well practices within the A and B Irrigation District.
However, prior to implementation, the feasibility and
effectiveness of the sand filter under this application must
be determined .
7. Selection of alternatives best suited for implementation in
other areas of the State will require additional feasibility
analyses and technical assessments of current disposal well
practices .
The Department will work with the agencies administering
the agricultural pollution abatement cost-share programs to
insure that eligible alternatives to irrigation disposal
wells receive high funding priorities.
~Drinking water source is an aquifer which contains water having
less than 3,000 mg/1 T.D.S. (total dissolved solids).
-127- i
[2-194]
-------
m
Af«o» of Conctntrattd Oltpotol W«ll U««
X Approtimat* Boundary of fh« Snok*
Plain Aquifer
_fCw«
CU»Tl»
FICURE 2 Map of Idaho Illuscraclng che Approxloate Boundaries
of Che Snake Plain Aquifer and Areas of Concentrated
Agricultural Disposal Well Use.
[2-495]
-------
SECTION 2.1.8
TITLE OF STUDY:
(OR SOURCE OF INFORMATION)
AUTHOR (OR INVESTIGATOR):
DATE:
FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION:
NATURE OF BUSINESS:
BRIEF SUMMARY/NOTES:
Inspections - Case Studies: Agri-
cultural Drainage Wells in Idaho
Bill Graham, State of Idaho
1986
Idaho, USEPA Region X
Not applicable
Inspection sheets for ten
agricultural drainage wells
generally overlying the Snake
Plain, Boise Valley, and Rathdrum
Prairie groundwater systems in che
State of Idaho.
[2-196]
-------
V. HYDROGEOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
Ninety percent of all inventoried injection wells, excluding
mine backfill operations, are located in areas overlying the
Snake Plain, Boise Valley and Rathdrum Prairie ground-water
systems. This includes 97 percent of all irrigation disposal
wells {Class VF-1) and 89 percent of all stormwater drainage
wells (Class VD-2)• These three ground-water systems provide
drinking water for approximately 475,000 people (41% of the
estimated 1985 state population) and supply large quantities of
water for irrigation and industrial users. A discussion of these
systems is therefore an essential component of the injection well
assessment.
SNAKE PLAIN
The Snake Plain ground-water system is within the basalts
and associated interbeds of the Snake River Group and the river
and lake sediments that were laid down around the southern,
eastern and northern margins of the basalt flows (Graham and
Campbell, 1981; Fig. V-l). This ground-water system is con-
sidered one of the most prolific in the world with an estimated
total annual recharge of 7,800,000 acre-feet (IDHW and IDWR,
1985).
The Snake Plain Aquifer is the major component of the
ground-water system, and is characterized by a succession of
basaltic lava flows, often separated by alluvial, volcaniclastic
or eolian interbeds (IDHW and IDWR, 1985). The total thickness
of the sequence is largely unknown, but may locally exceed
several thousand feet. Individual basalt flows generally range
from 10 to 50 feet and average 20 to 25 feet in thickness
(Mundorff e_t al . , 1964). Ground-water movement within the
aquifer is primarily lateral through water-bearing zones composed
of sedimentary or pyroclastic interbeds, or fractured basalt.
Vertical movement between the permeable strata is often
restricted by confining layers of dense basalt or fine-grained
sediments, as demonstrated by differences in water levels between
successive zones (Mundorff et al., 1964).
Reported values of_transmissivity are generally high,
ranging from 500,000 ft /day to 13,000,000 ft /day (Lindholm,
1981). Combining these values with an assumed saturated thick-
ness of 1,000 feet and an average water-table gradient of 5 feet
per mile results in a calculated range of ground-water velocities
from 0.95 to 24.6 feet per day (IDHW and IDWR, 1985).
13
[2-197]
-------
Qs- Quaternary Undifferentiated Sediments
Qsr- Quaternary Snake River Basalts
Figure V-l. Generalized Geology of the Snake River Plain, Idaho.
I
mJk
iO
CO
-------
The sedimentary components of the Snake Plain ground-water
system are primarily composed of stream-deposited alluvium and
lakebeds which formed behind basalt dams. The major modern
alluvial deposits parallel the Henrys Fork and main stem of the
Snake River from St. Anthony to below Blackfoot (Fig. V-l). The
alluvium consists primarily of sand and gravel, but may locally
contain interbeds of clay and silt. These deposits may approach
350 feet in depth near the confluence of Henrys Fork with the
South Fork of the Snake River (Crosthwaite, 1973). A layer of
fine-grained sediments and ash underlies at least part of the
alluvium, and may partially separate this component from the
underlying Snake Plain Aquifer (Haskett e_t al., 1977). Well
yields of several thousand gallons per minute with little
drawdown indicate that transmissivities are generally high
(Crosthwaite, 1973).
Surficial sediments in the Rupert-Paul area are predomi-
nantly fine-grained lake deposits consisting of clay and sandy
clay with some sand interbeds. These deposits extend to more
than 200 feet below land surface (Graham, 1979). Potentiometrie
ground-water surface elevations indicate that the sedimentary
flow system is recharged by the Snake River. Flow is to the
northwest where the system discharges to the regional Snake Plain
Aquifer. Depth to ground water is generally less than 20 feet,
but well yields are limited due to the nature of the lithology.
Depth to water throughout the Snake Plain ground-water
system ranges from less than 100 feet to more than 900 feet below
land surface (IDHW and IDWR, 1985). Depth is greatest in the
central and northern parts of the flow system. In areas near the
western, southern and eastern margins, depth to ground water is
generally less than 300 feet and coincides with the area of
greatest development and water use. Shallow perched aquifers
often develop beneath irrigated tracts.
Potentiometric contours and the general direction of ground-
water movement are illustrated in Fig. V-2. Movement follows the
hydraulic gradient from areas of higher elevation (recharge) to
areas of lower elevation (discharge), and is roughly perpendicu-
lar to the potentiometric contours.
The chemical quality of ground water is reported as gener-
ally suitable for domestic water supplies, but concentrations of
dissolved solids, chloride and iron occasionally exceeded secon-
dary drinking-water standards (Table V-l). Limited monitoring
for organic compounds has not revealed concentrations exceeding
current standards or criteria (IDHW and IDWR, 1985).
Levels of total coliform bacteria in samples from municipal
systems using ground water have occasionally been reported to
exceed the primary drinking-water standard. Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare's municipal drinking-water files revealed
seven—-\z-ioJ ations of the total coliform standard out of 870
bacterial samples from 25 municipalities (IDHW and IDWR, 1985).
-------
Figure V-2. Potentiometric Contours and Generalized Direction of Ground-Water
Ivj Flow, Snake Plain Ground-Water System, Idaho.
I
ro
o
o
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
PILE INVESTIGATION REPORT
SECTION I - General Information
Name of Facility:
Address:
Telephone:
Owner Address and Telephone (if different from above):
Nature of Business:
Use of Injection Well (s) (drainage, direct disposal, etc.):
fl&X/c L>t-r u>r
Identification, Permit or EPA Number (s):
35 iO'Z oo I
Injection Well (s) Location (township, range and section,
latitude and longitude, verbal description, land marks, etc.):
-T2 // /?3 7£~ ^ swj
Type of Injection Well (s) :
Industrial Drainage:
Storm-runoff:
CXqFiCTirEural Drainage-^
Improved Sinkhole:
Heat Pump Air Conditioning Return:
Aquaculture:
Cesspool
Septic Tank:
Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent:
Sand/Mining Backfill:
Cooling Water Return Flow:
Industrial Waste Disposal:
Service (Gas) Station:
Other (specify):
Injection Well (s) Currently Operating: Yes ^ No
If No, Last Date of Operation:
Date of Construction of Injection Well (s): -I13£>
Years Injection Well in Operation: 5^-^^
-------
SECTION II - Hydrogeologic Information
Injection Formation - Name: T*>*srti.-r
- Description: 5^^ Hr* aeocc&f
- Extent of Injection Zone (s) Below Land Surface (or
elevation above Mean Sea Level): 7q
- Minimum Distance from Injection Well to Underground Source
of Drinking Water (U.S.D.W.): 4^© //# u-S-C>-u <="c & V rt-rr 6
Extent of Use of U.S.D.W. (extensive, moderate, municipal,
domestic, potential, etc.):
rA bOgtlfin? O s-c" f-aR- S.r tc
Comments:
2
[2-202]
-------
SECTION II, Hydrogeologic Information, Continued
Attach the Following Information (note if unavailable):
- Map of Facility Grounds: vtTTfrcHFb fH/ti*
- Well Log (s) for Injection Well (s) : a/ot A\/yt/L,rtflL,£
- As-built Diagram of Injection Well (s) (may use attached
general schematic if necessary): <.ee~ mc & S.
- Consultant Reports for Injection Well (s) and/or Site
Hydrogeology: uAClt &
- Monitoring Data for Injection Well: uri&i c
- Monitoring Well Data: blobs' /4iM/ *
- Number of Monitoring Wells:
- Location: Vertical and Horizontal Distance and
Direction of Monitoring Well (s) From Injection Well:
- Depth of Completion and Sampling Interval:
- Chemical and Physical Analyses:
- Downgradient Water Supply Wells (up to a two mile radius
of the injection well):
- Number of wells: Ssved Hrt/f SV**
- Location: Vertical and Horizontal Distance and
Direction of Supply Well (s) from Injection Well:
firmc
- Chemical and Physical Analyses: $ vh-ch
- Status of Wells (operating, abandoned, etc.) O * n c-
- Status of Any Nearby Surface Waters (possibly
affected by injection well operation): wJiS<-
3
f2-203J
-------
SECTION III - Operating Data
Injection Rate, Frequency, and Volume (drainage area,
precipitation, etc, for drainage wells):
/0d> 'piVK OcsiZ t /JCs / Tc.
Fluid Source:
Fluid Composition/Characteristics (including any treatment
process):
Contaminant (s) and Potential Source (s) of Contamination:
'Tufc T?
~T~£>TrfU rgt/lL-. dc>L/
Method of Disposal (transport to well):
L>fTC/f
Previous Problems with Well (clogging, overflowing, etc.):
No ^
Yes Description of Problem:
Operating Records Attached: Yes No /
Injection Fluid Analyses Attached: Yes No
4
[2-204]
-------
WELL COMPLETION SKETCHES
WELL
OPERATOR
HYDROGEOLOGIC
DATA
"7g*73 ^ bcn/t
/O ' S'vJ+ee.
HS\ /a' t4=>
bftfn* U5 'Z^ OJa/2OQ {
FIELD
WELL CLASS - ^ .
TYPE r (
ORIGINAL iy_ _ j.
COMP DATE J?Jd-/f3C>
CONVERSION
DATE
WELL COMPLETION
DATA
H X Y CoKm/tenr 3a/
/¦lie /frl ^ SofiFiKc ~T*>
2o '
^ rAin* si#'
TO SO '
J /f<*c £~ 7-0 So rr^\
[2-205]
-------
[2-206]
-------
3PV OlSmieuriON
Mil Lab
•nary* P«r*on rtguaMing ItD
i\ HSW R«g*«
Department of Water taowe*
Slate of Idaho
6NTOF HEALTH & WEI TARE
ER QUALITY REPORT
CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
finking Water Systems
&
-px.
LAB NAME
IChteN Oni)
CJ B«Im
0 Coeur d Alana
Q Poceieilo
(See instructions on Back of Fort.
I Simgir Hn
nme Water Syttern
<•«¦«• m k I.UUIIIT
35-v^-l3-l ( Uj ecfitK V^/a-H) fiohft.gv.ilIi-
"REPORT RESULTS TO -S 1
Tim* ( ciiicctni
(16 I9|
K-f r\4,M
Slat*
Dote Collected 110 lil
0. (a
2.Ip
Day
Lk
Yr
AM
PM
CoHerfd nv
Of tic* Us* Only
* 'f) II J)
o,
0.2,0.0
Tram
Code
[« 91
0 .3
imgli Location
121
Cofttatner Tyo«
O Glxii
O PlJilie
jmoie Tyoa (Crttck On*)
>4)
QO REO DISTRIBUTION QP PLANT TAP
~ C CHECK
~ R • RAW WATER
~ 3 SPECIAL
''•eie»v
/'1
0
0
5
Arsenic .05
1
2
*
cS
/
,7
2,
#P
—
—
—
\ 1
0
1
0
Barium 1
i
0
1
<
I
,7
//
4*
—
V'1
0
1
5
Cadmium 010
i
2
5
<9
&
7
0
2
0
Chromium 05
i
2
5
<
£
f
,
,7
^'1
0
2
5
Fluoride 1 4-2.4
1
1
5
0
01
DJ
yoJ
Vi
0
3
0
Lead .05
1
2
5
<
0
1
,7
,3
11
0
3
5
Mercury .002
i
0
3
<
o
o
o
5
Xo
&(
*
vl
0
4
0
Nitrate (As N) 10
1
0
9
c
II
0
S
0,7
0,2
ft
K
l/1
0
4
5
Selenium .01
1
2
5
->
6
o
r
, /
,r
¥
V.-1
0
5
0
Silver .05
1
2
5
<
o
o
/
,7
3
ft
&-
—
1*
0
5
2
Sodium
1
0
1
,7
,?
i
i
tt
3*
.0
2
4
Cyanide 2
i
1
1
OMico U»» Only
t Check Oetired Anilyili
SECONDARY
f Check Da<*r«d Analyua
OTHER
/
ID
CONTAMINANT NAME
Mmmum Limit
Method
ANALYSIS RESULTS*
J
10
CONTAMINANT NAME
Msthort
ANALYSIS*
RESULTS
V
1
0
1
7
Chloride
250
i
5
3
6,
z
V.
1
9
2
7
Alkalinity (Total)
1
5
7
/
/
6
1
9
0
E
Color (C.U.)
15 unit)
1
2
9
1
0
0
3
Ammonle (As N)
1
4
7
1
0
2
2
Copper
1
1
0
1
<
o
/
v.
•1
0
1
6
Calcium
1
4
1
z
e>
6
1
0
2
7
Hydrogen Sulfide .05
1
5
5
-
.
1
9
1
5
Hardness (as CaCOj)
1
4
1
~
1
0
2
8
Iron
.3
i
0
1
o
/
i
A
0
3
1
Magnesium
1
0
1
7
t
V
0
3
2
Manganese
.05
i
0
1
-<
o
/
1
9
2
5
pH (pH units!
1
3
5
1
g
2
0
Odor No. (T O ) 3
1
3
3
i
A
0
4
2
Potassium
1
0
1
I
V
h
9
1
0
Phenols
.001
2
0
9
i
1
0
4
9
Silica
1
4
3
I
A
0
5
5
Sulfate
250
1
3
7
/
&
€
1
1
9
2
6
Spec. Cond umhos/cm
1
4
5
2
9
0
5
Surfactants
.5
2
0
7
1
9
3
0
Total Otuolvad
Sol«da
500
1
3
9
V]
A
0
9
5
Zinc
5
1
0
1
<7
0
(
.
!
4
«e«u
[2-207]
-------
ftunfea* A5 • W * \ 3
I0«ft tMJtCTtOH «CU Ft(U) INSPtCTION
GENERAL
Date «"qHo' iTU Time |l 1 Q V\ fS Compliance: S *es , Q No (Ifrio, dose lb® beta-)
Ik^f 1 /if A/ ZO 'm}/.*£¦ f)6A
PkhMij JiiiiA m US/H) ffitktf; Art/ rtArdvjJ -tMAtj hrtv^tt > /r£Ay;7*n
Pe^l-U of TUrU-^a 'Hax dl 4-7 *¦%*/>. • lC " M 00 r.a\j i»o t*>\ j FC " 1H0 to-1*"
——i—!i2—PTV\- ^TTtherrr^H
(2-209]
-------
4*j50oow n
nR£A T
Wheeler
Dixon
NewSweden
Rounds
TUTTLE
„ *6 ?'J
• /New Sweden'i
PQRTLf*.
CANAL
. + *./ Cemetery ji
T 2 N
i=»~= -JLe±l . . , r
r n
UA(H_
QANAi.
[/
,Rivord*lo i
* t Sch (AU* dl
'
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
PILE INVESTIGATION REPORT
SECTION I - General Information
Name of Facility:
Address:
Telephone:
Owner Address and Telephone (if different from above):
Nature of Business:
CJse of Infection Well (s) (drainage, direct disposal, etc.):
fjj r/co?Jti/rsd j e- c /v
Identification, Permit or EPA Number (s):
JS~ \r/
Injection Well (s) Location (township, range and section,
latitude and longitude, verbal description, land marks, etc.):
-rvy /f 37 ^ <>erC7~/CA\ ZZ 5 ^ AJe"^ |