THE AQUIFERS AND AQUIFER SYSTEMS OF UTAH
Ralph J. Anctil
Geologist
AARP/EPA REGION VIII
U.S. EPA Region VIII
Ground Water Branch
-------
O'lrfi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
OVERVIEW 1
PHYSICAL AND GEOLOGICAL SETTING 3
UTAH WATER POLICY 5
REGIONAL AQUIFER-SYSTEM ANALYSIS PROGRAM 9
Upper Colorado River Basin System 9
The Great Basin System 14
GROUND WATER QUALITY 18
HYDROLOGY OF PALEOZOIC, MESOZOIC AND CENOZOIC SYSTEMS 20
UNCONSOLIDATED VALLEY-FILL AQUIFERS 22
Sevier River Valley Aquifer 23
Virgin River Valley Aquifer 29
Uinta Basin Aquifers 31
Spanish Valley Aquifer 32
Bear River Valley Aquifer 32
UNCONSOLIDATED BASIN-FILL AQUIFERS 32
Lower Bear River Valley Aquifer 38
Cache Valley 43
Weber Delta District Aquifers 44
CONSOLIDATED SEDIMENTARY ROCK AQUIFERS 45
Sandstone Aquifers and Aquifer Systems 45
Limestone Aquifers and Aquifer Systems 49
Precambrian Aquifers 54
GROUND WATER USE AND ASSESSMENT 54
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES CITED 57
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Geologic map of Utah. 4
2 - Location of the Upper Colorado Region 10
3 - Maj or structural and topographic features
of the Upper Colorado River Basin 11
4 - Index map of the Colorado Plateau Province 12
5 - Altitudes and subdivisions of the Great
Basin. The central area is high; the Bonne-
ville and Lahontan Basins are low. The
Great Basin appears to be arched. 16
6 - Identified major ground-water flow systems
and areas of ground-water discharge of the
Great Basin regional aquifer system. 17
7 - Principal aquifers in Utah. 21
8 - Index map showing area of upper and central
Sevier River and San Pitch River Basins,
Utah. 24
9 - Geologic map of the Virgin River area, Utah. 30
10 - Location of Uinta Basin, Utah. 33
11 - Location of Spanish Valley, Utah. 34
12 - Location of the lower and upper Bear River
drainage. 35
-------
13 - Generalized cross-section showing typical_
distribution of unconsolidated sediments in
a basin-fill aquifer. 37
14 - Index map of Lake Bonneville showing high-
water levels. 37
15 - Distribution of chemical types of ground water
in the Bonneville region, Utah and Nevada. 39
16 - Dissolved solids concentrations of ground water
in the Bonneville region, Utah and Nevada. 40
17 - Map of the Great Basin showing hydrographic areas
and interarea movement of surface and ground
water. The number east of the Nevada-Utah state
line refers to areas in the Eastern Great Basin. 41
18 - Map showing chemical character of ground water
in the Weber Delta district. 46
19 - Total thickness of rock overlying the Navajo-
Nugget aquifer. 48
20 - Quality of water (based on dissolved solids)
in the Navajo-Nugget and Entrada-Preuss aquifers. 50
21 - Generalized quality of water in Mesozoic
rocks based on the concentration of dissolved
solids. 51
22 - Regional water resources in Mesozoic rocks
as defined by saturated thickness and re-
charge potential. 52
TABLES
Table l - Hydrostratigraphy of the Basin and Range Pro-
vince, Utah. 6
2 - Hydrostratigraphy of the upper Colorado River
River Basin, part of the Middle Rocky Mount-
ain Province and the Canyon Lands section of
the Colorado Plateau Province, Utah. 7
3 - Hydrostratigraphy of the High Plains section
of the Colorado Plateau Province, Utah. 8
4 - Characteristics of major hydrogeologic units of
Upper Colorado River Basin. 12
5 - Aquifer and well characteristics in Utah. 22
6 - Hydrostratigraphy of the upper Sevier River
Valley, Utah. 25
7 - Hydrostratigraphy of the central Sevier River
Valley, Utah. 26
8 - Hydrostratigraphy of the San Pitch River
Valley, Utah. 27
9 - Selected hydrologic data for the eastern
Great Basin, Utah. 42
10 - Summary of ground-water quality in 11 areas in
Cache Valley, Utah. 43
11 - Hater availability, source and use in Utah 56
-------
THE AQUIFERS AND AQUIFER SYSTEMS OF UTAH
INTRODUCTION
This report endeavors to summarize the various geologic and
ground-water environments of the State of Utah and to charac-
terize the hydrogeologic properties of the principal water-
bearing sedimentary rocks that occur in three differing physio-
graphic provinces or subprovinces in the State. Its principal
purpose was to create a basis for detailed ground-water assess-
ment studies by the delineation and documentation of the various
aquifers or aquifer systems, and their contained water resources,
water quality and development throughout Utah.
This work is not a definitive review of the ground-water
situation in Utah, for instance, in terms of existing or
potential ground-water quality problems, but is more a summation
of general geohydrologic characteristics of a variety of aquifers
in certain areas of the state. These and other problems would be
more adequately addressed in more local studies.
An extensive literature search was undertaken of available
ground-water investigations, hydrologic atlases, test data, and
general geology, among others, as the basis for this report.
Other reports and appropriate geologic, stratigraphic and
structural data were reviewed, to identify currently-producing
aquifers and those with a potential for development, along with
their confining units, all of which aided in the identification
of hydrostratigraphic units for the State. General geology is
only locally and briefly described, and the reader is referred to
more complete discussions, the most usable probably being Stokes
(1987). it is hoped that the accompanying illustrations will
help make clear some of the detail not covered in the following
pages.
As used herein, the sedimentary and other rock sequences in
the state that are comprised.of permeable, water-saturated units
are referred to as aquifers, such as the:Sevier River Valley
aquifer. Those of relatively impermeable rocks are termed
aquitards, leaky aquitards or confining layers. Where used,
"aquifer system" means a series o£ aquifers that have similar
hydraulic properties, are probably hydraulically connected, are
of reasonably large areal extent, and are sealed from other
water-bearing units by confining layers.
OVERVIEW
1. In 1978, the U.S. Geological Survey initiated the
Regional Aquifer-System Analysis Program to define regional
1
-------
hydrology and geology, among others, of the Nation's important
aquifer systems. Two of these systems are important to this
study, the Upper Rio Grande River Basin and the Great Basin.
2. Four principal aquifer and aquifer systems have been
identified by the U.S. Geological Survey (Gates, 1985, p. 416)
within the State of Utah and are used herein as a basic format
for discussion. These include the Paleozoic Limestone, Upper
Cretaceous/Tertiary and Tertiary Sandstone bedrock aquifer
systems and Quaternary unconsolidated valley-fill and basin-fill
aquifers. It is expected that more detail on each system is
available than described below and can be gleaned from the
listings in the bibliography. Data concerning hydrologic and
hydrochemical properties of the carbonate aquifers (of Paleozoic
age) are poorly known, and the aquifers are largely unused as
water sources. They have the potential, however, for producing
large quantities of good quality water as similar ones do in
other areas.
3. The appropriation doctrine is exclusive in Utah. Under
the 1935 ground-water code, all ground water became subject to
the law of appropriation, and riparian rights have never been
recognized in the state.
4. Water produced from unconsolidated valley-fill aquifers
is usually fresh but locally can be slightly to moderately
saline. Several cities and most irrigation activities use these
aquifers as water supplies.
5. Basin-fill aquifers in the Great Basin produce fresh
water generally between the depths of 500 to 1,500 feet from the
most permeable units in the geologic section. Some major with-
drawal areas develop fresh water, but slightly saline to briny
waters may be present. They provide water supplies for major
cities and irrigation projects in the Great Basin. Most water
production is from post-Salt Lake Formation rock units of the
Pleistocene Lake Bonneville Group.
6. Water in Mesozoic aquifers ranges from fresh near
recharge areas to briny where aquifers are deeply buried, as
residence time is long, and the lack of influxes of fresh water
into the aquifer to flush contaminants is rare. This water is
mainly used for public/domestic supplies and irrigation in
Colorado Plateau areas. Although not specifically described
herein, many variations and complexities exist in various parts
of these aquifers that effect or control the flow of ground
water. These variations nay include thickening of sediments, and
vertical movement of the crust which may produce depressions or
highs that may restrict, partially dam or redirect flow patterns.
7. Data on Paleozoic carbonate aquifers are largely unknown
and these aquifers are essentially unused. Discharge is mostly
a
-------
from springs. These occur west of the Wasatch Front in the Basin
and Range Province. Locating water-bearing units is difficult,
since potential production areas are a function of identifying
secondary permeability and storage areas, which are principally
fracture controlled or, in some cases, solution-channel
controlled.
8. Utah has considerable ground water that is recoverable
from storage. Some 56 alluvial-basin areas have an estimated 300
million acre-feet available from the upper 100 feet of reservoir
storage; the Sevier River valley and its tributaries have about 6
million acre-feet from within the upper .200 feet of valley-fill
aquifers; and the Mesozoic aquifers might have as much as 200
million acre-feet of water from wells that would not be more than
2,000 feet deep.
9. According to Freethey (1991, p. 02), "...In the Colorado
River Basin, surface water has been overappropriated, whereas
ground water has not been extensively developed...Ground water is
used to supplement the water supplies for some communities in the
region and is the only source of water for other communities."
10. The largest user of ground-water supplies in Utah is
agriculture (62%) followed in descending order by public supply
(20%), industrial (9%), domestic (7%) and thermoelectric (2%)
entities. These are percentages of ground-water use of 731
million gallons per day throughout the state, which is 18% of the
total water available.
PHYSICAL AMD GEOLOGICAL SETTING
Utah lies in portions of three physiographic provinces. The
western part of the State is in the Great Basin subprovince of
the larger Basin and Range province, which generally owes its
current topographic existence to block faulting and crustal
extension in mid-Cenozoic to Recent time. Complex bedrock
occurrences are exposed only,in ranges separated by wide basins
and consist of layered Paleozoic miogeosyoclinal sediments (Kay,
1947) resting on a basement of Precambrian metamorphic and
igneous rocks. Mesozoic marine sedimentaryrocks are missing
west of the Wasatch Line (the terms Wasatch Line, Wasatch Fault,
and Basin & Range-Colorado Plateau Transition Zone are used
interchangeably herein, while still recognizing the complexities
of each). Precambrian exposures are scarce and, with the layered
rocks, are overlain, in part, by Mesozoic, Tertiary and Recent
continental sediments as well as a variety of extrusive volcanic
rocks or are intruded by a variety of rocks of Tertiary age
(Figure 1).
The eastern limits of the Great Basin are narked by the
Wasatch Line, a broad, northerly-trending, curvi-linear and
3
-------
mmmmm
-------
uplifted structural zone comprised of prominent block faults and
somewhat more obscure thrust faults. East of the Wasatch Line is
the Colorado Plateau province in the eastern and southern parts
of Utah and the Middle Rocky Mountain province in the northeast.
The Plateau is made up of three sections, the Canyon Lands,
the High Plains and the Uinta Basin. The first two sections are
underlain by essentially flat-lying, layered sedimentary rocks of
Paleozoic and "Mesozoic ages in the Canyon Lands section of the
Colorado Plateau, and Mesozoic sediments in the High Plateau
section of the province. Both sections end along their northern
limits at the Uinta Basin. Rocks of pre-Tertiary age are not
exposed in the basin, but Precambrian through Cretaceous rocks
underlie the area in the sub-surface and are partly exposed along
the south-facing flank of the Uinta Mountains.
Most geologic formations in Utah yield water to shallow
wells, but many yield small quantities of water of poor quality.
Several formations are considered principal aquifers or groups of
formations are considered an aquifer system. Deep burial in
parts of Utah, particularly in the Basin and Range and Colorado
Plateau Provinces, has precluded development of what may be
considered potentially high-producing aquifers. Tables 1, 2 and
3 identify the hydrostratigraphic relationship of important
aquifers, minor aquifers, and aquitards in Utah.
Deeply buried units are not necessarily identified, such as
the Paleozoic rocks in the Colorado Plateau area, because it is
generally accepted that aquifers below 2,000 feet in depth are
currently uneconomic to develop (Freethey, 1991, C17), and
normally of poor quality. Quaternary alluvial aquifers have been
exploited as water sources.
UTAH WATER POLICY
The water policy and philosophy of water use in Utah has
been developed by decades of water usage beginning in the mid-
1800 's. The right to use water was established, subsequently,
under the doctrine of prior appropriation and beneficial use.
Riparian rights have never been recognized in the state
(McGuinness, 1952, p. 28). Under the doctrine, a right is
obtained by taking water and applying it to a beneficial use,
with priority in time being determinative. These rights are
specified by the State Constitution and/or statutes, which
provide, generally, for the administration, management, regula-
tion, distribution, and quantity of public water for use, both
3urface and ground water.
While the doctrine of prior appropriation deals essentially
fith water quantity, the nature of ground-water quality is also a
Large concern to resource management. In the not to distant
S
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
past, water quality was not an issue, but more recently, this
situation has changed on both the state and federal levels. The
development of aquifers and aquifer systems will require larger
efforts to protect them from overdevelopment and pollution and to
increase and maintain yields of water of good quality.
regional aquifer-system analysis program
The Regional Aquifer-Analysis Program was initiated in 1978
by the U.S. Geological Survey, the purpose of which, "...is to
define the regional hydrology and geology and to establish a
framework of background information of geology, hydrology and
geochemistry of the Nation's important aquifer systems. This
information is critically needed to develop an understanding of
ground-water flow systems, and to support better ground-water
resources management..." (Sun, 1986, p. l)• As of 1986, those
studies bearing on Utah include the Upper Colorado River Basin
and the Great Basin.
Upper Colorado River Basin System
Within the Colorado River system, which underlies a large
portion of eastern Utah and parts of four adjacent states, the
principal surface-water flows are the Colorado and Green Rivers
and their many tributaries (Figures 2 & 3). Most streams east of
the Wasatch Front discharge into this system, and ultimately,
their waters reach the Pacific Ocean. Here, surface water and
valley-fill aquifers are the principal sources of water for a
variety of beneficial uses, although alluvial basin aquifers are
limited in size and are mostly of local importance.
Geologically, the basin is underlain by a thick series of
marine and terrestrial sediments of Paleozoic, Mesozoic and
Cenozoic ages occurring within a variety of structural_elements,
mostly basins and uplifts. Large exposures of non-marine
sedimentary deposits of Cenozoic age are found in the Uinta
Basin, the northern-most section of the Colorado Plateau.
Mesozoic marine and non-marine rocks are widely exposed m the
Canyon Lands' section of the Colorado Plateau and are underlain
by lesser amounts of Upper Paleozoic marine sediments that crop
out in the Monument Upli f t and in the Inner Canyon Lands. In
these areas, the Colorado and San Juan Rivers have cut down
through the geologic section to expose Permo-Pennsylvanian sedi-
ments in their canyon walls.
Cenozoic intrusive rocks are sporadically exposed in the
southeast part of Utah, specifically in the Henry, Abajo and La
Sal Mountains and in the San Raphael Swell. Widespread exposures
of extrusive rocks occur in the southwest corner of the state and
sporadically in mountainous areas of the Basin and Range pro-
vince. Within Utah, Precambrian crystalline rocks are exposed
9
-------
0 100 200 300 400 MILES
1 1 i r1—i 1 J
0 100 200 300 400 KILOMETERS
Figure 2 - Location of the Upper Colorado Region.
(from Freethey, 1991, pi. i)
10
-------
45*
110*
105*
"1
EXPLANATION
BOUNDARY OF STUDY AREA !
,
iaf C X
i"/ A' C
£ ^iieceid V
&0 MING
BASIN . £!*(JS_
y
5«j
Lake'-
:0..-
Z
5
o
cf:3REEN
RIVER
SWEETWATEF^'
--UPLIFT ^
SREAT RAWLINS
BASIN UPUFT
IV-
0ASIN ,jj ^MSUTTEB V.
.r®*" \ ' ¦»
3*;r LAfdi 'C.fv
40 '
I.
: UINTA UPLIFT1.
' s, ¦ £a!*1 SAND %£ <£%
^ S3S 1-5V-
UINTA.
BASIN WHITE \
¦ Cheyennei
'3^
•Jfa
RIVER %
a—*.a' •.
i" v \
V
ft
*y
%, "£
? """ **«>¦
-0
\
/ - :
u T *" / #s :
/ "
^ k f X , ,
/ Oo. .£ |
\ri$& /¦'$ i ®
T-a * rPV 5
Oenver
v. COLORADO
, SJ *«w£ upv> • -
r>
.*!!«- i
'-'I
r:
Iht
¦LACK MESA*") 5lr\
' i SAN T0AN
""^SVT
8A8IN
WATWmi ARIZONA
M
BASIN
ZUNI
UPLIFT
S«nta P»
N 6/W M E XII C 0
90
SO 100
100 MILCS
KILOMETERS
Figure 3 - Major structural and topographic features of the
Upper Colorado River Basin.
(front Preetjiey, 1991, p. C9)
11
-------
< ::
W, \'W ' Y 0 . M_^I
\ |"" M*n'" ^—"4
?! (I/—j UINTA MOUNTAINS
f °SALT LAKE CITY. ) 1 . ' ' ' ^ ['/&
\\ SALT LAKE CITY)
^Htb«r
^ ^ Ti/^ut «» e*n
r, OneMur NmimI
SUMibMt
0 Springs
m
jjj*\?Pro»o I 1 j\ | Duchi
L.\
\? J;r^ ;>*.u
r i
0N«plii " | Uow'lt'iiW *<4 i 1
' i\ £ ! \ OT !
J1 ! .lH«jP«\ \ «u !
fl | Prie^A \
ft
B, \ fl % "iVW
Piceance^ !\ r. '8""
Creek I Dootroj
l'^-^. O .Basin j RifW
*7 Woodaidet
^""v^kuntington
<£
»dirtStafo«.. > '"-n&J pv$* x I 'V-J Ny j— S?
*s -/5^4£ll#X\s 7 ^
-"tt pin 3" £ ^ Z/- ? SmCy Ri/.v#r ~S!^J^Ov(^ii3v
/U Fl"™"0./ O "(L A 1/VTh ,'a t 1W _
^ /- /\v i a.'" s\ > ^uy^)
' vfc «» N—-7 N .jy/ jf stzv 5-f
*\. Aif^iS ^"wly V^l
G,t.n Riv* 4 ^ .W^MotiT 11 \l ~°CL /
Asp*n0
c/2/ ._ \;
(« V/ %J»
"& l°7 ¦ (JS <** / CM'»i «wf
s
aB*av«r s /
T
Escalente
H ' 0eseft
W I C«d.r City>
#Lt %^L7 J t. Wvd' |:CS>
¦^-iK| V<#^ \ie'°
Switch. /m ? ; /
iiwCmwii ••
y<' '
liA D
vj.r v — ,, - ¦- ¦ i. l i PtmcrviUy
P 13>^mT,1s ^ii—
I^Trtipic
ft ^fV-
v 11.2**'1 *
i^irj
PinhC^..* |
*«'vvi! (
'Durwtfo
1 N
\ *f ~
^/oCoritt
^ li;i Vxrar
F«rry
/w* {! ^ / t v \ \ s '• Mi i 0 1 ; V v 1 » (V 1° ,
i i !'//* £ -» / ..J&L - \V$ li C',.
1 rf JT ' \T"* -,M li—!—CanyoirZ-g
\V-I '*** N I
, y (\ ^ j
PwehSpHnioi v <* ^ K • '
I *~ r s
i)
PjggfNK SpriniEti
, 4 0ftamiAjKr»lir
. _ &i ^ -
/v®L/
\ ' '
£forman
»" VJ V»l "J M ¦! /
/ 4/ 7'n *•' WV j •' - > «e«» ' '•
4 A' A-Lii **!
*¦*• •*>Miyt C—yWL, J^t >
i_.yyN/i
/'j-'1*-
• 0^ . f i»MM,
• ^ Fori EilftMC®,
r Qu*Aq9-'
K-/;--, ~e-^y r /\
v-"' > '.W, <
/-
C/ —'' S«rr» /
JjMlrwi
"D*til
U-' ( Mtl
y
PUiiwolS1
LtlP*
J££
I /
L
Figure 4 - Index map of the Colorado Plateau Province.
{from Hunt, 1956, p,3)
12
-------
only in the anticlinal core of the Uinta Uplift and at one small
locality north of the La Sal Mountains.
Tectonic events at the close of the Cretaceous Period pro-
duced the Uinta Mountains, but the Colorado Plateau (Figure 3)
resulted from Cenozoic deformation acting possibly along pre-
Cenozoic structures. Depicted in Figure 3 are the principal
tectonic features in the Utah portion of the Upper Colorado
region and their relationship to those in adjacent states.
Much of the work completed by the U.S. Geological Survey in
the Upper Colorado River Basin Aquifer-Analysis Program revolved
around ground-water flow systems. Taylor (1986, p. 223-233)
describes the process as follows: "...(These systems) have been
classified into three major groups... they are (1) Cenozoic-rock
aquifers, (2) Mesozoic-rock aquifers, and (3) Paleozoic-rock
aquifers...A total of 11 hydrogeologic units has been identified
for the Upper Colorado River Basin regional aquifer system...
(These Paleozoic) rocks were divided into four hydrogeologic
units...(but) due to the great depth of the lower two units,...
the analysis of Paleozoic rocks will be limited to the upper
two...units."
"...The potentiometric surface maps indicate that the upper
two hydrogeologic units are recharged by precipitation in
uplifted areas. Water moves through the formations toward the
valleys and discharges to major streams and tributaries."
"Based on hydrogeologic characteristics, the Mesozoic-age
rocks were divided into three units...Jurassic and Triassic
sandstones constitute a regional aquifer...(however) most of the
Mesozoic rocks are laterally discontinuous and are only locally
significant as sources of water...Potentiometric surface maps of
the Mesozoic-rock aquifers indicate regional movement of ground
water is toward the large river valleys..." (This surface is not
deeply buried).
Tertiary rocks have been divided into four hydrogeologic
units, but only those occurring in the Uinta Basin directly bear
on this discussion. Taylor (1986, p. 230) continues, "...In the
Uinta Basin, the Duchesne River Formation of the middle Tertiary
aquifer is most productive? however, it is limited in areal
extent to the northern half of the basin. The Uinta Formation of
the same hydrogeologic unit is used extensively for water
supplies...(whereas) the Green River and Wasatch Formations are
not used extensively for watte* supply. The North Horn Forma-
tion. . .is also not used for toater supply." Ground water dis-
charges to streams in the center of the bs#in. Ground-water
withdrawals from the Mesozoic aquifer systems have been small
because of deep burial, low transmissivitiesj; and saline waters.
The southern portion of the area has the best potential fox*
development of significant ground-water supplies (Freethey, 1991,
13
-------
p. CI). See Table 4 for additional hydrogeologic data.
The Great Basin System
The Great Basin is largely centered in Nevada but extends
into Utah to the Wasatch Front (the Basin and Range-Colorado
Plateau Transition Zone of Stokes, 1987), and into several
neighboring states (Figure 5). The regional aquifer-system study
of this large area was initiated by the U.S. Geological Survey in
1980 and was scheduled for completion in 1985 (Harrill, 1986).
Its principal goal was to describe the aquifer systems and to
develop techniques for the quantitative evaluations of these
systems.
For the purposes of this discussion, the Great Basin is
divided into two lithologic facies of the Cordilleran geosyncline
- a western eugeosynclinal facies (mostly in central and western
Nevada and of no immediate importance to this discussion) and an
eastern miogeosynclinal facies extending from central Nevada
eastward to the Wasatch Front. These mostly marine carbonates of
the Paleozoic era are variously exposed in 36 (more or less)
north-trending mountain ranges of the eastern Great Basin or
buried beneath variable thicknesses of relatively permeable
clastic material in adjoining valleys or basins. During post-
Paleozoic time, western Utah was uplifted and structurally
altered to its present topographic form beginning in the mid-
Cenozoic. In Middle to Late Cenozoic time, widespread volcanism,
largely in western Utah, produced rhyolite/basalt flows and
associated products in seven major volcanic fields.
The significant results of Harrill's (1986, p. 147-151)
investigations of the Great Basin are as follows: "...Regional
flow is driven by hydraulic gradients that extend over long dis-
tances... The regional flow is apparently toward either the Colo-
rado River or major regional discharge areas (Figure 6). The 242
identified basin areas had been grouped into 39 major flow sys-
tems. Of these, 14 are single-basin systems, the rest are multi-
basin systems... Large multibasin systems within the carbonate-
rock province typically have little surface-water flow; instead
they may contain ground-water flow paths that are more than 100
miles long and traverse several basins...Regional analysis of
hydrologic conditions in southwestern Utah suggest that the
transmissivity of the carbonate rocks is higher than originally
anticipated, and that some degree of hydraulic continuity exists
between basins throughout that part of the area." Similar
conclusions of continuity of flow between basins are noted in
Fetter (1980, p. 168-171), who reveals that the regional hydrau-
lic gradient is unaffected by crossing topographic divides.
It is expected that such flow is very deep beneath the Great
Basin and of no practical use to ground-water development in
Utah, a problem of lateral hydraulic continuity of these units
14
-------
Table 4 -CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR HYDROGEOLOCIC UNITS OF UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
- | , , — _______
Hrd'ojiotoflic unit
Witar-yialding character
Gartaraf wtiar quality
Griw#r irwkrittlr pacmaaWa. but may ft* drairtad btciuit
daports ft dnuclti u on fcrflti. Wttor asms horn tuull
hit** springs from (hti unit.
Pwlr iwflnjtood- A faw wittr tampbs from tha Browns
Park formation, Bishop Congtomanit. and othor includad
•i;u»)#n indictta fmhwatw.
Largs renga m ptrmaabity. Yialdi to wtfls an grastatt in
irrigated usai whan local raeharga i» abundant.
Waitf it fiash in tha Umta. and Srfdgar formation naif out-
crop araas at tha Uinti and Graan ftorar basins. fraahwatar
alto occurs in tha Umta Formation in IN ficaanca basin.
Watar in tha Uinta formation is try stSna at depth in ths
Uinta basin. TNa Ouchasna River Formation contains
Ireshwater in ths Uinta basin.
largo rangs« ptmaifrffity; (h« Uevsttmt bads are ptmtibl*
hitturtd or sandy; flutiil depoii/i gefteriHy ara
prmubk *v bain margins whar# tftay *rt cairitqit'tmi
mtund.
Modffataly parmtebla but hataroganeous.
Water in the Wmlch Formation in tha Qraan Rivat basin
ranges from Ireth in outcrop area* to sightly satin* at depth,
In the Uinta basin, water in tha Wasatch Formation ranges
from Ireth in outcrop araas to briney at dapth. Watit in
the Cratn Rivat Formation nitgai fiom flash in oulciop
a/eat to b'inay whan tviporite minaitit ara present.
Poorly understood. Water h tha Fort Union Formation in
Wyoming ranges from frash to slightly sa'ina. Tha North
Ham Formation in Utah yields fteshwstir
PrincteaR* i ronfining unit. Fgly iiiurand tandttona layers
below Waneas Shale arc modorattiy permeable.
SllHlimi Irtd iW. HiufHMM. Uppar j«rt I(M iingn
from conglomeratic sandstone at southern part of WV
hiSHt to s/iala and limestone in northern part.
A wirfaiffwrf aquifer or group of aquifers with ganare«Y
lc«# peffluabfflry whan fractured. Tha Sun Ca<
nrM tow inclurfiflg tha Navajo Sandstona ara thle* h
parts of Uf»h imt Artrona Mtf M«a iargt water-supply
potent*.'.
Mostly Irish to sfightiy seine watar in tha Dakota Sandstone.
Watar tiom tha Miocos Shaia tongas from (rash to
mooaistiljf saline, but may represent watar from tamJstona
mambers and not from tha shale and inehided avaporita
minorals. Watar«tha Masavarda Group rangas Iron trash
10 jUpfctly uint. aicapt at depth whara it it vary tafinl
lo brinay.
Mudstona, iftstona. Bmattona, and ihala with sporadte thin
6ids of tandttona and nnpiontama.
hnc^'»r' ""feing unit, [uiiigriinid man n I hi bin
** ; f"11 Fiimiiiom, *nd bcil mlxtuM-
" "" ^ "¦ ... igulliii
wrih ImtM MiintM lu Unlcpmtrl
Mostly fraifttvtrr in aay itTm mm in wis d PfflMyhi-
nian agt in Colorado. ?r»sh to brinty wai»f in recks of
tha faridsi bisn. dwiding ff roialifti sf fb* lystm
Mamipown ^ Mjm, OavotiM
12,000
200 lo 4,000
Charty fimastM* and dotontita that ara eawnoat and Iric-
»w»d in soma nfions. U«ly karst topogrtpity hti nauhad
in solution eivittas and cottapsa strocturos. bicWta bt4»
•' lititona, aaodsiont, ihpia, and mudnm.
"'""r' ™'*'' IJff" «m, wk). h „,«,*!¦
1 '«* »H unit n
HtpttlM was yitUt
frtshwotar whart unit ctom wt in Wnts o«f WWtt Ww
wpttts; w»tar btwBoa owdaiaialT »«flw as it mow M*»f
from ovtctapi. In 0w Parpen bodt Oi wiiv it wy Mfiv
to bmaj.
1
Otdovician and Uiddb Cambrian
10.000
100 ta 1.500
Ooiomrta, imastona, dolomitte fimstont. conftoflMrita.
sandstona, and mudiiena.
m* »*««« «»r ncnais
M *9tont
Poorly gndaiiKwd. A low sw»te» * *•»
lwwit*nt Mem «gW» w»«H» twijiT. tf*»
Inih to vary *»Km.
CamfcftM
80,000
100 to soo
OuifWiit. mow, ind Soiomiic iwrfttm mik immMi
Bl HI. vrf CMi^lMnttiii
I". »L"b*" m*»u»«'
Pooflr wdinio^. A ttw **mpin Na wrfnp
frartwuar.
15
-------
Above 8,000 feet
5,000 to 8,000 feet
Below 5,000 feet
Lakes and playas
50 '00
200
300
400 Miles
Figure 5 - Altitudes and subdivisions of the Great Basin. The
central area is high; the Bonneville and Lahontan Basins are
low. The Great Basin appears to be arched.
(from Hunt, 1979, p. 4)
16
-------
CALIFORNIA
IDAHO
UTAH
SCALE 1:5.500.000
50 100 150 MILES
-J
I 1
100 150 KILOMETERS
OREGON
$
EXPLANATION
MAJOR LAKE
MAJOR FLOW SYSTEM BOUNDARY -
Dashed where uncertain
AREA OF MAJOR GROUND-WATER DISCHARGE
AS EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
STUDY AREA
Figure 6 - Identified major ground-water flow systems and areas
of ground-water discharge of the Great Basin regional
aquifer system. g
(from Harrill, 1986, fig. 90)
17
-------
is the Basin and Range block faulting which cuts and dismembers
the units not only along the mountain fronts but basinward in a
step-down pattern. For all intents and purposes, these block
faults parallel the mountain fronts and do not penetrate into the
mountain ranges. Many are self-sealing and hinder downward or
lateral movement of water, while others act as regional channel-
ways for water flow to deeper levels beneath the basins.
Obviously, some sealed portions of the faults could act as dams,
thus creating relatively large reservoirs up gradient. The search
for water supplies within the basin will require a great under-
standing of the geologic environment and considerable funding.
The stratigraphic column and the hydrostratigraphy of rock
units in the eastern Great Basin portion of the Basin and Range
Province will be presented in table form later.
ground water quality
Principal aquifers in Utah are grouped into four types, two
of which consist of alluvial materials deposited in valley or
basin environments and two are within bedrock units, generally
sandstone or carbonate rock formations or groups of formations.
In general, water in surface or near-surface environments
can vary in quality over a broad range, while that in deeper
aquifers remains nearly constant in terns of chemical and
physical properties. Usually, deeply-buried water contains
higher concentrations of dissolved solids and possibly other
chemical constituents due to possibly peculiar geologic
lithologies through which the water moves. Further, in
unconfined and unconsolidated aquifers, where water flow is or
can be high, dissolved solids are washed out of the system, but
in more confined situations, where water flow is slow to nil,
concentrations of dissolved solids are high and remain so.
The aquifers most susceptible to contamination are the
unconsolidated valley-fill and basin-fill aquifers. In these,
the normal paths for water movement are controlled principally by
the physical boundaries of the valley or basin walls or other
geologic conditions. The thus-formed drainage is a recharge area
over it entire length and width, allowing the aquifer to be
vulnerable to direct contamination from surface sources. Vul-
nerability of the aquifer is also increased by the possibility
of being recharged through a thin, highly-permeable mantle of
clastic materials and probable hydraulic contact with a through-
flowing valley stream, such as found in the Sevier River valley
system, of the 731 million gallons per day with-drawn from
ground-water reservoirs in Utah, 62 percent is from
unconsolidated valley and basin fill aquifers and is used for
agriculture. Twenty percent is used for public supply (see Table
• This water is fresh and suitable for most uses.
18
-------
The principal non-alluvial aquifers in eastern Utah are the
Mesozoic sandstone aquifers and those in western Utah are the
Paleozoic carbonate aquifer systems. For all intents and
purposes, these aquifers are confined and are less susceptible to
direct contamination from the surface. Of these aquifers,
Waddell (1988, p. 497) states, "...In recharge areas, water from
the sandstone (aquifers) generally contains less than 1,000 mg/1
dissolved solids, but locally where the sandstone is deeply
buried and ground-water movement is slow, the concentration may
be larger than 35,000 mg/1...The carbonate-rock aquifer is not
extensively used, and little is knownabout it." Only six
million gallons per day of water is withdrawn from these aquifers
and is used for agriculture and public supply in with no other
economic sector receiving any.
However, some generalizations can be made regarding
carbonate aquifers. Limestone is composed of calcium carbonate,
which is relatively soluble in water containing carbon dioxide.
Where these two compounds meet, some of the limestone will be
dissolved and the water usually will be dominated by calcium and
bicarbonate radicals. However, if dolomite is the principal
carbonate rock, a calcium/magnesium/bicarbonate may result.
Other soluble minerals can also add constituents to these waters.
Water is classified principally on two criteria, Total
Dissolved Solids and Hardness (Todd, 1974 and Freethey, 1991) and
generally falls within the following ranges:
A. Based on concentration of dissolved solids
Name Concentrations in ppm (ma/l^
Fresh 0-1,000
Slightly saline 1,000-3,000
Moderately saline 3,000-10,000
Very saline 10,000-35,000
Briny More than 35,000
B. Based on hardness
Soft 0-60
Moderately hard 61-120
Hard 121-180
Very hard More than 180
Hard water is usually caused by high concentrations of
calcium and magnesium in the water. Generally, ground-water in
alluvial environments is moderately hard to very hard, while that
in consolidated rocks is soft to very hard. The quality of
ground water is dependent on geological factors as well as those
ascribable to human activities.
National drinking water standards have been established by
the EPA (1986a, b). Maximum levels of contained contaminants are
19
-------
health related and are legally enforceable, while secondary-
levels apply to aesthetic qualities and are recommended stand-
ards. The primary drinking-water standards include a maximum
concentration of 10 mg/1 nitrate, and the secondary drinking-
water standards include maximum concentrations of 500 mg/1 dis-
solved solids, 250 mg/1 sulfate, and 300 umg/1 iron (NWS-1986, p.
163) .
More details of water quality are presented under
discussions of individual aquifers in the following pages.
HYDROGEOLOGY OF PALEOZOIC, MESOZOIC AND CENOZOIC AQUIFERS
Virtually all of the stratigraphic units in Utah play a
hydrologic role in ground-water development either as a major
aquifer, a minor aquifer or an aquitard. Most have been
identified, but many are limited in areal extent and yield only
small amounts of ground water to wells. For purposes of this
discussion, the principal water-bearing units found in Utah are
identified by the U.S. Geological Survey (Gates, 1985, p. 416) as
(l) unconsolidated valley-fill aquifers; (2) unconsolidated
basin-fill aquifers, (3) Sandstone aquifers; and (4) Carbonate-
rock aquifers (Figure 7). Of these, none forms a single, wide-
spread, hydraulically connected system. Data and water well
characteristics of these four types are presented in Table 4.
As used herein, the sedimentary sequences in the state that
are comprised of permeable saturated units are referred to as
aquifers, and those of relatively impermeable rocks are termed
aquitards, leaky aquitards or confining layers. Where used,
"aquifer system" means a series of aquifers that have similar
hydraulic properties, are probably hydraulically connected, are
of reasonably large areal extent, and are sealed from other
water-bearing units by confining layers.
Principal aquifers are highly productive and reliable
ground-water sources. Minor aquifers are less productive and are
often areally limited, but can provide water sources for local
development.
The unconsolidated rock aquifers that occur within the State
of Utah are of two types, but each are designated as hydrologic
units with similar hydrologic roles, but with differing origins.
These are valley-fill aquifers and basin-fill aquifers.
The significant unconsolidated alluvial valley-fill aquifers
are located in the Colorado Plateau Province, the Basin & Range
Transition Zone, and the Middle Rocky Mountain Province.
For purposes of this discussion, unconsolidated basin-fill
aquifers occur exclusively in the Basin & Range Province of
western Utah.
20
-------
EXPLANATION
Unconsolidated valley-fill
aquifers
Unconsolidated basin-fill
aquifers
Sandstone aquifers
| | Carbonate-rock aquifer
| | Not a principal aquifer
Boundary of aquifer uncertain
Spring-discharges large volumes
of water from the carbonate-
rock aquifer
100 MlLES
MI DOLE
MTS. PROVINCE
40'
21
-------
[Mgal/d « millions of gallons per day; ft
Department of Natural Resources |
feet: gal/min = gallons per minute. Sources: Reports of the U.S. Geological Survey and Utah
Aquifer name and description
Water
withdrawals
in }983 Common
(Mgal/d) range
Well characteristics
Depth (ft)
May
exceed
Yield (gal/mln)
Remarks
Common
range
May
exceed
Unconsolidated valley-fill
aquifers: Sand, silt,-
gravel, and clay; mostly
alluvial. Unconfined and
confined.
Unconsolidated basin-fill
aquifers: Sand, coarse
gravel, clay, and silt;
mostly alluvial and
lacustrine. Confined
and unconfined.
Sandstone aquifers: Very fine
to medium-grained sandstone
and includes some siltstone
to coarse sandstone; fracturing
increases permeability.
Confined and unconfined.
Carbonate-rock aquifer:
Limestone and dolomite,
probably includes solution-
enlarged fractures.
Confined and unconfined.
'56
'500
100-500 1.000 200-1,000
50-200 600 10-750 2.000 Thickness commonly 50 to 200 ft but can
be as much as 800 ft where valleys
are structural depressions. Most
water fresh but locally slightly
to moderately saline. Provides water
supplies for city of Ogden from Ogden
Valley east of Ogden; and for
irrigation in Uinta Basin in Duchesne
and Uintah Counties; along Sevier
River and its tributaries in Sanpete.
Sevier. Piute, and Garfield Counties;
along Fremont River near Loa; along
Virgin River near St. George; and in
Spanish Valley at Moab.
6,000 Thickness as much as several thousand
feet; in most basins probably only
500 to 1,500 ft is permeable and
contains freshwater. In areas of
major withdrawals, water mostly
fresh, but slightly saline to briny
water present; provides water supplies
for most major cities and all
irrigation areas in Basin and Range
province in UtaJi.
100 - 1,000 2,000 50 - 500 3,000 Includes Entrada, Navajo, and Wingate
depending Sandstones of Triassic and Jurassic
on depth age and their equivalents; thickness
to aquifer can be more than 2,000 ft locally.
Water ranges from fresh near
recharge areas to briny where
aquifers deeply buried. Provides
water supplies for cities of St.
George, Moab. and Kanab and for
irrigation near St. George and Kanab.
- - - - Largely unknown and unused; discharges
about 40 Mgal/d of slightly to
moderately saline water from two
large spring areas in west-central
Utah. Only two known large-yield
(2,000-3,000 gal/min) wells
completed in this aquifer in 1984.
' Estimated from data in Avery and others (19(4).
' 1979 data from filM oI the U.S. Geological Surrey.
Table 5 - Aquifer and well characteristics in Utah.
(from USGS Water-Supply Paper 2275)
UNCONSOLIDATED VALL27-FILL AQUIFERS
Heath (1984) differentiates alluvial valleys from other
valleys (basins) on the following criteria:
1. The valleys contain sand and gravel deposits thick
enough to supply water to wells at moderate to large rates.
2. The sand and gravel deposits are in hydraulic contact
with a perennial stream which serves as a source of recharge and
whose flow commonly exceeds demand.
22
-------
3. The sand and gravel deposits occur in a clearly defined
band (or channel) that normally does not extend beyond the flood-
plain and adjacent terraces (i.e., the width of the deposits is
small compared with its length).
The important alluvial aquifers in Utah are located (1)
within the Sevier River Valley, and its tributaries in the East
Fork Valley, in Otter Creek Valley and in the San Pete Valley
through which flows through the San Pitch River, (2) in the
Virgin River area near St. George; (3) in the Fremont River
valley, near Loa; (3) in the Spanish Valley, near Moab; (4) in
the Uinta Basin; (5) near Heber; (6) in the Ogden Valley; and
(7) in the Bear River Basin of northern Utah. All of these
aquifers are found within or to the east of the Wasatch Front, an
area which includes the Basin-Range Transition Zone and parts of
the Colorado Plateau and Middle Rocky Mountain Provinces.
Sevier River vallpy Aquifer System. The High Plateaus
section of the Colorado Plateau Province is prominently exposed
near Kanab and St. George and northeastward along its trend
toward Soldier Summit, a distance of about 225 miles (Figure 8).
Its western edge is the generally accepted boundary between it
and the Basin and Range Province. However, it contains
structural elements of both the Basin and Range ana Colorado
Provinces and more rightly should be referred to as the Basin and
Range - Colorado Plateau Transition Zone (Stokes, 1987).
The Sevier River and its tributaries fall within this zone
and head in the Paunsaugunt-Markagunt Plateau area at its south
end. The river flows northward through the Sevier Valley to a
point near Gunnison, where it is joined by the south-flowing San
Pitch River, thence on its circuitous path to the dry Sevier Lake
- a total river distance of about 260 miles._ °ther prominent
land forms within the High Plateaus section include the Sevier,
Wasatch and Aquarius Plateaus (see Figure 2).
The aquifer system occurs within six subbasins in which
extensive floodplain and associated deposits make up the most
important hydrologic unit, the Quaternary Aquifer System. These
subbasins include the Upper Sevier, East
Otter Creek, Circle Valley, Central Sevier Valley (Young {1965}
divides the Central Sevier into five ground-water basins) and
the San Pitch Valley. About 7,000 square miles comprise these
subbasins.
The Sevier River valley lea "J"?"' "^?ln3
intermontane structural depression that contains upwards of
25,000 feet of Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediments and an unknown
thickness of Paleozoic units which rest unconformably on
Precambrian crystalline rocks. The stratigraphic column, along
with^e i^Sogic roles and units of the various rock units, is
described in Tables 6, 7, and 8.
23
-------
112*
Figure 8 - Index map showing area of the upper and central Sevier
and San Pitch River basins, Utah.
(from Robinson, 1971, p. 4)
24
-------
Table 6
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY OF THE HIGH PLATEAUS SECTION
OF THE
COLORADO PLATEAU PROVINCE, UTAH
UPPER SEVIER RIVER BASIN (from Carpenter, 1967)
Geologic
Age
Geologic
Unit
Lithology
Thickness
in feet
Hydrologic
Role
Hydrologic
Unit
Remarks
Quaternary-
Valley fill
Mostly flood
plain, fans &
other allu-
vial deposits.
Other Quater-
nary deposits
not important,
hydrologi-
cally.
0-340 in
channels,
0-800+ in
younger &
older Qal
Principal
aquifers in
flood plains
of Sevier
River East
Fork of
Sevier River
and Otter
Creek
Quaternary
Aquifer
System
Yields small to
large amounts
of good quality
water to wells
and springs.
Land-slide,
rubble and
basalt flows
not sources of
water.
Quaternary/
Tertiary-
Sevier Riv.
Formation
Alluvial fan
deposits.
0-450+
Poor aquifer
Low
permeability.
Yields small to
moderate
quanti-ties of
water.
Tertiary
Miocene/
Pliocene
Volcanic
Rocks
Intrusive and
extrusive rx.
0-4,000+
for flows
Low permea-
bility. Yields
small to large
quantities of
water where
fractured.
Eocene-
Miocene
Brian Head
Formation
Conglomerate &
sandstone with
some volcanics
Limestone,
marl & limey
silt in lower
unit.
0-600? in
upper unit
0-1,000 in
lower unit
Yields small
quantities of
water to some
wells. Large
quantities in
Black Canyon.
Wasatch
Formation
Limestone with
some shale,
siltstone,
sandstone &
conglomerate.
0-1,100
Local
aquifers
Minor
Tertiary/
Upper
Cretaceous
Aquifer
System
Limestones
yield where
channelled
yield large
quantities of
water.
Upper
Cretaceous
Kaiparowits
Formation
Arkosic sand-
stone
0-700
Yields small
quantities of
water to wells
and springs.
Wahweap &
Straight
Cliffs
Sandstones
Sandstone with
some shale &
shaley sand-
stones .
0-1,600+
Yields small to
large quanti-
ties of water
to wells and
springs.
Triassic,
Jurassic &
Cretaceous
Various (8)
sedimentary
formations
Mostly finer-
grained
clastic rocks.
?
Not known to
yield water to
wells and
springs. Mostly
at great depth
in basin. Not
an important
source of
water.
to
in
-------
Table 7
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY OF THE HIGH PLATEAUS SECTION
OF THE
COLORADO PLATEAU PROVINCE, UTAH
CENTRAL SEVIER RIVER BASIN (from Young, 1965)
Geologic
Age
Geologic
Unit
Lithology
Thickness
in feet
Hydrologic
Role
Hydrologic
Unit
Remarks
Quaternary
Valley fill
Mostly flood
plain, fan &
other alluvial
deposits.Other
colluvial and
alluvial depo-
sits not im-
portant sour-
ces of water.
0-800 in
flood plain
areas.
0-400 in
landslide &
terrace
areas.
Principal
aquifer in
Sevier River
Valley.
Quaternary
Aquifer
System
Yields small
to large
quantities of
water in high-
permeable
sands and gra-
vels. Some
artesian flow.
Quaternary/
Tertiary
Sevier
Formation
Alluvial fan
deposits
0-800 in
central
basin.
Poor aquifer
Poor to moder-
ate source of
water. Low
permeability.
Tertiary
Miocene/
Pliocene
(?)
Eocene
Eocene or
Oligocene
Volcanic
rocks
Intrusive and
extrusive rx.
7,000 to
13,000
Minor
aquifer
Minor
Tertiary
Aquifer
System
Extrusive
rocks are a
source of
water to
springs.
Dipping Vat
Formation
Tuffaceous
sandstone
200 +
Good to poor
aquifer
Some sand-
stones highly
permeable and
are good
source of
water.
Bald Knoll
Formation
Lake bed depo-
sits of clay,
silt-stone,
and pyroclas-
tics
600-1,000
Poor aquifer
probable
confining
layer
Aquitard in
central
Sevier
River Basin
No water found
in section.
Crazy
Hollow
Formation
Sandstone,
shale & silt-
stone
300-1,000
Minor
aquifer
Minor Lower
Tertiary
Aquifer
System
Good in sand-
stone but fm.
is too deep
for present
development.
Eocene
Paleocene
| & Eocene
Green River
Formation
Limestone and
shale
400-1,200
Minor
aquifer
May produce
water where
fractured or
solution chan-
nels are
present.
Colton
Formation
Shale and
sandstone
0-1,600
Poor aquifer
Low perme-
ability.
Flagstaff
Limestone
Limestone,
siltstone and
sandstone
100-1,500
Minor
aquifer
Source to some
springs such
as Fayette Sp.
from solution
cavities.
Paleocene
Upper Cre-
taceous
North Horn
Formation
Sandstone and
shale and some
conglomerate
500-2,800
Minor
aquifer
Yields water
where frac-
tured.
Cretaceous/
Jurassic
Various (5)
sedimentary
formations
Mostly finer-
grained
clastic rocks
•?
Not known to
yield water to
wells or
springs.
to
01
-------
Table 8
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY OF THE HIGH PLATEAUS SECTION
OF THE
COLORADO PLATEAU PROVINCE, UTAH
SAN PITCH RIVER BASIN (from Robinson, 1971)
Geologic
Age
Geologic
Unit
Lithology
Thickness
in feet
Hydrologic
Role
Hydrologic
Unit
Remarks
Quaternary
Valley fill
Floodplain
deposits &
some and
coalescing
fan deposits
500+
Principal
aquifer in
San Pitch
River basin
Quaternary
Aquifer
System
Yields small to
large
quantities of
water to wells
and springs.
Quaternary/
Tertiary
Alluvial
formations
Alluvial fan
deposits and
other minor
alluvial dep.
Not an im-
portant
source of
water
Tertiary
Volcanic
Rocks
Sandstone,
tuff, & vol-
canic congl.
2,100
Minor
aquifer
Extrusive rocks
are source of
water to
springs.
Upper {?)
Eocene
Crazy
Hollow
Formation
Sandstone
with local
conglomerate
and limestone
200+
Minor
aquifer
Minor
Tertiary
Aquifer
System
Low permeabi-
lity in sand-
stone. Yields
small to large
quanties of
water to wells
and some
springs.
Eocene
Green River
Formation
Lacustrine
shale and
sandstone &
limestone
1,000+
Mostly an
aquitard
Basin-wide
Aquitard
Low permea-
bility in shale
but moderate in
sandstone. May
yield large
quantities of
water where
fractured.
Colton
Formation
Shale and
sandstone
1,500
Poor aquifer
Water-bearing
qualities un-
known .
Paleocene
and Upper
Cretaceous
North Horn
Formation
Sandstone,
shale, lime-
stone & cgl.
2,400
Minor
aquifer
High per-
meability where
fractured.
Yields small to
large quanti-
ties of water
to springs.
Upper
Cretaceous
Price River
Formation
Sandstone and
massive cgl
with some
shale
2,000
Minor
aquifer
Minor
Tertiary/
Upper Creta-
ceous
Aquifer
System
Moderate per-
meability in
sandstone.
High permeabi-
lity where
fractured.
Yields mostly
to springs.
Blackhawk
Formation
Sandstone,
coal & shale
1,800
Poor aquifer
Not important
source of
water.
Indianola
Group
Conglomerate
and sandstone
15,000 (?)
Minor
aquifer
Fracture-cont-
rolled permea-
bility. Prob.
sub-surface re-
charge source
to valley.
Jurassic
Several
sedimentary
formations
Mostly finer-
grained
elastics
?
Not important
sources of
water due to
depth of
burial.
to
s
-------
Quaternary sediments generally consist of unconsolidated
silt, sand and gravel and are about 800 feet thick in the central
part of the valley. These deposits include well-sorted flood
plain sediments that have large permeabilities and saturated
thicknesses and, as a result, are the principal water-bearing
units in the valley. According to Young (1965, p. I8),"...pre-
Quaternary deposits are exposed mainly in the mountains and
plateaus bordering the central Sevier Valley floor...Most of the
pre-Quaternary formations underlying the alluvial fill in the
valley, are too deep beneath land surface for consideration as
sources of water. A few formations, however, do yield water to
wells in the valley and to springs at the edges of the valley
floor." As a consequence, these springs partially recharge the
alluvial aquifer.
The structure of the valley is relatively uncomplicated with
scattered low amplitude synclinal folds (within a principal
graben occupied by the valley fill) and normal faults with tilted
blocks as horsts bordering the valley. Along the periphery of
the basin, the structure is complex with tilted and highly-
faulted sedimentary blocks.
During earlier studies of the Sevier River valley-fill
aquifers, Young, 1965; Carpenter, 1967; and Robinson, 1971,
visited about 1,500 pumping wells and 130 springs, many of which
were sampled and flows measured. Today, one would assume that
more pumping wells could be added to the above total. The water
from the valley-fill aquifer is mostly fresh, potable and used
largely for domestic and agricultural purposes.
Carpenter (1967, p. 79-83), discusses the water quality in
the Upper Sevier River section of the basin as follows: "...The
major chemical constituents in the water...are silica, magnesium,
sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, and nitrate...Chemical
analyses ere made of samples of ground water from 24 wells and 23
springs... The dissolved solids range from 86 to 778 ppm (mg/1)
and average 245 ppm for 46 samples. Generally, there is a
deterioration in quality downstream because of return flows from
irrigation. For the same sample population, the hardness of the
water in the 47 samples ranged from 35 to 506 ppm and averaged
170 ppm."
For the central Sevier River Valley, Young's (1965, p. 86-
87) conclusions regarding water quality are similar to those of
Carpenter in upstream areas. With the exception of one basin
(Redmond-Gunnison), water of good to excellent quality for use in
all economic sectors is available throughout the central basin.
Some waters contain anomalous quantities of fluoride, iron and
manganese and a high pH is unsuitable for certain purposes. Water
in parts of the Redmond-Gunnison basin is slightly to moderately
saline but can be used for irrigation. Generally, water from
deep wells in the valley is of better quality than that withdrawn
28
-------
from shallow wells.
Of the 366 ground-water samples collected by the U.S.
Geological Survey by Robinson, et. al. (1971, p. 59), 349 con-
tained fresh water, 16 were slightly saline, and one was moder-
ately saline. As indicated by the chemical analyses of water
sampled at 68 wells and springs in the basin, ground water is
generally very hard. The hardness ranged from 27 to 618 mg/1 and
averaged about 320 mg/1.
It has been estimated by Price {1979, p. 359) that over 3.9
x 106 acre-feet/year is in recoverable storage in the four
subbasins, and perennial yields are somewhat less than 100,000
acre-feet, with the greatest being withdrawn from the central
Sevier and San Pete Valleys. The San Pete Valley is a closed
basin, so virtually no ground water leaves the basin in the
subsurface. Robinson (1971, p. 72) reports an estimated 3
million acre-feet of water is available in the upper 200 feet of
saturated valley fill.
Virgin River Vallev Acruifer System. The Virgin River
drainage basin is in Washington County located in the southwest
corner of Utah and includes St. George, the principal city in the
area. Unconsolidated valley-fill aquifers occur within the
Virgin River valley, which is bound on the east by the Hurricane
Bench and on the west by the Pine Valley Mountains. It flows
westward north of the Hurricane Bench, thence southwestward from
St. George and exits Utah in T.43 S., R.17 W. The drainage of
Santa Clara River is tributary to the Virgin River and joins it
at St. George. It heads in the west slopes of the Pine Valley
Mountains and drains it and the east flanks of the Bull Valley
Mountains (Figure 9)
Both bedrock and alluvial aquifers are present in the St.
George basin, and alluvial aquifers include those associated with
stream valleys (up to 200 feet thick) and those that are thicker
(up to 500 feet), located adjacent to streams, are at a higher
elevation, but generally not hydraulically connected to them.
Seven areas outlined on Figure 9 point out thick unconsolidated
deposits that contain aquifers (exclusive of channel aquifers).
The New Harmony Valley is the largest of such areas and is
drained southward by Ash Creek; the Hurricane deposits at the
southeast corner of the figure; in and around St. George are the
St. George and Washington Valleys' fields; Triangle Valley
deposits located along the south central boundary between Utah
and Arizona; and in the upper reaches of the Santa Clara River in
Pine Valley. Water discharge is yielded in moderate to large
quantities to wells penetrating these aquifers and its quality is
fresh to moderately saline.
The valley fill in both the Virgin River and Santa Clara
29
-------
(from Cordova, 1972, Pi. 2)
Basalt, some pyroclastics
Alluvial fans and terraces,
channel-fill deposits, sand
dunes, landslides, talus,
and mudflows
Tertiary sedimentary and
igneous rocks undifferentiated
Cretaceous rocks undifferentiated;
includes Kaiparowits and Tropic
Formations and Straight Cliffs,
Wahweap, and Dakota(?) Sandstones
Navajo Sandstone
Kayenta Formatiai
f Timo j
Moenave Formatio
Shinaump Member of Chinle Formation
Moenkopi Formation
Palezoic rocks undifferentiated;
includes Toroweap and Supai Formations,
Coconino Sandstone, Callville and
Redwall Limestones, Devonian to Cambrian
limestones undifferentiated, Pioche Shale,
ant1 Prospect Mountain Quartzite
Drainage divide
Figure 9 - GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE CENTRAL VIRGIN RIVER BASIN, UTAH
30
-------
River valleys is the principal aquifer in the St. George basin
and consists of Quaternary and Tertiary coalescing alluvial fans
aloncr the valley sides and flood-plain (channel-fill) deposits in
the central part of the valley floor These deposits supply
about 80 percent of the water pumped from wells that is used for
cublic suoDly, irrigation, domestic use and industry. Discharge
from wells during the period 1968-70 averaged 6,600 acre-feet
annually (Cordova, 1972, p. 1)•
The hydraulic gradient is steep along the Virgin River and
drocs some 200 feet between St. George and the Utah-Arizona
bo?der an airline distance of about 10 miles. The mean rate of
movement through the channel-fill aquifer is relatively high,
assumina a gradient of .004, an effective porosity of 30 percent,
and a hydraulic conductivity of 500 feet per day (these figures
are estimates and are P^i??d.?n^a"e^St;aS;vr|?^ daily
flow of water through this J^^^fJ^^iferg above stream
ami ifpr Thev do not include alluvial aquifers aoove stream
valleys*[alluvial fans], which have differing aquifer charac-
teristics).
Sources of ground-water inflow to the basin alluvial
aquifers inclSde infiltration from
streams, return flow Groun(j iater is removed from the
inflow from f^ace Virgin and Santa Clara Rivers, evapo-
alluvial aquifers vwells and underflow down gradient,
transpiration, production weixs
~ -*4 54-57) reported results of 26 samples
Cordova (1972, p. ' quality in the shallow, unconsoli-
that evaluated 9r°un^". the st George basin. He states,
dated aquifer systems mogt weU(g in the (area) yield
...The analyses indie ^ solids and sulfate concentrations
water that contains ais maxiItlumg. Most springs, however,
that exceed the reco"™*?*L dissolved solids and sulfate concen-
yield water that c°n™ h n the recommended maximums. Both
trations that *re Jefl® r,rentrations from wells and springs are
nitrate and chloride co:n imum iimits...The water from 20
generally less than . the unconsolidated rocks...has a
selected wells and ®Prr^ . a saiinity hazard that ranges from
sodium hazard that is low salinity or sodium hazards the
low to very high. The nign irrigation."
more unsuitable the water
, qvstenu. The Uinta Basin lies within
Uinta Basin ftift .!! ^afnaqe. Most of the basin is drained
the Upper Colorado tributaries, the largest two being the
by the Green River m^g majority of these tributaries
Duchesne and White Rivers. Tne majv* 2
„ and the Roan Plateau. The White
head in the Uinta Mountains piqure 2 & 10) . Some
River originates in Coiora Ba8in of northwest Colorado to
geologists consider the Picean^e
31
-------
be a part of the Uinta Basin although they are separated by the
Douglas Creek Arch and the Uncompahgre Uplift. None the less,
both are geologically similar.
The two important geologic units that contain aquifers are
the Tertiary Green River and Wasatch Formations. In the south-
western part of the basin, the principal aquifer is the Horse
Bench Sandstone Member or adjacent sandstone units. Cashion
{1967 p 4) further states, "...Commonly, the sandstone beds in
the Dougias Creek Member of the Green River Formation and in the
Renegade Tongue of the Wasatch Formation are the aquifers for_
springs in the southeastern part of the area..." (i.e., the Uinta
Basin).
Spanish v?iW Amiifer. The Spanish Valley drainage basin
lies within the Canyon Lands section of the Colorado Plateau
physiographic province. The valley is a narrow northwest-
trending feature that is about 25 miles long and has a maximum
width of about two miles. It lies within the Spanish Valley
svnclinal troucrh and is bordsred on tlie north, and south/ for th.6
most part, by outcrops of Jurassic Navajo Sandstone (Figure 11).
Spanish Valley is drained by Pack Creek and joins the Colorado
River a few miles northwest of the town of Moab.
The vallev fill of Quaternary age is the principal aquifer
in the valley and yields most of the wa^ej- that flows or is
Dumoed from wells in the basin. About 200 wells have been
drilled into unconsolidated fill deposits (Sumsion, 1971> Pro"
ducing water for domestic and irrigation purposes.
Prnr pi„rr Y-n«Y Aquifer. The Bear River unconsolidated
valley-fill aquifer is exposed along a 25-mile strip in eastern
Plrh Countv northern Utah. This exposure is a minor part of the
total Bear River drainage (over 300 miles long) which headwaters
iS uSS MiStSlL. flows northward into and out o£
Wyoming and Idaho and ultimately back intoDtah were it empties
into the Bear River Arm of the Great Salt Lake (Figure 12).
UNCONSOLIDATED BASIN-PILL AQUIFERS.
The important basin-fill aquifers in Utah are the those in
, , i fFicrure 13). For the most part,
the Lake Bonnev g aquifers occur in the Basin and Range
unconsolidated basin-fill aquite bounded on the eaBC b a
Province of "f^tern ntah. whlcn i co
roughly arcuate zone extending ^ ^ e*stern
southwest Utah to wasatch Front and structural elements of
theI1BSn1andURange Transition Zone. The major portion of the
province lies to ?he west in Nevada and portions of other states.
The Bonneville region has been the focus of numerous invest-
32
-------
112*
pigure 10 - Location map of Uinta Basin, Utah.
(from Cashion, 1974, p. G2}
33
-------
EXPLANATION
25 50 75 100 MILES
1—V
25 50 75 100 K1L0METLFiS
i'V
Figure 11 - Location of Spanish Valley, Utah.
(from Price, 1974, p. C27)
34
-------
1 1 2° 0 0'
42°00'-
4 !° 0 0
a 10 20 30 KILOMETERS
Figure 12 - Location of the lower and upper Bear River drainages,
UCail" (from Bjorklund, 1974, p. 4)
35
-------
igations, the most recent being that of Beddinger and others
(199 0) whose work characterizes the geology and hydrology of the
region' By extension, most of their findings and conclusions can
be instructive in dealing with the remainder of the eastern Great
Basin.
The concentration of mineral constituents in ground water is
expressed in units of dissolved solids and by chemical type.
Beddincrer (1990, p. G27) discusses the dissolved solids in basin-
fill deposits in the Bonneville district as follows: "The
concentration of dissolved solids is generally less than 500
mg/L. Dissolved solids increase near and in the major valleys
adjoining the Great Salt Lake Desert in the northern part of the
reaion The crreatest dissolved-solids concentration is in the
Great Salt Lake Desert where the concentration is greater than
200,000 milligrams per liter."
Paleoqene and Quaternary sedimentation in the eastern Great
Basin was widespread, and these sediments were deposited m
lucustrine and alluvial-basin environments that cover over 60
percent of the land surface. Interspersed in these environ-
ments are some 36 mountain ranges that exhibit typical north-
e t =»r,H p=nae linearity. The unconsolidated basm-fill
aauifers as shown on Figure 7 largely are within the boundaries
or^J lleistSe Lake Bonneville, whose upper shoreline ex-
tends from the southwest corner of "tah^west ofjg-rcity)
reqion^Lakf^Bonneville invaded many basins lying below the high-
water altitude ^ about 5.135 feet (Bissell. 1963, p. 124).
Sedimentary rook exposures throughout the inter-montane
basins are comprised of Miocene to Recent deposits of alluvium,
Dasins are compris ^ volcanic extrusives. Coarser
colluvium, lake mountain fronts that become finer basin-
mat^r^?^S °CC?Ji These deposits also make up the buried
ward (Figure 14}. T gravel deposits probably
provide"1 the°best sour^efformer Sater supply development.
There are some
the U.S. Geological Qaic and water-quality characteristics,
simiiar aquifer ri^ed herein. These three aquifers are
only three will be de ancient Lake Bonneville and include
all within the confine Valley and Weber Delta area.
Lower Bear River Valley, cacne vax j
, . . -viamieal types of ground water are reported
Four principal ch ^ fche Bonnevine are calcium-
by Beddinger p. di bicarbonate, mixed-cation sulfate,
magnesium bicarbonate, soaiim
and mixed-cation chloride (Figures 15 & i«.j
36
-------
Figure 13 - Generalized cross-section showing typical distri-
bution of unconsolidated sediments m a basin-fill aquifer.
Figure 14 - Index map of Lake
Bonneville showing high-
water level. 1. Lower Bear
Valley; 2. Cache Valley; 3.
Weber Delta area.
(from Bissell, 1963)
A correlation might
exist between chloride and
higher dissolved solids
content in the water. Quality
of ground water is the factor
in determining the sub-
district boundaries as noted
on Table 9.
Price (1979, p. 353) has
outlined more than 200 hydro-
hydrographic areas in the
Great Basin, which includes
those in Nevada and Utah.
Fifty-six of these are in the
eastern Great Basin east of
the Nevada-Utah state line to
the Wasatch Front (Figure 15
and Table 8). Most of the
runoff, and hence recharge to
the basin-fill aquifers, in
this region occurs in the
drainage basins of the Bear,
Weber, Jordan and Sevier
Rivers and from mountain
snow-packs throughout western
Utah. Some recharge is
through sub-surface inflow,
as well.
Table 9 includes quanti
tative estimates of each of
the 56 hydrographic areas
for basin area, average
precipitation, and for
ground water, recoverable
37
-------
storage (limited to the upper 100 feet of saturated basin-fill),
yield (of water suited for most common uses), and surface and
subsurface inflow and outflow.
Price (1979, p. 355) states, "...The chemical quality of
both surface and ground water is generally good in most parts of
the Great Basin...although water in the valley ground-water
reservoirs is generally fresh (containing less than 1,000 mg/1 of
dissolved solids), it is generally slightly to moderately saline
(containing 1,000 to 10,000 mg/1 of dissolved solids) m the
lower parts of some valleys and can be of even poorer quality in
the vicinity of the larger sink..."
T.nwpr Bear- River Drainage. The lower Bear River drainage
basin occupies about 730 square miles and includes parts of Box
Elder and Cache Counties in northern Utah. It comprises the
lower reaches of the Malad River, which headwaters in southern
Idaho, and the lower end of the Bear River, whose circuitous
course traverses parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Utah (see Figures 12
& 13). Four major canals divert and distribute waters from both
the Malad and Bear Rivers. The north-south elongate basin is
bordered on the east by Clarkston Mountain and the Wasatch Range,
among others, and on the west by the West and Blue Springs Hills.
Cache valley lies to the east of the Bear River basin and is an
irrnoortant agricultural area in Utah. The geology of Quaternary
deposits proposed by Bjorkland (1974) was adopted and compared to
adiacent areas, particularly that mapped by Williams (1962, p.
131? in Cache Valley, which was more detailed in the post-Salt
i111 Formation section. It is assumed that equivalent rock units
occur ?™o^aras but, if present, remain unmapped in the Bear
River basin.
Ground water in the lower Bear River drainage basin occurs
(1) in a principal ground-water system, (2) in a shallow uncon-
ejnpri avstem in the central plain area, and (3) in perched
fined system in h alluvium in the Bear River
SKHas s^ivSdidL£ BjSikuid (1974, p 14) into five map-
pable units! the only important one being
water production, is the lowest^ the
Bonneville Easi^ Itreata on tn ^ wellB have been
an extensive confining in part to the Alpine and
drilled, and whic y DOssibly to the younger Provo Formation
Bonneville Formations and possioxy ^ |
of Williams (op. cit.) and Bissell (1963, PI. 5).
^ iBear Valley drainage varies from dilute
bicarbonate^ater in the mountains to chloride brine at depth in
oicarDonate wacei a" source of dissolved solids m
the lower parts of , tiQn Qf the rocks that contain the
ground water is f lfc of accUmulation of soluble minerals in
water, and are hundred thousand years (Bjorkland, 1974,
the^basin^for^ati analyses by Bjorkiand and other indicate that
38
-------
113
41<>
EXPLANATION
WATER-QUALITY TYPE
Calcium-magnesium bicarbonate
Sodium bicarbonate
Mixed-cation sulfate
Mixed-cation chloride
BOUNDARY OF GROUND WATER UNIT
BV-01 DESIGNATION OF GROUND WATER UNIT
Fioure 15 - Distribution of chemical types of ground water in the
Bonneville region, Utah and Nevada.
(from Bedinger, 1990, p. G29)
39
-------
115°
113"
112°
~ir~
U A
ELDER fS
^
ail O
z i
I s r'--'-
\ Great \ 7 'WEBER
c„fr I /
\ Sai: V\
\ Lake
VV\ s
r
°\ W
•10"
L i N C 0 L N
50
j SEVER
BEAVER *) P!UTE j
>. i-
J GARFIELD
100 KILOMETERS-'. r—1
_J
I
25
1 WASHINGTON j KANE
50 MILES
EXPLANATION
DISSOLVED-SOLIDS CONCENTRATION
OF GROUND WATER IN BASIN FILL. IN
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
0 • 500
501 ¦ 1.000
1,001 • 3.000
3,001 • 10.000
Greater than 10,000
CONSOLIDATED ROCK
.210 WELL COMPLETED IN CONSOLIDATED
ROCK-Number is dissolved-solids concen-
tration of ground water, in milligrams per liter
BOUNDARY OF GROUND WATER UNIT
BV-01 DESIGNATION OF GROUND WATER UNIT
Figure 16 - Dissolved solids concentrations of ground water
t£e Bonneville region, Utah and Nevada.
(from Beddinger, 1990, p. G28)
in
40
-------
120*
*3', _MUS!
Bm« and hydrograpMe oouKtanaa
,rom Eaton. Pnca. and Hamll (1»7», Rfl. 5).
US'
100
WO MILES
'(HP
—i
?oo kilometers
Figure 17 - Map of the Great Basin showing hydrographic areas and
interarea movement of surface and ground water. The numbers
east of the Nevada-Utah state line refer to areas in the
Eastern Great Basin.
(from Price, 1979, fig. i)
41
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
dissolved solids in ground water range from about 88 to 122,000
mg/1 and calcium, magnesium and bicarbonate are the predominant
ions near the mountains, but sodium and chloride are predominant
in the brine and very saline waters at depth. Water from wells
and springs in the basin is used for irrigation, public supply,
livestock and domestic purposes.
Wells that develop water resources from basin fill commonly
range from 100 to 500 feet in depth, but may exceed 1,000 feet
(see Table 1). The more permeable fill deposits are in the upper
1,500 feet of the section (Bedinger, 1990, p. G-21). However, in
other areas, these structural basins contain alluvial deposits
that may range from 2,000 to 5,000 feet thick, but several exceed
10,000 feet in thickness (USGS W-SP 2275, p.298). Ground-water
levels fluctuate seasonally but have changed little over the past
60 years (Bjorkland, 1974, p. 2). Water for irrigation purposes
is derived mostly from surface sources, although, locally, ground
water provides almost all the water for this use.
Cache Vallev Aquifer. Cache Valley is a north-south
elongate structural basin located in northern Utah and southern
Idaho. It is about 70 miles long and 16 miles wide along the
state line. Bear River is the principal surface flow in the area
(see above section on the lower Bear River), enters the Utah
portion of Cache Valley in T.15 N., R.l W. and exits the valley
in T.13 N., R.l W., a distance of about 25 miles (see Figures 13
and 18) and supports a large agricultural sector in Cache Valley
along with a number of its tributaries. See Figure 13 for
location.
Geologically and hydraulically, Cache Valley is similar to
lower Bear Creek. Eleven areas of the region were described by
Bjorkluknd and McGreevey (1971) in term of water quality. In
some areas, water quality is good (see table 9), while in others,
it is poorly known or reach a dissolved-solids' content of about
1,600 mg/1.
Table 10 - Summary of ground-water quality in 11 areas in Cache
Valley, Utah.
(Kariya, 1994, p. 57)
Area
Dissolved solids
mg/1
General
Smithfield-Hyrum-
Wellsville
generally < 400
Quality of water is
generally good.
Little Bear River
area south of Hyrum
< 400
Chemical quality of
water is generally
good.
43
-------
Wellsville to
Newton
400 to 800
Ground water condi-
tions are poorly
known.
Lower Bear River-
Benson- The Barrens
400 to 1,200
Concentrations are on
low side near river.
Cub River subvalley
300 to 800
Clarkston
300 to 900
Weston Creek
Subvalley
300 to 800
Dayt on-Banida- Swan
Lake
200 to 1,500
Preston
300 to 1,600
Concentrations near
delta 400-1,600. Less
near Whitney.
Bear River inner
valley
400 to 800
Fairview-Lewiston-
Trenton
800 to 1,600
Quality of water
varies.
Weber Delta District Acraiferg. One of the principal inves-
tigations of ground-water resources of the Weber Delta region was
conducted by Feth and others (1966). Ground-water conditions
were studied in parts of the area, in the vicinity of Ogden, for
instance, by Dennis and McDonald (1944), while other workers in
adjacent and comparable areas provided useful ground-water
information that is applicable to the Weber Delta area (Thomas
and Nelson, 1948 - See Figure 13 for location of Weber Delta).
Unconsolidated basin-fill constitutes the main ground-water
aquifers in the area. The fill consists of coalescing alluvial
fans and flood deposits of Recent age and unconsolidated lacus-
trine rocks of the Lake Bonneville Group of Pleistocene age.
Local (and type of) lithology influence the quantity and quality
of water produced from these sediments. Most exploration
activities within these rocks have been limited to about 1,000
feet below the land surface.
As in similar areas situated along the west flank of the
Wasatch Front, recharge of water to the aquifers in the district
is from precipitation that falls on the basin and in adjacent
mountain ranges, seepage from through-flowing rivers (the Weber
and Ogden Rivers in the Delta area), irrigation and canal losses
and subsurface inflow. Feth (1966, p. 2) estimates that in the
200 cubic miles of unconsolidated sediments that underlie the
44
-------
basin, there are some 170 million acre-feet in storage. However,
much of this water is of poor quality or in sediments that do not
yield water readily. The maximum known depth to fresh water is
1,300 feet below the land surface, but most has been developed in
the upper 1,000 feet. Suitable quality water for most uses
reduces the storage estimate to about 700,000 acre-feet in
various localities and geologic conditions.
Feth and others (1966) and (1944), determined the quality of
ground and surface water in the district from over 500 samples.
Figure 18 shows the chemical character of ground water in the
Weber Delta and indicates that three principal chemical types are
recognized, (1) calcium magnesium bicarbonate, (2) sodium bicar-
bonate, and (3) sodium chloride (Feth, 1966, p. 60) .
CONSOLIDATED SEDIMENTARY ROCK AQUIFERS
The principal consolidated rock aquifers in Utah are
confined and range from lower Paleozoic through the Mesozoic
eras. Precambrian rocks are minor, local sources of water.
Two consolidated sedimentary aquifer groupings have been
identified by the U.S. Geological Survey in Utah. These are (1)
sandstone aquifers and aquifer systems of Mesozoic age within the
Upper Colorado River Basin (which includes parts of the Middle
Rocky Mountain subprovince) and/or Colorado Plateau regions, and
(2) limestone aquifers and aquifer systems of Paleozoic age
located in the Great Basin (see Figure 7).
Sandstone Aquifers and Aquifer Systems. Investigations by
Freethey (1991) have identified five Mesozoic aquifers or aquifer
systems and five regional intervening aquitards or confining
layers in eastern Utah.
The Tertiary/Upper Cretaceous aquifer system is separated
from the Mesozoic system by the Mancos Shale, a regional aquitard
that has an average thickness of 3,000 feet (see Table 2). The
base of this upper hydrologic unit is formed by the Mesaverde
Group (comprised of the Kaiparowits, Mesaverde, and Adaville
Formations; and the Wahweap, and Straight Cliffs Sandstones). It
is found in northeastern and part of southcentral Utah but is
missing in the eastcentral part of the state.
Where present, the Mesaverde aquifer has saturated thick-
nesses that range from less than 500 feet to over 2,000 feet;
however, in all cases, overlying rock units range from 2,000 to
12,000 feet in thickness. Because of the thicknesses of less than
2,000 feet, Freethey (1991, p. C48) states, "...The perimeters of
the Uinta...and Kaiparowits Basins are possible areas for ground-
water development." This, and subsequent, geohydrologic units
45
-------
AREAS OF GROUNO-WATER
OUALI T Y
Calcium or calcium magnesium
bicarbonate typt
Mort than SO ptretnt of cation* art (vr/rtum
ind wsfRfiiMM; mort rA«it SO ptrtmtof
>inxont art 4teurAnni(«; <-iRtatK« It** than
OS tpm of ehlond*
Sodium bicarbonate type
Mort fAa* So ptrrtnt 0/ ration* art sodium;
more *hnn SO p«rc«tt< 0/ irions ir« dicirr sodium;
mort than St> ptretnt nf rtUttfftt art chlondt:
utually contain* mort than l.S tpm nf
ehlondt
Various cypM
Shout tfftrt* of muniif unth wt*r of «o4ttu*
chlondt typo; usually contain* mort tham
O s *ym nf ehlondt
Sodium bicarbonac* typ»
(j'pptr _'5/> j'ttt is sodium buarltomatt 'VP*:
Lowtr part i* calcium mafN'ttiim 6ien r+nm-
att typt. Sodium tncarbmnatt typo contain*
HO-704) ppm of di**oittd noiid*: calcium
muQntttum bicarbonat* typt rontain* ISO*
JtM ppm •!/'di**oittd toiid*
Calcium magnesium bicarbonate type
Oi**olvtd solid content of »TW ppm i* upptr
ISO fttt end -VO'JWt ppm 1* lowtr part
Boundary between wat«r-
-------
described below are defined by Freethey, 1991, p. C12) and are
hereby referenced.
Throughout much of the Upper Colorado River Basin and High
Plateaus sections of the state, the upper geohydrologic unit is
underlain by the Mancos Shale, a thick (on average 4,000 feet)
sequence of Cretaceous marine shales, carbonates and other
elastics. Its hydrologic role is that of a regional aquitard or
confining unit that effectively precludes a hydraulic connection
between the Mesaverde aquifer system and the older Lower Cre-
taceous Dakota Formation. Upper Dakota rocks are mostly sand-
stone and mudstone, with some conglomerate in lower units - the
Cedar Mountain and the Burro Canyon Formations. However,
confining units may be capable of leaking large quantities of
water to adjacent rock units in tectonically-altered areas, such
as the Uinta Basin area. With few exceptions, a thick section of
rock units occur between the lower Cretaceous Dakota Formation
and the upper Triassic Navajo-Nugget aquifer (Figure 19). This
section includes the Morrison Formation, immediately below the
Dakota and the Curtis-Stump group, both of which are regional
confining units occurring within much of Utah east of the Wasatch
Front area. At the bottom of the Morrison is an aquifer that may
include parts of the Salt Wash Member and the Tidwell Members.
Beneath the Curtis-Stump confining unit is the Entrada-Preuss
aquifer system and subjacent rock units of the San Rafael Group,
that includes in Utah, the Entrada Sandstone, the Carmel
Formation and the basal Page Sandstone, all of which (except the
Entrada) are part of the thick lower Jurassic aquitard that
overlies the Navajo-Nugget regional aquifer system. Only in the
southeast part of the state can water resources of the Entrada-
Preuss be economically developed because overlying rock thickness
are less than 2,000 feet; however, the saturated thickness is
only about 100 feet (Freethey, 1991, p. C24) .
Freethey (op.cit, Pl.l) considers the rock units of the
entire Jurassic system and the Upper Triassic Navajo-Nugget
Sandstone to be a part of the Middle Mesozoic Aquifer System.
The Navajo-Nugget aquifer system is a large reservoir of water
throughout much of eastern Utah but is commonly overlain by a
large thickness of rock. This often precludes development by
wells in all but the southern part of the state, where the
aquifer occurs beneath overlying rocks that are less than 2,000
feet thick and the saturated thickness is more than 500 feet
(Freethey, 1991).
A lower hydrologic unit has been identified throughout Utah
and is comprised of the Chinle-Moenkopi Group and its equiva-
lents - the Ankareh and Thaynes Formations and Woodside Shale in
the Uinta Basin and Uplift areas. This confining units ranges
from 1,000 to 1,300 feet in thickness in Utah and rests directly
on Permian rocks, most of which are too deep for water develop-
ment by wells.
47
-------
~
Less than 2,000
~
2.000-12.000
m
More than 12,000
~
Thickness undetermined
n
Navajo-Nugget aquifer absent
Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey
1:2.500.000. 1974
QUERIED WHERE OCCURRENCE UNCERTAIN
Figure 19 - Total thickness of rock overlying the Navajo-Nugget
aquifer.
(from Freethey, 1991, p. C19)
48
-------
In the Colorado River Basin, Freethey (1991, p. CI)
discusses water quality on the basis of a southern half and a
northern half of the region. "...In general, water in the
Mesozoic rocks is fresh in the southern half...,where the
aquifers are exposed and easily recharged. Water generally is
very saline to briny in the northern half, where the aquifers are
confined beneath thick overburden and are distant from recharge
areas." There has been little development of ground water in
these aquifers because most are deeply buried and have other
hydrologic characteristic that preclude easy development. The
southern half offers the best opportunity for ground-water
development because of exposure, near-surface occurrences, and
relatively large saturated thicknesses of some units. Freethey
continues, "...Sodium chloride water having a dissolved-solids
content in excess of 35,000 (mg/1) is present in deep structural
basins; calcium bicarbonate water having a dissolved-solids
concentration of less than 2,000 (mg/1) generally is present
where aquifers are at shallow depths."
Figures 20 and 21 illustrate general water quality in the
two more important aquifers in the basin, in Mesozoic rocks in
general, and water resources on the basis of saturated
thickness and recharge potential (Figure 22).
Limestone Aquifers and Acruifer Systems.
Exposed in the mountain ranges of the eastern Great Basin
are a wide variety of sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous rocks
that range in age from Precambrian to Recent. Underlying the
unconsolidated alluvial basin deposits of this region is
stratigraphy typical of the Paleozoic miogeosynclinal carbonates
that date from Lower Cambrian to Triassic (see Figure 7). These
are the principal limestone (carbonate) aquifers and aquifer
systems in the State of Utah. An excellent example of Lower to
Middle Cambrian carbonate units can be seen on the west-facing
slope of the House Range in Tule Valley (Bedinger, 1990, p. G3) .
There were no marine sediments deposited in the eastern
Great Basin during Late Triassic/Early Jurassic time due to the
positive Mesocordilleran Highland that dominated the landscape of
western Utah and eastern Nevada.
The eastern Great Basin is part of the larger Great Basin,
which extends from the Sierra Nevada Range on the west to the
Wasatch Front on the east and occupies parts of five states.
Structural deformation has produced more than 13,000 feet of
relief between the lowest valley depressions and tops of adjacent
mountain ranges. Current topography is the result of mountain
building movements that began in mid-Cenozoic time.
Strata yielding generally usable quantities of water occur
49
-------
Base modified from U.S Geological Survey
1:2.500.000. 1974
25 50 MILES
-1—h '
25 50 KILOMETERS
EXPLANATION
OISSOLVED-SOLIDS
CONCENTRATION
IN MILLIGRAMS WATER QUALITY
PER LITER
Loss than 1,000 [ j Fresh
1.000-3,000 [ | Slightly saline
3,000-10,000 Moderately saline
10,000-35,000 Very saline
More than 35,000 Briny
m Uncertain
] Aquifers absent
Cheyenne
l/\
Late
Figure 20 - Quality of water (based on dissolved solids
concentration in the Navajo-Nugget and Entrada-Preuss
aquifers.
(from Freethey, 1984, p. 100!
50
-------
EXPLANATION
CONCENTRATION OF DISSOLVED SOLIDS,
IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
] All less than 2,000
j Most less tnan 2,000;
none more than 10,000
From 2,000 to 10,000
Most more than 2,000;
few more than 10,000
All more than 10,000
Extremely variable with
depth
Data not available
j ; Mesozoic aquifers absent
Base modified frorT
1:2,500.000, 1974
Figure 21
on the
Cayenne
38*
0 25 50 MILES
i—i—S 1
0 25 50 KILOMETERS
- Generalized quality of water in Mesozoic rocks based
concentration of dissolved solids.
(from Freethey, 1990, p. Ill)
\ U.S. Geological Survey
51
-------
Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey
1:2,500.000, 1974
EXPLANATION
RELATIVE WATER-YIELDING POTENTIAL
Good—Generally more than 1,000 feet
of saturated rock; recharge potential good
Moderate—More than 1,000 feet of
saturated rock with moderate recharge
potential, or less than 1,000 feet of
saturated rock with good recnarge potential
Marginal—More than 1,000 feet of saturated
rock with poor recharge potential, or less
than 1,000 feet of saturated rock with
moderate recharge potential
Poor—Less than 1,000 feet of
saturated rock with poor recharge
potential
Mesozoic aquifers absent
25 50 KILOMETERS
0-
A' R |
50 MILES
Figure 22 - Regional water resources in Mesozoic rocks as defined
by saturated thickness and recharge potential.
(from Freethey, 1990, p. 109]
52
-------
in four major aquifers or aquifer systems that range in age from
lower Cambrian to Quaternary. These formations or systems are
found in a sequence of layers that are mostly carbonate and are
variously exposed in mountain ranges or are buried in adjacent
basins. Faulting has truncated these formations along mountain
fronts and left them in contact with presumably younger units and
alluvial debris along basin/mountain-front margins. Most units
have been tilted and offset, often effectively truncating the
aquifers or confining units. It is presumed that the permea-
bilities of the carbonate rocks in the Great Basin are signifi-
cantly enhanced by tectonics. Consequently, ground water
evaluation will require information on the type, distribution and
intensity of fracturing associated with the various tectonic
activities, probably more easily said than done. Water flow
between carbonate aquifer systems (or any aquifer or system) is
usually a function of the geologic framework of the area; that
is, the sequence, thickness, structure and arrangement of
aquifers and confining units. Fractures and faults will
determine the paths that ground-water follows vertically through
these systems, as well as the physical makeup of the aquifer.
Unless exposed or in a near-surface environment, many of the
aquifers or aquifer systems are too deeply buried to be consid-
ered a source of water for wells. Formation or interformation
recharge to these systems can be vertical or lateral exchange of
water percolating along fault planes or fault and formational
boundaries. It should be noted that carbonates, in near-surface
environments, are very fragile and where faulted or folded are
likely to be highly permeable due to closely-spaced fracture
sets. Many rock units have well-developed solution channels or
openings developed along the fracture sets occurring in a near-
surface environment.
The lower Paleozoic aquifer and confining units are the
deepest and are regionally extensive. Little is known of the
geohydrology of the formations making up this system, but it
contains 12 or more distinct formations, the lowest unit being
the Pioche Shale of lower Cambrian age and the highest being
various Ordovician units that are mostly dolomite, quartzite and
shale. Most of the remaining formations are limestones that
probably are aquitards, the exception being the lower Ordovician
House Limestone unit, where exposed or in the near surface, is
intensely fractured and considered a principal aquifer.
The 4,000 feet or so of carbonates that make up the Middle
Paleozoic Aquifer-Aquitard System has at its base the Laketown
Dolomite, which exhibits dominant vertical fractures, and is
capped by the Guilmette Formation, a unit with intense fracture
sets developed normal to bedding. These two formations are
separated by the Simonson and Sevy Dolomites, which may be
aquifers locally or widespread confining units.
53
-------
The base of the Upper Paleozoic System is the lower Missis-
sippian Pilot Shale, a regional aquitard.
Precambrian Aquifers. Complexly deformed and metamorphosed
crystalline rocks of Precambrian age form the basement units in
Utah. They are found in scattered locations in the state, and
the largest exposure forms the core of the Uinta Mountains.
Although the Precambrian is the lower boundary of the regional
aquifer system, these rocks are not considered to be important
water-bearing sequences except locally where structural features
control discharge.
GROUND-WATER USE & ASSESSMENT
The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated the availability,
source and use of ground water in Utah (Pyper, 1990, p. 495). On
the basis of these estimates for each economic sector, ground-
water use totals 731 million gallons per day, which is 18 percent
of the total water available in the state (Table 9).
Agriculture is the largest user of ground water in Utah, the
principal use of which is cropland irrigation. The uncon-
solidated basin-fill and valley-fill aquifers supply most of
water withdrawn by wells. The basin-fill deposits of the Great
Basin providing, by far, the largest production in the amount of
422 million gallons per day, while valley-fill aquifers provide
29 million gallons per day. Agriculture uses about 62 percent of
the daily production from the unconsolidated alluvial aquifer,
plus 4 million gallons per day from isolated wells tapping sand-
stone and carbonate aquifers.
The remaining 38 percent of ground-water use is apportioned
to four other economic sector: (1) public supply - 20 percent;
(2) industrial/mining - 9 percent; (3) domestic - 7 percent; and
(4) thermoelectric - 2 percent.
Of the 4,121 million gallons of water per day that are
available in the state, surface water-use utilizes 82 percent of
this source, mostly in the Upper Colorado River and Bear River
drainages. Freethey (1991, p. C2) states, "...surface water has
been overappropriated (in the Colorado River Basin), whereas
ground water has not been extensively developed. Surface-water
supplies have proved inadequate to meet the demands of local and
downstream users. Applications exceed,...in gross rate of water
claimed, the flow of the Colorado River." The magnitude of this
use suggests a need for greater development of ground-water
sources to meet probable demands in the basin.
Virtually all of the stratigraphic units within Utah yield
sufficient quantities of water for local and minor usage. These
include Precambrian metamorphic rocks and Tertiary volcanic
54
-------
sections. However, few bedrock formations are developed as
sources on a regional basis because of deep burial, low
transmissivities, and the presence of poor quality (mostly
saline) water. Even thick sequences of low-permeability rocks
can yield some water, more particularly from fracture or fault
zones or sandy interbeds.
55
-------
Table 11
GROUND-WATER ASSESSMENT
WATER AVAILABILITY, SOURCE AND USE IN UTAH, 1987
(in million gallons per day)
State
Total Water
Available
Source
Surface Ground
Water Water
Domestic/
Commercial
Industrial/
Mining
Thermo/
electric
Agriculture
Return
Flow
Utah
4,121
3,390 731
82% (M 18%
346 93
8% 2%
43 185
1% 4%
24
1%
3, 620
87%
1, 679
(1) Percent of total water available. Due to rounding, percentages may not equal 100%.
Aquifer System
Domestic/
Commercial
Public Supply
Industrial/
Mining
Thermo-
electric
Agriculture
Totals
UTAH
Unconsolidated
basin fill
50
124
62
12
422
670
Unconsolidated
valley fill
1
19
7
29
55
Carbonate
aquifers
1
1
Sandstone
aquifers
3
3
5
Totals
% of Total (2)
51
7
146
20
69
9
12
2
455
62
731
100
(2) Percentage of total ground-water withdrawn.
56
(adapted from Pyper, 1990, p. 495)
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES CITED
GENERAL
Anderson, L.W., and Miller, D.G., 1980, Quaternary faulting in
Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 80-801.
Cook, E.F., 1960, Geologic atlas of Utah - Washington County:
Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 70.
Batty, D.M., Herbert, L.R., and others, 1992, Ground-water
conditions in Utah, spring of 1992: Utah Division of
Natural Resources Cooperative Investigations Report No. 32.
Bradley, W.H., 1964, Geology of the Green River Formation and
associated Eocene rocks in southwestern Wyoming and adjacent
parts of Colorado and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 496-A.
, 1939, Structure of the Wasatch-Great Basin region:
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 50, no 8,
p. 1277-1310.
Freethey, G.W., and Cordy, G.E., 1991, Geohydrology of Mesozoic
rocks in the Upper Colorado River Basin in Arizona, Colo-
rado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, excluding the San Juan
Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1411-C.
Hantush, M.S., 1960, Modification of the theory of leaky
aquifers: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 65, no. 11, p.
3713-3725.
Hardy, E.E., and Gates, J.S., 1993, Water-resources activities in
Utah by the U.S. Geological Survey, October 1, 1991 to
September 30, 1992: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
93-467.
Hintze, L.F., 1974, Geologic map of Utah: ia Stokes, 1987: Brig-
ham Young University Geology Studies-Special Publication 3.
Jensen, M.E., Lowe, Mike, Wireman, Michael, 1993, Investigation
of hydrogeologic mapping to delineate protection zones
around springs: U.S. Environmenal Protection Agency, R.S.
Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK, CR-817607-
01-0 (Draft).
Jensen, M.E., and Lowe, M., 1992, Preliminary results of using
hydrogeologic mapping to delineate protection areas around
Sheep Spring, Washington County, Utah: in Harty, K.M., ed.,
Engineering and Environmental Geology of Southwestern Utah:
Utah Geological Association Publication 21, p. 233-243.
57
-------
Lattman, L.H., 1958, Technique of mapping geologic fracture
traces and lineaments on aerial photographs:
Photogrammetric Engineering, v. 24., p. 568-576.
McGuinness, C.L., 1951, Water law with special reference to
ground water: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 117.
Miller, J.A., 1990, Ground water atlas of the United States,
segment 2 (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah: U.S.
Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-C
(in progress).
Pyper, G.E., 1990, Utah water supply and us6: ia National Water
Summary 1987-Hydrologic events and water supply and use:
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2350, p. 491-498.
Rush, F.E., Whitfield, M.S., and Hart, I.M., 1982, Regional
hydrology of the Green River-Moab area, northwestern Paradox
Basin, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-
107.
Shuey, R.T., and others, 1973, Aeromagnetics and the transition
between the Colorado Plateau and Basin and Range Provinces:
Geology, v. 1, no. 3, p. 107-110.
Stokes, W.L., 1987, Geology of Utah: Utah Museum of Natural
History and Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Paper #6.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1991, Bibliography of regional aquifer-
system analysis program of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1978-
1991 (Upper Colorado and Great Basin Sections): Water
Resources Investigations Report 91-4122.
Weir, J.E., Jr., Maxfield, E.G., and Hart, I.M., 1983,
Reconnaissance of the geohydrology of the Moab-Monticello
area, western Paradox Basin, Grand and San Juan Counties,
Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 83-4217.
UNCONSOLIDATED VALLEY-PILL DEPOSITS
Arnow, Ted, Van Horn, Richard, and LaPray, Reed, 1970, The pre-
Quaternary surface in the Jordan Valley, Utah: U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 700-D, p. D257-D261.
Bjorkland, L.J., and Robinson, G.B., Jr., 1968, Ground-water
resources of the Sevier River between Yuba and Leamington
Canyons, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
1848.
58
-------
Bjorkland, L.J., 1969, Reconnaissance of the ground-water
resources of the upper Fremont River valley, Wayne County,
Utah: Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical
Publication 22.
Blanchard, P.J., 1990, Ground-water conditions in the Grand
County area, Utah, with emphasis on the Mill Creek-Spanish
Valley area: Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical
Publication 100.
Callaghan, E., and Parker, R.L., 1961, Geology of the Monroe
quadrangle, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Geological
Quadrangle Map GQ-155.
, 1962a, Geology of the Delano Peak quadrangle, Utah:
U.S. Geological Survey Geological Quadrangle Map GQ-153.
, 1962b, Geology of the Sevier quadrangle, Utah: U.S.
Geological Survey Geological Quadrangle Map GQ-156.
Carpenter, C.H., and Young, R.A., 1963, Ground-water data,
central Sevier Valley, parts of Sanpete, Sevier and Piute
Counties, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey open-file report,
34 p.
Carpenter, C.H., Robinson, G.B., Jr., and Bjorkland, L.J., 1967,
Ground-water conditions and geologic reconnaissance of the
upper Sevier River basin, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 1836.
Clyde, G.C., 1987, Ground-water resources of the Virgin River
basin in Utah: Utah Water Research Laboratory, Logan, Utah.
Connor, J.G., Mitchell, C.G., and others, 1958, A compilation of
chemical quality data for ground and surface water in Utah:
Utah State Engineer Technical Publication 10.
Gilliland, W.N., 1963, Sanpete-Sevier Valley anticline of central
Utah: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 74, no. 2,
p. 115-123.
Hahl, D.C., and Cabell, R.E., 1965, Quality of surface water in
the Sevier Lake basin, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey open-
file report.
Harden, D.R., Biggar, N.E., and Gillam, M.L., 1985, Quaternary
deposits and soils in and around Spanish Valley, Utah, in
Weide, D.L,, ed., Soils and Quaternary Geology of the
Southwestern United States: Geological Society of America
Special Paper 203.
59
-------
Hardy, C.T., 1952, Eastern Sevier Valley, Sevier and Sanpete
Counties, Utah: Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey
Bulletin 43.
Haws, F. W., 1969, Water related land use in the Bear River
drainage area: Utah State University Water Research
Laboratory Report PR-WG 40-2.
Hill, R.W., Israelsen, E.K., Huber, A.L., and Riley, J.P., 1970,
A hydrologic model of the Bear River basin: Utah State
University Water Research Laboratory Report PR_WG 72-1.
Hintze, L.F., ed., 1962, Geology of the southern Wasatch
Mountains and vicinity, Utah: Brigham Young University,
Geology Studies, v. 9, pt. 1.
Hood, J.W., and Waddell, K.M., 1968, Hydrologic reconnaissance of
Skull Valley, Tooele County, Utah: Utah Department of
Natural Resources Technical Publication No. 18.
Kinney, D.M., 1955, Geology of the Uinta River-Brush Creek area,
Duchesne and Uintah Counties, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey
Bulletin 1007.
Klauk, R.H., 1988, Causes of shallow ground-water problems in
part of Spanish Valley, Grand County, Utah: Utah Geological
and Mineral Survey Open-File Report 129.
Mower, R.W., and Feltis, R.D., 1968, Ground-water hydrology of
the Sevier Desert, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Supply Paper 1854.
Richardson, G.B., 1907, Underground water in Sanpete and central
Sevier Valleys, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 199.
Ritzma, H.R., 1959, Geologic atlas of Utah, Dagget County: Salt
Lake City. Utah. Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey
Bulletin 66.
Roark, D.M., and Hanson, K.M., 1992, Selected hydrologic data for
Cache Valley, Utah and Idaho, 1969-91: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 92-173.
Sears, J.D., 1924, Relations of the Browns Park Formation and the
Bishop Conglomerate and their role in the origin of the
Green and Yampa Rivers: Geological Survey of America
Bulletin, v. 35.
60
-------
Seiler, R.L., and Waddell, K.M., 1984, Reconnaissance of the
shallow-unconfined aquifer in Salt Lake Valley, Utah: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-
4272 .
Stokes. W.L., and Madsen, J.H., Jr., compilers, 1961, Geologic
map of Utah-northeast quarter: Salt Lake City, Utah, Utah
Geological and Mineralogical Survey, scale 1:250,000.
Sumsion, C.T., 1971, Geology and water resources of the Spanish
Valley area, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah: Utah
Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication 32.
Utah State University and Utah Water and Power Board, 1963,
Developing a State water plan, Utah's water resources-
problems and needs, a challenge: Utah Water and Power
Board-Utah State University, 122 p.
Waddell, K.M., 1970, Quality of surface water in the Bear River
basin, Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Release (duplicated as Utah Basic-Data Release
18) .
Waddell, K.M., and Price, Don, 1972, Quality of surface water in
the Bear River basin, Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho: U.S.
Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-4147.
'Woolley, R.R., 1930, The Green River and its utilization: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 618.
Young, R.A., 1960, Ground-water areas and well logs, central
Sevier Valley, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey open-file
report.
Young, R.A., and Carpenter, C.H., 1965, Ground-water conditions
and storage in the central Sevier Valley, Utah: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1787.
UNCONSOLIDATED BASIN-PILL AQUIFERS and THE GREAT BASIN SECTION OF
THE BASIN AND RANGE PROVINCE
Bedinger, M.S., Sargent, K.A., and Langer, W.H., 1990, Studies of
geology and hydrology in the Basin and Range Province,
southwestern United States, for isolation of high-level
radioactive waste-characterization of the Bonneville Region,
Utah and Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1370-G.
61
-------
Bedinger, M.S., Mason, J.L., Langer, W.H., Gates, J.S., Stark,
J.R., and Mulvihill, D.A. , 1984, Maps showing ground-water
levels, springs,and depth to ground water, Basin and Range
Province, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 83-4122B.
Beer, L.P., 1967, Ground-water hydrology of southern Cache
Valley, Utah: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Ph.D.
dissertation.
Bissell, H.J., 1963, Lake Bonneville: Geology of Southern Utah
Valley, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
257-A, B, 5c C.
Bjorklund, L.J., and McGreevy, L.J., 1971, Ground-water resources
of Cache Valley, Utah and Idaho: Utah Department of Natural
Resources Technical Publication No. 36.
, 1974, Ground-water resources of the lower Bear Creek
River drainage basin, Box Elder County, Utah: Utah
Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication no.
44.
Boettcher, J.W., and Sloan, Jr., W.W., eds., I960, Guidebook to
the geology of east central Nevada: Intermountain
Association of Petroleum Geologists and Eastern Nevada
Geological Society.
Bolke, E.L., and Sumsion, C.T., 1978, Hydrologic reconnaissance
of the Fish Springs Flat area, Tooele, Juab, and Millard
Counties, Utah: Utah Department of Natural Resources
Technical Publication 64.
Bunch, R.L., and Harrill, J.R., 1984Compilation of selected
hydrologic data from the MX missile-siting investigation,
east-central Nevada and western Utah: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 84-702.
Christenson, G.E., and Deen, R.D., 1983, Engineering geology of
the St. George area, Washington County, Utah: Utah
Geological and Mineral Survey Special Studies 58, plate 1.
Clyde, C.G., Jeppson, R.E., and Liu, Win-Kai, 1984, A groundwater
model of Cache Valley, Utah: Utah Water Research Laboratory
Hydraulics and Hydrology Series, UWRL/H-84/04.
Cordova, R.M., Sandberg, G.W., and McConkie, W., 1972, Ground-
water conditions in the central Virgin River Basin, Utah:
Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical Publ. 40.
62
-------
Cordova, R.M., 1978, Ground-water conditions in the Navajo Sand-
stone in the central Virgin River Basin, Utah: Utah
Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication 61.
Dennis, P.E., 1966, Ground-water recharge in the East Shore area
Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report.
Dennis, P.E., and McDonald, H.R., 1944, Ground water in the
vicinity of Ogden, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report.
Eakin, T.E., 1966, A regional interbasin ground-water system in
the White River area, southeastern Nevada: Nevada Depart,
of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water Resources
Bulletin 33.
Eakin, T.E., Chm., and others, 1971, Comprehensive framework
study, Great Basin Region, Appendix V (water resources):
Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee, Water Resources
Council open-file report.
Eakin, T.E., Price, Don, and Harrill, J.R., 1976, Summary
appraisals of the Nation's ground-water resources - Great
Basin Region: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
813-G.
Feth, J.H., Barker, D.A., Moore, L.G., Brown, R.J., and Veirs,
C.E., 1966, Lake Bonneville: Geology and hydrology of the
Weber Delta District, including Ogden, Utah: U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 518.
Fetter, Jr., C.W., 1980, Applied Hydrogeology: C.E. Merrill
Publishing Company, p. 167-171.
Gates, J.S., 1984, Hydrogeology of northwestern Utah and
adjancent parts of Idaho and Nevada: Utah Geological
Association Publication 13, p. 239-248.
Gates, J.S., and Kruer, S.A., 1981, Hydrologic reconnsissance of
the southern Great Salt Lake Desert and summary of the
hydrology of west-central Utah: Utah Department of Natural
Resources Technical Publication 71.
Goode, H.D., 1979, Hot water of western Utah: ifl 1979 Basin and
Range Symposium and Great Basin Field Conference, Rocky
Mountain Asssociation of Geologists and Utah Geological
Association, p. 371-380. 3
63
-------
Hagen, R.H., (Chm), and others, 1971, Comprehensive framework
study, Great Basin Region, Appendix XV (water quality,
pollution control and health factors): Pacific Southwest
Interagency Committee, Water Resources Council open-file
report.
Harrill, J.R., 1984, Great Basin aquifer systems, Nevada-Utah -
an overview, is Water Today and Tomorrow: American Society
of Civil Engineers, Irrigation and Drainage Division,
Specialty Conference Proceedings, Flagstaff, AZ, 1984,
p. 590-597.
, 1986, Great Basin regional aquifer-system study, in
Sun, R.J., ed., Regional aquifer-system analysis program of
the U.S. Geological Survey - Summary of projects, 1978-84:
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1002, p. 146-151.
Harrill, J.R.,Welch, A.H., and Preissler, A.M., 1984, Hydro-
geologic controls on ground-water flow in Stagecoach Valley,
Nevada, in Lintz, J. Jr., ed., Western Geologic Excursions:
Reno, University of Nevada, Mackay School of Mines, v. 3,
p. 117-120.
Hilpert, L.S., ed.f 1964, Mineral and water resources of Utah:
Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Bulletin 73.
Hood, J.W., and Rush, F.E., 1965, Water-resources appraisal of
the Snake Valley area, Utah and Nevada: Utah State Engineer
Techncical Publication 14.
Hood, J.W., and Waddell, K.M., 1968, Hydrologic reconnaissance of
Skull Valley, Tooele County, Utah: Utah Department of
Natural Resources Technical Publication 29.
Kariya, K.A, Roark, D.M., and Hanson, K.M., 1994, Hydrology of
Cache Valley, Cache County, Utah, and adjacent parts of
Idaho, with emphasis on simulation of ground-water flow:
Utah Department of Natural Resources, Technical Publication
no. 108.
Kay, Marshall, 1947, Geosynclinal nomemclature and the craton:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v.
31, no. 7, p. 1289-1293.
Leggette, R.M., and Taylor, G.H., 1937, Geology and ground-water
resources of Ogden Valley, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 796-D, p. 99-161.
Miller, G.M., 1966, .Structure and stratigraphy of southern part
of Wah Wah Mountains, southwest Utah: American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 50, no. 5, p. 858-900.
64
-------
Mower, R.w., and Feltic, R.E. 1968, Ground water hydrology of the
Sevier Desert, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1854.
Nakata, J.K., Wentworth, C.M., and Machette, M.N., 1982, Qua-
ternary fault map of the Basin and Range and Rio Grande rift
provinces, western United States: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 82-579.
Nevada Division of Water Resources, 1971, Water resources and
interbasin flows: Nevada Division of Water Resources Map.
Oliveira, M.E., 1975, Geology of the Fish Springs mining
district, Fish Springs Range, Utah: Provo, Brigham Young
University Geology Studies, v. 22. p.69-104.
Peterson, W., 1946, Ground water supply in Cache Valley, Utah,
available for domestic and irrigation use: Utah State
Agricultural College Extension Service, No. 133.
Price, D., Eakin, T.E., and others, 1974, Water in the Great
Basin Region, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming: U.S.
Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-487.
Price, Don, 1979, Summary appraisal of the water resources of the
Great Basin: in 1979 Basin and Range Symposium and Great
Basin Field Conference, Rocky Mountain Association of
Geologists and Utah Geological Association, p. 353-360.
Razem, A.C., and Steiger, J.I., 1981, Ground-water conditions in
Tooele Valley, Utah, 1976-78: Utah Department of Natural
Resources Technical Publication 69.
Smith, R.E., and Gates, J.S., 1963, Ground-water conditions in
the southern and central parts of the East Shore area, Utah,
1953-61: Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey Water-
Resources Bulletin 2.
Stephens, J.C., 1974, Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Wah Wah
Valley drainage basin, Millar and Beaver Counties, Utah:
Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical Pub. 47.
, 1976, Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Pine Valley
drainage basin, Millard, Beaver, and Iron Counties, Utah:
Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical Pub. 5i.
, 1978, Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Tule Valley
drainage basin, Juab and Millard Counties, Utah: Utah
drainage basin, juao ana mnaiu uj.es, utan: ucan
Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication 56,
65
-------
stokes W L 1979, Paleohydrographic history of the Great Basin
Reqion:'in 1979 Basin and Range Symposium and Great Basin
Field Conference, Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists
and Utah Geological Association, p. 345-351.
Taylor, G.H., and Leggette, R.M., 1949, Ground water of the
Jordan Valley, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1029.
Thomas H E 1946, Ground water in Tooele Valley, Tooele County,
Utah: Utah State Engineer 25th Biennal Report, p. 91-238.
Thompson, T.H., and Chappell,R.W., 1984 Jfeps showing distri-
bution of dissolved solids and dominant chemical type in
around water, Basin and Range Province, Nevada: U.S.
Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 83-
4122C.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1977, Water resources data for Utah,
water year 1977: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report
UT 77-1.
Valley Engineering and Hanse, Allen, and Luce 1990, Cache Valley
ground water development alternative study: Bear River
Water Conservancy District, May 1990.
wi1hpra D E 1991, Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Sevier Lake
Sia,'west-central Utah: Utah Department of Natural
Resources Technical Publication No. 96.
Williams J S 1948, Geology of the Paleozoic rocks, Logan quad-
rsmgle] Utah: Bulletin of the Geological Society of
America, v. 59, P. 1121-1164.
1962 Lake Bonneville: Geology of southern Cache
Valley, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
257-C.'
COLORADO PLATEAU
Anderson, D.W., and Rowley, P.D., 1975, Stratigraphy of the
Duchesne River Formation (Eocene-Oligocene?) northern Uinta
Basin, northeastern Utah: Utah Geological and Mineral
Survey Bulletin 97.
Andrews, D.A., and Hunt, C.B., 1948, Geologic map of eastern and
southern Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Preliminary Map 70,
Oil and Gas Investigation Series.
66
-------
Bailey, R.S., 1935, Epicycles of erosion in the valleys of the
Colorado Plateau Province: Journal of Geology, v. 43, pp.
337-355.
Baker, A.A., Huddle, J.W., and Kinney, D.M., 1949, Paleozoic
geology of north and west sides of Uinta Basin, Utah:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v.
33, pp. 1161-1197.
Bowers, W.E., 1972, The Canaan Peak, Pine Hollow, and Wasatch
Formations in the Table Cliff region, Garfield County, Utah:
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1331-B.
Brogden, R.F., and Giles, T.F., 1976, Availability and chemical
characteristics of ground water in central La Plata County,
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations 76-69.
Carpenter, C.H., Robinson, G.B., and Bjorklund, L.J., 1967,
Ground-water conditions and geologic reconnaissance of the
upper Sevier River Basin, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 1836.
Cashion, W.B., 1967, Geology and fuel resources of the Green
River Formation, southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 548.
Cashion, W.B., and Donnell, J.R., 1974, Revision of nomenclature
of the upper part of the Green River Formation, Piceance
Creek Basin, Colorado, and eastern Uinta Basin, Utah: U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 1394-G.
Clark, F.R., 1928, Economic geology of the Castlegate,
Wellington, and Sunnyside Quadrangles, Carbon County, Utah:
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 793.
Cordova, R.M., 1978, Ground-water conditions in the Navajo
Sandstone in central Virgin River basin, Utah: Utah
Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication 61.
Duncan, D.C., Hail, W.J., Jr., O'Sullivan, R.B., and Pipiringos,
G.N., 1974, Four newly named tongues of Eocene Green River
Formation, northern Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado: U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 1394-F.
Forrester, J.D., 1937, Structure of the Uinta Mountains:
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 48, no. 5., pp.
631-666.
67
-------
Freethey, G.W., and Cordy, G.E., 1991, Geohydrology of Mesozoic
rocks in the upper Colorado River Basin in Arizona, Colo-
rado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, excluding the San Juan
Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1411-c.
Heilweil, V.W., and Freethey, G.W., 1992, Hydrology of the Navajo
Sandstone in southwestern Utah and northwestern Arizona,
including computer simulations of ground-water flow and
water level declines that could be caused by proposed
withdrawals, in Harty, K.M., ed., Engineering and
Environmental Geology of southwestern Utah: 1992 Field
Symposium, Utah Geological Association Publication 21, p.
213-231.
Huddle, J.w., and McCann, F.T., 1947, Geologic map of Duchesne
River area, Wasatch and Duchesne Counties, Utah: U.S.
Geological Survey Preliminary Map 75, Oil and Gas
Investigations Series.
Hunt, C.B., 1956, Cenozoic Geology of the Colorado Plateau: U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 279.
Irwin, J.H., 1966, Geology and availability of ground water on
the Ute Mountain Indian Reservation, Colorado and New
Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1576-G.
Kinney, D.M., 1951, Geology of the Uinta River and Brush Creek-
Diamond Mountain areas, Duchesne and Uintah Counties, Utah:
U.S. Geological Survey Map OM 123, Oil and Gas
Investigations Series.
Kinney, D.M., and Rominger, J.F., 1947, Geology of the Whiterocks
River-Ashley Creek area, Uintah County, Utah: U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Preliminary Map 82, Oil and Gas Investi-
gations Series.
Knowlton, F.H., 1914, Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in the Rocky
Mountain region: Geological Society of America Bulletin v
25.
Longwell, C.R., Miser, H.D., Moore, R.C., and others, 1923, Rock
formations in the Colorado Plateau of southeastern Utah and
northern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
132-A. y
McKnight, E.T., 1940, Geology of area between Green and Colorado
Rivers, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah: U.S Geoloa-i
Survey Bulletin 908. y tdA
Maxey, G.B., 1946, Geology of part of the Pavant Range Millard
County, Utah: American Journal of Science, v. 244' p 324-
68
-------
Miser, H.D., 1924a, The San Juan Canyon, southeastern Utah, a
geographic and hydrographic reconnaissance: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 53 8.
O'Sullivan, R.B., 1965, Geology of the Cedar Mesa-Boundary area,
San Juan County, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin
1186.
Prommel, H.W.C., and Crum, H.E., 1927a, Structural history of
parts of southeastern Utah from interpretation of geologic
sections: American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin v. 11, p. 809-820.
Robinson, G.B., Jr., 1971, Ground-water hydrology of the San
Pitch River drainage basin, Sanpete County, Utah: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1896.
Smith, J.F., Jr., Huff, L.C., Hinrichs, E.N., and Luedke, R.G.,
1963, Geology of the Capital Reef area, Wayne and Garfield
Counties, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
363 .
Spangler, L.E., 1992, Physical extent, thickness, and quality of
water of the principal aquifers, western Kane County, Utah
is Harty, K.M., Engineering and Environmental Geology of
southwestern Utah: 1992 Field Symposium, Utah Geological
Association Publication 21.
Spieker, E.M., 1949, The transition between the Colorado Plateau
and the Great Basin in central Utah: Utah Geological
Society, Guidebook to the Geology of Utah, no. 4.
Spieker, E.M., and Baker, A.A., 1928, Geology and Coal Resources
of the Salina Canyon District, Sevier County, Utah: U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 796-C.
Stokes, W.L., 1944, Morrison Formation and related deposits in
and adjacent to the Colorado Plateau: Geological Societv of
America Bulletin, v. 55, no 8, p. 951-992.
Stokes, W.L., and Holmes, C.N., 1954, Jurassic rocks of south-
central Utah, is Intermountain Association of Petroleum
Geologists Guidebook, 5th Annual Field Conference 1954
p. 34-41. ' '
Thomas, C.R., McCann, F.T., and Ramon, N.D., 1945, Mesozoic and
Paleozoic stratigraphy in northwest Colorado and northe**!-
Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Preliminary Chart 16 o-i i
Gas Investigations Series. b' 011 and
69
-------
SURFACE\GROUND WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
WATER AVAILABILITY, SOURCES AND USE IN REGION VIII - 1987
(in million gallons per day)
Economic
Sector
Source
State
Total Water
Surface
Ground
Available
Water
Water
Domestic\
Industrial\
Thermo-
Agriculture
Public
Commercial
Mining
electric
Supply
CO
13,500
11,200
2,310
473
258
138
59
13
12,500
66
(83%)
(17%)
(4%)
(2%)
(1%)
(.4%)
(1%)
(92%)
(<1%)
MT
8, 650
8,450
200
106
67
57
4
67
8,350
- 62
(98%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
(1%)
(97%)
(<1%)
WY
6,200
5,700
462
74
49
165
238
5, 670
27
(92%)
(8%)
(1%)
(1%)
(3%)
(4%)
(92%)
(<1%)
UT
4,180
3,390
731
346
93
43
185
24
3, 620
146
(81%)
(19%)
(8%)
(9%)
(1%)
(4%)
(1%)
(87%)
(4%)
ND
1,170
1, 040
128
54
28
2
13
892
176
2
(89%)
(11%)
(5%)
(2%)
(.2%)
(1%)
(77%)
(15%)
(0%)
SD
674
229
445
77
32
11
40
7
507
116
(37%)
(63%)
(11%)
(5%)
(2%)
(6%)
(1%)
(75%)
(75%)
Totals
34,374
30,009
4,276
1, 130
572
333
383
1,241
30,823
419
% = Percent of total water available for all entries.
Return Flow - CO, 7,887; Mt, 6,538; WY, 3,095; UT, 1,679; ND, 146; and SD, 180.
(adapted from USGS WSP 2350)
-------
GROUND-WATER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
GROUND-WATER WITHDRAWALS BY AQUIFER SYSTEM IN REGION VIII - 1985
(in million gallons per day)
Aquifer System
Public
Supply
Domestic &
Commercial
Indutrial
& Mining
Thermo-
electric
Agriculture
Totals
COLORADO
South Platte River Valley
21
6
14
7
739
785
High Plains System
5
2
—
811
818
Arkansas River Valley
18
2
1
8
213
243
Denver Basin System
17
3
1
11
33
San Luis Valley System
5
2
414
421
Totals
66
12
16
17
1,198
2,310
% of Totals
3
<1
1
1
95
100
MONTANA
Western Cenozoic Systems
39
6
28
33
106
Eastern Cenozoic Systems
18
4
1
51
74
Mesozoic Aquifer Systems
3
3
<1
9
15
Paleozoic Aquifer Systems
2
<1
2
5
Totals
62
13
30
95
200
% of Totals
31
7
15
48
100
-------
WYOMING
High Plains & Equivalent
Aquifer Systems
9
4
5
12
238
268
Structural Basin Aquifers
7
8
53
40
108
Carbonate & Sandstone
Aquifers
11
5
21
49
86
Totals
27
17
79
12
327
462
% of Totals
6
3
17
3
71
100
UTAH
Unconsolidated Basin-Fill
Aquifers
123
50
62
12
421
670
Unconsolidated Valley-
Fill Aquifers
19
1
29
49
Carbonate Aquifer Systems
7
1
1
Sandstone Aquifer Systems
3
3
6
Totals
146
51
69
12
455
730
% of Totals
20
7
9
2
62
100
NORTH DAKOTA
Unconsolidated Aquifers
27
13
3
1
76
120
Fort Union Formation
1
1
2
1
5
Hell Creek\Fox Hills
System
1
1
>1
2
3
Totals
29
15
6
1
79
128
% of Totals
22
12
4
1
61
100
-------
South Dakota
Glacial Drift and
Alluvial Aquifers
99
21
28
184
333
High Plains Aquifer
System
3
2
34
39
Niobrara-Codell & Dakota-
Newcastle Aquifer
Systems
6
8
1
2
10
27
Inyan Kara-Sundance,
Minnelusa-Madison-Red
River & Deadwood Aquifer
Systems
6
16
4
6
3
36
Fort Union-Hell Creek-Fox
Hills Aquifer Systems
1
2
<1
2
5
Confining Units and Base-
ment Rocks' Aquifers
1
2
2
1
5
Totals
116
50
38
8
233
445
% of Totals
26
11
9
0
52
100
(adapted from USGS WSP-2350)
-------
SURFACE AND GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT FOR REGION VIII - 1987
SOURCE, WITHDRAWALS AND USE
(in million gallons per day)
Total Water
Withdrawn
Source
Surface Ground
Water Water
Use
Surface &
Ground Water
Combined
Use
Ground Water
Only
Source
Ground Water
34,374
30,009 4,276
Agriculture
Agriculture
(2) (3)
(86%) (14%)
30,823
3,203
(90%) 1
(10%) 1
CO 2,310 2,277
Public Supply
Public Supply
MT 200 180
1,589
336
WY 462 268
(5%) 1
(1%) 1
UT 730 726
Domest\Commer
Domest\Commer
ND 128 120
1,657
90
SD 445 372
(5%) 1
(<0%) 1
Indust\Mining
Indus t\Mining
4,276 3,943
588
261
(92%)
(2%) 1
(1%) 1
Thermoelectric
Thermoelectric
1,351
17
(4%) 1
(<0%) 1
1 Percent of total water withdrawn for economic sectors.
2 Total ground water withdrawn from unconsolidated and consolidated aquifers, by State.
3 Total ground water withdrawn from unconsolidated aquifers, by State.
Numbers throughout table may not add to totals due to independent rounding.
(adapted from USGS WSP 2350)
-------
Walton, P.T., 1944, Geology of the Cretaceous of the Uinta Basin,
Utah: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 55, p, 91-
1 f\
Weiss, E., 1987, Ground-water flow in the Navajo Sandstone in
parts of Emery, Grand, Wayne, Garfield, and Kane Counties,
southeast Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 86-4012.
Williams, M.D., 1950, Tertiary stratigraphy of the Uinta Basin:
Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey Guidebook no. 5, p.
101-114.
Wooley, R.R., 1930, The Green River and its utilization: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 618.
Young, R.A., and Carpenter, C.H., Ground-water conditions and
storage in the central Sevier Valley, Utah: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 1787.
MIDDLE ROCKY MOUNTAINS
Atwood, W.W., 1909, Glaciation of the Uinta and Wasatch
Mountains: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 61.
Baker, A.A., 1947, Stratigraphy of the Wasatch Mountains in the
vicinity of Provo, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Oil and Gas
Investigations Preliminary Chart 30.
Baker, A.A., 1959, Faults in the Wasatch Range near Provo, Utah
ia Geology of the Wasatch and Uinta Mountains Transition
area: Intermountain Association of Petroleum Geologist
Guidebook, 10th Annual Field Conference, p. 153-158.
Baker, A.A., Huddle, J.W., and Kinney, D.M., 1949, Paleozoic
geology of north and west sides of Uinta Basin, Utah:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin
v. 33, no. 7, p. 1161-1197.
Brutin, R.L., Picard, M.D., and Beck, S.L., 19 t Mesozoic and
early Tertiary structure and sedimentology of the central
Wasatch Mountains, Uinta Mountains and Uinta Basin: Special
Study Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 59, p. 83-
105.
Crittenden, M.D., Jr., 1959, Mississippian stratigraphy of the
central Wasatch and western Uinta Mountains, Utah-
Intermountain Association of Petroleum Geologists
10th Annual Field Conference, 1959, p. 63-74. ook,
70
-------
Eardley, A.J., 1933, Stratigraphy of the southern Wasatch
Mountains, Utah: Michigan Academey of Science Paper, v. 18,
p.'307-344.
, 1944, Geology of the north-central Wasatch Mountains,
Utah: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 55. no 7,
p. 819-894.
Granger, A.E., 1953, Stratigraphy of the Wasatch Range near Salt
Lake City: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 296.
Granger, A.E., Granger, A.E., and Sharp, B.J., 1952, Geology of
the Wasatch Mountains east of Salt Lake City, in Marsell,
R.E., ed., Utah Geological Society Guidebook 8, p. 1-37.
Hanson, W.R., 1969, The geologic story of the Uinta Mountains:
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1291.
,1965. Geology of the Flaming Gorge area Utah-Colorado-
Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 490.
Weeks, F.B., 1907, Stratigraphy and structure of the Uinta Range:
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 18, p. 427-448.
71
------- |