spring of 2013 - utahspring of 2013 by carole b. burden and others u.s. geological survey prepared...
TRANSCRIPT
SPRING OF 2013COOPERATIVE INVESTIGATIONS
REPORT NO. 54
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES and UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN UTAH, SPRING OF 2013
By Carole B. Burden and others
U.S. Geological Survey
Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Water Rights, and Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality
Published by the Utah Department of Natural Resources
Cooperative Investigations Report No. 54 2013
iii
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1Utah’s Groundwater Reservoir ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1Summary of Conditions ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2Major Areas of Groundwater Development ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
Curlew Valley ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7Cache Valley ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12East Shore Area .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 17Salt Lake Valley ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 22Tooele Valley ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 28Utah and Goshen Valleys ........................................................................................................................................................................... 33Juab Valley ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40Sevier Desert ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 45Central Sevier Valley .................................................................................................................................................................................. 52Pahvant Valley ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 57Cedar Valley, Iron County .......................................................................................................................................................................... 63Parowan Valley ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 68Escalante Valley .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 73
Milford Area ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 73Beryl-Enterprise Area ....................................................................................................................................................................... 78
Central Virgin River Area .......................................................................................................................................................................... 83Other Areas .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 89
Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 ................................................................................................................ 104References Cited ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 118
Figures 1. Map showing areas of groundwater development in Utah specifically referred to in this report ............................................ 3 2. Map showing location of wells in Curlew Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ..................... 8 3. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Curlew Valley to cumulative departure from average
annual precipitation at Oakley, Idaho, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells ............................................................................................................................................................. 9
4. Map showing location of wells in Cache Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 .................... 13 5. Graph showing relation of water level in selected wells in Cache Valley to total annual discharge of the Logan
River near Logan, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1 ............ 14
6. Map showing location of wells in the East Shore area in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ......... 18 7. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the East Shore area to cumulative departure from
average annual precipitation at Pineview Dam, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (B-4-2)27aba-1 ..................................................................................................................... 19
8. Map showing location of wells in Salt Lake Valley in which the water level was measured during February 2013 ........... 23
iv
9. Graphs showing estimated population of Salt Lake County, total annual withdrawal from wells, annual withdrawal for public supply, and average annual precipitation at Salt Lake City Weather Service Office .......................................... 24
10. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells completed in the principal aquifer in Salt Lake Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton, and relation of water level in well (D-1-1)7abd-6 to concentration of chloride and dissolved solids in water from the well ............................................. 25
11. Map showing location of wells in Tooele Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 .................... 29 12. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Tooele Valley to cumulative departure from average
annual precipitation at Tooele, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 30
13. Map showing location of wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys in which the water level was measured during March 2013 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
14. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells ......................................................................................... 35
15. Map showing location of wells in Juab Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ....................... 41 16. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Juab Valley to cumulative departure from average
annual precipitation at Nephi, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-14-1)26dbd-1 ................................................................................................................................................. 42
17. Map showing location of wells in the shallow artesian aquifer in part of the Sevier Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ........................................................................................................................................ 46
18. Map showing location of wells in the deep artesian aquifer in part of the Sevier Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ................................................................................................................................................. 47
19. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the Sevier Desert to annual discharge of the Sevier River near Juab, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oak City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-15-4)8cba-1 ...................................................... 48
20. Map showing location of wells in central Sevier Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 53
21. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in central Sevier Valley to annual discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Richfield, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4 ................................................... 54
22. Map showing location of wells in Pahvant Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ................. 58 23. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Pahvant Valley to cumulative departure from average
annual precipitation at Fillmore, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells ................................................................................................................................................................ 59
24. Map showing location of wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, in which the water level was measured during March 2013 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 64
25. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual discharge of Coal Creek near Cedar City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells ................................................................................................................................................................ 65
26. Map showing location of wells in Parowan Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ................ 69 27. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Parowan Valley to cumulative departure from average
annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1 ................................................................................ 70
28. Map showing location of wells in the Milford area in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ............... 74 29. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the Milford area to cumulative departure from average
annual precipitation at Black Rock, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 75
v
30. Map showing location of wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 79
31. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Enterprise, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3 ................................................................................................................................... 80
32. Map showing location of wells in the central Virgin River area in which the water level was measured during February 2013 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 84
33. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the central Virgin River area to annual discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at St. George, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-41-17)8cbd-2 .............................. 85
34. Map showing location of wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 90
35. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Provo BYU ......................................................................................................................... 91
36. Map showing location of wells in Sanpete Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ................. 92 37. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Sanpete Valley to cumulative departure from average
annual precipitation at Manti ........................................................................................................................................................... 93 38. Map showing location of wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert in which the water level was measured
during March 2013 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 94 39. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert to cumulative
departure from average annual precipitation at Callao .............................................................................................................. 95 40. Graphs showing relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average
annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas .................................................................................................................... 96 41. Map showing location of groundwater sites sampled during the summer of 2012 ................................................................. 105
Tables 1. Areas of groundwater development in Utah specifically referred to in this report ..................................................................... 4 2. Number of wells constructed and estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Utah, 2012 .................................................... 5 3. Total annual withdrawal of water from wells in significant areas of groundwater development in Utah, 2002–2011 ........... 6 4. Estimated withdrawal of water from wells in other areas of Utah, 2012 ..................................................................................... 89 5. Physical properties and concentration of major ions and nutrients in water samples collected from selected
wells in Utah, summer of 2012 ....................................................................................................................................................... 106 6. Concentration of trace elements in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012 .................... 114
vi
Conversion Factors, Datums, and Water-Quality Units
Multiply By To obtain
acre-foot 1,233 cubic meter
foot 0.3048 metergallon per minute 0.06301 liter per second
inch 2.54 centimetermile 1.609 kilometer
square mile 2.59 square kilometer
Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 1929). Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
Chemical concentration is reported only in metric units. Chemical concentration in water is reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (µg/L), which express the solute mass per unit volume (liter) of water. One thousand micrograms per liter is equivalent to one milligram per liter. For concentrations less than 7,000 milligrams per liter, the numerical value is about the same as for concentrations in parts per million.
Specific conductance is a measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current. It is expressed in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius. Specific conductance is related to the type and concentration of ions in solution and can be used for approximating the dissolved-solids concentration in the water. Commonly, the concentration of dissolved solids (in milligrams per liter) is about 65 percent of the specific conductance (in microsiemens). This relation is not constant in water from one well or stream to another, and it may vary for the same source with changes in the composition of the water.
vii
Definition of TermsAcre-foot—The quantity of water required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot; equal to 43,560 cubic feet or about 326,000 gallons or 1,233 cubic meters.Aquifer—A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains sufficient saturated permeable material to yield substantial amounts of water to wells and springs. Artesian—Describes a well in which the water level stands above the top of the aquifer tapped by the well (confined). A flowing artesian well is one in which the water level is above the land surface. Average annual withdrawal—Calculated average from estimated withdrawals, rounded to the nearest thousand acre-feet. Cumulative departure from average annual precipitation—A graph of the departure or difference between the average annual precipitation and the value of precipitation for each year, plotted cumulatively. A cumulative plot is generated by adding the departure from average precipitation for the current year to the sum of departure values for all previous years in the period of record. A positive departure, or greater-than-average precipitation, for a year results in a graph segment trending upward; a negative departure results in a graph segment trending downward. A generally downward-trending graph for a period of years represents a period of generally less-than-average precipitation, which commonly causes and corresponds with declining water levels in wells. Likewise, a generally upward-trending graph for a period of years represents a period of greater-than-average precipitation, which commonly causes and corresponds with rising water levels in wells. However, increases or decreases in withdrawals of groundwater from wells also affect water levels and can change or eliminate the correlation between water levels in wells and the graph of cumulative departure from average precipitation.Dissolved—Material in a representative water sample that passes through a 0.45–micron membrane filter. This is a convenient operational definition used by Federal agencies that collect water data. Determinations of “dissolved” constituents are made on subsamples of the filtrate. Land-surface datum (lsd)—A datum plane that is approximately at land surface at each groundwater observation well.Precipitation—The total annual precipitation in inches, rounded to tenths of an inch. For selected locations, it is computed from monthly total precipitation (rain, sleet, hail, snow, etc.). Data is supplied by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). Data may be provisional and/or estimated when used to compute annual total and long-term average precipitation values.
viii
Numbering System for Wells and Surface-Water Sites
Wells by Latitude and Longitude
The U.S. Geological Survey well-numbering system is based on the grid system of latitude and longitude. The system provides the geographic location of the well and a unique number for each site. The number consists of 15 digits. The first six digits denote the degrees, minutes, and seconds of latitude, and the next seven digits denote degrees, minutes, and seconds of longitude; the last two digits are a sequential number for wells within a 1-second grid. In the event that the latitude-longitude coordinates for a well are the same, a sequential number such as “01,” “02,” and so forth, would be assigned. Even though the site number is based on latitude and longitude, it may not reflect the accurate location of the site. When error corrections or new technology locate a site more accurately, latitude-longitude coordinates will change but the site number will not. In addition to the well number that is based on latitude and longitude for each well, another well number is assigned based on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management system of land subdivision.
C
AB
38°42'15"
14"
38°42'13"
Coordinates for wells B (384213112193801) and C (384213112193802) 11
2°19
'39"
112°
19'3
7"38"
Coordinates for wellA (384213112193701)
ix
Wells by the Cadastral System of Land Subdivision
The well-numbering system used in Utah is based on the Cadastral system of land subdivision. The well-numbering system is familiar to most water users in Utah, and the well number shows the location of the well by quadrant, township, range, section, and position within the section. Well numbers for most of the State are derived from the Salt Lake Base Line and Meridian. Well numbers for wells located inside the area of the Uintah Base Line and Meridian are designated in the same manner as those based on the Salt Lake Base Line and Meridian, with the addition of the “U” preceding the parentheses. Well numbers for wells located in half ranges will have an additional “R” preceding the parentheses.
Surface-Water Sites— Downstream Order and Station Number
Since October 1, 1950, hydrologic-station records in U.S. Geological Survey reports have been listed in order of downstream direction along the main stream. All stations on a tributary entering upstream from a main-stream station are listed before that sta-tion. A station on a tributary entering between two main-stream stations is listed between those stations.
As an added means of identification, each hydrologic station and partial-record station has been assigned a station number. These station numbers are in the same downstream order used in this report. In assigning a station number, no distinction is made between partial-record stations and other stations; therefore, the station number for a partial-record station indicates downstream-order position in a list composed of both types of stations. Gaps are consecutive. The complete 8-digit (or 10-digit) number for each station such as 09004100, which appears just to the left of the station name, includes a 2-digit part number “09” plus the 6-digit (or 8-digit) downstream order number “004100.” In areas of high station density, an additional two digits may be added to the station identification number to yield a 10-digit number. The stations are numbered in downstream order as described above between stations of consecutive 8-digit numbers.
dc
da
Well
b a
1 mile1.6 kilometers
T.18S.
123456
121110987
131415161718
242322212019
252627282930
363534333231
6 miles9.7 kilometers
B
C D
A
Mer
idia
nLa
keS
alt
Salt LakeCity
Well
c
Salt Lake Base Line
b
R. 6 W. Section 8Tracts within a sectionSections within a township
(C-18-6)8cbb-1
b a
c d
T. 18 S., R. 6 W.Area of UintahBase Line andMeridian
C DB A
x
Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
By Carole B. Burden and others U.S. Geological Survey
Introduction This is the fiftieth in a series of annual reports that describe
groundwater conditions in Utah. Reports in this series, published cooperatively by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality, provide data to enable interested parties to maintain awareness of changing groundwater conditions.
This report, like the others in the series, contains information on well construction, groundwater withdrawals from wells, water-level changes, precipitation, streamflow, and chemical quality of water. Information on well construction included in this report refers only to wells constructed for new appropriations of groundwater. Supplementary data are included in reports of this series only for those years or areas that are important to a discussion of changing groundwater conditions and for which applicable data are available.
This report includes individual discussions of selected significant areas of groundwater development in the State for calendar year 2012. Most of the reported data were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality. This report is also available online at http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/techinfo/ and http://ut.water.usgs.gov/publications/GW2013.pdf. Groundwater conditions in Utah for calendar year 2011 are reported in Burden and others (2012) and available online at http://ut.water.usgs.gov/publications/GW2012.pdf.
Utah’s Groundwater Reservoir Small amounts of groundwater can be obtained from wells
throughout most of Utah, but large amounts that are of suitable chemical quality for irrigation, public supply, or industrial use generally can be obtained only in specific areas. The areas of groundwater development discussed in this report are shown on figure 1 and in table 1. Relatively few wells outside of these areas yield large amounts of groundwater of suitable chemical quality for the uses listed above, although some basins in western Utah and many areas in eastern Utah have not been explored sufficiently to determine their potential for groundwater development.
Most wells in Utah yield water from unconsolidated basin-fill deposits. These deposits may consist of boulders, gravel, sand, silt, or clay, or a mixture of some or all of these materials. The largest yields are obtained from coarse-grained materials that are sorted into deposits of uniform grain size. Most wells that yield water from unconsolidated deposits are in large intermountain basins that have been partly filled with rock materials eroded from adjacent mountains.
A small percentage of wells in Utah yield water from consolidated-rock (bedrock) aquifers. Consolidated rocks that have the highest yield are basalt, which contains interconnected vesicular openings, fractures, or permeable weathered zones at the tops of lava flows; limestone, which contains fractures or other openings enlarged by solution; and sandstone, which contains open fractures. Most wells that penetrate consolidated rock are in the eastern and southern parts of the State in areas where water cannot be obtained readily from unconsolidated deposits.
2 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Summary of Conditions The total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Utah
during 2012 was about 1,060,000 acre-feet (table 2), which is about 215,000 acre-feet more than the revised total for 2011 and 145,000 acre-feet more than the 2002–2011 average annual withdrawal (table 3). The increase in withdrawal resulted mostly from increased irrigation and public-supply use. The total estimated withdrawal for irrigation was about 574,000 acre-feet, which is about 116,000 acre-feet more than the revised total for 2011. Withdrawal for public-supply use was about 309,000 acre-feet, which is 84,000 acre-feet more than in 2011. Withdrawal for industrial use was about 113,000 acre-feet, which is 15,000 acre-feet more than the value for 2011. Withdrawal for domestic and stock use was about 64,000 acre-feet, which is the same as in 2011.
From 2011 to 2012, groundwater withdrawal increased in 15 of the 16 areas of groundwater development discussed in this report (table 2). Withdrawal in Salt Lake Valley increased about 41,000 acre-feet, the largest increase in any of the groundwater development areas shown on figure 1. Withdrawal in the central Sevier Valley decreased about 3,000 acre-feet, the only decrease in any of the areas. The 2012 total withdrawal was more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 in 13 of the 16 areas (tables 2 and 3).
The amount of water withdrawn from wells is related to demand and availability of water from other sources, which, in turn, are partly related to local climatic conditions.
Precipitation during calendar year 2012 at 22 of 27 weather stations included in this report (Western Region Climate Center, 2012), was less than the long-term average. The greatest decrease in precipitation from average was 6.7 inches at Pineview Dam. The greatest increase in precipitation from average was 1.8 inches at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport.
During February and March 2013, about 640 water-level measurements were made in wells for areas included in this report. Most water-level data included in the hydrographs in this report are from measurements made during February and March, but may include some water-level measurements made in April and May. Many of the wells in this report have additional water-level measurements made throughout the year which are not included in this report. All water-level data are available online at http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/gwlevels.
In 2012, 310 wells were constructed for new appropriations of groundwater, as determined by the Utah Division of Water Rights (table 2); this is 45 more wells than the total reported for 2011. In 2012, 22 large-diameter wells (12 inches or more) were constructed for new appropriations of groundwater (table 2), which is 1 more than the total reported for 2011. These new wells are used principally for withdrawal of water for public supply, irrigation, and industrial purposes.
Summary of Conditions 3
Figure 1. Areas of groundwater development in Utah specifically referred to in this report.
4
32
1
6
7
8
1212
15
1010
1711
13 18
19
2828
3535
3636272626
33333131
3232
2323 2222
2424 20
2121
25a 25b25b
14a
14b
14c
5
30
16a
16b16c
9
29a29a
29b29b
3737
3838
3434
WASHINGTON
IRON
KANE
GARFIELD
BEAVER PIUTE WAYNE
SAN JUAN
CARBON
SANPETE
GRANDEMERY
SEVIER
UTAH
DUCHESNE UINTAH
WASATCH
JUAB
MILLARD
BOX ELDER
TOOELE
CACHE
RICH
WEBER
SUMMIT
MORGAN
DAVIS
DAGGETT
Cedar City
Enterprise
Green River
Richfield
St GeorgeKanab
ParowanPanguitch
Beaver Junction
Bluff
Blanding
Monticello
Moab
CastleDale
Price
Milford Loa
Fillmore
DeltaManti
Vernal
Duchesne
ManilaCoalville
Heber City
Park City
Provo
Nephi
Tooele
Salt Lake City
Farmington
Morgan
Ogden
Brigham City
Logan Randolph
114° 113° 112°42° 111°
41°
40°
39°
38°
37°
109°110°
LakePowell
SevierLake
UtahLake
Flaming GorgeReservoir
Great Salt Lake
BearLake
Dirty
River
Rive
r
River
Colorado
Devil
Muddy
Creek
RiverFremont
Escalante
Rive
r
Sevie
r
River
Virgin River
Paria
River
San
RiverJuan
SanRafael
Price
River
Gre
enRi
ver
JordanRiver Duchesne
River
Fork
Lake
Uinta
River
Rive
r
Green
River
White
Bear
Rive
r
Bear
River
River
Colora
do
0
0 20
20
40
40
60 KILOMETERS
60 MILES
EXPLANATIONArea of significant groundwater development—
Withdrawals greater than about 20,000 acre-feet per year. Numbers refer to tables 1, 2, and 3
Area of less significant groundwater development— Withdrawals less than about 20,000 acre-feet per year. Numbers refer to table 1
5
7
4 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Table 1. Areas of groundwater development in Utah specifically referred to in this report.[Do., ditto]
Number in figure 1
Area Principal types of water-bearing lithologies
1 Grouse Creek Valley Unconsolidated deposits2 Park Valley area Do.3 Curlew Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits4 Lower Bear River area Unconsolidated deposits5 Cache Valley Do.6 Bear Lake Valley Do.7 Upper Bear River area Do.8 Ogden Valley Do.9 East Shore area Do.
10 Salt Lake Valley Do.11 Park City area Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits12 Tooele Valley Do.13 Rush Valley Do.14a Skull Valley Unconsolidated deposits14b Dugway area Do.14c Old River Bed Do.15 Cedar Valley, Utah County Do.
16a Northern Utah Valley Do.16b Southern Utah Valley Do.16c Goshen Valley Do.17 Heber Valley Do.18 Duchesne River area Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits19 Vernal area Do.20 Sanpete Valley Do.21 Juab Valley Unconsolidated deposits22 Central Sevier Valley Do.
23 Pahvant Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits
24 Sevier Desert Unconsolidated deposits25a Snake Valley Do.25b West Desert Do.26 Escalante Valley, Milford area Do.27 Beaver Valley Do.28 Monticello area Consolidated deposits29a Spanish Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits29b Upper Colorado River area Do.30 Blanding-Bluff area Consolidated-rock deposits31 Parowan Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits32 Cedar Valley, Iron County Unconsolidated deposits33 Escalante Valley, Beryl-Enterprise area Do.34 Central Virgin River area Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits35 Upper Sevier River area Unconsolidated deposits36 Upper Fremont River Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits37 Kanab area Consolidated-rock deposits38 Cove Fort area Unconsolidated deposits
Summary of Conditions 5
Table 2. Number of wells constructed and estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Utah, 2012.
AreaNumber
in figure 1
Number of wells1 constructed in 2012 Estimated withdrawal from wells, in acre-feet (rounded)
TotalDiameter
of 12 inches or more
2012
2011 total 2, 6
Irrigation Industrial1 Public supply1
Domestic and stock Total
Curlew Valley 3 2 1 41,400 0 200 100 42,000 32,000
Cache Valley 5 32 0 17,300 5,600 13,600 2,000 38,000 30,000
East Shore area 9 4 2 7,000 3,800 30,600 5,000 46,000 37,000
Salt Lake Valley 10 5 3 600 337,000 107,400 22,000 167,000 126,000
Tooele Valley 12 10 0 4,514,200 800 13,500 1,200 30,000 21,000
Utah and Goshen Valleys 16 17 1 35,300 11,200 58,900 16,700 122,000 690,000
Northern Utah Valley7 16a 2 0 (4,600) (7,400) (43,600) (8,100) (63,700) (645,400)
Southern Utah Valley7 16b 15 1 (9,400) (3,800) (15,200) (8,500) (36,900) (28,100)
Goshen Valley7 16c 0 0 (21,300) (0) (100) (100) (21,500) (16,900)
Juab Valley 21 4 1 26,900 90 8450 400 28,000 15,000
Sevier Desert 24 6 0 17,000 3,800 1,600 1,200 24,000 20,000
Central Sevier Valley 22 19 1 23,200 8 2,800 1,500 28,000 31,000
Pahvant Valley 23 4 0 113,300 0 880 320 114,000 89,000
Cedar Valley, Iron County 32 2 1 29,700 100 7,500 2,400 40,000 34,000
Parowan Valley 31 4 0 936,900 200 300 350 38,000 32,000
Escalante Valley
Milford area 26 6 4 44,700 1021,400 700 140 67,000 53,000
Beryl-Enterprise area 33 10 4 86,500 113,800 550 650 91,000 84,000
Central Virgin River area 34 6 0 7,100 640 18,400 2,400 29,000 28,000
Other areas12, 13 179 4 72,800 24,600 51,600 7,500 156,000 123,000
Total 310 22 574,000 113,000 309,000 64,000 1,060,000 6845,0001 Data provided by Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights.2 From Burden and others (2012, table 2).3 Includes some use for air conditioning, about 2,700 acre-feet. About 94 percent was injected back into the aquifer.4 Includes some domestic and stock use.5 Includes some flowing well discharge.6 Revised.7 Numbers for Northern Utah Valley, Southern Utah Valley, and Goshen Valley, presented within parentheses, are a subtotal of withdrawal.8 Previously included some springs.9 Includes some stock use.10 Includes 18,900 acre-feet for geothermal power generation. About 99 percent was injected back into the aquifer.11 Includes 2,810 acre-feet for heating greenhouses. About 95 percent was injected back into the aquifer.12 Withdrawal totals are estimated minimum. See “Other Areas” section of this report for withdrawal estimates for other areas (table 4).13 Includes withdrawals for upper Sevier Valley and upper Fremont River Valley that were included with central Sevier Valley in reports prior to number 31 of this series.
6 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Table 3. Total annual withdrawal of water from wells in significant areas of groundwater development in Utah, 2002–2011.
AreaNumber
in figure 1
Thousands of acre-feet1
(rounded)2002–2011average
(rounded)2012
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Curlew Valley 3 238 42 38 29 31 38 44 34 39 32 37 42
Cache Valley 5 33 27 27 29 31 36 34 31 33 30 31 38
East Shore area 9 49 49 46 41 46 52 54 46 43 37 46 46
Salt Lake Valley 10 2140 130 125 110 131 151 135 137 140 126 133 167
Tooele Valley 12 21 22 21 218 221 227 228 25 24 21 23 30
Utah and Goshen Valleys 16 2111 2108 2105 287 299 126 2120 2105 2106 290 105 122
Northern Utah Valley3 16a (264) (268) (266) (246) (58) (72) (267) (260) (258) (245) (60) (64)
Southern Utah Valley3 16b (36) (33) (30) (31) (29) (38) (34) (30) (31) (28) (32) (37)
Goshen Valley3 16c (11) (7) (9) (10) (12) (16) (19) (15) (17) (17) (13) (21)
Juab Valley 21 29 27 26 14 21 26 26 21 22 15 23 28
Sevier Desert 24 36 28 41 24 20 34 44 48 46 20 34 24
Central Sevier Valley 22 11 15 15 17 16 19 24 27 26 31 20 28
Pahvant Valley 23 89 86 85 80 86 89 94 104 106 89 91 114
Cedar Valley, Iron County 32 42 39 40 30 35 40 40 38 38 34 38 40
Parowan Valley 31 39 31 37 27 33 34 38 37 34 32 34 38
Escalante Valley
Milford area 26 52 50 44 40 45 49 51 56 62 53 50 67
Beryl-Enterprise area 33 99 92 98 68 79 92 93 93 90 84 89 91
Central Virgin River area 34 27 28 26 29 32 33 29 33 29 28 29 29
Other areas 131 128 129 111 130 155 144 130 134 123 132 156
Total (rounded) 2947 2902 2903 2754 2856 21,001 2998 2965 2972 2845 915 1,0601 From previous reports in this series.2 Revised. 3 Numbers for Northern Utah Valley, Southern Utah Valley, and Goshen Valley, presented within parentheses, are a subtotal of withdrawal.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 7
Major Areas of Groundwater Development
Curlew Valley
By Adam S. Birkin The Curlew Valley drainage basin extends across the
Utah-Idaho state line and includes the communities of Cedar Creek, Kelton, and Snowville (fig. 2). The valley is bounded on the west and east by the Raft River and Hansel Mountains, which range in altitude from about 6,500 to nearly 10,000 feet. The valley is open to the south, where water draining from it enters Great Salt Lake.
The Utah part of Curlew Valley (Utah subbasin) covers about 550 square miles in Box Elder County. It is an arid to semiarid, largely uninhabited area, with a community center at Snowville. Average annual precipitation in the Utah subbasin is less than 8 inches on the valley floor, and is substantially more in the surrounding mountains.
The principal source of water in Curlew Valley is ground-water. The groundwater reservoir is primarily composed of confined aquifers in alluvial and lacustrine basin-fill deposits and volcanic rocks. These formations yield several hundred to several thousand gallons of water per minute to individual large-diameter irrigation wells west of Snowville and near Kelton.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Curlew Valley in 2012 was about 42,000 acre-feet, which is 10,000 acre-feet more than the value for 2011 and 5,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3).
The location of wells in Curlew Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 2.
The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oakley, Idaho (replaces Grouse Creek, which has been discontinued), to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells is shown in figure 3.
Precipitation at Oakley, Idaho in 2012 was about 11.1 inches, which is 2.2 inches less than in 2011 and 0.1 inch more than the average annual precipitation for 1930–2012.
Water levels in Curlew Valley generally rose or declined less than about 1 foot from March 2012 to March 2013, except for three wells with declines of up to about 9.4 feet. These large declines were observed in two wells west of Snowville and one well north of Kelton, and were probably the result of large localized withdrawals.
The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from well (B-12-11)8abb-1, 3 miles north of Kelton, and well (B-14-9)5bbb-1, 10 miles west of Snowville, from 1972–2011 and 1971–2012, respectively, is shown in figure 3. The dissolved-solids concentration in water from well (B-14-9)5bbb-1 increased slightly from September 2011 to July 2012. Well (B-12-11)8abb-1 was not sampled in 2012. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water from both wells have generally increased since the early 1970s.
8 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Great Salt LakeGreat Salt Lake
LocomotiveSprings
T.14N.
T.15N.
T.13N.
T.12N.
T.11N.
R. 8 W.R. 9 W.R. 10 W.R. 11 W.
Tenmile
Creek
Dee
pCr
eek
Deep
Creek
Pilot Spring
Crystal Spring
EmigrantSpring
C U R L E W V A L L E Y
West Lake
East Lake
30
42
30
84
30Cedar Creek
Snowville
Kelton
9
64
710 8
1
52
3
(2)
IDAHOUTAH
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
42°00'
MO
UN
TAIN
SRI
VER
RAFT
113°00'
CurlewJunction
112°45'
MOUNTA
INS
HANSEL
CEDARHILL
WILD
CAT HILL
SBLACK BUTTE
41°45'
Mud flat
Mud flat
Mud flat
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation well—Number in parentheses
refers to number of wells at that siteObservation well with corresponding
hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 3
Spring
EXPLANATION
1
0 5 Kilometers
5 Miles0 1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4(2)
Figure 2. Location of wells in Curlew Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 9
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E1
2
3
4
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
125
115
120
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
88
86
85
84 5
87WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E(B-12-9)30cda-1414411112543701
(B-12-11)5bbb-1414813113075401
(B-14-8)5ddd-1415757112455901
(B-13-10)11dcd-1415151112565001
(B-13-10)34ddc-1414818112575001
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
140
130
160
150
180
170
60
80
100
120
No record
27
26
25
24
23
Figure 3. Relation of water level in selected wells in Curlew Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oakley, Idaho, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.
10 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
6
7
8
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
253
250
249
190
160
150
210
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
251
252
254
255
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
No record
170
180
200
230
225
210
215
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
9
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
10
220
(B-13-11)10cdc-1415151113052401
(B-14-9)7bbb-1415754112551301
(B-14-9)9add-1415703112514501
(B-14-8)1ddd-1415810112412001
(B-14-10)15bbc-1415654112584501
60
56
58
54
52
50
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
164
162
168
166
172
170
160
Figure 3. Relation of water level in selected wells in Curlew Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oakley, Idaho, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 11
Oakley, Idaho1930–2012 average annual precipitation 11.0 inches
400
800
600
200
CO
NC
EN
TRAT
ION
OF
DIS
SO
LVE
D S
OLI
DS
, IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R L
ITE
R
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
WIT
HD
RAW
AL,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
50
0
25
1963–2012 average annual withdrawal28,000 acre-feet
(B-12-11)8abb-14147101130716013 miles north of Kelton
(B-14-9)5bbb-141584711254040110 miles west of Snowville
+10
-10
-20
-30
-40
0
2,400
2,800
3,200
2,000
1,600
1,200
800
1,000
1,200
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
No record
Not sampled in 2012
Figure 3. Relation of water level in selected wells in Curlew Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oakley, Idaho, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.—Continued
12 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Cache Valley
By V. Noah DerrickCache Valley covers about 450 square miles in Cache
County where it is bounded on the east by the Bear River Range and on the southwest by the Wellsville Mountains (fig. 4). Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits in the valley, under both water-table and artesian conditions. Recharge to the groundwater system occurs principally along the margins of the valley, and groundwater moves toward the center of the valley and west toward Cache Junction.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Cache Valley in 2012 was about 38,000 acre-feet, which is 8,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and 7,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal for irrigation was 17,300 acre-feet, of which an estimated 12,000 acre-feet was from flowing wells. Irrigation withdrawals were about 3,900 acre-feet more than in 2011. Withdrawal for public supply was 13,600 acre-feet, 5,300 acre-feet more than in 2011.
The location of wells in Cache Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 4. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to total annual discharge of the Logan River near Logan, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1 is shown in figure 5.
Total discharge of the Logan River (combined flow from the Logan River above State Dam, near Logan, and Logan, Hyde Park, and Smithfield Canal at Head, near Logan) during 2012 was about 140,000 acre-feet, which is 184,000 acre-feet less than the 2011 total of 324,000 acre-feet and 41,000 acre-feet less than the 1941–2012 average annual discharge. Precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, was about 15.7 inches in 2012. This is about 7.8 inches less than for 2011 and about 2.6 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1930–2012.
Water levels throughout the valley generally declined from March 2012 to March 2013. Declines are probably the result of increased withdrawals for irrigation and public-supply use, and less-than-average precipitation. Water levels have fluctuated over the entire period of record, as far back as 1935 in many cases, depending on the amount and timing of precipitation and recharge to the unconsolidated deposits from snowmelt runoff.
The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected during 1970 to 2012 from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1, located 1.5 miles west of Smithfield, is shown in figure 5. The concentration has ranged from 223 to 278 mg/L, with a median value of 258 mg/L. The water sample collected in August 2012 had a dissolved-solids concentration of 265 mg/L, slightly greater than the median value.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 13
T. 14 N.
R. 1 E.
R. 1 W.
T. 9 N.
T. 10 N.
T. 11 N.
T. 12 N.
R. 2 W.
T. 13 N.
CACHE COUNTY
BOX ELDER COUNTY
UTAH
IDAHO
Bear
River
Cub
Rive
r
CacheCanal
LoganRiver
River
Bear
Little
RiverBear
Little
CutlerReservoir
MantuaReservoir
HyrumReservoir
89
165
23
10189
91
89
218
142
23
61
10
30
Paradise
Wellsville
Mendon
Logan
Hyrum
Providence
Hyde Park
CacheJunction
Newton
Smithfield
RichmondClarkston
CornishLewiston
Fork
Blacksmith
7
8
2 1
9
3
10
4
6
5
(2)
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding
hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 5. Number in parentheses refers to number of wells at that site
VALL
EY
RAN
GE
CACH
E
RIVE
RB
EAR
MOUN
TAINS
WELLSVILLE
41°30'
42°00'112°00' 111°52'30''
0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers
0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
EXPLANATION
8 (2)
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
Figure 4. Location of wells in Cache Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
14 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013 W
ATE
R L
EV
EL,
IN F
EE
T B
ELO
WLA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
140
130
120
110 1
2
3
4
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
0
5
10
15
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
0
15
20
5
10
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
20
10
5
0 5
15
(A-11-1)27cdc-1413924111493501
(B-11-1)35cca-1413840111552601
(A-12-1)17daa-1414642111511401
(B-12-1)8cdb-2414721111590001
(A-13-1)29adc-1415023111512901
10
12
14
16
18
20
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
No record
No record
Figure 5. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cache Valley to total annual discharge of the Logan River near Logan, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 15
6
7
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
14
18
24
26W
ATE
R L
EV
EL,
IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
E O
RB
ELO
W (-
) LA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
11
8
7
10
22
20
16
No record
9
(B-13-1)30acc-1415008111593901
(A-14-1)22bad-1415638111493601
(B-15-1)34ccc-1415926111571301
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
25
30
35
40
45(A-12-1)31dab-2414409111523502
3530
25
20
1510
5
0
WAT
ER L
EVEL
,IN
FEE
T BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E (A-12-1)3bbb-1414857111495801
10
9
8
15
10
5
0
-5
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 5. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cache Valley to total annual discharge of the Logan River near Logan, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1.—Continued
16 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
10109001 Combined discharge of Logan River above State Damand Logan, Hyde Park and Smithfield Canalat Head, near Logan, Utah
DIS
CH
AR
GE
,IN
TH
OU
SA
ND
SO
F A
CR
E-F
EE
T
0
300
400
500
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-75
-25
+25
20
30
40
0
10
CO
NC
EN
TRAT
ION
OF
DIS
SO
LVE
D S
OLI
DS
, IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R L
ITE
R
260
280
220
200
0
-50
240
100
WIT
HD
RAW
AL,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
(A-13-1)29bcd-14150201115204011.5 miles west of Smithfield
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
Logan, Utah State University1930–2012 average annual precipitation 18.3 inches
1963–2012 average annual withdrawal29,000 acre-feet
1941–2012 averageannual discharge181,000 acre-feet
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 5. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cache Valley to total annual discharge of the Logan River near Logan, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 17
East Shore Area
By Martel J. FisherThe East Shore area is in north-central Utah between the
Wasatch Range and Great Salt Lake within Davis, Weber, and Box Elder Counties (fig. 6). Groundwater occurs in unconsoli-dated basin-fill deposits under both water-table and artesian conditions, but most of the water withdrawn by wells is from the artesian aquifers. Water enters the artesian aquifers along the contact between the Wasatch Range and the eastern edge of the basin-fill deposits, and generally moves westward toward Great Salt Lake.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the East Shore area in 2012 was about 46,000 acre-feet, which is 9,000 acre-feet more than was reported for 2011 and the same as the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal for public supply was 30,600 acre-feet in 2012, about 9,600 acre-feet more than in 2011. Withdrawal for irri-gation was about 7,000 acre-feet, which is 200 acre-feet less than was reported for 2011. Withdrawal for industrial use was about 3,800 acre-feet, which was the same as in 2011.
The location of wells in the East Shore area in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 6. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipi-tation at Pineview Dam, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (B-4-2)27aba-1 is shown in figure 7.
Precipitation at Pineview Dam in 2012 was about 23.9 inches, which is about 6.7 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1949–2012 and about 13.8 inches less than in 2011.
Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in most of the wells measured in the East Shore area. Declines are probably due to increased withdrawal for public-supply use and less-than-average precipitation. Water levels have gen-erally declined since the mid-1980s in wells south of Kaysville in the East Shore area and have generally declined since the mid-1950s in wells north of Kaysville.
The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from well (B-4-2)27aba-1, 2.3 miles south-southeast of Syracuse, from 1969 to 2012, is shown in figure 7. The median concentration during this period was 399 mg/L. From 1969 to 1993, dissolved-solids concentration in water samples ranged from 287 to 633 mg/L. Dissolved-solids concentration in water samples collected from 1995 to 2012 were much less variable, ranging from 362 to 399 mg/L. The dissolved-solids concentration in the water sample collected in June 2012 (367 mg/L) was similar to the median concentration.
18 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
R 1 W R. 1 E.T. 1 N.
T. 2 N.
T. 3 N.
T. 4 N.
T. 5 N.
T. 6 N.
T. 7 N.
T. 8 N.
Web
er
Rive
r
Ogden River
Weber
River
River
Jordan
WillardReservoirWillard
ReservoirWillard BayWillard Bay
Great Salt Lake
Great Salt Lake
FarmingtonBay
FarmingtonBay
SALT LAKE COUNTY
MORGAN COUNTY
DAVIS COUNTY
BOX ELDER COUNTY
WEBER COUNTY
WEBER COUNTY
DAVIS COUNTY
15
126
89
84
15
89
89
134
134
108
273
Willard
Plain CityNorth
Ogden
West Warren
Ogden
RoyHooper
Sunset
WestPoint
Clearfield
Syracuse
Hill Air ForceBase
Layton
Kaysville
Farmington
Centerville
Bountiful
WoodsCross
3
2
1
5
4
7
8
10
9
11
12
6
RANGE
WASATCH
112°00'112°15'
41°15'
41°00' AntelopeIsland
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 7
EXPLANATION
12
0 5 Kilometers
5 Miles0 1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
R 2 WR 3 W
Figure 6. Location of wells in the East Shore area in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 19
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
10
30
50
60 1
2
3
4
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
140
130
110
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
210
150
180
120
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
No record
160
190
200
170
40
20
25
15
10 5
20
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E(B-2-1)13aab-1405449111533701
(A-2-1)31cca-1405135111531501
(B-2-1)24bad-10405351111540801
(B-3-1)1bbc-1410145111543001
(B-3-1)15aab-1410007111555801
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
(B-2-1)24bad-3405351111540803
30
20
10
0
40
Figure 7. Relation of water level in selected wells in the East Shore area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Pineview Dam, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (B-4-2)27aba-1.
20 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
6
7
8
-50
0
25
25
75
0
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
150
-25
-75
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
50
0
50
100
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,
IN F
EE
T A
BO
VE
OR
BE
LOW
(-) L
AN
D S
UR
FAC
E
0
10
30
50
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
9
20
40
10
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L, I
N F
EE
T A
BO
VE
OR
BE
LOW
(-) L
AN
D S
UR
FAC
E
(B-4-1)30bba-1410337112000501
(B-4-2)20ada-1410410112050001
(B-6-2)5acb-2411717112053301
(B-5-2)33ddc-1410704112040001
(B-6-2)26ada-1411348112013601
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 7. Relation of water level in selected wells in the East Shore area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Pineview Dam, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (B-4-2)27aba-1.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 21
150
125
17530
60
50
40
11
12
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-75
0
-25
-50
WIT
HD
RAW
AL,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
400
600
800
200
100
0
50
25
751963–2012 average annual withdrawal51,000 acre-feet
CO
NC
EN
TRAT
ION
OF
DIS
SO
LVE
D S
OLI
DS
, IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R L
ITE
R(B-7-1)34caa-1411755111561801
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
(B-8-2)23cdb-1412439112021601
Pineview Dam1949–2012 average annualprecipitation 30.6 inches
+25
(B-4-2)27aba-14103401120300012.3 miles south-southeast of Syracuse
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 7. Relation of water level in selected wells in the East Shore area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Pineview Dam, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (B-4-2)27aba-1.—Continued
22 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Salt Lake Valley
By Christopher M. HoltSalt Lake Valley covers about 400 square miles between
the Wasatch Range and the Oquirrh and Traverse Mountains in Salt Lake County (fig. 8). Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated deposits in the valley under water-table and artesian conditions. Recharge to the aquifers occurs mainly along the area where the mountains border the valley. In the southwestern part of the valley, groundwater moves from the base of the Oquirrh Mountains eastward toward the Jordan River. In the northwestern part of the valley, the direction of movement is mostly toward Great Salt Lake. In the eastern half of the valley, groundwater moves westward from the base of the Wasatch Range toward the Jordan River. The Jordan River drains both surface water and groundwater from the valley.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Salt Lake Valley in 2012 was about 167,000 acre-feet, which is 41,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and 34,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal for public supply was about 107,400 acre-feet, which is 31,300 acre-feet more than the total for 2011. Withdrawal for industrial use was about 37,000 acre-feet, which is 9,600 acre-feet more than the total for 2011.
The location of wells in Salt Lake Valley in which the water level was measured during February 2013 is shown in figure 8. Estimated population of Salt Lake County, total annual withdrawal from wells, annual withdrawal for public supply, and average annual precipitation at the Salt Lake City Weather Service Office (International Airport) are shown in figure 9. Precipitation at Salt Lake City during 2012 was about 12.8 inches, about 6.3 inches less than in 2011 and about 2.5 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1931–2012.
The relation of the water level in selected observation wells completed in the principal aquifer to cumulative departure
from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton, and the relation of the water level in well (D-1-1)7abd-6 to concentration of chloride and dissolved solids in water from the well are shown in figure 10. Precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton was about 36.7 inches in 2012, which is about 8.0 inches less than in 2011 and about 5.7 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1931–2012.
Water levels declined from February 2012 to February 2013 in most of the wells measured in Salt Lake Valley. Declines are probably the result of increased withdrawal for public supply and industrial use, and less-than-average precipitation. The water level in most of the observation wells was highest during 1985–87, which corresponds to a period of much-greater-than-average precipitation. Levels have generally declined since 1987.
The concentrations of dissolved solids and dissolved chloride (from 1931–2012 and 1935–2012, respectively), in water samples collected from well (D-1-1)7abd-6, a flowing well at 800 South 500 East in Salt Lake City, are shown in figure 10. The concentration of dissolved solids has ranged from 554 to 879 mg/L with a median value of 695 mg/L. The concentration of dissolved solids generally increased from 576 mg/L in December 1931 to 879 mg/L in July 2009. The dissolved-solids concentration in July 2012 (874 mg/L) increased 43 mg/L from July 2011. The dissolved chloride concentration generally increased from 52 mg/L in July 1935 to 194 mg/L in July 2012, with a median value of 120 mg/L. The dissolved chloride concentration increased only slightly (9 mg/L) from August 2011 to July 2012.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 23
Figure 8. Location of wells in Salt Lake Valley in which the water level was measured during February 2013.
SALT
LAKE
VALLEY
Jord
anRi
ver
GreatSaltLake
GreatSaltLake
T. 2 N.
T. 1 N.
T. 1 S.
T. 2 S.
T. 3 S.
T. 4 S.R. 1 E.
R. 1 W.
R. 2 W.
R. 3 W.
SALT LAKE COUNTY
UTAH COUNTY
SALT LAKE COUNTY
DAVIS COUNTY
SALT LAKE COUNTY
TOOELE COUNTY
71
89
111
209
68
48
111
201
215
15
80
186
215
Lark
Herriman
Magna
Kearns
Murray
Holladay
Midvale
Sandy
DraperRiverton
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City municipal boundary2
5
1
12
3
4
7
6
8
10
9
11
40°45'
112°15'
112°00'
40°30'
1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers0
1 2 3 4 5 Miles0
TRAVERSE
MOUNTAINS
MO
UN
TAIN
SO
QU
IRRH
RAN
GE
WA
SATC
H
Tailings pond
EXPLANATIONApproximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 10
2
111°45'
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
24 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Figure 9. Estimated population of Salt Lake County, total annual withdrawal from wells, annual withdrawal for public supply, and average annual precipitation at Salt Lake City Weather Service Office (International Airport).
0
1,000
1,200
250
50
200
200
150
0
600
WIT
HD
RAW
AL,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
ES
TIM
ATE
DP
OP
ULA
TIO
N,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
400
800
100
30
20
10
0
PR
EC
IPIT
ATIO
N,
IN IN
CH
ES
No record
Salt Lake City Weather Service Office (International Airport)1931–2012 average annual precipitation 15.3 inches
Total annual withdrawal 1931–2012 total average annual withdrawal 100,000 acre-feet Public supply annual withdrawal 1963–2012 average annual withdrawal for public supply 65,600 acre-feet
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 25
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
180
170
150
130 1
2
3
4
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
80
50
40
70WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
160
140
60
No record
5
No record
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,
IN F
EE
T A
BO
VE
OR
BE
LOW
(-) L
AN
D S
UR
FAC
E
(A-1-1)31cac-1404627111532601
(B-1-2)19aca-1404826112062201
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
(D-1-1)16caa-1404356111503901
(C-1-2)22bdd-4404306112031201
-6
-4
-2
8
6
4
2
0
300
290
280
270
260
250(D-2-1)2bbb-3404055111485001
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 10. Relation of water level in selected wells completed in the principal aquifer in Salt Lake Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton, and relation of water level in well (D-1-1)7abd-6 to concentration of chloride and dissolved solids in water from the well.
26 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
6
7
8
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
90
60
50
30
10
40
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
100
70
80
100
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
80
60
20
70
90
100
90
70
60
60
50
35
40
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
9
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
10
45
80
55
(D-2-1)21bca-1403803111505301
(C-2-1)13dad-2403833111532802
(D-3-1)18cba-1403330111531601
(C-3-1)1cab-2403511111541501
(C-2-2)9bdb-1403949112043301
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 10. Relation of water level in selected wells completed in the principal aquifer in Salt Lake Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton, and relation of water level in well (D-1-1)7abd-6 to concentration of chloride and dissolved solids in water from the well.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 27
40
25
15
45
35
11
12
WA
TER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
30
20
WA
TER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
-50
0
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PA
RTU
RE
,IN
INC
HE
S
-100
(C-4-1)3bad-1403020111561901
Silver Lake Brighton1931–2012 average annual precipitation 42.4 inches
+50
0
10
15
5 Flowing well at 800 South 500 East in Salt Lake City
(D-1-1)7abd-6404506111523301
CO
NC
EN
TRA
TIO
N O
FC
HLO
RID
E, I
NM
ILLI
GR
AM
S P
ER
LIT
ER
900
600
800
CO
NC
EN
TRA
TIO
N O
FD
ISS
OLV
ED
SO
LID
S, I
NM
ILLI
GR
AM
S P
ER
LIT
ER
700
500
(D-1-1)7abd-6404506111523301Flowing well at 800 South 500 East in Salt Lake City
(D-1-1)7abd-6404506111523301Flowing well at 800 South 500 East in Salt Lake City
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
No recordNo record
No record
200
160
120
80
40
Figure 10. Relation of water level in selected wells completed in the principal aquifer in Salt Lake Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton, and relation of water level in well (D-1-1)7abd-6 to concentration of chloride and dissolved solids in water from the well.—Continued
28 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Tooele Valley
By Paul DownhourTooele Valley lies between the Stansbury and Oquirrh
Mountains and extends south from Great Salt Lake to South Mountain. The total area of the valley is about 250 square miles within Tooele County (fig. 11). Groundwater occurs in the bedrock and unconsolidated basin-fill deposits in Tooele Valley under both water-table and artesian conditions, but most of the water withdrawn by wells is from artesian aquifers in the unconsolidated deposits.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Tooele Valley in 2012 was about 30,000 acre-feet, which is about 9,000 acre-feet more than the total for 2011 and 7,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal for irrigation was about 14,200 acre-feet, which is 3,100 acre-feet more than the total for 2011. Withdrawal for public supply was about 13,500 acre-feet, which is 6,100 acre-feet more than in 2011. Withdrawal for industrial use was about 800 acre-feet, which is 300 acre-feet less than in 2011.
The location of wells in Tooele Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 11. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells
to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Tooele, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentra-tion of dissolved solids in water from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1 is shown in figure 12. Precipitation at Tooele during 2012 was about 15.0 inches, which is about 4.9 inches less than in 2011 and about 2.9 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1936–2012.
Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in most of the wells measured in Tooele Valley. The largest decline, about 3.2 feet, was observed in a well about 4 miles west of Stansbury Park. Declines are probably the result of increased withdrawals for irrigation and public-supply use, and less-than-average precipitation.
The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples col-lected from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1, located at Erda, from 1977 to 2012, is shown in figure 12. The concentration has ranged from 456 to 616 mg/L with a median value of 509 mg/L. The maximum concentration was measured in the water sample collected during July 2012. The dissolved-solids concentration has generally increased since 1977.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 29
61
36 31
61
36 31
61
36 31
61
36 31
61
36 31
61
36 31
61
36 31
61
36
31
R. 3 W.R. 4 W.R. 5 W.
T 1 S
T 2 S
T 3 S
T 4 S
5
R. 6 W.
V A L L E Y
T O O E L E
Solarevaporation
ponds
Intermittentwaterbody
Intermittentwaterbody
Great Salt LakeGreat Salt Lake
StansburyLake
MillPond
RushLake
Grantsvillereservoir
Creek
Fishing Creek
Sixm
ile
Ezra Taft
Cana
l
Canal
Union Pacific
80
80
201
36
138
112
138
Not measured in 2013Not measured in 2013
1
11
9
8
24
10
3
6
7
Factory DunneSprings
WarmSprings
SixmileSpring
Fishing CreekSpring
Mill Pond Spring
RoseSpring
BigSpring
Boat Harbor
Road
Burm
este
r
MO
UN
TAIN
S
TooeleArmyDepot(TEAD)
MO
UN
TAIN
SO
QU
IRRH
0 5 Miles4321
Tooele
0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers
StansburyPark
Stockton
SALT LAKE COUNTY
TOOELE COUNTY
112°15'112°30'
40°45'
Grantsville
40°30'
Lake Point
EXPLANATION
Erda
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation well—Number in parentheses
refers to number of wells at that siteObservation well with corresponding
hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 12
STA
NSB
URY
South Mountain
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
9
(3)
(3)
Figure 11. Location of wells in Tooele Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
30 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013 W
ATE
R L
EV
EL,
IN F
EE
T A
BO
VE
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
5
15
25 1
2
3
470
50
40
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
0
40
20
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
10
20
60
10
30
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,
IN F
EE
T A
BO
VE
OR
BE
LOW
(-) L
AN
D S
UR
FAC
E
5
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,
IN F
EE
T A
BO
VE
OR
BE
LOW
(-) L
AN
D S
UR
FAC
E(C-2-4)2baa-3404054112155901
(C-2-4)27cdc-1403634112171501
(C-2-4)28aac-1403716112174801
(C-2-4)31ada-1403613112200101
(C-2-5)5acc-3404024112261801
-1
-2
-3
0
1
0
10
-10
-20
-30
-40
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Not measured in March 2013Not measured in March 2013
Figure 12. Relation of water level in selected wells in Tooele Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Tooele, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 31
6
7
8
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
240
200
180
220
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
425
400
350
230
220
190
200
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
9
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
10
210
375
(C-2-5)20acc-1403748112261201
6
8
12
10
14
(C-2-6)36dcc-1403539112282901
110
100
90
80
70
(C-3-4)9aaa-1403447112173801
(C-3-4)30aac-1403202112200001
(C-3-5)7dcc-1403350112271801
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 12. Relation of water level in selected wells in Tooele Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Tooele, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1.—Continued
32 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
240
230
210
250+25
-75
-50
11
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
220
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-25
0
40
0
20
10
30
CO
NC
EN
TRAT
ION
OF
DIS
SO
LVE
D S
OLI
DS
, IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R L
ITE
R
No record
WIT
HD
RAW
AL,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
No record
(C-3-5)22dab-1403234112232601
(C-2-4)33bdd-1403629112174801at Erda
Tooele1936–2012 average annual precipitation 17.9 inches
1963–2012 average annual withdrawal25,000 acre-feet
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
450
400
550
500
650
600
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
Figure 12. Relation of water level in selected wells in Tooele Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Tooele, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 33
Utah and Goshen Valleys
By Lincoln SmithUtah Valley is bounded by the Wasatch Range, West
Mountain, and the northern extension of Long Ridge. The Valley is divided into two groundwater basins, northern and southern, which are separated by Provo Bay in northern Utah Valley (fig. 13). Goshen Valley is bounded by West Mountain, Long Ridge, the Lake Mountains, and the East Tintic Moun-tains (fig. 13). Groundwater in Utah and Goshen Valleys occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits under both water-table and artesian conditions, but most wells discharge from artesian aquifers. The principal groundwater recharge area for the basin-fill deposits is in the eastern part of the valley, along the base of the Wasatch Range.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys in 2012 was about 122,000 acre-feet, which is 32,000 acre-feet more than the revised value for 2011, and 17,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal in northern Utah Valley was about 63,700 acre-feet, which is 18,300 acre-feet more than the revised value for 2011. Withdrawal in southern Utah Valley was about 36,900 acre-feet, which is 8,800 acre-feet more than in 2011. Withdrawal in Goshen Valley was about 21,500 acre-feet, which is 4,600 acre-feet more than in 2011. The increase in total pumpage from all three valleys was mainly due to increased withdrawals for public-supply use.
The location of wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 13. Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in most of the wells measured in Utah and Goshen Valleys. Declines are probably due to increased pumpage because of less-than-average precipitation and decreased availability of surface water. Water levels in Utah and Goshen Valleys generally rose in the early 1980s. The rise corresponds to a period of greater-than-average precipitation and recharge from surface water. Water levels generally declined from 1985 to 1993 in Utah Valley and generally rose from 1993 to 1998. This rise is the result of greater-than-average precipitation during this period. Water levels generally declined throughout Utah Valley from March 1999 to March 2005. During this period, water levels in some wells were the lowest on record,
with many dating back to 1935. From March 2005 to March 2007, most water levels in Utah and Goshen Valleys rose as a result of average to greater-than-average precipitation in 2005 and 2006, following 6 years of less-than-average precipitation.
The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells is shown in figure 14. Discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla in 2012 was about 159,800 acre-feet, which is 10,600 acre-feet less than the 1933–2012 annual average and 127,700 acre-feet less than in 2011. Precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton in 2012 was about 36.7 inches, which is about 5.7 inches less than the long-term average (1931–2012) and about 8.0 inches less than in 2011. Precipitation at Spanish Fork Power House in 2012 was about 16.2 inches, which is about 3.1 inches less than the long-term average (1930–2012) and about 8.8 inches less than in 2011.
The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from wells (C-9-1)28ccb-1, located 4 miles north of Elberta, (D-7-2)4cbb-2, located 2 miles west of Provo at the mouth of the Provo River, and (D-9-1)36bbc-1, located 1 mile north of Santaquin, is shown in figure 14. The concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-9-1)28ccb-1 has ranged from 498 to 1,550 mg/L with a median value of 716 mg/L. The concentration of dissolved solids in the July 2012 sample (1,550 mg/L), is the maximum value measured in water from this well. The dissolved-solids concentration in water from well (D-7-2)4cbb-2 has ranged from 278 to 539 mg/L with a median value of 321 mg/L. Water collected from this well in July 2012 had a dissolved-solids concentration of 328 mg/L, near the median value. The dissolved-solids concentration in water from well (D-9-1)36bbc-1 has ranged from 153 to 311 mg/L with a median value of 286 mg/L. The concentration of dissolved solids in the July 2012 sample (311 mg/L), is the maximum value measured in water from this well.
34 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
PelicanPoint
Utah LakeUtah Lake
GoshenReservoir
GoshenReservoir
JordanJordan
RiverRiver
Provo BayProvo Bay
Gosh
en B
ay
Gosh
en B
ay
VALLEY
UTAH
Spring Creek
Spring CreekAm
eric
anAm
eric
an
Creek
Creek
DryDry
Benjamin
Benjamin
SloughSlough
BeerBeer
CreekCreek
Spanish
SpanishForkFork
CreekCreek
ProvoProvo
Rive
rRi
ver
Currant
Currant
HobbleHobble
ForkFork
SummitSummitCreek
Creek
CreekCreek
146
89
89
92
74
15
156
6
68
147
114
78
73
68
Alpine
AmericanFork
PleasantGrove
Lindon
Lehi
Orem
Benjamin
LakeShore
SpringLake
PaysonSalem
SpanishFork
Palmyra
Mapleton
Springville
Provo
GoshenElberta
Genola
Santaquin
1213
15
(2)
11
9
8
7
4
3
1
(2)
(2)
14
2
6
5
10
T. 4 S.
T. 5 S.
RANG
E
RANGE
WASATCH
TRAVERSE
MOUNTAINS
LAKE
MO
UN
TAIN
S
SALT
LA
KE
MER
IDIA
N
EAST
TIN
TIC
MOU
NTA
INS
LongRidge
GOSH
EN
VALL
EY
WES
TM
OU
NTA
IN
WASATC
H
RANGE
WASATCH
UTAH COUNTYSALT LAKE COUNTY
112°00'
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
111°45'
R. 1 W.
T. 10 S.
R. 2 E.
R. 3 E.
R. 1 E.
40°00'
T. 9 S.
T. 8 S.
T. 7 S.
T. 6 S.
40°15'
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation well—Number in parentheses refers to number of wells at that siteObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 14
0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers
0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
EXPLANATION
13
(2)
Not measured in 2013Not measured in 2013
Figure 13. Location of wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 35
1
2
3
4
WA
TER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
400
325
275
250
0
20
30
WA
TER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
10
50
30
300
WA
TER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
350
10
20
40
No record
375
No recordNo record
(D-5-1)8dcc-1402333111513401
5
(D-4-1)36cab-1402550111471801
(C-5-1)13dac-5402246111532701
(D-5-1)20cbc-1402159111520101
25
30
35
40
No record
WA
TER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
(D-5-1)27aac-1402133111484601
5
0
–5
–10
–15
–20
–25–30W
ATE
R L
EV
EL,
IN F
EE
TA
BO
VE
OR
BE
LOW
(–)
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
Not measured in March 2013Not measured in March 2013
Figure 14. Relation of water level in selected wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells.
36 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
6
7
8
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
190
160
150
0
20
-10
-5
170
180
200
10
20
10
15
5
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,
IN F
EE
T A
BO
VE
OR
BE
LOW
(-) L
AN
D S
UR
FAC
E
0
2
4
10
12
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
8
6
No record
(D-5-2)21cba-1402215111434701
(D-6-2)28bad-1401621111432501
9
10
(D-7-3)33baa-6401021111362701
(D-7-2)34dcd-1400932111415101
60
50
40
30
20
10(D-8-2)25dac-3400527111392401
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
No record
No record
Figure 14. Relation of water level in selected wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 37
11
12
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
130
110
80
70
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
13
14
15
90
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
100
120
(C-9-1)4ddc-1400309111565101
(C-9-1)29acc-1400015111575301
(D-9-1)36bbc-1395942111470801
(D-9-2)2dad-2400341111402101
(C-10-1)31cdd-1395340111590001
05
10
1520
25
3530
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
200
210
220
230
240
250
200210
220
230
240
250
260270
75
80
85
90
95
100
Figure 14. Relation of water level in selected wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells.—Continued
38 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
0
200
50
-100
150
0
-50
-75
-25
100
400
300
200
0
DIS
CH
AR
GE
,IN
THO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
100
WIT
HD
RAW
AL,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
-100
-50
0
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E, I
N IN
CH
ES
Silver Lake Brighton1931–2012 average annual precipitation 42.4 inches
+50
+25Spanish Fork Power House1930–2012 average annual precipitation 19.3 inches
1933–2012 average annualdischarge 170,400 acre-feet
Total annual withdrawal1963–2012 total average annual withdrawal 99,000 acre-feetPublic supply withdrawal1963–2012 average annual withdrawal for public supply 30,900 acre-feet
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
10150500 Spanish Fork at Castilla, Utah
Figure 14. Relation of water level in selected wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 39
Figure 14. Relation of water level in selected wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells.—Continued
No record
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
CO
NC
EN
TRAT
ION
OF
DIS
SO
LVE
D S
OLI
DS
, IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R L
ITE
R
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
(D-7-2)4cbb-24014141114353012 miles west of Provo at mouth of Provo River
(C-9-1)28ccb-13959561115721014 miles north of Elberta
(D-9-1)36bbc-13959421114708011 mile north of Santaquin
No record
1,600
1,200
800
400
No record
300
200
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
500
600
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
40 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Juab Valley
By Robert J. EacretJuab Valley, in central Utah, is about 30 miles long and
about 4 miles wide. It is bounded on the east side by the Wasatch Range and the San Pitch Mountains, and on the west side by the West Hills and Long Ridge (fig. 15). Groundwater drains from the valley in two directions—in northern Juab Valley it drains north via Currant Creek into Utah Lake, and in southern Juab Valley it drains south via Chicken Creek into the Sevier River. The northern and southern parts of Juab Valley are separated topographically and hydrologically by Levan Ridge, a gentle rise near the midpoint of the valley floor.
Groundwater in Juab Valley occurs in the unconsolidated basin-fill deposits under both water-table and artesian condi-tions; artesian conditions are prevalent in the southern part of the valley. Most of the recharge to the groundwater reservoir occurs on the eastern side of the valley along the Wasatch Range and the San Pitch Mountains. Groundwater moves to discharge points at the northern and southern ends of the valley. The groundwater divide between the northern and southern parts of Juab Valley is near Levan Ridge.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Juab Val-ley in 2012 was about 28,000 acre-feet, which is 13,000 acre-feet more than the amount reported for 2011 and 5,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3).
The location of wells in Juab Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 15. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Nephi and to annual withdrawal from wells, is shown in figure 16. Precipitation at Nephi during 2012 was about 10.6 inches, which is about 3.7 inches less than the average annual precipi-tation for 1935–2012, and about 1.8 inches less than in 2011.
Water levels declined in all of the wells measured in Juab Valley from March 2012 to March 2013 (fig. 16). Declines are probably the result of increased withdrawal for irrigation and less-than-average precipitation. Water levels generally rose from 1978 to their highest level in 1985–87. This rise corre-sponds to a period of greater-than-average precipitation during 1978–86. Water levels generally declined from the late 1980s to 2012, although there was a substantial rise from 1993 to 1999.
The concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-14-1)26dbd-1, located 2 miles west of Levan, is shown in figure 16 (this well replaces (C-12-1)24baa-1). The dissolved- solids concentration in two water samples, collected in August 2011 and August 2012, were 772 and 811 mg/L, respectively.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 41
JUA
BVA
LLEY
36 31
1 6
31
1 6
36
1 6
36
16
3631
16
36 31
1 6
36 31
1 6
36
31
16
31
6
31
6
31
6
36 31
1 6
36
31
16
36 31
31
1 6
36 3136 31
UTAH
COU
NTY
JUAB
COU
NTY
Mon
aRe
serv
oir
CurrantCurrant
CreekCreek
ChickenChickenCreekCreek
CreekCreekDeepDeep
CreekCreek
SaltSalt
LittleLittle
Chicken CreekReservoirChicken CreekReservoir
28
15
15
28
132
132Nephi
Mona
Levan
5
1
6
3
4
10
9
7
8
2
SAN
PIT
CH M
OUN
TAIN
SRA
NGE
WA
SATC
HRIDG
E
LON
G
WES
THI
LLS
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
39°30'
111°45'
T.11S.
T. 15 S.
R. 2 E.
111°55'
39°50'
R. 1 E.R. 1 W.
T. 14 S.
T. 13 S.
T. 12 S.
Levan Peak8,330 feet
0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers
0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 16Spring
EXPLANATION
5
T. 10 S.
R. 2 W.
Levan Ridge
MonaReservoir
MonaReservoir
Curra
nt
Curra
ntCr
eek
Cree
k
Figure 15. Location of wells in Juab Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
42 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013 W
ATE
R L
EV
EL,
IN F
EE
T B
ELO
WLA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
1
2
3
450
30
20
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
40
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
75
25 5
50
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
No record
(C-11-1)24ddd-1395008111524101
(D-13-1)18bbc-1394112111522401
(C-14-1)27aaa-1393418111543701
(C-15-1)12aba-1393143111523301
(D-11-1)4cad-1395259111405701
100
80
60
40
20
2423
25
282726
293031
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
6070
4050
20
30
010
Figure 16. Relation of water level in selected wells in Juab Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Nephi, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-14-1)26dbd-1.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 43
6
7
8
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
60
30
10
50WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
No record
20
40
220
200
140
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
9
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
10
160
180
No record
(D-11-1)17cdd-1395101111510001
(D-12-1)19cdc-1394455111520701
(D-13-1)7bbd-2394204111521901
(D-14-1)6dbb-1393721111514501
(D-14-1)31dab-1393301111512501
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
120140
180
220
160
200
240
260
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
WA
TER
LE
VE
L, IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
E O
R B
ELO
W ( –
)LA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
–25–25
0
25
50
Figure 16. Relation of water level in selected wells in Juab Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Nephi, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-14-1)26dbd-1.—Continued
44 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Figure 16. Relation of water level in selected wells in Juab Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Neph, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-14-1)26dbd-1.—Continued
40
0
10WIT
HD
RAW
AL,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
20
30
Station located 5 milessouth-southwest of Nephi prior to 1942
Nephi1935–2012 average annual precipitation 14.3 inches
1963–2012 average annual withdrawal21,000 acre-feet
–25
–50
0
+25C
ON
CE
NTR
ATIO
N O
FD
ISS
OLV
ED
SO
LID
S, I
NM
ILLI
GR
AM
S P
ER
LIT
ER
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
No record
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
(C-12-1)24baa-13945451115310014.5 miles north-northwest of Nephi
(C-14-1)26dbd-13933421115345012 miles west of Levan
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 45
Sevier Desert
By Travis L. Gibson The part of the Sevier Desert described here covers about
2,000 square miles in northern Millard and southern Juab Counties (figs. 17 and 18). It principally includes the broad, gently sloping areas that radiate from the Canyon Mountains to the east, the Drum Mountains to the west, and several non-continuous mountains to the north. Groundwater occurs in the Sevier Desert in unconsolidated deposits under water-table and artesian conditions. Most of the groundwater is discharged from wells completed in either of two artesian aquifers—the shallow or deep artesian aquifer. The Sevier River enters the Sevier Desert from the east and is a source of recharge to the aquifers.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the Sevier Desert in 2012 was about 24,000 acre-feet, which is 4,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and about 10,000 acre-feet less than the 2002-2011 average annual withdrawal (tables 2 and 3). The increase in withdrawals from 2011 to 2012 was mainly due to increased pumpage for irrigation, which coincides with decreased withdrawal of surface water from the Sevier River.
The location of wells in the Sevier Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figures 17 and 18. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to annual discharge of the Sevier River near Juab, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oak City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-15-4)8cba-1 is shown in figure 19.
Discharge of the Sevier River near Juab in 2012 was 261,900 acre-feet, 125,000 acre-feet less than in 2011 and 80,500 acre-feet more than the long-term average (1935–2012). Precipitation at Oak City was about 11.2 inches in 2012, about 1.8 inches less than the 1930–2012 average annual precipitation and about 5.4 inches less than in 2011.
Most water levels in the shallow artesian aquifer rose or declined less than 1 foot from March 2012 to March 2013. These minor changes were probably due to fluctuations in localized pumping. The water level in most wells in the deep artesian aquifer rose from March 2012 to March 2013 in spite of increased groundwater withdrawals, less-than-average precipitation, and decreased discharge of the Sevier River during this period. The rise in water levels may be the result of persistent recharge of the deep artesian aquifer from the greater-than-average precipitation that occurred during the winter of 2010-2011 and less-than-average groundwater withdrawals in 2011. Some water levels declined in the deep artesian aquifer from March 2012 to March 2013. This may have been due to localized groundwater withdrawals for irrigation.
Periods when the water level in the shallow and deep aquifers generally rose (including 1980–89, 1995–99, 2006–07, and since 2010) correspond to greater-than-average precipitation, less-than-average groundwater withdrawals, and greater than average discharge of the Sevier River. Periods when the water level in the shallow and deep aquifers generally declined (including 1988–94, 2001–05, and 2008–10) correspond to less-than-average precipitation, greater-than-average groundwater withdrawals, and less-than-average discharge of the Sevier River.
The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from well (C-15-4)8cba-1, located 2.5 miles east of Lynndyl, from 1958 to 2011, is shown in figure 19. The concentration has ranged from 1,490 to 2,340 mg/L, with a median value of 2,030 mg/L. This well was not sampled in 2012.
46 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Figure 17. Location of wells in the shallow artesian aquifer in part of the Sevier Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
Tann
erTa
nner
Cree
kCr
eekCree
kCree
k
Cherry
Cherry
SevierSevier
River
River
CentralCentral UtahUtah CanalCanal
OakOak CreekCreek
BeaverBeaver
RiverRiver
Sevie
rSe
vier
River
River
Fool CreekReservoirFool CreekReservoir
DMADReservoirDMADReservoir
GunnisonBend
Reservoir
GunnisonBend
Reservoir
ClearLakeClearLake
JUAB COUNTY
MILLARD COUNTY
Unio
n Pa
cific
125
174
99
50
257
125
6
6
Leamington
Lynndyl
Oak City
Deseret Oasis
Hinkley
Delta
9
10
87
6
4
2
1
3
5
39°45'
113°00'112°15'
39°15'
DESERTT. 14 S.
T. 17 S.
T. 13 S.
T. 12 S.
T. 15 S.
T. 16 S.
T. 18 S.
SEVIERDRUM
MOUNTAINS
LITTLE DRUM
MOUNTAINS
DESERTMOUNTAIN
KEG
MO
UN
TAIN
GILSONMOUNTAINS
WEST TINTICMOUNTAINS
CAN
YON
MO
UN
TAIN
S
R. 3 W.R. 4 W.R. 5 W.R. 6 W.R. 7 W.R. 8 W.R. 9 W.R. 10 W.R. 11 W.
T. 19 S.
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
EAST
TIN
TIC
MO
UN
TAIN
S
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding
hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 19
EXPLANATION
9
0 62 84 10 Kilometers
0 62 84 10 Miles
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 47
Tann
erTa
nner
Cree
kCr
eekCree
kCree
k
Cherry
Cherry
SevierSevier
River
River
CentralCentral UtahUtah CanalCanal
OakOak CreekCreek
BeaverBeaver
RiverRiver
Sevie
rSe
vier
River
River
Fool CreekReservoirFool CreekReservoir
DMADReservoirDMADReservoir
GunnisonBend
Reservoir
GunnisonBend
Reservoir
ClearLakeClearLake
JUAB COUNTY
MILLARD COUNTY
Unio
n Pa
cific
125
174
99
50
257
125
6
6
Leamington
Lynndyl
Oak City
Deseret Oasis
Hinkley Delta
5D
4D
2D
3D
1D
39°45'
113°00'112°15'
39°15'
DESERTT. 14 S.
T. 17 S.
T. 13 S.
T. 12 S.
T. 15 S.
T. 16 S.
T. 18 S.
SEVIERDRUM
MOUNTAINS
LITTLE DRUM
MOUNTAINS
DESERTMOUNTAIN
KEG
MO
UN
TAIN
GILSONMOUNTAINS
WEST TINTICMOUNTAINS
CAN
YON
MO
UN
TAIN
S
R. 3 W.R. 4 W.R. 5 W.R. 6 W.R. 7 W.R. 8 W.R. 9 W.R. 10 W.R. 11 W.
T. 19 S.
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
EAST
TIN
TIC
MO
UN
TAIN
S
EXPLANATION
5D
0 62 84 10 Kilometers
0 62 84 10 Miles
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding
hydrograph—Number with letter ‘D’ refers to deep artesian aquifer hydrograph in figure 19
Figure 18. Location of wells in the deep artesian aquifer in part of the Sevier Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
48 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013 W
ATE
R L
EV
EL,
IN F
EE
T B
ELO
WLA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
200
180 1
2
3
4
25
15
10
15
5
10
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
210
190
20
220
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
No record
5
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E(C-12-6)15bac-1394700112303501
(C-14-7)1cab-1393758112351701
(C-15-4)8cba-1393154112192901
(C-15-7)23bac-1393020112362201
(C-16-4)18bda-1392555112203001
240
220
260
280
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 19. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Sevier Desert to annual discharge of the Sevier River near Juab, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oak City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-15-4)8cba-1.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 49
6
7
8
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
10
5
20
5
0
5
0
15WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
ENo record
No record
0
10
9
10
10
(C-16-7)1dcd-1392650112345101
(C-16-8)21bcb-1392455112454201
(C-16-8)24baa-1392505112415501
(C-18-6)2bbb-2391714112300301
15
5
0
10
20
15
5
0
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L, IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
E O
R B
ELO
W ( −
)LA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
−25
−20
−15
−10
−5
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
(C-17-8)12bcb-1392121112422401
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 19. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Sevier Desert to annual discharge of the Sevier River near Juab, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oak City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-15-4)8cba-1.—Continued
50 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013 W
ATE
R L
EV
EL,
IN F
EE
T B
ELO
WLA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
2D
5
0
40
30
10
50
20
25
10
30
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
15
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
20
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
12
2
10
0
6
8
4
3D
4D
5D
1D(C-15-5)26baa-1392939112224101
(C-16-5)18caa-1392538112270201
(C-16-8)12ddd-2392601112412201
0
10
20
30
40
(C-17-7)12aba-1392129112345101
(C-18-8)24ada-2391420112412001
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
No record
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40WAT
ER
LE
VE
L, IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
E O
R B
ELO
W (−
)LA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
Figure 19. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Sevier Desert to annual discharge of the Sevier River near Juab, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oak City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-15-4)8cba-1.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 51
60
20
50
0
40
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
CO
NC
EN
TRAT
ION
OF
DIS
SO
LVE
D S
OLI
DS
, IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R L
ITE
R
WIT
HD
RAW
AL,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
30
10
DIS
CH
AR
GE
,IN
TH
OU
SA
ND
SO
F A
CR
E-F
EE
T
1,000
250
750
0
500
(C-15-4)8cba-13931541121929012.5 miles east of Lynndyl
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
Oak City1930–2012 average annual precipitation 13.0 inches
10219000 Sevier River near Juab, Utah1935–2012 average annual discharge181,400 acre-feet
1951–2012 average annual withdrawal22,000 acre-feet
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
2,200
2,400
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
No record
−25
−50
−75
0
+25
Not sampled in 2012
Figure 19. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Sevier Desert to annual discharge of the Sevier River near Juab, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oak City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-15-4)8cba-1.—Continued
52 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Central Sevier Valley
By Bradley A. Slaugh Central Sevier Valley, located in northern Piute, Sevier,
and southern Sanpete Counties, in south-central Utah, is surrounded by the Sevier and Wasatch Plateaus to the east and the Tushar Mountains, Valley Mountains, and Pahvant Range to the west (fig. 20). Altitude ranges from 5,100 feet on the valley floor at the north end of the valley near Gunnison to more than 12,000 feet in the Tushar Mountains. Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits under both water-table and artesian conditions.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in central Sevier Valley in 2012 was about 28,000 acre-feet, which is 3,000 acre-feet less than reported for 2011 and 8,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3).
The location of 25 wells in central Sevier Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 20. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to annual discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Richfield, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4 is shown in figure 21.
Discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch in 2012 was about 65,500 acre-feet, which is about 15,300 acre-feet less than
the 1940–2012 average annual discharge. Precipitation at Richfield Radio KVSC was about 7.7 inches in 2012, which is about 0.4 inch less than the 1950–2012 average annual precipitation and about 3.1 inches less than in 2011.
Water levels in central Sevier Valley generally declined from March 2012 to March 2013. Hydrographs for selected wells show that March water levels generally rose from about 1978 to 1985 and declined from 1985 to about 1993. Since 1993, water levels have fluctuated depending upon the amount and timing of precipitation and recharge to the basin-fill aquifer from snowmelt runoff.
The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4, located 0.1 mile south of Sevier River in Venice, from 1955 to 2012, is shown in figure 21. The concentration has ranged from 307 to 630 mg/L, with a median value of 414 mg/L. There were substantial increases and decreases in dissolved-solids concentration during the mid- to late 1960s and 1980s. Dissolved-solids concentrations in samples collected from 1990 through 2012 show little variability and are generally near the median value for all sample concentrations.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 53
SEVI
ERVA
LLEY
T. 16 S.
T. 17 S.
T. 18 S.
T. 19 S.
T. 20 S.
T. 21 S.
T. 22 S.
T. 23 S.
T. 24 S.
T. 25 S.
T. 26 S.
T. 27 S.
T. 28 S.
T. 29 S.
T. 30 S.
R. 1 E.
R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E.
R. 1 W.R. 2 W.R. 3 W. R. 2½ W.R. 4 W.
R 3 WR 4 WR 4½ W
CreekCreek
CityCity
Sevier RiverSevier River
Otte
rO
tter
Cre
ekC
reek
ClearClear CreekCreek
BeaverBeaver CreekCreek
MonroeMonroe
CreekCreek
CreekCreek
Gooseberry
Gooseberry
CreekCreek
SalinaSalina
TwelveTwelve MileMile Cree
kCree
k
SixSix MileMile CreekCreek
San
San
Pitc
hPi
tch
Rive
rRi
ver
CreekCreek
LostLost
RiverRiver
SevierSevier
Sevier BridgeReservoir
Sevier BridgeReservoir
GunnisonReservoirGunnisonReservoir
Rocky FordReservoirRocky FordReservoir
KoosharemReservoirKoosharemReservoir
PiuteReservoirPiuteReservoir
Otter CreekReservoirOtter CreekReservoirEast
EastSevierSevier
ForkFork
RiverRiver
28
89
70
50
62
70
89
89
Manti
Kingston
Junction
Marysvale
Sevier
Joseph Monroe
Austin
ElsinoreCentral
RichfieldGlenwood
Venice
Sigurd
Vermillion
Aurora
Salina
Redmond
Axtel
CenterfieldGunnison
FayetteRA
NGE
PAHV
ANT
PLAT
EAU
PLAT
EAU
WAS
ATCH
MO
UN
TAIN
STU
SHAR
SEVI
ER
112°00'
YubaDam
39°15'
111°45'
MO
UN
TAIN
S
SAN
PIT
CHM
OU
NTA
INS
SANP
ETE
111°30'
GUNNISON-SEVIER BRIDGERESERVOIRBASIN
REDMOND-GUNNISONBASIN
VALL
EY
AURORA-REDMONDBASIN
SEVIER-SIGURDBASIN
39°00'
112°15'
38°45'
38°30'
38°15'
JUNCTION-MARYSVALEBASIN
0 5 10 Miles
5 10 Kilometers0
SEVIER COUNTYPIUTE COUNTY
JUAB COUNTYSANPETE COUNTY
Pove
rtyFla
t
1
SANPETE COUNTYSEVIER COUNTY
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
Approximate boundary of groundwater basinApproximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 21
EXPLANATION
10
VALL
EY
Not measured in 20137
8
9
56
10
4
2
3
Figure 20. Location of wells in central Sevier Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
54 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013 W
ATE
R L
EV
EL,
IN F
EE
T B
ELO
WLA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
1
2
3
4
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
46
42
41
40
44
43
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
4
9
10
7
8
45
6
No record
5
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
-5
-1
1
3 5
-2
2
0
-4-3
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,
IN F
EE
T A
BO
VE
OR
BE
LOW
(-) L
AN
D S
UR
FAC
E
No record
(C-19-1)23cac-1390819111530701
(C-21-1)1cab-1390035111515001
26
20
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(C-21-1)27cca-2385644111540501
(C-23-2)15dcb-4384757112002201
(C-24-2)7bac-2384357112035001
24
2219
30
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 21. Relation of water level in selected wells in central Sevier Valley to annual discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Richfield, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 55
6
7
8
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
125
110
105
190
186
184
192
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
115
120
130
135
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
188
44
42
38
36
30
25
15
20
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
9
40
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
10
(C-24-3)10bcc-1384340112073201
(C-24-3)25bdb-1384116112045801
(C-25-3)6abd-1383921112175901
(C-25-4)28abd-1383602112152901
(C-30-3)15bba-1381220112114001
65
90
80
85
75
70
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Not measured in March 2013
Figure 21. Relation of water level in selected wells in central Sevier Valley to annual discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Richfield, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4.—Continued
56 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
DIS
CH
AR
GE
,IN
TH
OU
SA
ND
SO
F A
CR
E-F
EE
T
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
100
200
300
0
-20
-10
0
CO
NC
EN
TRAT
ION
OF
DIS
SO
LVE
D S
OLI
DS
,IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R L
ITE
R
WIT
HD
RAW
AL,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
(C-23-2)15dcb-43847571120022010.1 mile south of Sevier Riverin Venice, Utah
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
No record
Richfield Radio KVSC1950–2012 average annual precipitation 8.1 inches
10174500 Sevier River at Hatch, Utah1940–2012 average annual discharge80,800 acre-feet
+10
+20
700
600
500
400
300
200
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
1963–2012 average annual withdrawal19,000 acre-feet
3035
2025
1015
05
Figure 21. Relation of water level in selected wells in central Sevier Valley to annual discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Richfield, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 57
Pahvant Valley
By Nickolas R. WhittierPahvant Valley, in southeastern Millard County, extends
from the vicinity of McCornick in the north to Kanosh in the south, and from the Pahvant Range and Canyon Mountains on the east and northeast to a low basalt ridge known as The Cinders on the west (fig. 22). The area of the valley is about 300 square miles. Groundwater drains west to the valley from the mountainous terrain to the east. Groundwater occurs in basin-fill deposits in the valley under both water-table and artesian conditions.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Pahvant Valley in 2012 was about 114,000 acre-feet, which is about 25,000 acre-feet more than was reported in 2011 and 23,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal for irrigation in 2012 was about 113,300 acre-feet, which is 24,900 acre-feet more than was reported in 2011.
The location of wells in Pahvant Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 22. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Fillmore, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells is shown in figure 23.
Precipitation at Fillmore during 2012 was about 12.7 inches, which is about 2.6 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1930–2012 and about 6.8 inches less than in 2011.
Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in most parts of Pahvant Valley; however, there were a few wells in the southwest part of the valley in which water levels rose slightly. Water-level declines of more than 6 feet were observed in several wells north of Flowell. These declines are probably the result of continued large localized withdrawals for irrigation. Water levels generally declined from the early 1950s until 1982 as a result of generally less-than-average precipitation and increased withdrawals. Water levels rose substantially from 1982 to 1985 as a result of greater-than-average precipitation and decreased withdrawals for irrigation. Water levels generally have declined throughout the valley since the mid-to-late 1980s.
The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from wells (C-21-5)7cdd-2 and (C-21-5)7cdd-3, located in the Flowell area, from 1954 to 2012, and from well (C-23-6)8abd-1, located in the Kanosh area, from 1957 to 2010, is shown in figure 23. Wells (C-21-5)7cdd-2 and (C-21-5)7cdd-3 are located near each other and are finished in the same aquifer. The dissolved-solids concentrations in water samples from these wells were combined to give an extended temporal record for this constituent. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water samples from wells in the Flowell area have ranged from 707 to 1,080 mg/L, with a median value of 879 mg/L. The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples from well (C-23-6)8abd-1 has ranged from 2,350 to 5,990 mg/L, with a median value of 4,465 mg/L.
58 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
PAHVANT
T. 23 S.
R. 5 W.R. 6 W.
VALLEY
T. 18 S.
T. 19 S.
T. 20 S.
T. 22 S.
T. 21 S.
R. 4 W.
CornCorn
CreekCreek
CreekCreek
MeadowMeadow
CreekCreekChalkChalk
CentralCentral
UtahUtah
CanalCanal
15
50
100
50
100
15
91
133
10
12
11
8
9
7
56
4
3
2
1
Hatton
Kanosh
Meadow
PAHV
ANT
RANG
E
Fillmore
Flowell
Holden
39°15'
McCornick
112°15'
CAN
YON
MO
UN
TAIN
S
112°30'
38°45'
THE CINDERS
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 23
EXPLANATION
10
0 5 Kilometers
5 Miles0 1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
Figure 22. Location of wells in Pahvant Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 59
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E1
2
3
4
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
5
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E(C-18-5)16bbc-1391522112253401
(C-18-5)28dda-1391302112243301
(C-19-4)29bcd-1390758112194601
(C-20-4)6dbd-1390558112202301
(C-20-5)24bda-1390344112214301
20
80
60
40
100
20
80
60
40
100
0
2040
60
80
100
120
140160
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
50
75
100
125
150
60
50
40
30
70
No record
Figure 23. Relation of water level in selected wells in Pahvant Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Fillmore, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.
60 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
6
7
8
0
45
30
55
120
50
35
40
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E20
40
60
80
100
125
100
25
50
9
10
75
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E(C-20-5)26ddd-1390216112222001
(C-21-5)7cdd-2385939112272302
(C-21-5)21aba-1385844112245801
(C-21-5)33aad-1385650112243601
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L, IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
E O
R B
ELO
W (-
)LA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
(C-22-5)33cdd-2385053112252401
−80
−60
−40
−20
20
0
−75
−50
−25
25
0
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 23. Relation of water level in selected wells in Pahvant Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Fillmore, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 61
60
50
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E11
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
40
30
12
(C-22-6)11acd-1385453112292701
20
0
5
10
20
15
(C-23-6)17baa-1384906112330601
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 23. Relation of water level in selected wells in Pahvant Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Fillmore, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.—Continued
62 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Figure 23. Relation of water level in selected wells in Pahvant Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Fillmore, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.—Continued
-50
-25
0
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
600
CO
NC
EN
TRAT
ION
OF
DIS
SO
LVE
D S
OLI
DS
, IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R L
ITE
R
WIT
HD
RAW
AL,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
7,500
2,500
0
5,000No record
Flowell areaSum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
Fillmore1930–2012 average annual precipitation 15.3 inches
+25
(C-21-5)7cdd-2385939112272302(water-table aquifer) (1954–58) (C-21-5)7cdd-3
385939112272303(water-table aquifer) (1960–2012)
(C-23-6)8abd-1384953112325101
No record
1946–2012 average annual withdrawal69,000 acre-feet
Kanosh areaSum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
100
80
60
40
20
0
120
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
1,000
1,200
800
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 63
Cedar Valley, Iron County
By James H. HowellsCedar Valley is in eastern Iron County, southwestern Utah.
The valley covers about 220 square miles from the vicinity of Rush Lake in the north to the community of Kanarraville in the south and includes Cedar City on its eastern edge (fig. 24). Groundwater in Cedar Valley occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits, mostly under water-table conditions. The principal source of recharge to the basin-fill aquifer is water from Coal Creek, some of which seeps directly from the stream channel into the groundwater system.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Cedar Valley in 2012 was about 40,000 acre-feet, which is 6,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and 2,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3).
The location of wells in Cedar Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 24. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual discharge of Coal Creek near Cedar City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells is shown in figure 25.
Precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport in 2012 was about 12.6 inches, which is about 2.6 inches less than in 2011 and about 1.8 inches more than the average annual precipitation for 1949–2012. Discharge of
Coal Creek was about 18,800 acre-feet in 2012, which is 28,600 acre-feet less than in 2011, and 5,900 acre-feet less than the average annual discharge for 1936 and 1939–2012.
Groundwater levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in most parts of Cedar Valley. The largest declines, greater than 6 feet, were measured in four wells north and west of Cedar City. Water-level declines probably resulted from locally increased withdrawals and decreased recharge. Water-level rises were measured in one well west and three wells north of Cedar City. Water-level rises probably resulted from decreased localized withdrawals and increased recharge.
The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from well (C-37-12)23acb-1, located 2.3 miles northeast of Kanarraville, from 1966 to 2012, and well (C-35-11)31dbd-1, located about 4 miles northwest of Cedar City, from 1977 to 2012, is shown in figure 25. The dissolved-solids concentration in water from well (C-37-12)23acb-1 has ranged from 347 to 1,050 mg/L, with a median value of 506 mg/L; the concentration of dissolved solids from 1966 to 2012 has generally increased. For well (C-35-11)31dbd-1, the concentration of dissolved solids in water samples has ranged from 364 to 1,020 mg/L, with a median value of 543 mg/L. From 1987 to 2012, the concentration has generally increased.
64 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
CEDA
R
VALL
EY36 31
61
36 31
61
3631
61
36 31
61
36 31
61
36 31
61
36 31
61
36
31
61
3631
61
3636 31
61
36 31
61
36 3136
31
8
RushLakeRushLake
QuichapaLakeQuichapaLake
CoalCoal
CreekCreek 14
19
15
130
56
56
15
Iron Springs
CedarCity
Hamilton Fort
Kanarraville
Enoch
6
7
5
2
3
1
4
9
(2)
GRANITEMOUNTAIN
EIGHTMILE HILLS
CROSS HOLL
OW H
ILLS
THE
BAL
D H
ILLS
THE
THR
EE P
EAKS
0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
R. 12 W.
37°35'
113°00'113°10'
37°50'
T. 35 S.
T. 34 S.
T. 36 S.
T. 37 S.
R. 13 W. R. 11 W.
R. 10 W.
Winn
Gap
NORTHHILLS
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding
hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 25. Number in parentheses refers to number of wells at that site
EXPLANATION
6 (2)
Figure 24. Location of wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 65
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
45
40
35
30 1
2
3
4
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
30
25
15
10
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
27
23
22
21
25
24
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
30
10
5
20
15
20
26
25
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
120
80
60
40 5
100
(C-33-11)30ddd-2375352113072402
(C-33-11)31aad-1375341113072501
(C-33-11)31aad-2375341113072502
(C-34-11)1daa-1375233113015501
(C-34-11)9cdc-1374521113014801
(C-35-11)4aba-1374744113055001
(C-35-11)33aac-1374304113052901
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 25. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual discharge of Coal Creek near Cedar City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.
66 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
6
7
8
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-50
-25
+25
0
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
9
(C-35-12)34dcd-2374226113110401 (C-35-12)36caa-1
374249113090701
(C-36-12)12dba-1374105113085001
(C-36-12)32dcc-1373710113132701
(C-37-12)14abc-1373509113101101
Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport1949–2012 average annual precipitation 10.8 inches
90
70
50
30
10
30
50
70
900
20
40
60
8030
50
70
110
90
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
10
Figure 25. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual discharge of Coal Creek near Cedar City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 67
DIS
CH
AR
GE
,IN
TH
OU
SA
ND
SO
F A
CR
E-F
EE
T
50
75
100
0
25
50
0
25
WIT
HD
RAW
AL,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
1,000
1,200
200
600
(C-35-11)31dbd-1374248113075201About 4 miles northwest of Cedar City
800
400
CO
NC
EN
TRAT
ION
OF
DIS
SO
LVE
D S
OLI
DS
,IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R L
ITE
R
(C-37-12)23acb-13734071131008012.3 miles northeast of Kanarraville
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
10242000 Coal Creek near Cedar City, Utah1936, 1939–2012 average annual discharge 24,700 acre-feet
1938–40, 1945–2012 averageannual withdrawal 26,000 acre-feet
1938–40 irrigation only (entire valley)1945–55 irrigation only (valley north of Hamilton Fort)1956–62 irrigation only (entire valley)1963–2012 total (entire valley)
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
1,100
900
700
500
300
No record
Figure 25. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual discharge of Coal Creek near Cedar City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.—Continued
68 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Parowan Valley
By James H. HowellsParowan Valley is in northern Iron County, southwestern
Utah. The valley covers about 160 square miles west of the Hurricane Cliffs and includes the towns of Paragonah and Parowan (fig. 26). Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits under both water-table and artesian conditions.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Parowan Valley in 2012 was about 38,000 acre-feet, which is about 6,000 acre-feet more than was reported for 2011 and 4,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). The increase is mainly due to increased withdrawals for irrigation.
The location of wells in Parowan Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 26. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1 is shown in figure 27.
Precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport in 2012 was about 12.6 inches, which is about 2.6
inches less than the value for 2011 and 1.8 inches more than the average annual precipitation for 1949–2012.
Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in all parts of Parowan Valley for which data are available. The largest decline, about 6.3 feet, was measured in a well north-west of Parowan. Water levels in Parowan Valley generally have declined since 1950. Some rises occurred during 1973–74, 1983–85, 1996–99, 2006, and 2012. Declines in water levels are probably the result of continued large local withdrawals for irrigation. Rises are probably the result of less withdrawal for irrigation and several years of greater-than-average precipitation.
The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1, located 2 miles west of Paragonah, from 1961 to 2012, is shown in figure 27. The concentration has ranged from 257 to 885 mg/L, with a median value of 290 mg/L. The water sample collected in June 2012 had a dissolved-solids concentration of 290 mg/L. With the exception of relatively high dissolved-solids concentrations in water samples collected in 1970, 1973, and 1974, concentrations have varied little.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 69
36 31
1 6
36 31
1 6
3631
1
36 31
1 6
36 31
1 61 6
36 31
1 6
36 31
1 6
36 31
1 6
PARO
WAN
VALL
EY
R. 7 W.
T. 32 S.
T. 33 S.
T. 34 S.
R. 8 W.
R. 9 W.R. 10 W.
Paro
wan
Cree
k
Fremon
t
Fremon
t
Was
hW
ash
Little Salt L
ake
Little Salt L
ake
15
15
Summit
Paragonah
Parowan
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
112°45' 112°40'
38°00'
112°55'
37°50'
HURRICANE
CLIFFS
0 1 2 3 Miles
0 1 2 3 Kilometers
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—
Number refers to hydrograph in figure 27
EXPLANATION
8
Not measured in 2013
12
3
11
1
2
5
4
8
10
6
7
9
Figure 26. Location of wells in Parowan Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
70 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013 W
ATE
R L
EV
EL,
IN F
EE
T B
ELO
WLA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
110
90
80
70 1
2
3
4
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
160
140
80
60
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
100
20
0
60
40
120
80
100
100
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
100
60
20
0 5
40
80
(C-31-7)31cca-1380337112414401
(C-33-8)28cda-1375400112460801
(C-32-8)13bca-1380130112425201
0
10
20
30
(C-33-9)35bac-1375345112504201
(C-33-9)35bac-2375338112502801
(C-33-8)28cad-1375402112455401
(C-34-8)5bca-1375241112471001
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Not measured in March 2013
Figure 27. Relation of water level in selected wells in Parowan Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 71
6
7
8
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
70
50
20
0
100
60
20
120
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
30
40
60
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E10
80
40
120
100
80
40
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
9
10
60
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
(C-34-9)7ccc-1375115112550601
(C-34-9)7aad-1375152112541001
(C-34-9)8dad-2375127112530601
(C-34-9)8dad-3375127112530602
(C-34-9)16cdd-2375033112523401
(C-34-10)13cbd-2375033112561101
125
100
75
50
No record
100
80
60
40
120
140160
20
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
(C-33-9)35ddd-2375303112495102
(C-33-9)35ddd-1375303112495101
Figure 27. Relation of water level in selected wells in Parowan Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1.—Continued
72 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
0
20
30
40
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-50
-25
600
800
1,000
200
400
0
WIT
HD
RAW
AL,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
10
CO
NC
EN
TRAT
ION
OF
DIS
SO
LVE
D S
OLI
DS
, IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R L
ITE
R
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
-10
-5
0
10
15
20
(C-32-8)27dca-1375915112442901
No record5
+25
WA
TER
LE
VE
L, IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
E O
R B
ELO
W (-
)LA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
(C-33-8)31ccc-13752571124835012 miles west of Paragonah
11
12
1938–40, 1945–2012 average annual withdrawal23,000 acre-feet
1938–40, 1945–62 irrigation only1963–2012 total
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport1949–2012 average annual precipitation 10.8 inches
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
(C-34-9)11bca-1375148112503701
(C-34-9)11aac-1375153112500201
50
100
150
200
250
Figure 27. Relation of water level in selected wells in Parowan Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 73
Escalante Valley
Milford Area
By Bradley A. SlaughThe Milford area is in southwestern Utah and includes that
part of Escalante Valley lying entirely within Beaver County west of the Mineral Mountains, the southern part of Millard County, and a small area in the northern part of Iron County (fig. 28). Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits in the valley.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the Milford area of Escalante Valley in 2012 was about 67,000 acre-feet, which is 14,000 acre-feet more than was reported for 2011 and 17,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). This increase was most likely the result of increased pumpage for irrigation due to decreased availability of surface water and less-than-average precipitation.
The location of wells in the Milford area in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 28. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Black Rock, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2 is shown in figure 29.
Precipitation at Black Rock in 2012 was about 6.6 inches, about 7.1 inches less than in 2011 and about 2.4 inches less than the 1952–2012 average annual precipitation.
Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in most of the Milford area. The amount of water-level rise or decline depends largely on groundwater withdrawals, the amount and timing of precipitation, and recharge to the basin-fill aquifer from the Beaver River. Since the early 1950s, water levels generally have declined in the south-central Milford area in response to the long-term effects of groundwater withdrawals. Water-level rises during 1983–85 resulted from greater-than-average precipitation during 1982–85 and increased recharge to the basin-fill aquifer from record flow in the Beaver River during 1983–84.
The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2, located 5 miles south of Milford, from 1969 to 2012, is shown in figure 29. The concentration has ranged from 477 to 909 mg/L with a median value of 572 mg/L. The dissolved-solids concentration in the June 2012 sample was 477 mg/L. With the exception of a relatively high dissolved-solids concentration in the water sample collected in 2001 (909 mg/L), concentrations have varied little.
74 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
VALL
EY
ESCA
LANTE
Cove Creek
Cove Creek
Beav
erBe
aver
Rive
rRi
ver
Canal
Canal
Low Line
Low Line
RiverRiver
BeaverBeaverUnio
n Pac
ific R
ailro
ad
257
21
21
129
130
BEAVER COUNTYMILLARD COUNTY
IRON COUNTY
BEAVER COUNTY
Antelope SpringAntelope Spring
1
2
3
4
6
7
5
89
10
113°00'
38°45'
T. 24 S.Black Rock
Read
38°30'
ROCKY RANGE
T. 27 S.
MIN
ERAL
MOU
NTA
INS
T. 28 S.THE PASS
BRADSHAWMOUNTAIN
Milford
Minersville
T. 29 S.
Thermo Siding
113°15'
38°15'
R. 14 W. R. 13 W. R. 12 W. R. 11 W.
BLUE KNOLL
T. 31 S.
T. 30 S.
T. 26 S.
T. 25 S.
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 29
EXPLANATION
1
MinersvilleReservoirMinersvilleReservoir
R. 10 W. R. 9 W.
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
0 2 4 6 8 10 Kilometers
0 2 4 6 8 10 MilesFR
ANCI
SCO
SAN
MOU
NTAI
NS
Figure 28. Location of wells in the Milford area in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 75
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
18
16
15 1
2
3
4
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
344
343
341
340
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
20
0
60
40
80
17
342
No record
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
140
100
80 5
120
(C-25-10)26caa-1383631112564001
(C-27-10)12ddd-1382814112550101
(C-28-10)19add-3382138113003303
(C-28-10)28cdd-1382020112585901
(C-30-10)6ddd-1381319113003501
(C-30-10)17cca-1381147113002001
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 29. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Milford area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Black Rock, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2.
76 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
6
7
8
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
90
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
60
50
No record
70
80
65
60
50
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
9
10
55
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
(C-29-11)4baa-1381925113054001
(C-30-11)12bbb-1381318113024801
(C-30-12)3ddd-1381323113103701
(C-30-13)34bba-1380943113181001
100
20
40
60
80
100
120
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
(C-29-11)13add-1381716113014101
60
40
20
80
50
48
46
44
42
No record
Figure 29. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Milford area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Black Rock, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2.— Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 77
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PA
RTU
RE
,IN
INC
HE
S
-20
-10
+20
+10
50
75
0
25
0
WIT
HD
RA
WA
L,IN
TH
OU
SA
ND
SO
F A
CR
E-F
EE
T
CO
NC
EN
TRA
TIO
N O
FD
ISS
OLV
ED
SO
LID
S, I
NM
ILLI
GR
AM
S P
ER
LIT
ER
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
500
700
1,000
800
900
400
600
Black Rock1952–2012 average annual precipitation 9.0 inches
(C-29-10)5cdd-23818351130000015 miles south of Milford
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
1931–2012 average annual withdrawal41,000 acre-feet
Figure 29. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Milford area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Black Rock, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2.— Continued
78 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Escalante Valley
Beryl-Enterprise Area
By Howard K. ChristiansenThe Beryl-Enterprise area covers about 800 square miles
at the southern end of Escalante Valley, southeast of the Wah Wah Mountains in Iron County, and a small area in Washington County in the vicinity of the community of Enterprise (fig. 30). Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits in the valley.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area in 2012 was about 91,000 acre-feet, which is 7,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and 2,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3).
The location of wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 30. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Enterprise, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3 is shown in figure 31.
Precipitation at Enterprise in 2012 was about 12.0 inches, which is about 2.1 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1955–2012 and about 0.5 inch more than in 2011.
Water levels declined slightly from March 2012 to March 2013 in most of the wells measured in the Beryl-Enterprise area. Water levels throughout most of the area have declined steadily since 1950 and have shown little or no recovery during periods of greater-than-average precipitation. For example, water-level measurements in well (C-36-16)29daa-1, about 5 miles northeast of Enterprise (fig. 31), have shown a decline of nearly 133 feet from March 1946 to March 2013. Declines such as this one are a result of continued large withdrawals for irrigation beginning in about 1950.
The concentration of dissolved solids in one water sample collected from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3, located 6 miles south-southeast of Beryl, is shown in figure 31 (this well replaces well (C-34-16)28dcc-2). The concentration of dissolved solids in the water sample collected in June 2012 was 478 mg/L.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 79
ESCALANTE
VALL
EYCreek
CreekCreek
Meadow
Meadow
Pine
Cr
Shoal
Creek
Creek
PintoPinto
NewcastleReservoirNewcastleReservoir
Union Pacific Railro
ad
56
18
Enterprise
Newcastle
Iron Springs
Beryl
Zane
Avon
Lund
Beryl Junction
Modena
11
10
97 8
6
5
4
2
3
1
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
0 2 4 6 8 Miles
0 2 4 6 8 Kilometers
T.31S.
113°55' 113°15'
37°35'
38°05'
T.33S.
T.32S.
T.34S.
T.35S.
T.36S.
T.37S.
R. 12 W.R. 13 W.R. 14 W.R. 15 W.R. 16 W.R. 17 W.R. 18 W.
IRONMOUNTAIN
ANTE
LOPE
RAN
GE
WAH WAH
MOUNTAINS
TableButte
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 31
EXPLANATION
9
Mountain
Mountain
IRON COUNTYWASHINGTON COUNTY
Figure 30. Location of wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
80 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
No record
1
2
3
4
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
6
5
4
3
2
80
70
65
60
75
No record
5
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
100
75
50
25
0
(C-33-16)30aac-1375429113403901
(C-34-15)1bad-1375245113290001
(C-32-14)28bbb-1375952113260601
(C-34-16)22bad-1375009113374501
(C-35-15)6cdd-1374649113342501
30
40
50
60
70
20
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
20
25
10
5
15
Figure 31. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Enterprise, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 81
6
7
8
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
140
80
60
40
120
200
140
120
100
180
100
160
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
175
100
75
50
125
150
120
80
160
200
9
10
No record
(C-35-17)14ccc-1374505113433701
(C-35-17)36dcc-1374228113420101
(C-36-15)4bad-3374209113322203
(C-36-16)3ddc-1374041113373501
(C-36-16)29daa-1373735113393801
120
100
8060
40
140160180
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
240
Figure 31. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Enterprise, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3.—Continued
82 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013 C
UM
ULA
TIV
ED
EPA
RTU
RE
,IN
INC
HE
S
-40
-20
+10
0
-10
-30
11
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
No record
No record
100
150
0
50
CO
NC
EN
TRAT
ION
OF
DIS
SO
LVE
D S
OLI
DS
,IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R L
ITE
R
WIT
HD
RAW
AL,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
(C-37-17)14dcd-2373338113431502
Enterprise1955–2012 average annualprecipitation 14.1 inches
(C-34-16)28dcc-23748341133843016 miles south-southeast of Beryl
1937, 1940, 1945–2012 average annual withdrawal71,000 acre-feet
400
600
1,000
800
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
(C-34-16)28dcc-3374934113384601
6 miles south-southeast of Beryl
20
30
40
50
10
Figure 31. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Enterprise, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 83
Central Virgin River Area
By Howard K. ChristiansenThe central Virgin River area is between the Pine Valley
Mountains and the Hurricane Cliffs, and is bounded by the Beaver Dam Mountains to the southwest, in Washington County (fig. 32). Major groundwater development includes water from valley-fill aquifers that is used primarily for irriga-tion, and water from consolidated-rock and valley-fill aquifers that is used primarily for public supply. Most of the wells are located near the Virgin and Santa Clara Rivers.
Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the central Virgin River area in 2012 was about 29,000 acre-feet, which is about 1,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and the same as the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3), mainly due to a small increase in withdrawal for irrigation. Withdrawal for industrial use decreased slightly, and with-drawals for public supply and for domestic and stock use were about the same as in 2011.
The location of wells in the central Virgin River area in which the water level was measured during February 2013 is shown in figure 32. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to annual discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin, to cumulative departure from average annual pre-cipitation at St. George, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-41-17)8cbd-2 is shown in figure 33.
Discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin in 2012 was about 82,900 acre-feet, which is 151,200 acre-feet less than the value for 2011 and about 51,000 acre-feet less than the long-term average for 1931–70 and 1979–2012. Precipita-tion at St. George in 2012 was about 8.4 inches, which is about 0.2 inch more than the average annual precipitation for 1930–2012 and 6.0 inches more than in 2011.
Water levels from February 2012 to February 2013 gener-ally declined in most of the central Virgin River area. The largest decline, about 7.9 feet, was observed in a well east of Bloomington in the Fort Pearce Wash area. Declines are probably the result of continued large withdrawals for public supply and irrigation use.
The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from wells (C-41-17)8cbd-1 and (C-41-17)8cbd-2, located 1.5 miles south of Gunlock Reservoir, from 1966 to 2012, is shown in figure 33. These wells are located near each other and are finished in the same aquifer. The dissolved-solids concentrations in water samples from both wells were com-bined to give an extended temporal record for this constituent. The concentration has ranged from 255 to 313 mg/L with a median value of 290 mg/L. The dissolved-solids concentration in the water sample collected in July 2012 (292 mg/L) is very close to the median value.
84 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Cree
kCr
eekAsh
Cree
kAs
h Cr
eek
Leed
s Cre
ek
Leed
s Cre
ek
VirginVirgin RiverRiver
Qua
il C
reek
Qua
il C
reek
RiverRiver
North
For
kNo
rth F
ork
PearcePearce
WashWash
FortFort
LaVe
rkin
LaVe
rkin
RiverRiver
VirginVirgin
ClaraClara
SantaSanta
BakerReservoirBakerReservoir
IvinsReservoirIvinsReservoir
Ash CreekReservoirAsh CreekReservoir
GunlockReservoirGunlockReservoir
Legacy
Loop
High
way
15
17
15
59
9
9
18
St George
New Harmony
Pintura
AndersonJunction
Silver Reef
Leeds
Toquerville
La VerkinVirgin
Hurricane
HarrisburgJunction
Bloomington
WashingtonSanta Clara
Ivins
Veyo
Central
Gunlock
Shivwits
1
2
34
6
78
5
10
11
9
Snow Canyon
SANDMOUNTAIN
LITTLE CREEKMOUNTAINS
HU
RRIC
AN
ECL
IFFS
Approximate boundary of valley-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 33
EXPLANATION
VALLEY
PINE
MOU
NTAIN
S
BEAVER DAM MOUNTAINS
T. 38 S.
T. 39 S.
T. 40 S.
T. 41 S.
T. 42 S.
T. 43 S.
37°00'R.17 W. R.16 W. R.15 W.
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MOHAVE COUNTYR.14 W. R.13 W. R.12 W.
UTAHARIZONA
0 2 4 6 8 Kilometers
0 2 4 6 8 Miles
9
37°30'113°45'
113°30'
113°15'
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
HURR
ICAN
ECLIF
FSHU
RRIC
ANE
CLIF
FS
KanarravilleKanarraville
Figure 32. Location of wells in the central Virgin River area in which the water level was measured during February 2013.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 85
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
60
30
20 1
2
3
4
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
55
50
40
35
70
30
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
90
85
95
50
100
50
45
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
40
40
60
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
26
22
20 5
24
25
21
23
(C-37-12)34abb-1373236113111401
(C-38-12)9aab-1373040113122501
(C-42-14)12dbb-1370850113223001
(C-42-14)15cbd-1370538113251301
(C-42-15)34dba-2370517113310402
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 33. Relation of water level in selected wells in the central Virgin River area to annual discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at St. George, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-41-17)8cbd-2.
86 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
6
7
8
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
40
35
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
30
30
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
20
15
25
25
50
45
35
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
9
10
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
40
(C-42-16)5bbb-1371004113404201
(C-42-16)22cba-1370650113380201
(C-42-16)26bcc-1370617113371101
(C-43-14)31bab-1370037113281401
(C-43-15)24dcc-1370125113290401
(C-43-15)4ddc-1370404113320301
180
170
160
150
140
130
190
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
35
30
25
20
15
Figure 33. Relation of water level in selected wells in the central Virgin River area to annual discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at St. George, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-41-17)8cbd-2.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 87
-30
-10
+10
+20
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
0
100
400
30
40
0
10
300
WIT
HD
RAW
AL,
IN T
HO
US
AN
DS
OF
AC
RE
-FE
ET
CO
NC
EN
TRAT
ION
OF
DIS
SO
LVE
D S
OLI
DS
, IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R L
ITE
R
Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance
DIS
CH
AR
GE
,IN
TH
OU
SA
ND
SO
F A
CR
E-F
EE
T
300
325
250
275
200
0
-20
20
11W
ATE
R L
EV
EL,
IN F
EE
T B
ELO
WLA
ND
SU
RFA
CE (C-43-15)16dac-1
370231113320301
09406000 Virgin River at Virgin, Utah 1931–70, 1979–2012 averageannual discharge 133,900 acre-feet
(C-41-17)8cbd-13713471134703011.5 miles south of Gunlock Reservoir
(C-41-17)8cbd-23713481134703011.5 miles south of Gunlock Reservoir
St. George1930–2012 average annual precipitation 8.2 inches
1970–2012 average annual withdrawal21,000 acre-feet
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
40
35
45
50
55
No record
Figure 33. Relation of water level in selected wells in the central Virgin River area to annual discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at St. George, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-41-17)8cbd-2.—Continued
88 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 89
Other Areas
By Martel J. FisherTotal estimated withdrawal of water from wells in other
areas of Utah (table 4) in 2012 was about 156,000 acre-feet, which is 33,000 acre-feet more than the estimate for 2011 and 24,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). The largest increases were due to increased withdrawals for irrigation use. In most of the areas listed in table 4, withdrawals in 2012 were more than in 2011, except in Ogden Valley, where public-supply use decreased slightly, and in Grouse Creek Valley, where irrigation with-drawals decreased slightly.
The location of wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, in which the water level was measured during March 2013, is shown in figure 34. The relation of the water level in observa-tion wells in Cedar Valley to cumulative departure from aver-age annual precipitation at Provo BYU is shown in figure 35.
Water levels in selected wells in Cedar Valley generally rose during the 1970s. Water levels rose sharply from the early to mid-1980s as a result of greater-than-average precipitation, then declined during the mid-to-late 1980s and early 1990s. Water levels in these wells have been relatively stable since 1995. Water levels declined in most of the wells from March 2012 to March 2013.
The location of wells in Sanpete Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 36. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells in
Sanpete Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Manti is shown in figure 37.
Water levels in many of the selected wells in Sanpete Val-ley rose from the late-1970s to the mid-1980s as a result of greater-than-average precipitation and have varied since the mid-1980s, but overall have declined. Water levels declined in most of the selected observation wells from March 2012 to March 2013.
The location of wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 38. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells in the area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Callao is shown in figure 39.
Water levels in many of the selected wells in Snake Val-ley and the West Desert declined, or rose only slightly, from March 2012 to March 2013. Water levels rose sharply in the early to mid-1980s as a result of greater-than-average precipi-tation, but have generally declined since the mid-1980s.
The relation of the water level in wells in the remaining selected areas of Utah (table 4) to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas is shown in figure 40. Water levels declined or rose only slightly in most of the selected observation wells from March 2012 to March 2013.
Table 4. Estimated withdrawal of water from wells in other areas of Utah, 2012.
Number infigure 1 Area
Estimated withdrawal from wells (acre-feet)
20122011total
(rounded)Irrigation Industrial Public supply
Domestic and stock
Total (rounded)
1 Grouse Creek Valley 1,300 0 0 20 1,300 1,6002 Park Valley area 2,400 0 0 10 2,400 1,5004 Lower Bear River area 4,300 460 7,400 200 12,400 9,1008 Ogden Valley 0 0 11,900 20 11,900 12,100
13 Rush Valley 4,600 300 260 30 5,200 4,70014 Skull Valley, Dugway area, and Old River Bed 3,300 5,200 5,000 10 13,500 7,50015 Cedar Valley, Utah County 3,000 0 4,300 40 7,300 6,20020 Sanpete Valley 8,000 2,600 940 4,000 15,500 7,50025a Snake Valley 22,800 0 90 50 22,900 14,90027 Beaver Valley 10,200 20 530 480 11,200 6,700
Remainder of State 12,900 16,000 21,200 2,600 52,700 50,900Total (rounded) 72,800 24,600 51,600 7,500 156,000 123,000
90 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
VALL
EY
CEDA
R
T. 5 S.
1 6
T. 6 S.
T. 7 S.
36 31
1 6
R. 2 W.
T. 8 S.
36 31
1
R. 1 W.
6
36 31
R. 3 W.
CreekCreek
CanyonCanyon
WestWest
Sinks
73
73
1
2
34
3
EXPLANATION
112°05' 112°00'
40°20'
Cedar Fort
40°15'
FairfieldLA
KE M
OU
NTA
INS
40°10'
0 1 2 3 4 Kilometers
0 1 2 3 4 Miles
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 35
CedarPass
EagleMountain
OQ
UIR
RH
MO
UN
TAIN
S
TRAVERSE MOUNTAINSTH
ORP
E H
ILLS
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
Figure 34. Location of wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 91
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
260
230
220 1
2
3
4
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
65
45
55
250
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
50
240
60
No record
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
(C-5-2)34dab-1402019112023201
(C-6-2)15bbb-1401818112034201
(C-6-2)26cbb-1401607112023401
Provo BYU1981–2012 average annual precipitation 19.5 inches
+50
+25
0
70
90
110
120
130
100
80
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
(C-6-2)29bdb-1401620112054301
25
20
15
5
10
0
-25
Figure 35. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Provo BYU.
92 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
SANP
ETE
VALL
EY
T. 12 S.
T. 13 S.
T. 14 S.
R. 2 E.
T. 20 S.
T. 19 S.
R. 3 E. R. 4 E.
T. 18 S.
T. 17 S.
T. 16 S.
R. 5 E.
T. 15 S.
Nine MileReservoir
GunnisonReservoir
San
Pitc
hRi
ver
San Pitch Rive
r
WalesReservoir
89
132
31
116
117
89
Milburn
FountainGreen
Freedom
Moroni
Mount Pleasant
Fairview
Wales
Chester Spring City
Mayfield
Manti
Sterling
Ephraim
1
2(2)
(3)
3
4
(2)
PLATE
AU
SAN
PIT
CH
WASAT
CH
111°45'
39°45'
111°30'
PLAT
EAU
WA
SATC
H
39°15'
0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers
0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
39°30'
Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation well—Number in parentheses refers to number of wells at that siteObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 37
EXPLANATION
4
(3)
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
UTAH COUNTYSANPETE COUNTY
JUAB
COU
NTY
SAN
PETE
COU
NTY
MOU
NTA
INS
Figure 36. Location of wells in Sanpete Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 93
1
2
3
4
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
AB
OV
ELA
ND
SU
RFA
CE (D-14-2)13aaa-1
393630111383301
(D-15-4)4bcd-1393241111290501
0
5
10
15
20
30
25
45
40
35
30
25
20
(D-17-3)9cbd-1392056111353801
60
40
20
0
100
90
80
70
(D-18-2)12bab-1391610111384501
Manti1930–2012 average annual precipitation 13.0 inches
+25
0
-25
-50
CU
MU
LATI
VED
EPAR
TUR
E,IN
INC
HES
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 37. Relation of water level in selected wells in Sanpete Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Manti.
94 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
JUAB COUNTY
TOOELE COUNTY
JUAB COUNTYMILLARD COUNTY
21
650
257
Callao
Ibapah
Goshute
Gandy
TroutCreek
Garrison
Wah WahRanch
Sevier LakeSevier Lake
38°10'
113°10'
T. 15 S.
T. 14 S.
T. 13 S.
T. 12 S.
T. 11 S.
T. 10 S.
T. 9 S.
T. 16 S.
T. 17 S.
T. 18 S.
T. 19 S.
T. 20 S.
T. 21 S.
T. 22 S.
T. 23 S.
T. 24 S.
T. 25 S.
T. 26 S.
T. 27 S.
T. 28 S.
T. 29 S.
T. 30 S.
R. 12 W. R. 11 W.
R. 10 W. R. 9 W. R. 8 W.
5 Miles43210
5 Kilometers43210
SAN
FRAN
CISC
OM
OUNT
AINS
CONFUSION
RANGE
BEAVER COUNTYMILLARD COUNTY
Uni
on P
acifi
c R
ailro
ad
40°00'
114°00'
DEEP
CREE
KRA
NG
E
4
FishSpringsFishSprings
Approximate boundary of Snake ValleyObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 39
EXPLANATION
UTA
H
NE
VAD
A
39°10'
Border
Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983
R. 19 W. R. 18 W. R. 17 W. R. 16 W. R. 15 W. R. 14 W. R. 13 W.
WES
T
DES
ERT
1
4
2
3
Figure 38. Location of wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 95
Figure 39. Relation of water level in selected wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Callao.
80
50
60
70
25
35
30
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
2
4
6
0WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,
IN F
EE
T A
BO
VE
OR
BE
LOW
(-) L
AN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E(C-11-16)6cbc-4395355112423601
(C-22-19)6bcc-1385607114015601
(C-20-19)21acc-1390312113591701
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-40
-10
-20
-30 Callao1939–2012 average annual precipitation 5.7 inches
0
(C-18-19)28bcc-1391251114000001
25
20
15
10
5
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
+10
1
2
3
4
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
−2
96 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
20
0
15WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
5
10
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-75
+25
0
-25
-50
4
8
6
7
5
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E(B-10-18)16dda-1413535113544501Grouse Creek Valley
60
50
40
30
20
10
(B-13-13)28ddd-2414904113194501Park Valley area
(B-10-3)3cdd-1413729112100501lower Bear River area
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Pineview Dam1949–2012 average annualprecipitation 30.6 inches
Oakley, Idaho1930–2012 average annual precipitation 11.0 inches
+10
-10
-20
-30
-40
0
Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 97
-5
0
5
-10
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-75
0
-25
-50
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,
IN F
EE
T A
BO
VE
OR
BE
LOW
(-) L
AN
D S
UR
FAC
E
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-30
0
-10
-20
2
12
6
10
4
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
8
(A-13-5)21dab-1415124111225401Bear Lake Valley
Laketown1930–2012 average annual precipitation 12.1 inches
(A-12-7)26bba-2414539111073401upper Bear River area
+25
+10
Woodruff1948–2012 average annual precipitation 9.4 inches
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
No record
No record
Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.—Continued
98 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-75
0
-25
-50
30
20
10
40
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E (A-6-2)18bad-1411544111461001Ogden Valley
Pineview Dam1949–2012 average annualprecipitation 30.6 inches
+25
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
3
1
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
2
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-20
-40
0
+40
+20
No record
(D-3-5)29cac-1403127111240301Heber Valley
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
(D-2-6)20dcc-1403731111172101Kamas Valley
Heber City1930–2012 average annual precipitation 15.3 inches
Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 99
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-20
0
-10
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
4
12
6
-30
-10
0
10
8
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E8
6
4
14
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
12
10
No record
-20
U(B-1-1)31ddb-1402611110020101Duchesne River area
Neola1957–2012 average annual precipitation 8.8 inches
(D-4-21)14cdd-1402748109314501Vernal area
Vernal Airport1948–2012 average annualprecipitation 8.3 inches
+20
+10
+10
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.—Continued
100 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-20
0
-40
-10
No record
-30
+10
(C-8-5)20cdd-1400601112255401Rush Valley
(C-7-8)10cbd-1401312112442301Dugway area
Dugway1946–2012 average annualprecipitation 7.6 inches
10
12
14
16
18
8
70
80
90
100
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.—Continued
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 101
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-50
0
-25
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
150
225
175
200
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E15
10W
ATE
R L
EV
EL,
IN F
EE
T B
ELO
WLA
ND
SU
RFA
CE
20
(C-29-7)19bcd-1381625112412901Beaver Valley
+2525
+20
+10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport1949–2012 average annual precipitation 10.8 inches
(D-33-24)30dab-1375243109191301Monticello area
Blanding1930–2012 average annualprecipitation 12.5 inches
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.—Continued
102 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.—Continued
-20
0
20
0
60
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
40
WAT
ER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PAR
TUR
E,
IN IN
CH
ES
-10
(D-26-22)27aaa-1383109109285501Spanish Valley
+20
+10
(D-36-22)35bba-1373712109281701Blanding-Bluff area
Bluff1930–2012 average annual precipitation 7.7 inches
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
110
115
100
105
90
95
85
Major Areas of Groundwater Development 103
6
16
8
10
30
20
70
WA
TER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E40
WA
TER
LE
VE
L,IN
FE
ET
BE
LOW
LAN
D S
UR
FAC
E
CU
MU
LATI
VE
DE
PA
RTU
RE
,IN
INC
HE
S
12
50
60
14
(C-36-3)6dba-1374205112091501upper Sevier River area
+25
(D-28-4)36cdb-1381940111253501upper Fremont River Valley
Hatch1949–2012 average annualprecipitation 11.6 inches
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
0
-25
-50
-75
Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.—Continued
104 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012
From June through September 2012, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Utah Water Science Center, in cooperation with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality, sampled water from 110 wells located in 21 counties (fig. 41). Samples were collected during this time period to limit seasonal variability in the data. The majority of water samples were collected from irrigation wells. Field parameters that were measured at the time the water samples were collected included pH, specific conductance, and water temperature. Chemical constituents that were analyzed in the water samples included major ions, dissolved solids, nutrients (nitrate plus nitrite and orthophosphate), and selected trace elements. The USGS National Water Quality Laboratory in Denver, Colorado, analyzed the water samples. Field param-eter values and analytical results for major ions, dissolved solids, and nutrients are shown in table 5. Analytical results for trace elements are shown in table 6.
The water samples were collected using protocols in the USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated). Ana-lytical methods used by the laboratory are described in Fish-man and Friedman (1989). Water-quality data in this report
are stored in the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database and are available online at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/qw.
Water-quality field blanks were collected to determine if samples were being contaminated during equipment decon-tamination and/or sample collection and processing proce-dures. A field blank is an inorganic blank water sample that is prepared by the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, carried in the field, and processed using the same methods and equipment as the environmental water samples. The field blank is subject to processing in the field, preservation, ship-ment, laboratory handling procedures, and analytical proto-cols. Eleven field blank water samples were processed during the 2012 sampling period. Analytical results for all constitu-ents in the field blanks were less than the laboratory reporting limits.
Replicate water samples also were collected at two wells. A replicate sample is collected concurrent with an environ-mental sample and is used to assess the repeatability of the laboratory analytical results. Analytical results for the replicate water samples were in good agreement with the environmental samples, agreeing within 2 percent for all constituents.
Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 105
GreatSaltLake
Flaming GorgeReservoir
UtahLake
StrawberryReservoir
BearLake
LakePowell
BOX ELDER
CACHE RICH
WEBER
MORGAN
DAVIS
SUMMIT
UTAH
TOOELE
WASATCH
DUCHESNE
DAGGETT
UINTAH
JUAB
SANPETE
CARBON
MILLARD
EMERY GRAND
BEAVERPIUTE WAYNE
IRONGARFIELD
SAN JUAN
KANEWASHINGTON
SEVIER
SALT LAKE
Farmington Manila
Duchesne
Vernal
Heber
Richfield
Logan
Brigham City
Cedar City
Parowan
Ogden
Green River
Delta
Fillmore
JunctionBeaver
Panguitch
Monticello
St George
Bluff
Randolph
Wendover
Tooele
Morgan
Coalville
Manti
Nephi
Moab
Castle Dale
Loa
Kanab
Price
Provo
110° 109°
Salt Lake City
112° 111°
20
200
0
40
40
60 Kilometers
60 Miles
113°
(A-11-1)35cca-1
114°42°
37°
38°
39°
40°
41°
Groundwater site and identifier (refer to tables 5 and 6)
EXPLANATION
(C-26-7)26cac-1(C-26-7)26cac-1
(C-28-10)20daa-1(C-28-10)20daa-1(C-28-10)29bcc-2(C-28-10)29bcc-2
(C-29-10)5cdd-2(C-29-10)5cdd-2
(C-29-10)18ddd-1(C-29-10)18ddd-1(C-29-7)19bcd-1(C-29-7)19bcd-1
(C-29-11)27aad-1(C-29-11)27aad-1(C-29-2)35bad-1(C-29-2)35bad-1
(C-30-2)34bcc-1(C-30-2)34bcc-1
(C-26-1)25acc-1(C-26-1)25acc-1
(D-27-2)26ddc-1(D-27-2)26ddc-1
(D-26-22)16ddd-3(D-26-22)16ddd-3
(D-26-22)26cba-1(D-26-22)26cba-1
(C-33-8)22bbc-2(C-33-8)22bbc-2
(C-36-12)36adb-1(C-36-12)36adb-1
(C-33-8)31ccc-1(C-33-8)31ccc-1
(C-37-12)23acb-1(C-37-12)23acb-1
(C-34-10)13cbd-2(C-34-10)13cbd-2
(C-37-12)34abb-1(C-37-12)34abb-1
(C-35-11)31dbd-1(C-35-11)31dbd-1
(C-33-9)14dbd-2(C-33-9)14dbd-2
(C-34-16)28dcc-3(C-34-16)28dcc-3(C-35-15)3dcc-3(C-35-15)3dcc-3
(C-36-15)7cdd-2(C-36-15)7cdd-2
(C-35-17)7dad-2(C-35-17)7dad-2(C-36-15)4bad-3(C-36-15)4bad-3
(C-41-17)8cbd-2(C-41-17)8cbd-2
(C-42-14)15cbd-1(C-42-14)15cbd-1
(C-42-11)33bcb-1(C-42-11)33bcb-1
R(C-40-4)31bad-1R(C-40-4)31bad-1
(C-44-5)6cbb-1(C-44-5)6cbb-1
(D-40-22)30bbb-1(D-40-22)30bbb-1
(D-40-21)25acd-1(D-40-21)25acd-1 (D-40-23)27baa-1(D-40-23)27baa-1
(B-6-3)15cbc-1(B-6-3)15cbc-1
(B-5-2)6bdd-4(B-5-2)6bdd-4
(B-2-1)24bad-10(B-2-1)24bad-10
(B-4-2)27aba-1(B-4-2)27aba-1
(C-3-8)28ddb-1(C-3-8)28ddb-1
(C-4-8)33aba-1(C-4-8)33aba-1
(C-5-5)15add-2(C-5-5)15add-2 (D-5-1)20aba-2(D-5-1)20aba-2 (D-5-1)21dda-2(D-5-1)21dda-2
(D-7-2)4cbb-2(D-7-2)4cbb-2(C-6-2)26cbc-1(C-6-2)26cbc-1(C-6-2)29bdb-1(C-6-2)29bdb-1
(C-2-5)34dbb-1(C-2-5)34dbb-1(C-2-5)35cab-1(C-2-5)35cab-1
(C-2-4)34dad-1(C-2-4)34dad-1(C-2-4)34adc-1(C-2-4)34adc-1(C-2-4)33bdd-1(C-2-4)33bdd-1
(C-3-1)12ccb-3(C-3-1)12ccb-3
(D-1-1)19cdb-17(D-1-1)19cdb-17
(D-2-1)21dbc-1(D-2-1)21dbc-1
(A-1-1)31cac-1(A-1-1)31cac-1(D-1-1)7abd-6(D-1-1)7abd-6
(D-4-5)16bab-1(D-4-5)16bab-1
(D-4-4)13bdd-1(D-4-4)13bdd-1
(D-4-5)16ccd-1(D-4-5)16ccd-1
(D-3-4)26dba-1(D-3-4)26dba-1(D-4-5)6bcc-2(D-4-5)6bcc-2
(D-4-5)4ccb-1(D-4-5)4ccb-1
(D-4-5)3dcc-1(D-4-5)3dcc-1(D-4-4)12dcc-1(D-4-4)12dcc-1
U(C-1-2)36adc-1U(C-1-2)36adc-1U(C-2-2)11bab-1U(C-2-2)11bab-1
U(C-1-1)24cbb-2U(C-1-1)24cbb-2U(C-1-2)27ddc-1U(C-1-2)27ddc-1
U(C-3-5)31dcd-1U(C-3-5)31dcd-1
(D-9-2)9bac-1(D-9-2)9bac-1
(D-9-1)36bbc-1(D-9-1)36bbc-1
(D-11-1)21bbb-1(D-11-1)21bbb-1
(C-9-1)4ddc-1(C-9-1)4ddc-1
(C-9-1)28ccb-1(C-9-1)28ccb-1
(C-8-5)7ddd-2(C-8-5)7ddd-2
(C-8-5) 6ddb-2(C-8-5) 6ddb-2
(C-16-4)18bda-1(C-16-4)18bda-1
(C-15-4)8cba-1(C-15-4)8cba-1(C-15-5)15dad-1(C-15-5)15dad-1
(C-15-4)26dcc-1(C-15-4)26dcc-1(C-15-4)11add-1(C-15-4)11add-1
(D-13-1)5ddb-2(D-13-1)5ddb-2
(D-15-4)17abb-1(D-15-4)17abb-1
(C-14-1)26dbd-1(C-14-1)26dbd-1
(D-17-3)9cbd-1(D-17-3)9cbd-1
(D-17-2)14ccb-1(D-17-2)14ccb-1
(C-19-1)23cac-1(C-19-1)23cac-1
(C-23-2)15dcb-4(C-23-2)15dcb-4(C-23-2)19dab-1(C-23-2)19dab-1
(C-21-5)7cdd-3(C-21-5)7cdd-3
(C-23-5)5acd-1(C-23-5)5acd-1(C-23-6)21add-1(C-23-6)21add-1(C-23-6)28bbb-2(C-23-6)28bbb-2
(C-23-6)8abd-1(C-23-6)8abd-1
(C-18-19)20ddd-2(C-18-19)20ddd-2
(C-20-20)1baa-2(C-20-20)1baa-2
(C-23-19)4bcd-1 Highway 21 Well(C-23-19)4bcd-1 Highway 21 Well
(B-15-10)36bbb-1(B-15-10)36bbb-1 (B-14-9)5bbb-1(B-14-9)5bbb-1 (B-14-4)1dac-1(B-14-4)1dac-1
(B-9-2)15daa-1(B-9-2)15daa-1
(A-13-1)29bcd-1(A-13-1)29bcd-1(B-12-11)6abb-1(B-12-11)6abb-1
(A-12-1)29cab-1(A-12-1)29cab-1(B-12-11)8baa-1(B-12-11)8baa-1(A-12-1)31dab-2(A-12-1)31dab-2
(B-12-11)8bbb-1(B-12-11)8bbb-1
(B-11-1) 9cdb-1(B-11-1) 9cdb-1
(B-12-11)8abb-1(B-12-11)8abb-1
(B-11-1)35cca-1(B-11-1)35cca-1
(B-11-4)3bac-1(B-11-4)3bac-1
(B-10-18)33aaa-1(B-10-18)33aaa-1
Figure 41. Location of groundwater sites sampled during the summer of 2012.
106 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
[µS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; ANC, acid neutralization capacity; —, no data; <, less than; L, laboratory value]
Local identifier
(refer to figure 41)
Station number Date
pH, field, in
standard units
Specific conductance,
field, in µS/cm at 25°C
Watertemperature,
field, in °C
Hardness, water,
in mg/L as CaCO
3
Calcium, dissolved,
in mg/L
Magnesium, dissolved,
in mg/L
Beaver CountyBeaver Valley(C-29-7)19bcd-1 381625112412901 6/25/2012 7.2 498 13.5 164 50.8 9.07Cove Fort area(C-26-7)26cac-1 383101112365301 8/6/2012 7.9 634 14.8 270 82.3 15.7Escalante Valley, Milford area(C-28-10)20daa-1 382135112592801 6/18/2012 7.0 2,110 19.5 902 188 105(C-28-10)29bcc-2 381543113035501 6/18/2012 7.6 737 15.5 267 80 16.4(C-29-10)5cdd-2 382046113002702 6/18/2012 7.1 790 21.4 310 72.8 31.2(C-29-10)18ddd-1 381835113000001 6/18/2012 7.0 768 15.4 346 103 21.5(C-29-11)27aad-1 381649113003401 6/18/2012 7.2 888 16.7 402 121 24.1
Box Elder CountyCurlew Valley(B-12-11)6abb-1 414813113082901 7/13/2012 7.5 751 14.9 271 80.1 17.3(B-12-11)8bbb-1 414720113075201 7/13/2012 7.2 2,580 14.2 705 200 49.9(B-12-11)8baa-1 414721113072601 7/13/2012 7.2 3,960 13.5 1,400 406 93.2(B-14-9)5bbb-1 415847112540401 7/12/2012 7.0 1,400 17.3 513 151 33.1(B-15-10)36bbb-1 415939112562201 7/12/2012 7.5 488 16.0 196 58.5 12.1Lower Bear River area(B-11-4)3bac-1 414313112172501 8/31/2012 6.8 1,950 14.9 616 134 68.3(B-14-4)1dac-1 415833112150701 8/31/2012 7.1 734 12.1 281 71.1 25
Cache CountyCache Valley(B-11-1)9cdb-1 414209111574001 8/24/2012 6.8 915 13.0 352 94.5 28(B-11-1)35cca-1 413840111552601 8/24/2012 7.0 693 12.0 227 56.6 20.8(A-12-1)29cab-1 414501111520001 8/24/2012 7.2 488 20.9 224 54 21.6(A-12-1)31dab-2 414409111523502 8/24/2012 7.4 402 16.3 213 50.3 21.3(A-13-1)29bcd-1 415020111520401 8/24/2012 7.3 438 13.4 199 41.5 23.1
Davis CountyEast Shore area(B-2-1)24bad-3 405351111540803 6/11/2012 7.8 452 15.7 94 27.6 6.17(B-4-2)27aba-1 410340112030001 6/11/2012 8.1 599 13.7 46 11.6 4.09(B-6-3)15cbc-1 411523112082101 6/11/2012 8.3 409 15.8 33 7.83 3.26(B-9-2)15daa-1 413057112023901 6/12/2012 8.4 607 16.1 9 1.93 0.907
Duchesne CountyDuchesne River areaU(C-1-1)24cbb-2 402252109571501 7/10/2012 6.8 736 14.5 398 86.6 44.2U(C-1-2)27ddc-1 402135110051901 7/11/2012 7.3 329 12.5 181 51.1 12.9U(C-1-2)36adc-1 402116110030801 7/11/2012 7.4 326 11.9 172 46.2 13.8U(C-2-2)11bab-1 401946110044601 7/9/2012 7.4 334 15.1 169 43.2 14.8
Grand CountySpanish Valley(D-26-22)16ddd-3 383201109295301 6/22/2012 7.4 1,280 16.0 613 158 52.9(D-26-22)26cba-1 383043109282401 6/22/2012 7.5 906 15.8 418 110 34.4
Table 5. Physical properties and concentration of major ions and nutrients in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.
Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 107
Potassium, dissolved,
in mg/L
Sodium,dissolved,
in mg/L
ANC, fixed end point,
lab, in mg/L as CaCO
3
Bromide, dissolved,
in mg/L
Chloride, dissolved,
in mg/L
Fluoride, dissolved,
in mg/L
Silica, dissolved,
in mg/L
Sulfate, dissolved, in
mg/L
Solids, dissolved, residue at 180°C,
in mg/L
Nitrate plus nitrite,
dissolved, in mg/L as N
Orthophosphate, dissolved, in mg/L
as P
Beaver CountyBeaver Valley
6.33 29.6 162 0.06 20.5 0.88 40 33.3 297 1.35 0.034Cove Fort area
2.68 23.2 148 0.17 93.2 0.19 40.9 25.8 392 1.48 0.03Escalante Valley, Milford area
5.02 66.3 89 1.44 481 0.64 31.3 274 1,390 2.86 0.0136.15 40.9 130 0.19 98.9 0.38 42.6 77.1 474 2.60 0.0324.13 35.4 107 0.26 113 0.46 31.3 114 486 0.92 0.0154.63 27.5 249 0.18 52.3 0.25 34.1 68.1 477 2.56 0.0395.79 28.3 244 0.27 73.7 0.41 32.7 92.3 555 5.69 0.052
Box Elder CountyCurlew Valley
2.84 39.8 128 0.13 121 0.15 16.3 28.3 470 0.49 0.017.34 251 173 0.48 658 0.09 22.1 291 1,770 3.77 0.013
10.3 218 110 0.81 1,180 0.06 21.2 64.8 2,980 2.57 0.0113.5 51.2 114 0.28 357 0.17 54 24.3 1,010 1.98 0.0268.22 17.4 142 0.05 55.2 0.19 58.2 18.4 339 0.80 0.026
Lower Bear River area5.9 192 302 0.25 246 0.17 25 349 1,320 7.58 0.0152.27 47.1 211 0.11 98.6 0.12 16.4 29.5 436 1.58 0.021
Cache CountyCache Valley
8.3 47.7 387 0.11 76.3 0.61 48.9 0.19 529 <0.04 0.19211 52.1 302 0.06 49.5 0.33 44.5 <0.09 402 <0.04 0.7625.5 17.9 221 0.02 15.7 0.22 21.9 19.9 288 1.20 0.0241.59 8.38 206 0.02 7.22 0.11 11.4 11.3 230 0.48 0.0181.64 24.9 230 0.02 8.58 0.09 10.6 11.1 265 0.13 0.01
Davis CountyEast Shore area
0.81 60.1 167 0.04 28.7 0.23 16.2 22.7 269 1.48 0.0475.51 112 262 0.06 41.1 0.36 28.5 0.21 367 <0.04 0.619.68 71.4 197 0.04 15.9 0.31 19.2 0.22 254 <0.04 0.2531.73 139 310 0.02 13.8 0.62 14.8 1.2 387 <0.04 1.36
Duchesne CountyDuchesne River area
1.14 18.1 348 0.11 5.77 1.5 56.4 62.3 502 0.18 0.0193.36 4.24 146 0.02 0.54 0.54 8.46 36.7 214 <0.04 <0.0043.9 3.79 135 0.02 0.69 0.87 7.49 41.3 199 <0.04 <0.0043.32 11.2 140 0.02 1.25 0.6 9.31 47.5 220 <0.04 <0.004
Grand CountySpanish Valley
2.97 64.3 197 0.21 32.5 0.25 15.3 467 998 4.87 0.0062.72 44.4 214 0.14 20.3 0.2 14.1 248 651 3.69 0.006
108 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
[µS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; ANC, acid neutralization capacity; —, no data; <, less than; L, laboratory value]
Local identifier
(refer to figure 41)
Station number Date
pH, field, in
standard units
Specific conductance,
field, in µS/cm at 25°C
Watertemperature,
field, in °C
Hardness, water,
in mg/L as CaCO
3
Calcium, dissolved,
in mg/L
Magnesium, dissolved,
in mg/L
Iron CountyCedar Valley(C-35-11)31dbd-1 374248113075201 6/26/2012 7.9 1,170 14.0 661 130 81.5(C-36-12)36adb-1 373743113084201 8/6/2012 7.0 803 13.1 447 111 41(C-37-12)23acb-1 373407113100801 6/26/2012 7.4 1,410 14.5 698 157 74.1(C-37-12)34abb-1 373236113111401 6/26/2012 7.1 816 12.5 466 120 40.1Escalante Valley, Beryl-Enterprise area(C-34-16)28dcc-3 374934113384601 6/19/2012 7.1 790 18.0 288 87.2 17.2(C-35-15)3dcc-3 374649113305801 6/19/2012 7.2 1,290 13.8 541 130 52.4(C-35-17)7dad-2 374617113470601 6/19/2012 7.4 484 15.8 167 52.6 8.75(C-36-15)4bad-3 374209113322203 6/19/2012 7.4 791 21.2 142 45.1 7.07(C-36-15)7cdd-2 374040113343102 6/19/2012 7.4 929 24.4 200 52.3 16.9Parowan Valley(C-33-8)22bbc-2 375523112451902 6/25/2012 7.9 495 16.6 64 15.4 6.32(C-33-8)31ccc-1 375257112483501 6/25/2012 7.3 482 14.7 214 44.5 25(C-33-9)14dbd-2 375548112500401 6/25/2012 7.9 725 16.2 207 34.3 29.6(C-34-10)13cbd-2 375033112561101 6/25/2012 7.4 475 12.8 221 43.3 27.3
Juab CountyJuab Valley(C-14-1)26dbd-1 393342111534501 8/14/2012 7.4 1,170 13.7 534 114 60.4(D-11-1)21bbb-1 395059111501901 8/14/2012 7.4 530 12.9 266 64.8 25.3(D-13-1)5ddb-2 394225111502702 8/14/2012 7.2 1,510 12.6 475 129 37.2
Kane CountyKanab area(C-44-5)6cbb-1 370050112274501 7/31/2012 7.0 2,100 15.1 712 178 65.1R(C-40-4)31bad-1 371740112210601 7/31/2012 7.1 2,010 11.4 1,100 149 176
Millard CountyPahvant Valley(C-21-5)7cdd-3 385939112272303 6/27/2012 7.1 1,500 12.1 546 120 59.8(C-23-5)5acd-1 385026112261001 6/27/2012 7.4 580 15.0 265 71.2 21.2(C-23-6)8abd-1 384953112325101 6/27/2012 7.0 7,670 14.9 2,170 542 198(C-23-6)21add-1 384751112312201 6/27/2012 7.5 1,230 14.2 347 64.8 44.9(C-23-6)28bbb-2 384722112322101 6/27/2012 7.6 6,590 13.4 2,320 415 312Sevier Desert(C-15-4)11add-1 393158112152001 8/16/2012 7.1 1,770 14.5 518 122 51.5(C-15-4)26dcc-1 392859112154601 8/14/2012 7.3 962 15.0 417 113 32.6(C-15-5)15dad-1 393046112231301 8/16/2012 7.5 925 15.3 313 61.1 38.9(C-16-4)18bda-1 392555112203001 8/16/2012 7.6 1,340 17.1 573 119 67Snake Valley(C-18-19)20ddd-2 391324114000001 8/15/2012 7.9 339 21.9 121 29.6 11.5(C-20-20)1baa-2 390604114025201 8/15/2012 7.6 433 15.1 184 46.1 16.8(C-23-19)4bcd-1 385048113592901 8/15/2012 7.7 447 12.1 209 39.8 26.7
Table 5. Physical properties and concentration of major ions and nutrients in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.—Continued
Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 109
Potassium, dissolved,
in mg/L
Sodium,dissolved,
in mg/L
ANC, fixed end point,
lab, in mg/L as CaCO
3
Bromide, dissolved,
in mg/L
Chloride, dissolved,
in mg/L
Fluoride, dissolved,
in mg/L
Silica, dissolved,
in mg/L
Sulfate, dissolved, in
mg/L
Solids, dissolved, residue at 180°C,
in mg/L
Nitrate plus nitrite,
dissolved, in mg/L as N
Orthophosphate, dissolved, in mg/L
as P
Iron CountyCedar Valley
2.44 12.4 132 0.07 14.7 0.2 19.4 467 865 2.51 0.0091.87 15.1 300 0.04 7.03 0.11 18 146 527 1.51 0.0092 53.5 144 0.67 133 0.07 16.6 435 1,050 2.08 0.0181.99 16.1 318 0.06 8.69 0.17 16.9 131 540 1.01 0.012
Escalante Valley, Beryl-Enterprise area8.02 35.1 132 0.45 120 1.1 66.9 58.5 531 1.13 0.0275.29 64.6 126 0.56 167 0.37 57.3 299 866 1.15 0.0267.46 32.5 146 0.09 20.5 0.59 69.8 66 356 0.95 0.0244.47 119 156 0.13 37.4 1.38 51.8 182 546 0.77 0.0273.73 126 122 0.12 41.9 1.4 42.9 280 639 0.49 0.017
Parowan Valley1.44 80.5 121 0.08 69.8 0.46 22.9 18.2 294 0.31 0.0242.59 23.3 202 0.07 22.2 0.18 27.3 21.1 290 1.60 0.0272.61 61 111 0.21 142 0.38 20.7 31.9 396 0.10 0.0234.55 16.2 200 0.07 17.5 0.24 40.5 24.6 330 1.74 0.025
Juab CountyJuab Valley
3.11 65.1 247 0.05 58.9 0.18 19.1 298 811 1.86 0.020.91 12.3 209 0.05 20.5 0.09 9.19 38.1 310 1.68 0.0063.58 141 347 0.10 215 0.13 23.4 114 898 5.45 0.029
Kane CountyKanab area
9.79 254 312 0.24 56.8 0.36 13.7 859 1,690 0.06 0.00410.1 112 382 0.11 26.6 0.42 13.2 858 1,630 <0.04 0.005
Millard CountyPahvant Valley
4.85 115 311 0.28 171 0.15 24 241 999 5.25 0.0221.88 25.1 249 0.05 26.9 0.16 18.7 26.2 350 1.06 0.035
75.4 851 322 2.34 1,930 0.86 34 1,210 5,310 1.91 0.0674.93 116 185 0.35 189 0.4 24.7 141 742 5.43 0.019
11.9 512 177 2.85 1,770 0.22 27 788 4,690 36.30 0.019Sevier Desert
5.44 188 280 0.25 258 0.31 20.4 255 1,120 0.80 0.0171.62 46.4 174 0.19 76.9 0.09 13.1 179 594 10.50 0.0153.66 67.3 175 0.15 166 0.3 27.1 49.4 544 0.16 0.0163.6 40.8 125 0.40 293 0.11 25.5 48.2 844 10.80 0.014
Snake Valley1.73 23.9 135 0.04 19.5 0.11 13.3 9.75 195 0.19 0.0071.24 19.1 143 0.10 33.1 0.12 16.7 25.9 249 0.65 0.012.52 13.9 153 0.05 11.8 1.53 19.6 61 276 0.29 0.009
110 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
[µS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; ANC, acid neutralization capacity; —, no data; <, less than; L, laboratory value]
Local identifier
(refer to figure 41)
Station number Date
pH, field, in
standard units
Specific conductance,
field, in µS/cm at 25°C
Watertemperature,
field, in °C
Hardness, water,
in mg/L as CaCO
3
Calcium, dissolved,
in mg/L
Magnesium, dissolved,
in mg/L
Salt Lake CountySalt Lake Valley(A-1-1)31cac-1 404627111532601 7/2/2012 7.0 1,180 13.8 459 114 42(C-3-1)12ccb-3 403409111542401 7/3/2012 7.4 2,390 19.2 573 143 52.1(D-1-1)7abd-6 404506111523301 7/2/2012 7.0 1,360 14.5 605 147 57.8(D-1-1)19cdb-17 404253111530901 7/3/2012 7.4 1,100 14.9 529 141 42.9(D-2-1)21dbc-1 403742111503201 7/2/2012 7.9 334 13.6 150 39.8 12.3
San Juan CountyBlanding-Bluff area(D-40-21)25acd-1 371657109331901 8/23/2012 8.9 416 — 11 3.14 0.856(D-40-22)30bbb-1 371716109325501 8/23/2012 8.9 796 19.6 5 1.26 0.427(D-40-23)27baa-1 371621109211001 8/23/2012 7.5 3,110 19.4 102 24.6 9.75
Sanpete CountyCentral Sevier Valley(C-19-1)23cac-1 390819111530701 8/6/2012 7.0 2,600 11.7 759 112 116Sanpete Valley(D-15-4)17abb-1 393113111294501 8/28/2012 7.6 L 580 10.1 320 68.4 36.1(D-17-2)14ccb-1 391955111401301 8/28/2012 7.7 L 890 13.1 399 61.2 59.7(D-17-3)9cbd-1 392056111353801 8/28/2012 7.9 L 651 11.8 319 53.9 44.7
Sevier CountyCentral Sevier Valley(C-23-2)15dcb-4 384757112002201 8/6/2012 7.3 664 12.9 319 64.7 38.4(C-23-2)19dab-1 384702112031001 8/6/2012 7.2 649 13.3 327 62.6 41.4(C-29-2)35bad-1 381440111584001 8/6/2012 7.2 471 14.4 211 58.5 15.7Upper Sevier River area(C-26-1)25acc-1 383115111512501 8/6/2012 7.0 111 10.3 40 11.7 2.6(C-30-2)34bcc-1 380915112003001 8/6/2012 7.5 299 13.5 116 36.3 6.2
Tooele CountyRush Valley(C-5-5)15add-2 402310112231002 6/5/2012 7.0 542 11.8 263 57 29.2(C-8-5)6ddb-2 400849112263902 6/5/2012 7.1 674 16.0 247 48.2 30.7(C-8-5)7ddd-2 400745112263101 6/5/2012 7.2 541 16.4 204 37.5 26.7Skull Valley(C-3-8)28ddb-1 403126112444501 7/19/2012 7.3 585 14.0 180 50.1 13.3(C-4-8)33aba-1 402604112445501 7/19/2012 7.6 1,230 15.4 245 42.9 33.5Tooele Valley(C-2-4)33bdd-1 403629112174801 7/18/2012 7.1 1,030 14.2 287 73.6 25(C-2-4)34adc-1 403608112164201 7/19/2012 7.7 L 899 18.6 371 84.5 39(C-2-4)34dad-1 403556112163001 7/18/2012 7.3 1,040 15.2 386 88.9 39.7(C-2-5)34dbb-1 403602112235701 7/19/2012 7.4 2,110 28.3 315 75.7 30.7(C-2-5)35cab-1 403602112230101 7/18/2012 7.3 3,890 21.0 419 103 39.1Snake Valley—West Desert area(B-10-18)33aaa-1 413300113543001 7/12/2012 7.4 871 12.1 343 102 21.4
Uintah CountyDuchesne River area U(C-3-5)31dcd-1 401012110292101 7/9/2012 9.3 1,800 15.2 17 1.85 2.92
Table 5. Physical properties and concentration of major ions and nutrients in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.—Continued
Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 111
Potassium, dissolved,
in mg/L
Sodium,dissolved,
in mg/L
ANC, fixed end point,
lab, in mg/L as CaCO
3
Bromide, dissolved,
in mg/L
Chloride, dissolved,
in mg/L
Fluoride, dissolved,
in mg/L
Silica, dissolved,
in mg/L
Sulfate, dissolved, in
mg/L
Solids, dissolved, residue at 180°C,
in mg/L
Nitrate plus nitrite,
dissolved, in mg/L as N
Orthophosphate, dissolved, in mg/L
as P
Salt Lake CountySalt Lake Valley
3.5 67.1 269 0.07 180 0.18 18 72.7 706 4.35 0.01623.6 263 202 0.29 529 0.27 29.3 217 1,440 0.66 0.013.1 60.4 290 0.12 194 0.15 16.9 169 874 4.85 0.0413.73 46.3 257 0.07 99.7 0.21 15.8 212 749 2.93 0.0171.9 12 114 0.04 19.7 0.19 10.4 26.9 203 1.65 0.011
San Juan CountyBlanding-Bluff area
1.26 95.2 171 0.02 1.89 0.08 10.1 43.1 272 <0.040 0.0051.01 191 354 0.04 15.1 0.43 9.72 48.1 488 <0.040 0.008
13.2 501 765 1.06 449 1.28 10.7 189 1,900 <0.040 0.006Sanpete County
Central Sevier Valley3.3 332 600 <0.01 332 0.35 35 350 1,680 4.89 0.06
Sanpete Valley1.2 9.33 286 0.02 5.29 0.07 8.54 14.5 335 2.70 0.0051.32 49.6 305 0.09 56 0.2 17.3 106 546 0.88 0.0151.44 29.2 322 0.03 8.34 0.15 12.1 35.3 379 1.97 0.007
Sevier CountyCentral Sevier Valley
3.35 21 270 0.08 27.1 0.33 32.2 44.8 400 1.08 0.0412.31 17.9 307 0.06 13.5 0.18 14 19.6 366 3.09 0.0176.17 15.6 186 0.16 25.9 0.17 45 17.2 300 1.09 0.068
Upper Sevier River area1.95 7.04 48.9 0.02 3.76 0.24 43.6 1.41 94 0.33 0.0624.45 18 136 0.04 8.55 0.24 36.6 6.24 204 0.77 0.152
Tooele CountyRush Valley
1.17 16 196 0.05 42.1 0.17 12.8 21.7 309 1.33 0.0092.61 46.4 168 0.08 97 0.57 15 30.2 386 0.46 0.0052.52 35.4 155 0.07 65 0.68 14.6 24.2 301 0.06 0.006
Skull Valley1.79 47.2 119 0.08 101 0.14 17.8 17.7 353 1.01 0.025
14 182 174 0.20 285 0.12 24.5 54.8 790 8.61 0.015Tooele Valley
2.15 109 218 0.13 137 0.12 12.1 111 616 1.80 0.0461.48 61 235 0.08 51.3 0.07 13.2 173 588 3.12 0.0221.76 76.3 227 0.13 106 0.06 14.4 165 640 3.33 0.0235.13 297 183 0.33 546 0.2 20.7 35.9 1,170 0.48 0.0099.68 644 197 0.69 1,160 0.46 24.2 88.3 2,230 1.47 0.018
Snake Valley—West Desert area8.21 45.4 173 0.21 115 0.29 50 63.3 565 0.53 0.04
Uintah CountyDuchesne River area
1.14 426 540 0.07 170 1.39 14.7 156 1,150 <0.04 0.068
112 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
[µS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; ANC, acid neutralization capacity; —, no data; <, less than; L, laboratory value]
Local identifier
(refer to figure 41)
Station number Date
pH, field, in
standard units
Specific conductance,
field, in µS/cm at 25°C
Watertemperature,
field, in °C
Hardness, water,
in mg/L as CaCO
3
Calcium, dissolved,
in mg/L
Magnesium, dissolved,
in mg/L
Utah CountyCedar Valley (C-6-2)26cbc-1 401600112023401 7/16/2012 7.4 956 11.2 421 67.7 61.1(C-6-2)29bdb-1 401620112054301 7/16/2012 8.7 228 10.5 93 15.5 13.2Goshen Valley(C-9-1)28ccb-1 395956111572101 7/24/2012 7.2 2,310 17.7 760 199 63.8(D-9-2)9bac-1 400311111432001 7/23/2012 7.2 680 14.7 318 79.2 29.2Northern Utah Valley(D-5-1)20aba-2 402234111511501 7/23/2012 7.3 499 11.3 248 56.2 26.1(D-5-1)21dda-2 402154111495101 7/23/2012 7.6 382 11.5 204 47 21.1Southern Utah Valley(C-9-1)4ddc-1 400309111565101 7/24/2012 7.5 1,390 17.0 345 89 29.9(D-7-2)4cbb-2 401414111435301 7/23/2012 7.7 538 13.0 265 66.7 23.9(D-9-1)36bbc-1 395942111470801 7/24/2012 7.5 527 10.7 280 71.5 24.7
Wasatch CountyHeber Valley(D-3-4)26dba-1 403146111272701 8/30/2012 7.1 752 13.0 367 112 21.6(D-4-4)12dcc-1 402842111263101 8/30/2012 6.8 733 11.9 332 93.9 23.6(D-4-4)13bdd-1 402810111263601 8/29/2012 7.6 475 21.5 239 56.2 24(D-4-5)3dcc-1 402937111214901 8/29/2012 6.8 540 11.7 278 91.2 12.3(D-4-5)4ccb-1 402946111233901 8/30/2012 6.7 414 12.5 211 67.3 10.4(D-4-5)6bcc-2 403003111255801 8/29/2012 7.0 368 12.5 186 56 11.2(D-4-5)16bab-1 402840111232201 8/29/2012 7.1 643 L 12.5 337 92.2 25.9(D-4-5)16ccd-1 402750111232701 8/29/2012 7.1 604 11.9 278 71.2 24.4
Washington CountyCentral Virgin River area(C-41-17)8cbd-2 371348113470301 7/30/2012 7.3 488 18.6 235 67.2 16.2(C-42-11)33bcb-1 370535113062301 7/30/2012 6.9 1,190 17.6 684 160 69.2(C-42-14)15cbd-1 370538113251301 7/30/2012 7.1 2,620 25.5 1,260 268 143
Wayne CountyUpper Fremont River Valley(D-27-2)26ddc-1 382544111392401 8/6/2012 7.3 240 10.7 95 26.6 6.92
Weber CountyEast Shore area(B-5-2)6bdd-4 411153112064601 6/12/2012 7.9 431 16.5 145 35.4 13.8
Table 5. Physical properties and concentration of major ions and nutrients in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.—Continued
Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 113
Potassium, dissolved,
in mg/L
Sodium,dissolved,
in mg/L
ANC, fixed end point,
lab, in mg/L as CaCO
3
Bromide, dissolved,
in mg/L
Chloride, dissolved,
in mg/L
Fluoride, dissolved,
in mg/L
Silica, dissolved,
in mg/L
Sulfate, dissolved, in
mg/L
Solids, dissolved, residue at 180°C,
in mg/L
Nitrate plus nitrite,
dissolved, in mg/L as N
Orthophosphate, dissolved, in mg/L
as P
Utah CountyCedar Valley
3.68 28 187 0.16 135 0.27 55 51.2 578 0.31 0.0360.99 15 113 0.03 12.9 0.14 2.58 0.6 128 0.15 <0.004
Goshen Valley20.2 150 106 0.77 554 0.15 61 124 1,550 21.70 0.0238.04 28.3 269 0.05 30.7 0.2 49.7 40.5 434 3.98 0.032
Northern Utah Valley1.59 14.5 202 0.02 13 0.13 11.8 45.4 302 2.39 0.0070.99 7.24 160 0.02 6.36 0.18 11.2 42.9 230 0.69 0.008
Southern Utah Valley14.7 144 140 0.32 293 0.32 66.5 110 847 2.34 0.0242.53 16.4 232 0.04 12.9 0.19 18.7 44.5 328 <0.04 0.0241.51 7.72 228 0.04 22 0.19 15.9 20.1 311 2.41 0.01
Wasatch CountyHeber Valley
6.06 23.1 261 — 26.9 0.44 19 83.6 4581 2.07 0.022
1.47 27.9 249 — 60 0.09 21.9 38.3 4341 3.95 0.042
1.82 10.3 208 — 20.5 0.25 12.5 17.8 2701 0.39 0.022
3.41 8.58 197 — 38.7 0.07 37 7.71 3501 7.30 0.082
2.56 5.58 170 — 15.2 0.09 40.3 14.8 2771 4.30 0.092
2.08 8.66 161 — 10.3 0.06 29.4 18.1 2381 1.29 0.032
1.66 16.1 290 — 23.6 0.13 29.5 20.1 3981 3.45 0.032
1.16 26 219 — 40.1 0.11 17.2 21.6 3591 5.92 0.022
Washington CountyCentral Virgin River area
2.16 15.2 202 0.07 14.9 0.28 18.5 35.5 299 0.33 0.0122.25 48.4 230 0.53 62.2 0.2 12.3 416 910 <0.04 <0.0049.6 163 170 0.51 285 0.27 21.3 943 2,090 10.30 0.01
Wayne CountyUpper Fremont River Valley
2.74 14.2 105 0.03 6.64 0.24 41 11.6 170 0.27 0.023Weber County
East Shore area7.49 31.5 211 0.03 16.4 0.18 24.7 <0.09 246 <0.04 0.158
1 Dissolved solids determined by sum of constituents.2 Phosphorus, dissolved, in mg/L as P.
114 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
Table 6. Concentration of trace elements in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.[µg/L, micrograms per liter; < , less than; —, no data]
Local identifier(refer to figure 41) Station number Date
Arsenic, dissolved, in
µg/L
Iron, dissolved, in
µg/L
Manganese, dissolved, in
µg/L
Molybdenum, dissolved, in
µg/L
Selenium, dissolved, in
µg/L
Uranium, dissolved, in
µg/L
Beaver County
Beaver Valley(C-29-7)19bcd-1 381625112412901 6/25/2012 5.6 <3.2 3.74 2.7 0.59 21Cove Fort area(C-26-7)26cac-1 383101112365301 8/6/2012 2.5 31.9 0.25 0.354 1.6 3.85Escalante Valley, Milford area (C-28-10)20daa-1 382135112592801 6/18/2012 3.1 17.3 <0.32 2.53 8.1 5.84(C-28-10)29bcc-2 382046113002702 6/18/2012 7 11.2 0.23 2.27 4.7 13.2(C-29-10) 5cdd-2 381835113000001 6/18/2012 2.5 5 0.26 0.578 0.64 28.7(C-29-10)18ddd-1 381649113003401 6/18/2012 2.9 4.2 <0.16 1.77 0.81 58.3(C-29-11)27aad-1 381543113035501 6/18/2012 3.7 <3.2 <0.16 1.53 0.89 12.4
Box Elder County
Curlew Valley(B-12-11)6abb-1 414813113082901 7/13/2012 1.2 3.6 <0.16 0.957 0.97 1.98(B-12-11)8baa-1 414721113072601 7/13/2012 0.45 18.1 <0.8 0.293 1.1 4.38(B-12-11)8bbb-1 414720113075201 7/13/2012 0.92 6.7 <0.32 0.439 1 3.9(B-14-9)5bbb-1 415847112540401 7/12/2012 1.9 3.7 <0.16 0.786 2 1.6(B-15-10)36bbb-1 415939112562201 7/12/2012 2.5 <3.2 <0.16 0.819 1.1 1.74Lower Bear River area(B-11-4)3bac-1 414313112172501 8/31/2012 0.95 4.1 <0.16 0.784 2.8 4.51(B-14-4)1dac-1 415833112150701 8/31/2012 1.8 7.3 <0.16 0.434 1.8 0.904
Cache County
Cache Valley
(A-12-1)29cab-1 414501111520001 8/24/2012 1.4 <3.2 <0.16 0.682 0.2 0.634(A-12-1)31dab-2 414409111523502 8/24/2012 1 <3.2 <0.16 0.47 0.33 0.711(A-13-1)29bcd-1 415020111520401 8/24/2012 6.4 153 66.7 0.772 0.06 0.321(B-11-1)9cdb-1 414209111574001 8/24/2012 13.1 1,770 283 0.15 0.09 <0.004(B-11-1)35cca-1 413840111552601 8/24/2012 23.5 1,850 168 0.671 <0.03 0.004
Davis County
East Shore area (B-2-1)24bad-3 405351111540803 6/11/2012 0.902 <3.2 <0.16 3.2 0.561 3.07(B-4-2)27aba-1 410340112030001 6/11/2012 23.8 256 47.2 0.402 <0.03 0.006(B-6-3)15cbc-1 411523112082101 6/11/2012 22.1 89.2 54.1 3.06 <0.03 0.004(B-9-2)15daa-1 413057112023901 6/12/2012 0.11 249 11 0.534 <0.03 0.326
Duchesne County
Duchesne River area U(C-1-1)24cbb-2 402252109571501 7/10/2012 9 23 16.7 2.06 0.89 6.29U(C-1-2)27ddc-1 402135110051901 7/11/2012 0.69 783 13.1 0.449 <0.03 0.192U(C-1-2)36adc-1 402116110030801 7/11/2012 0.57 528 23.9 0.517 <0.03 0.264U(C-2-2)11bab-1 401946110044601 7/9/2012 0.11 234 9.41 0.415 <0.03 0.137
Grand CountySpanish Valley(D-26-22)16ddd-3 383201109295301 6/22/2012 0.35 27.1 1.5 0.829 7.7 5.02(D-26-22)26cba-1 383043109282401 6/22/2012 0.43 8.9 <0.16 0.807 3.5 4.09
Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 115
[µg/L, micrograms per liter; < , less than; —, no data]
Local identifier(refer to figure 41) Station number Date
Arsenic, dissolved, in
µg/L
Iron, dissolved, in
µg/L
Manganese, dissolved, in
µg/L
Molybdenum, dissolved, in
µg/L
Selenium, dissolved, in
µg/L
Uranium, dissolved, in
µg/L
Iron County
Cedar Valley(C-35-11)31dbd-1 374248113075201 6/26/2012 0.89 10.5 <0.16 0.525 1.6 3.01(C-36-12)36adb-1 373743113084201 8/6/2012 0.9 <3.2 <0.16 0.338 1 2.41(C-37-12)23acb-1 373407113100801 6/26/2012 0.68 3.7 <0.16 0.417 12.7 2.18(C-37-12)34abb-1 373236113111401 6/26/2012 0.32 <3.2 <0.16 0.461 0.8 1.86Escalante Valley, Beryl-Enterprise area(C-34-16)28dcc-3 374934113384601 6/19/2012 18.5 5.4 0.18 1.72 1.8 3.12(C-35-15)3dcc-3 374649113305801 6/19/2012 14.7 5.1 2.79 1.38 1.7 3.7(C-35-17)7dad-2 374617113470601 6/19/2012 6.1 <3.2 <0.16 0.785 0.67 5.44(C-36-15)4bad-3 374209113322203 6/19/2012 22.5 <3.2 <0.16 9.09 0.37 1.43(C-36-15)7cdd-2 374040113343102 6/19/2012 26.1 4 <0.16 17.7 0.35 3.3Parowan Valley(C-33-8)22bbc-2 375523112451902 6/25/2012 10.4 <3.2 8.28 1.36 0.12 0.569(C-33-8)31ccc-1 375257112483501 6/25/2012 4.1 <3.2 <0.16 0.467 0.94 2.09(C-33-9)14dbd-2 375548112500401 6/25/2012 9.8 5.4 1.06 1.97 0.23 1.46(C-34-10)13cbd-2 375033112561101 6/25/2012 5.8 <3.2 <0.16 0.718 1.1 3.51
Juab County
Juab Valley(C-14-1)26dbd-1 393342111534501 8/14/2012 1.2 4.5 <0.16 1.99 0.86 2.19(D-11-1)21bbb-1 395059111501901 8/14/2012 0.22 <3.2 <0.16 0.538 5 1.19(D-13-1)5ddb-2 394225111502702 8/14/2012 0.78 <3.2 <0.16 0.681 2.7 2.18
Kane County
Kanab area(C-44-5)6cbb-1 370050112274501 7/31/2012 0.58 15.6 128 3.2 <0.03 0.533R(C-40-4)31bad-1 371740112210601 7/31/2012 0.15 377 180 0.608 <0.03 5.26
Millard County
Pahvant Valley(C-21-5)7cdd-3 385939112272303 6/27/2012 2.1 <3.2 <0.16 1.33 3 3.39(C-23-5)5acd-1 385026112261001 6/27/2012 2.4 <3.2 <0.16 0.277 0.34 0.929(C-23-6)8abd-1 384953112325101 6/27/2012 1.8 <12.8 <0.64 0.749 1.4 4.01(C-23-6)21add-1 384751112312201 6/27/2012 6.3 <3.2 <0.16 1.39 2.5 2.87(C-23-6)28bbb-2 384722112322101 6/27/2012 1.9 <12.8 <0.64 0.708 7.7 12.2Sevier Desert(C-15-4)11add-1 393158112152001 8/16/2012 7 3.9 <0.16 1.24 1.4 4.53(C-15-4)26dcc-1 392859112154601 8/14/2012 1.9 <3.2 <0.16 0.209 4.6 0.877(C-15-5)15dad-1 393046112231301 8/16/2012 4.9 11.5 7.84 2.18 0.21 1.92(C-16-4)18bda-1 392555112203001 8/16/2012 2.3 65 4.41 0.409 1.8 1.74Snake Valley(C-18-19)20ddd-2 391324114000001 8/15/2012 0.87 <3.2 <0.16 0.463 0.36 1.44(C-20-20)1baa-2 390604114025201 8/15/2012 1.4 <3.2 <0.16 0.607 0.67 1.39(C-23-19)4bcd-1 385048113592901 8/15/2012 3.7 <3.2 <0.16 8.63 3.5 3.3
Table 6. Concentration of trace elements in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.—Continued
116 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
[µg/L, micrograms per liter; < , less than; —, no data]
Local identifier(refer to figure 41) Station number Date
Arsenic, dissolved, in
µg/L
Iron, dissolved, in
µg/L
Manganese, dissolved, in
µg/L
Molybdenum, dissolved, in
µg/L
Selenium, dissolved, in
µg/L
Uranium, dissolved, in
µg/L
Salt Lake County
Salt Lake Valley
(A-1-1)31cac-1 404627111532601 7/2/2012 1.3 5.5 <0.16 1.47 1.5 2.05(C-3-1)12ccb-3 403409111542401 7/3/2012 0.34 108 11.5 2.26 1.8 7.5(D-1-1)7abd-6 404506111523301 7/2/2012 1.1 13.6 6.49 1.12 1.7 1.89(D-1-1)19cdb-17 404253111530901 7/3/2012 0.6 4.7 0.24 0.484 1.7 1.23(D-2-1)21dbc-1 403742111503201 7/2/2012 0.94 <3.2 <0.16 2.6 0.43 5.17
San Juan County
Blanding-Bluff area
(D-40-21)25acd-1 371657109331901 8/23/2012 9.4 <3.2 7.45 0.637 <0.03 0.033(D-40-22)30bbb-1 371716109325501 8/23/2012 68.6 4.7 1.44 1.73 <0.03 0.395(D-40-23)27baa-1 371621109211001 8/23/2012 22.6 519 16.7 2.89 0.09 1.52
Sanpete County
Central Sevier Valley
(C-19-1)23cac-1 390819111530701 8/6/2012 8.9 <6.4 <0.32 6.1 4.1 10.8Sanpete Valley
(D-15-4)17abb-1 393113111294501 8/28/2012 0.21 <3.2 <0.16 0.236 0.52 1.11(D-17-2)14ccb-1 391955111401301 8/28/2012 1.2 <3.2 <0.16 0.692 6 2.42(D-17-3)9cbd-1 392056111353801 8/28/2012 0.38 4.9 <0.16 1.07 1.1 2.19
Sevier County
Central Sevier Valley
(C-23-2)15dcb-4 384757112002201 8/6/2012 3.9 <3.2 <0.16 3.56 1.2 5.31(C-23-2)19dab-1 384702112031001 8/6/2012 1.9 <3.2 <0.16 0.52 0.35 1.97(C-29-2)35bad-1 381440111584001 8/6/2012 1.5 <3.2 0.19 0.521 0.31 6.21Upper Sevier River area
(C-26-1)25acc-1 383115111512501 8/6/2012 2.5 <3.2 <0.16 0.921 0.16 0.111(C-30-2)34bcc-1 380915112003001 8/6/2012 2.2 5.4 0.81 0.695 0.29 1.08
Tooele County
Rush Valley
(C-5-5)15add-2 402310112231002 6/5/2012 1.7 <3.2 <0.16 0.778 1.6 1.93(C-8-5)6ddb-2 400849112263902 6/5/2012 13.2 <3.2 <0.16 2.49 0.81 1.54(C-8-5)7ddd-2 400745112263101 6/5/2012 19.8 <3.2 <0.16 2.96 0.09 1.87Skull Valley
(C-3-8)28ddb-1 403126112444501 7/19/2012 1 <3.2 <0.16 0.586 0.39 0.401(C-4-8)33aba-1 402604112445501 7/19/2012 3.8 36.4 0.47 0.341 0.7 2.9Snake Valley—West Desert area
(B-10-18)33aaa-1 413300113543001 7/12/2012 6.7 12.4 0.16 4.48 3.2 8.06Tooele Valley
(C-2-4)33bdd-1 403629112174801 7/18/2012 1.4 3.3 <0.16 0.516 1.9 2.2(C-2-4)34adc-1 403608112164201 7/19/2012 2 3.3 <0.16 0.305 12.6 1.97(C-2-4)34dad-1 403556112163001 7/18/2012 2.7 4.6 <0.16 0.424 10.3 1.81(C-2-5)34dbb-1 403602112235701 7/19/2012 1.4 29.4 5.36 1.53 0.83 2.06(C-2-5)35cab-1 403602112230101 7/18/2012 4.4 47.8 0.98 3.82 2.2 2.02
Table 6. Concentration of trace elements in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.—Continued
Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 117
[µg/L, micrograms per liter; < , less than; —, no data]
Local identifier(refer to figure 41) Station number Date
Arsenic, dissolved, in
µg/L
Iron, dissolved, in
µg/L
Manganese, dissolved, in
µg/L
Molybdenum, dissolved, in
µg/L
Selenium, dissolved, in
µg/L
Uranium, dissolved, in
µg/L
Uintah County
Duchesne River area
U(C-3-5)31dcd-1 401012110292101 7/9/2012 0.14 <3.2 0.26 0.045 0.04 0.033Utah County
Cedar Valley
(C-6-2)26cbc-1 401600112023401 7/16/2012 5.6 21.9 34.4 38.7 0.92 7.56(C-6-2)29bdb-1 401620112054301 7/16/2012 1.6 43.6 24.5 0.56 0.18 0.169Goshen Valley
(C-9-1)28ccb-1 395956111572101 7/24/2012 3.7 7.9 <0.32 1.74 7.8 6.67(D-9-2)9bac-1 400311111432001 7/23/2012 2.6 <3.2 <0.16 1.06 1.2 2.39Northern Utah Valley
(D-5-1)20aba-2 402234111511501 7/23/2012 0.59 <3.2 <0.16 1.09 1.5 7.41(D-5-1)21dda-2 402154111495101 7/23/2012 0.82 <3.2 <0.16 1.99 1.5 1.83Southern Utah Valley
(C-9-1)4ddc-1 400309111565101 7/24/2012 11.7 <3.2 <0.16 2.03 2.2 5.29(D-7-2)4cbb-2 401414111435301 7/23/2012 1.9 491 73.8 0.928 <0.03 0.019(D-9-1)36bbc-1 395942111470801 7/24/2012 0.42 <3.2 <0.16 0.551 1.6 1.59
Wasatch County
Heber Valley
(D-3-4)26dba-1 403146111272701 8/30/2012 — 5.5 0.17 — — —(D-4-4)12dcc-1 402842111263101 8/30/2012 — <3.2 <0.16 — — —(D-4-4)13bdd-1 402810111263601 8/29/2012 — 8.2 2.97 — — —(D-4-5)3dcc-1 402937111214901 8/29/2012 — 3.6 <0.16 — — —(D-4-5)4ccb-1 402946111233901 8/30/2012 — 15 1.4 — — —(D-4-5)6bcc-2 403003111255801 8/29/2012 — 6.8 0.96 — — —(D-4-5)16bab-1 402840111232201 8/29/2012 — 6 <0.16 — — —(D-4-5)16ccd-1 402750111232701 8/29/2012 — 55 2.53 — — —
Washington County
Central Virgin River area
(C-41-17)8cbd-2 371348113470301 7/30/2012 23.9 34.7 10.3 5.14 0.7 1.58(C-42-11)33bcb-1 370535113062301 7/30/2012 6.3 261 170 5.37 <0.03 8.94(C-42-14)15cbd-1 370538113251301 7/30/2012 7.5 19.3 <0.32 3.17 12.7 11.9
Wayne County
Upper Fremont River Valley
(D-27-2)26ddc-1 382544111392401 8/6/2012 15 5 15.7 1.37 0.15 3.01Weber County
East Shore area
(B-5-2)6bdd-4 411153112064601 6/12/2012 14.2 269 102 0.491 <0.03 <0.004
Table 6. Concentration of trace elements in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.—Continued
118 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013
References Cited
Burden, C.B., and others, 2012, Groundwater conditions in Utah, spring of 2012: Utah Division of Water Resources Cooperative Investigations Report No. 53, 118 p.
Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., 1989, Methods for determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 545 p.
U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1–A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A. [Chapters were published from 1997–1999; updates and revisions are ongoing and can be viewed at http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/mastererrata.html]
Western Regional Climate Center, accessed July 1, 2013, at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu.
UTAHDEPARTMENT OFNATURALRESOURCES
UtahDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality