y7(j (2 '7y) -...
TRANSCRIPT
y7(J (2 '7y) /1? ;t(bY
WATER RESOURCES REPORT NUMBER NINETEEN
ARIZONA STATE LAND DEPARTMENT
OBED M. LASSEN, COMMISSIONER
BY
NATALIE D. WHITE, R.S.STULlK, E.K.MORSE, AND OTHERS
PREPARED BY THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
PhoenIx, Arizona
December 1964
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract, by Natalie D. White •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1
Introduction, by Natalie D. White · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Scope of the Federal-State cooperative ground-water program. 2
Summary of ground-water programs in Arizona .•.••. , •• 3
Cur rent pUblications Clara R. Smith •••
of the A rizona dis tr ict, by
• • • • • • • • • • • • • · . . . . . . , . Agricultural resume for 1963 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Climate. . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Surface -water E. B. Hodges
runoff, storage, and diversions, by . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personnel ••• , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgments • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Ground-water conditions by areas, by Natalie D. White. • • • • • • • •
Basin and Range lowlands province, by Natalie D. White. . . . . Duncan basin, by E. S. Davidson . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . Safford basin, by E. S. Davidson • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
San Simon basin, by Natalie D. White . . . , . . . . . . . . . Bowie area •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
San Simon area. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Rodeo area ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Sulphur Spring Valley, by S. G. Brown • • • • • • • • • • •
Willcox basin. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Douglas basin. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · . . . , . . . . San Pedro River valley, by Natalie D. White. • • • • • • • • •
Upper San Pedro basin •••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
8
8
10
12
12
14
14
17
17
19
19
22
22
23
23
25
28
28
ii
iii
Lower San Pedro basin •• • •
Upper Santa Cruz basin, by H. C. Schwalen •
Cortaro-Canada del Oro area • •••
Tucson area • • • • • ••
Sahuarita-Continental area •
Santa Cruz County area • • •
Avra-Marana area, by H. C. Schwalen
Lower Santa Cruz basin and adjacent area Gila River, by Natalie D. White •••••
Salt River Valley, by R. S. Stulik
Waterman Wash area, by R. S. Stulik
Gila Bend area, by R. S. Stulik • • ••
Harquahala Plains area, by R. S. Stulik
McMullen Valley area, by R. S. Stulik
Palomas Plain area, by R. S. Stulik •
Ranegras Plain area, by R. S. Stulik
South Gila Valley, Yuma Mesa, and Yuma area, by F. J. Frank ••••••.••••
Big Sandy Valley, by R. S. Stulik
Kingman-Hackberry area, by R. S. Stulik
•
along the
•
•• •
• •
• •
• •
•
Valley
•
Plateau uplands province, by Natalie D. White •• •
Apache County, by E. H. McGavock • • • •• •
Navajo County, by E. H. McGavock •
Coconino County, by E. H. McGavock •
Central highlands province, by Natalie D. White • •
Page
28
30
30
30
34
34
34
35
35
43
43
43
45
45
46
46
47
47
49
49
51
52
53
Chino Valley, by H. C, Schwalen ••••••••••••••• 53
Verde Valley, by R. S. Stulik • • • •
Clarkdale-Cottonwood-Camp Verde area • • •
Sedona area • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Gila County, by Clara R. Smith • • • •
Use of ground water, Clara R. Smith ••
by E. K. Morse, R. S. Stulik, and
• • • •
• • •
Salt River Valley. • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Lower Santa Cruz basin • • • • • • • • • • •
Upper Santa Cruz basin • • • • • • •
Avra-Marana area. • • • • • • • • • • • •
Willcox basin • • • • • • • • • • • •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• • •
• •
• •
San Simon basin • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Other areas • • • • • • • •
References cited • • • • • • • • • •
Page
54
54
56
56
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
58
60
iv
Figure
v
ILLUSTRA nONS
1. Map of Arizona showing summary of ground-water programs. •
2. Precipitation data for 1963 by climatic subdivisions ••
3. Surface-water reservoir storage and diversions in Arizona • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • ••••••
4. Well-numbering system in Arizona
5. Map of Arizona showing basins and areas ground-water conditions are discussed •
for which
6. Water levels in selected wells, Duncan and Safford
7.
basins. • •
Map of San Simon basin, Cochise and Graham Counties, Ariz., showing change in ground-water level from
•
spring 1954 to spring 1964 ••.••••••••••••••
8.
9.
10.
Water levels in selected wells in the San Simon basin.
Water levels in selected wells in the southern part of the San Simon basin • . . . ....•.•••.•••.
Index map for Willcox basin, Counties, Ariz. . ...•.
Cochise and Graham
• •
Page
4
9
13
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
11. Water levels in selected wells in Sulphur Spring Valley.. 26
12. Cumulative change in water levels, Willcox basin. • • •• 27
13. Map of Douglas basin, Cochise County, Ariz., showing change in ground-water level from spring 1959 to spring 1964. • • • . • • • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • • •• 29
14. Water levels in selected wells in the San Pedro
15.
River valley •.•••
Index map for upper Santa Cruz basin, Cruz Counties, Ariz. . .•.•..••
Pima and Santa
•
16. Water levels in selected wells in the upper Santa Cruz basin •. •• •
17. Water levels in selected wells in the Avra-Marana area
31
32
• 33
36
Figure
Page
18.
19.
Cumulative net changes in water levels by areas and total annual pumpage in the lower Santa Cruz basin within Pinal County. • . • • • . • • • • • • ••••• • • •
Water levels in selected wells in the Eloy Florence areas, lower Santa Cruz basin
and Casa Grande-
• • • • • • • • •
20. Water levels in selected wells in the Stanfield-Maricopa area, lower Santa Cruz basin • • • • • • • • • • • • •
21. Cumulative net changes in water levels in the Queen CreekHigley-Gilbert and Tempe-Mesa-Chandler areas of the
37
38
39
Salt River Valley. . • • • . . • • • • • • . • • . . • • • 40
22. Cumulative net changes in water levels in the Litchfield Park-Beardsley-Marinette and Phoenix-Glendale-Tolleson areas of the Salt River Valley. • • • • • • • • 41
23.
24.
Cumulative net changes in water levels in the LibertyBuckeye-Hassayampa area and total annual purnpage in the Salt River Valley • • • • • • . . • • • • • • . •
Water levels in selected wells in several areas Basin and Range lowlands province ••••••
in the
• • • •
• •
• •
25. Water levels in selected wells in several areas in Yuma and Mohave Counties • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
26. Water levels in selected wells in the Plateau uplands province • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
27. Water levels in selected wells in Chino Valley. • • • • • •
42
44
48
50
55
vi
ANNUAL REPORT ON GROUND WATER IN ARIZONA, SPRING 1963 TO SPRING 1964
By
Natalie D. White, R. S. Stulik, E. K. Morse, and others
ABSTRACT
By
Natalie D. White
The economy of Arizona, particularly the agricultural economy, is largely dependent on ground-water supplies for future growth and even for its continued existence at the present 1 eve 1. More than two-thirds of the water supply for the State 1s taken from the ground-water reservoirs. If the growth of Arizona and the accompanying expanded use of ground water are to continue, some means must be found to conserve the water supplies and to augment them where possible. Proper management of the ground-water resources, particularly in relation to the ever increasing use, requires a comprehensive knowledge of the hydrogeologic characteristics that control the storage capacity and the transmission of water through the saturated subsurface rocks that form the ground-water reservoirs. This report presents discussions of the ground-water conditions in selected basins and areas in the State based on hydrologic data collected during the year spring 1963 to spring 1964.
The amount of recharge to the ground-water reservoirs in most areas of the State is much less than the amount of ground water withdrawn for use. The water levels in nearly all the highly developed areas are declining, and the ground-water reservoirs are being depleted. In 1963 the areas of greatest water -level decline were the Salt River Valley and the lower Santa Cruz basin in Pinal County. Other areas where large water-level declines occurred in 1963 were the Willcox basin in Sulphur Spring Valley and the Bowie and San Simon areas in San Simon basin. In areas where surface-water supplies supplemented ground water for irrigation use, some rises in water levels were measured.
Withdrawal of ground water for all purposes was about 4.5 million acre-feet in 1963--the same as in 1962. Nearly 90 percent of the ground water withdrawn during the year was used to irrigate crops, although municipal, domestic, and industrial uses are increasing every year. The Salt River Valley and the lower Santa Cruz basin continue to be the largest users of ground water in the State.
1
INTRODUCTION
By
Natalie D. White
More than two-thirds of the w ate l' supply for Arizona is taken from the ground-water reservoirs, and nearly 90 percent 0 f the ground water withdrawn is used to irrigate crops. The ground-water supplies are vast but not inexhaustible; at the present rate of use, the supplies are gradually being depleted because the rate of withdrawal far exceeds the rate of replenishment.
In order to properly manage the ground-water l' e sou l' c e s, particularly in relation to the ever increasing use, it is necessary to acquire a comprehensive knowledge of the hydrogeologic characteristics that control the storage capacity and the transmis sion of water through the sat u l' ate d subsurface rocks. Specialized studies, continued data collection, and new methods of hydrologic analysis will provide quantitative solutions to the water problems that arise where ground water is used in large quantities.
In July 1939, a district office of the U. S. Geological Survey, Ground Water Branch, Was established in Tucson, Ariz., and a cooperative agreement was put into effect between the Geological Survey and the State Water Commissioner for equal financial participation in a planned program of ground-water studies. The Federal-State cooperation has continued to the present time; since 1942, the State has been represented by the State Land Department. During the early years, the program consisted mostlyof collecting basic data concerning the development of ground-water resources; the information included well inventories, periodic water-level measurements, measurements of the discharge of wells, chemical analyses of water samples, and descriptions and analyses of drill cuttings. In recent years there has been more emphasis on compilation and analysis of the hydrologic and geologic data and on obtaining quantitative solutions to the problems of availability, effects of withdrawal, and changes in chemical quality of the water.
This report presents discussions of the ground-water conditions in selected basins and areas in the State based on hydrologic data collected during the year spring 1963 to spring 1964. Two other reports prepared during the year present a somewhat more comprehensive analysis for the lower Harquahala Plains (Stulik, 1964) and part of central A l' i z 0 n a (White, Stulik, and R auh, 1964). The latter report contains the 1969 predicted depth to water for part of central Arizona.
Scope of the Federal-State Cooperative Ground- Water Program
The current cooperative ground-water program in Arizona consists of three major closely related parts, which are described below. (l) The statewide ground-water survey provides the long-term basic records necessary to a comprehensive ground-water investigation. Whenever the need arises for
2
study of a specific area or some special problem, the basic data that have been collected over a long period of years are invaluable. The work of this phase of the cooperative program includes well inventories, periodic waterlevel measurements, collection of water samples for chemical analysis, and collection and cataloging of drill cuttings from recently completed wells. (2.) Comprehensive ground-water investigations are made in selected areas where ground-water conditions are becoming critical due to overdevelopment, where ground-water development is be ginning, or where there is some special problem or interest. These more comprehensive investigations result in an overall evaluation of the w ate r resources of an are a. (3) Studies related to specific hydrologic problems, such as insufficient water supplies, equitable distribution and protection of the available supply, and deterioration in quality of water, may be needed wherever groundwater is pumped in large quantities. For the most part, these studies are made in relation to the particular problem rather than to an area or basin.
Summary of Ground- Water Programs in Arizona
Ground-water programs in A r i z 0 n a include cooperation with the Arizona State Land Department as explained in foregoing sections, with universities, cities, and other Federal agencies. In 1963 fieldwork was in progress for three projects, and reports we rein various stages of completion for six projects under the Federal-State cooperative program. Two studies were being conducted in cooperation with the University of Arizona and one with the city of Flagstaff. Cooperation wit h other Fed era I agencies included projects for the U. S. Army, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affair s, and the For est Service. Figure 1 is a pictorial summary of the status of current ground-water work in Arizona.
Current Publications of the Arizona District
By
Clara R. Smith
The following reports on the water resources and geology of Arizona were published or released to the open file from July 1963 through October 1964.
Cenozoic geology in the Mammoth area, Pinal County, Arizona, by L. A. Heindl: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1141-E, 1963. 41 P., 3pls., 3 figs.
The report contains maps and stratigraphic analyses of seven alluvial and two volcanic Cenozoic units and suggests a revised interpretation of the Cenozoic history of the lower San Pedro Valley near Mammoth, Ariz.
3
""
c 0 N
Flalll.loff
lillJ-3 -,
I
.40 --, .3
A V A P •
PrellCOIt
/ I '--.J 3 -{ 1340
y U A
--;!-l' ~!"~-~'''I ~~ 32" 2 c::::::::: 77 _ I ••
E o 50 100
I I I
Figure 1. --Map of Arizona showing summary of ground-water programs.
AREAS OF INVESTIGA TIONS
1. Navajo-Hopi Indian Reservations 2. cottonwood Wash 3. City of Flagstaff 4. Big Sandy Valley 5. Beardsley area 6. Dateland-Hyder area 7. Arid-lands study (Safford Valley) 8. San Simon basin 9. Fort Huachuca
10. Willcox basin 11. Papago Indian Reservation 12. Western Pinal County 13. Salt River Valley 14. Tucson basin 15. Sycamore Creek
[illII!] Area where field investigation is in progress
(As of June 196 f)///)J)J\
Area for which a report is in preparation (As of June 1964)
~ Area for which a report was released
July 1963-June 1964
A double pattern indicates that~ although a report was released in the prescribed periodl further work also is in progress
.40 Active observation wells (figure indicates number of observation wells in COWlty)
187 ... Well-discharge measurements made in 1963 (figure
• indicates number of measurements made in COWlty)
Site where continuous water-stage recorder is in operation
Desert floods---A report on southern Arizona floods of September 196Z, by D. D. Lewis: Arizona S tat e Land Dept. Water Resources Rept. 13, April 1963. 30 p., 18 figs., Z tables.
The floods of September Z6- Z8, 196Z, in southern Arizona are vivid examples of intense floods resulting from rainfall on small parts of a river basin. As much as 6 inches of rainfall was recorded over a part of the area. The total volume of water discharged by the flood must have been considerably more than 1 Z5, 000 acre-feet, although runoff in the Santa Cruz River near Laveen was only 17,400 acre-feet, which indicates that most of the water disappeared before it reached this point.
Surface water records of Arizona, 196Z, by Arizona district: U.S. Geol. Survey open-file report. 185 p., Z figs.
The surface-water records for the 196Zwater year for gaging stations and miscellaneous sites within the State of Arizona and a few pertinent gaging stations in bordering States are given in this report.
Basic ground-water data of the Willcox basin, Graham and Cochise Counties, Arizona, by S. G. Brown, H. H. Schumann, L. R. Kister, and p. W. Johnson: Arizona State Land Dept. Water Resources Rept. 14, July 1963. 93 P., 15 figs., 4 tables.
This report presents the basic data collected chiefly during the period 1945 to 1960 in the Willcox basin. The data are necessary in planning and analyzing water-recources development in the area.
Annual report on ground water in Arizona, spring 196Z to spring 1963, by Natalie D. White, R. S. Stulik, E. K. Morse, and 0 the r s: Arizona State Land Dept. Water Resources Rept. 15, September 1963. 136 P., 47 figs., 5 tables.
The report discusses water-level changes or trends in Arizona for the period spring 196Z to spring 1963, pumpage for the principal areas of ground-water use, and surface-water diversions. The report also contains a comprehensive discussion of the hydrology of the Plateau uplands, a section on methods of analysis of hydrologic data, and a discussion of ground-water recharge with special reference to recharge resulting from the flood of September 196Z in the Santa Cruz River valley.
Floods of August 1963 in Prescott, Arizona, by B. N. Aldridge: U. S. Geol. Sur v e y open-file rep 0 r t, October 1963. 1Z p., 8 figs., Z tables.
On August 19, 1963, four small tributaries to Granite Creek poured water into the city of Prescott at a combined rate of more than 7, 000 cubic fee t per second and caused about $400, 000 worth 0 f damage. Higher floods may have occurred in the last 50 years, but none of them caused nearly as much damage.
5
Synopsis of ground-water conditions on the San Francisco P 1 ate a u near Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona, by J. p. Akers, M. E. Cooley, and p. E. Dennis: U. S. Geol. Survey open-file report, January 1964. 30 p., 3 figs.
This report summarizes features of the available ground-water supply near Flagstaff. Water levels are from 500 to 1, 000 feet below land surface, but deep wells drilled in fractured zones along the Oak Creek fault at the Woody Mountain well field and along the Anderson Mesa fault at Lake Mary furnish. Flagstaff with a dependable water supply.
Effects of ground-water withdrawal in part of central Arizona projected to 1969, by Natalie D. White, R. S. Stulik, and Clara L. Rauh: Arizona State Land Dept. Water Resources Rept. 16, July 1964. Z5 p., 7 figs.
About 75 percent of the ground water pumped in Arizona is withdrawn from alluvial aquifers in the study area. Long-term records of waterlevel measurements and ground-water pumpage are used to predict the status of the ground-water reservoir in 1969. These predictions are shown in the form of depth-to-water maps.
Surface wa t e r records 0 f Arizona, 1963, by Arizona district: U. S. Geol. Survey open-file report. 191 P., Z figs.
The Surface-water records for the 1963 water year for gaging stations and miscellaneous sites within the State of Arizona and a few pertinent gaging stations in bordering States are given in this report.
Water resources of the Sycamore Creek watershed, Maricopa County, Arizona (a progress report), byB. W. ThomsenandH. H. Schumann: U. S. Geol. Survey open-file report, August 1964. Z8 p., 11 figs.
The Sycamore Creek watershed is representative of many small watersheds in the Southwest Where much of the streamflow accumulates in the mountainous areas and disappears rather quickly into the alluvial deposits adjacent to the mountains. Most of the average annual water yield from the 165 square miles of mountain area disappears as surface flow in the alluvial deposits and travels slowly to the Verde River as ground water.
Effects of ground-water withdrawal, 1954-63, in the lower Harquahala Plains, Maricopa County, Arizona, by R. S. Stulik: Arizona State Land Dept. Water Resources Rept. 17, September 1964. 8 p., 5 figs.
Withdrawal of ground water for irrigation use in the lower Harquahala Plains has increased fro m about 33, 000 acre-feet in 1954 to about ZOO, 000 acre-feet in 1963. From 1954 to 1963 water levels declined as much as ZOO feet and are continuing to decline at an increasing rate.
Younger Precambrian formations and the Bolsa (?) Quartzite 0 f Cambrian age, Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona, by L. A. Heindl and
6
N. E. McClymonds, in Geological Survey research 1964: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 501-C, 1964. p. 43-49, 3 figs.
The Apache Group of younger Precambrian age crops out in 1, 500-foot sequences in the Vekol and Slate Mountains. An overlying clastic unit is des i g nat edt h e Bolsa (?) Quartzite and is also exposed in the Waterman Mountains where it rests on granitic rocks. It is overlain conformably by the A brigo Formation of Cambrian age in the three mountain ranges.
Further analysis of hydrologic data for San Simon basin, Cochise and Graham Counties, Arizona, including analysis by electrical-analog model, by Natalie D. White and William F. Hardt: U. S. Geol. Survey open-file report, October 1964. 63 p., 12 figs., 1 table. For publication as a U. S. Geol. Survey water-supply paper.
This report concludes that the amount of ground water available from San Simon basin is about 10 million acre-feet, and the transmis sibility of the lower aquifer is about 20,000 gallons per day per foot. Electrical-analog analysis predicts the wa t e r level will decline as much as 120 feet near Bowie and 160 feet near San Simon from 1960 to 1980 under an hypothesized pumping regimen based on the present increasing rate of pumping.
Geohydrologic data in the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah--Part III, Selected lithologic logs, drillers' logs, and stratigraphic sections, by M. E. Cooley, J. p. Akers, and p. R. Stevens: Arizona State Land Dept. Water Resources Rept. 12-C, October 1964. 157 p., 3 figs., 3 tables.
The geohydrologic data in this report consist of information about the geology of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations in northeastern A r i z 0 n a, northwestern New Mexico, and southeastern Uta h. The report consists of a compilation of 161 lithologic logs, 168 drillers' logs, and 76 stratigraphic sections.
The following pap e r s were prepared by personnel of the U. S. Geological Survey and published in the Arizona Geological Society Digest, volumes 5 and 6:
(1) Cenozoic geology of Arizona---A 1960resume, byL. A. Heindl, v. 5, November 1962. p. 9-24.
(2) Should the term "Gila Conglomerate" be abandoned?, by L. A. Heindl, v. 5, November 1962. p. 73-88.
(3) Geomorphology and the age of volcanic rocks in northeastern Arizona, by M. E. Cooley, v. 5, November 1962. p. 97-115.
(4) The M 0 go 11 0 n Highlands---their influence on Mesozoic and Cenozoic erosion and sedimentation, by M. E. Cooley and E. S. Davidson, v. 6, November 1963. p. 7-35.
7
(5) A reinterpretation of the anticlinal structure exposed in the northwest face of Pusch Ridge, Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona, by E. F. Pashley, Jr., v. 6, November 1963. p. 49-53.
Agricultural Resume for 1963
A total of 1,165,800 acres of land was irrigated to grow crops in 1963 (Hillman, 1964). Ground water is the major source of irrigation water, and, thus, declining water levels are a major economic problem to farmers. A total of 387,000 acres of cotton and 193,000 acres of alfalfa was planted in 1963; lesser acreages were planted in barley, sorghum, and vegetables. In general, cotton and alfalfa require more water than the other principal crops. Maricopa (509,400 acres), Pinal (253,540 acres), Yuma (176,210 acres), and Cochise (79,610 acres) Counties continued to have the largest amount of land under cultivation.
Climate
The arid to semiarid climate of most of Arizona bears a direct relation to the need for irrigation of crops and, in particular, to the necessity of using ground water for this irrigation. About half of Arizona receives less than 10 inches of precipitation annually. In general, the regions of low rainfall have the highest temperatures and longest growing seasons and, thus, are the areas that are most developed for agriculture. In these areas, large evaporation and transpiration rates leave only a small part of the total precipitation that can be utilized for growth of benefical plants. Likewise, only a small part---about 1 percent per year--of the total precipitation is available for rechar ge to the ground-water reservoirs. These combined factors are the reason that natural ground-water recharge can not equal ground-water pumpage.
The U. S. Weather Bureau has subdivided the State into seVen sections for the purpose of computing average precipitation values. The monthly and annual averages by division for 1963 and departures from the long-term average for each of the divisions are shown in figure 2. For the most part, precipitation for 1963 was below average in the northern part of the State and only slightly above average in the southern part. Of more significance, however, are the monthly precipitation rates in relation to the growing season and the resulting need for more or less ground water. With a few minor exceptions, monthly precipitation rates Were below average in the State from January through July, making it necessary to pump ground water continuously throughout a large part of the growing season. However, in August precipitation was considerably above average in the southeast and south-central divisions where agricultural development is 'greatest, and pumps could be shut down in some areas; it was also above average in the east-central and north-central divisions where much of the surface water originates that fills the storage reservoirs on the Salt and Verde Rivers. In September and October precipitation was above average in parts of the State and below average in other parts; in
8
114° 112° 1100
II J ;; 0 w
Z
36° ~ :::~d I ~( f= = ~- , h6°
N 01 ~
"- NORTHEAST, 0
, ,//.64 \ ' .'. '-2.3/ 1 KI"9,un IAJrJOTLJ~ ~1';I1'!1 ~ > I
- 1 Holbrook 1
~ ~'
~
Y A
"r±=1:: , I :_., I [340
SOUTHWEST MAR
5,1/5 to.ln
RIter GOo .. P N A L I
, , Yvrno
Y U M A
GRAHAM(
SOUTHEAST I---L ----"
0
1
5./5 to.11
TuClC" , 1[4·
P M A • I ". ~
" 100 MILtS
/3.41 1
to.05 ,-----, C 0 CHI S E
II~ ,_JS ANT AI 1 I . C R U Z \
EXPLANATION
Average precipitation for division. 1963 Departure from long-term average
00"9100
1100
".
1.1 Average for all stations in division, 1963.
~! Departure from long-term average.
Northwest Northeast North-central East-central Southwest South-central division division division division division division
Month Precipi- Depar- Precipi- Depar- Precipi- Depar- Precioi- Depar- Prec1oi- Depar- Precipi- Depar-tatton!) turd! tation!) turd! tattonY ture~! tationU ture.Y tation!-J ture.Y tationU tur~! (inches) (inches) (inches) (Inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches)
January.,., •••• 0.23 -0.78 0.68 -0.53 0.45 -0.98 1.20 -0,80 0.21 -0,28 0.72 -0,25
February,., •. ,. 1.07 -. 22 .99 -,26 1. 57 -.04 2.46 .48 .33 -,22 1. 31 .35
i\larch" •• ,.,., , .64 -,30 .56 -,56 .85 -.28 1. 09 -.59 .25 -.10 .58 -.19
April ••• , •.•••• , .51 -,14 .51 -,31 .59 -.24 .83 -.05 .04 -.13 .32 -,07
l\Iay ., •• , ••••••• Trace -.23 .03 -.47 .01 -,31 Trace -,34 Trace .02 Trace -,14
June ... " ...... .07 -,10 .03 -.44 .02 -.37 .05 -, 39 .02 -,03 Trace -.14
July ......... " .10 -,87 .81 -,97 .74 -1. 12 .65 -1.38 .02 -,38 .21 -,85
August" •• ,.," , 1. 60 -,03 4,53 2,19 5.30 2,61 8,35 5.40 .83 .03 3,86 2,30
September , •• , •• 1. 68 .58 1. 35 -.01 1. 69 .38 1. 03 -,56 1. 60 1.11 .43 -.40
October.,., •• , •• .9' .22 1. 00 -.14 1. 28 .36 1.46 .18 1. 29 .97 1.11 .52
November,."., • 1. 28 .72 • 91 .13 2,13 1. 35 2.18 .97 .56 .34 1. 26 .66
December ., .... ~ -1. 26 ~ ~ ~ -1. 42 ~ -1.75 ~ ~ ~ ~
Annual., •• , • 8.13 -2.41 11,64 -2.31 14.69 -,06 19, 59 1, 17 5, 15 .77 9.88 .86
Southeast division
Precipi- Depar-tation!J ture 2! (inches) (inches)
0,74 -0.24
1.10 .08
.49 -,24
.39 .03
.01 -. 15
.05 -,44
2,41 -,37
4,33 1.19
1. 35 .01
1. 00 .21
1. 34 .70
~ ~ 13.47 .05
Data from U. S, Weather Bureau, 1964
Figure 2. --PreCipitation data for 1963 by climatic subdivisions.
9
November it was above average throughout the State and in December it Was below average.
Surface- Water Runoff, Storage, and Diversions
By
E, B, Hodges
As is common in Arizona, stream runoff varied greatly during the 1963 water year---from month to month throughout the year and from place to place in the State, The variations are related to differences in precipitation, temperature, topography, and geology, The yearly mean discharge at five key gaging stations ranged from 49 to 140 percent of the median of yearly mean discharge; however, all Were below the median except the Gila River station. The yearly mean discharge is computed by averaging the daily discharges. The median of the yearly mean discharge is defined as the middle value of discharge when arranged in order of size; or, if there is no middle value of discharge, then the average of the two middle ones, For the index stations, the median is computed from the yearly mean discharges for the 1931-60 period of record,
For the 1963 water year, the flow of the Little Colorado and Verde Rivers was in the low one-fourth of the range of discharges in the 1931-60 reference period, In general, the lowest flows We r e during winter to mid-summer, Record-low monthly flows occurred as follows: the Little Colorado River in January; the Salt River in July; and the Verde River in November, May, and July. Flows in the high one-fourth of the range of discharges in the 1931-60 reference period occurred mostly during July to September, as a result of a series of storms in nearly every area of the State.
The intense s tor m s were followed by damaging floods in many instances, Two severe floods occurred in and near Prescott within a 3-day period in August (Aldridge, 1963); although these were not the largest floods known, they were the most damaging, Local flooding in the Yuma area in September also caused extensive damage,
The mean discharge for the 1963 water year and the relation to the median of yearly mean dischar ge based on the period 1931-60 for six key gaging stations are shown on following page.
10
Station
Colorado River near Grand Canyon • • •
Little Colorado River near Cameron ••••••••••• • • ••
Gila River at head of Safford Valley, near Solomon •••
Salt River near Roosevelt •
Verde River below Tangle Creek, above Horseshoe Dam ••••••••
San Pedro River at Charleston. , . , •
Discharge {acre-feet}
2,742,000
84,260
286,300
379,000
180,600
33,620
Percent of median
49
140
97
63
93
Because of storage in Lake Powell (Glen Canyon), which began in March 1963, and in other upstream reservoirs, the discharge of the Colorado River near Grand Canyon no longer represents natural runoff. The percent of median discharge has not been computed, and this gaging station is no longer used as an index station.
Storage in principal reservoirs in Arizona as of March 31, 1964, compared with storage for the previous year, is shown below.
Contents, in acre-feet Reservoir March 31. 1964 March 31, 1963
Lake Pleasant • • • • • • • • • • • , • • 17,370 2,800
Verde River system • , • • • • • • • • • 33, 200 31, 290
San Carlos Reservoir. • • • • • • • 51,630 120,800
Salt River system • • • • • • • · • • 719,800 1,018,000
Total diversion of streamflow to Arizona lands in the 1963 water year was more than 2,725,000 acre-feet, about the same as in 1962. About 1,755,000 acre-feet was diverted from the Color ado R i v e r for use by the Colorado River Indian Reservation, the Gila Project, and the Valley Division of the Yuma Project. These projects Use only surface water for irrigation. About 815,000 acre-feet of the water diverted from the Colorado River was returned to the river or discharged across the Arizona-Sonora International Boundary.
About 970,000 acre-feet of surface water was diverted from the Gila River basin in the 1963 water year. Of this amount, 700,100 acre-feet was diverted from the Salt River at Granite Reef Dam. The other significant surfacewater diversions are in the Duncan-Safford areas and for the San Carlos Project. Each of these is used in combination with ground water,
11
Figure 3 shows a comparison of diversions and reservoir storage for a 5-year period.
Personnel
This rep 0 r t is prepared through the combined efforts of the staff in the Arizona district of the U.S. Geological Survey. The sections in which ground-water conditions by basins or areas are discussed were, in general, pre par e d by the per son m 0 s t f ami I i a r wit h the particular are a • H. C. Schwalen, who prepared the sections on the upper Santa Cruz basin, Avra-Marana are a, and Chino Valley, and R. J. Shaw, who collected the field d a t a on which these discussions we r e based, are employed by the University of Arizona, Agricultural Engineering Department.
In addition to those persons listed a s authors, several other people contributed substantially to the pre par at ion of the report. G. S. Smith and F. H. Rascop prepared the illustrations. Others who worked on the report include William Kam, Rita Michunovich, Carol L. Jenkins, Helen S. Price, and Jane Burton. The data upon which the report is based were collected by E. K. Morse, R, S. Stulik, T, W, O!Brien, R, L, Thompson, F, E, Arteaga, and H, W, Steppuhn,
Acknowledgments
Many irrigation districts, cities, well drillers, water and power companies, go v ern men t agencie s, and individuals provided exceptional cooperation in furnishing information, The following organizations Were particularly helpful: Arizona Cor p 0 rat ion Commission, Arizona Public Service, Arizona Water Company, Buckeye Irrigation District, city of Phoenix, city of Tucson, Cortaro Farms, Gila Water Commis sioner, Goodyear Farms, Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District, Roosevelt Irrigation District, Roosevelt Water Conservation District, Salt River Valley Water Users! Ass 0 cia t ion, Salt River Power District, San Carlos Irrigation District, Southwest Gas Corporation, Sulphur Springs Valley Electrical Cooperative, T u c son Gas and Electric Co mp any, U, S, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U, S, Bureau of Reclamation, and U, S. Weather Bureau,
12
Acre-feet
1,800,000
1, 500,000
1,200,000
900, 000
600,000
300,000
o
Acre-feet
1,000,
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
ARIZONA RESERVOIR STORAGE As of March 31
r---, I I Maximum capacity of reservoirs L ___ ..J
D Lake Pleasant
1;:;:;:;:;:::;:1 Combined Verde Hi ver
• San Carlos
6 Combined Salt River I I I ,
,---I I I I I I , I
MAJOR SURFACE-WATER DIVERSIONS TO ARIZONA DURING WATER YEARS
~ Colorado River Indian Reservation
~ Colorado River Valley Division of the Yuma Project
o Colorado River-Wellton-Mohawk and Gila Project
F:X2:;.J Gila River 1 Duncan -Safford area
ml Salt River at Granite Reef Dam
_ Gila River, San Carlos Project
o FV/I
Figure 3. --Surface-water reservoir storage and diversions in Arizona.
13
GROUND- WATER CONDITIONS BY AREAS
By
Natalie D. White
The occurrence of groun:d water in Arizona is controlled by the geology and physiography of the three water provinces. These pro v inc e s are (1) the Plateau uplands or Colorado Plateaus province in the northern part of the State, (Z) the Basin and Range lowlands province in the southern part of the State, and (3) the Central highlands province, which is transitional between the other two provinces. All wells in the State are located by the numbering system explained in figure 4. The following sections describe the current ground-water conditions in the major developed basins and areas in each of the water province s (fig. 5).
Basin and Range Lowlands Province
By
Natalie D. White
The Basin and Range lowlands province is characterized by isolated mountain blocks separated by broad alluvial-filled basins. The broad flat basin surfaces provide ideal land for a g l' i cuI t u l' e, and more than 90 percent of the cultivated land in the State is within this province.
More than 1 million acres of land is irrigated in the Basin and Range lowlands province with about 6.5 mill ion acre-feet 0 f w ate l' annually; municipal, industrial, and do m est i c USe account for another half a million acre-feet annually. About two-thirds of the water used is supplied by ground water; of the ground-water supply nearly 75 percent is pumped from the alluvial aquifers in the lower Santa Cruz basin and Salt River Valley area. Thus, it is in these two areas that water levels are declining at the greatest rate. Other are a S where there are significant declines in the water level include the Willcox basin, Avra Valley, and parts of the San Simon basin. The groundwater conditions in individual basins throughout the Basin and Range lowlands province, beginning in the southeast corner of the State and going generally westward and northward, are discussed in the following paragraphs.
14
B
C
A
, ,
GILA Ar-tO SALT RIVE ... rR I( , , •
Z ' • e, • • • · , • > 0 • ,
/ " . ;: " • • / / 0' z • · ' 1// / " . · ' Well (o-/5~19COO
R.5 E.
• I ' ! • I ' I ' 18t101\12\
!'118 11 16 15 14 13/
s.I~~ N 21 22 21 241 ~ ~ U 21 U J$
)1 36
BASE LINE: , ."
[/H
The well numbers used by the Geological Survey in Arizona are in accordance with the Bureau of Land Management's system of land subdivision. The land survey in Arizona is based on the Gila and Salt River meridian and base line, which divide the State into four quadrants. These quadrants are designated counterclockwise by the capital letters A, B, C, and D. All land north and east of the point of origin is in A quadrant, that north and west in B quadrant, that south and west in C quadrant, and that south and east in D quadrant. The first digit of a well number indicates the township, the second the range, and the third the section in which the well is situated. The lowercase letters a, b, c, and d after the section number indicate the well location within the section. The first letter denotes a particular lBO-acre tract, the second the 40-acre tract, and the third the 10-acre tract. These letters also are assigned in a counterclockwise direction, beginning in the northeast quarter. If the location is known within the 10-acretract, three lowercase letters are shown in the well number. In the example shown, well number (D-4-5)19caa designates the well as beingintheNEtNEtSWt sec. 19, T. 4 S., R. 5 E. Where there is more than one well within a 10- acre tract, consecutive numbers beginning with I are added as suffixes.
Figure 4. --Well-numbering system in Arizona.
15
'" "
4.
'"' .. "
16
..
"
j\J 1
II1II
r~'---------'~'---7 ---- -i72-'--- --
I I ,,,' I ----;:;:------1
I 1 : I i I \
~~Or;r-'f~~~/
;J'fJ1L , 4
o c
~e .. \ ,. 7.
'f
o N
" ",
4 N
. i' ~,""'A \
'\_~ __ ~~-- _~ __ ~w~ " I '
U } I A p A c H E
"
z o \\1 ' N A V ,A J
.~__ E~'~P[ SAN fM~-CISCO '.fe~l.J £S
).IT, l'\. -?... ,....
o r I
4 i I: '"
,~,,,,, l..
h .. ",,.
5,,",",,( •
-+4--r;D-~"'l '" '- ~~!: ... ClTt I
.o~~. '.. S IX
i ·~ "'''''\
I ST. 'OH~S .. I ()
.'l'GstHf
~
5~J~"'* o
'" \ \
o ",NUY
'" G L A Wtln; MTS.
'»"?'<'yf1jp'''-J) (V1~~1'i ~~~~~~~~~~~ Q'
_. 'J:. L, ~ ~?? IW!. "f\ ~ , . __ -.1_
p M A
~ '" -If t ;'~_
leo
EXPLANATION '? 10 '? MILES
BASINS AND AREAS DUSC";'; H.ISlS 9, l'l'PEI< "-'--'i1A <:"Rt'Z "..1.9-;
". PAlm!.\SPLAP;.\HF_~ S.\ff"o.~D BASI'< 1.,. ""VRA-~IARA."';A AR".'.
la_ RA.""EGH,\S PL~r.< ARE-\ S_\:< 51'10., R"-SL~ n. LO"EH SA7'>,'\ CRt'Z. B,~'L" A:--U ADJI,.CE:>T AREA ALo.~G GIL~ Rl'iER 19. ''CELL TOS-~!OHA'\\"K illIE..'. AHAVAlP" V."LLEY n . .'C\\"T RIVER YALLLY
2·). soum GILA VALLE'l', 'il-'_'!A ~'E5A. A>;D YI.:\I" V,\Ll E', AR.E,; >. IIJLLCOX BASIl-> 13. IIATER\JA::< IIASI! AREA
21. E:O SA:'·DYVALL:E:¥ ~. DOl·OLAS EASI::< 11. OILA EE~D AREA n. K"'G\lAl->-I!.ACKBERRY AREA
\JPPEf{ SA::< PEDIlO EA5I::< I>. f!ARQ1!AH,lLA PLAJ::<S AREA 23. cm::<o YALLEY
8. La~EIl s.,;>; PEDIlO BAS!;>; 16. -'~C.\lULL:E.S VALLEY AIlE., 24. \""E!liJE \-ALLEY
Figure 5. -- Map of Arizona showing basins and areas for which ground-water conditions are discussed,
Duncan Basin
By
E. S. Davidson
In the Duncan basin (fig. 5, No.1) most wells are drilled in the alluvium in the inner valley underlying the flood plain of the Gila River. The water table ranges in depth from a few feet to about 40 feet below land surface. Water levels in wells in the irrigated parts of the basin declined about 1 foot from spring 1963 to spring 1964 and are at about the same level as in spring 1959. The hydrograph of the water level in well {D-7-31)4 illustrates the general water-level trend in the area, and that for well {D-8-32)32 illustrates a local water-level rise that began in 1962 (fig. 6).
Safford Basin
By
E. S. Davidson
In the Sa f for d basin (fig. 5, No.2) ground water is withdrawn principally from the alluvium in the inner valley that underlies the flood plain of the Gila River. Shallow wells are completed in the alluvium, and a few deep artesian wells tap deeply buried aquifers in the basin. A more complete discussion of the aquifers in the basin is contained in two previous reports (White, Stulik, and others, 1962; White, Stulik, Morse, and others, 1963).
From the head of the valley to Geronimo, water levels in wells selected for mea sur e men t Were from 14 to 58 feet below land surface in spring 1964. Water levels in the heavily irrigated parts of the Gila River drainage have been influenced by the greater-than-average flow of the Gil a R i v e r from spring 1963 to spring 1964 and especially from August through October. The water levels were from a few tenths of a foot to 4 feet higher in spring 1964 than in spring 1963 and from 1 to 4 feet higher than in spring 1959.
Hydrographs of the water level in wells {D-6-28)31, {D-6-24)5, and (D-4-22) 13 (fig. 6) illustrate the general rise in the shallow water-table aquifer dating from 1957; the hydrograph for well {D-7_27)2 shows the same rise for the artesian aquifer beneath the shallow aquifer.
Water levels in the Artesia area declined about 2 feet from spring 1963 to spring 1964 and about 6 feet since spring 1959. Sparse records for the Cactus Flat area indicate a 5-year water-level decline of more than 10 feet, but most of the decline occurred from spring 1963 to spring 1964. The wells in this area tap artesian aquifers, and the water levels are subject to large variations due to slight changes in the pressure head of the aquifer; therefore, the decline may not represent a long-term condition due to pumping.
17
20
./"'" 30
40 Well (D-8-32)32, depth 110 feet Franklin area, Duncan basin, Greenlee County
20
30
40 Well (D-7-31)4, depth 75 feet York-Sheldon area, Dtu1can basin, Greenlee County
40
50
60 ~\ r
70
80
\ \ I/"'J \
~ 90
" 100 -a
, \ , .......
\ , , \, \
• u
] 110
• , -a 120 ] ~ 130 0 n • ,Q
140 ~
\ / y
\ / \ / \
\/ • • ~ .S
Well (D-7-27}2, depth 500 feet San Jose area, Safford basin, Graham County
n'
~ 20 • n
" 30 • " ~
40
......-
'" V--.....-..... 50
Well (D-6-28)31, depth 540 feet San Jose area, Safford basin, Graham County
40
./"'" ..........-50
---60 ..... -Well (D-6-24)5, depth 64 feet Pima area, Safford basin, Graham County
10 --20
30 Well (D-4-22}13, depth 76 feet
", ,t.V . m - ""ffnrrl h .
1954 I 1955 I 1956 I 1957 I 1958 I 1959 I 1960 I 1961 1962 1963 1964
18 Figure 6. -- Water levels in selected wells, DlUlcan and Safford basins.
San Simon Basin
By
Natalie D. White
The San Simon basin (fig. 5, No.3) is part of a northwest-trending structural trough that extends from south of the International Boundary to Globe, Ariz.; it is bounded on the east by the Peloncillo Mountains and on the southwest and west by the Chiricahua, Dos Cabezas, and Pinaleno Mountains. The subsurface material in the San Simon basin has been described by White (1963).
There are two major areas of ground-water development in the basin: (1) the Bowie area, centered around the town of Bowie on the west side of the basin; and (2) the San Simon area, centered around the town of San Simon near the San Simon River on the east side of the basin. Another smaller area of development in the basin is on the Arizona-New Mexico State line near Rodeo, New Mexico.
Bowie area. --In most parts of the Bowie area ground water is under artesian head. However, several wells have been drilled along the basin flank a few miles south of Bowie where ground water is under water-table conditions. In addition, on the southwestern edge of the are a, the water level in a few wells had dropped below the bottom of the confining layer so that these wells are now operating under water-table conditions. The water level in wells in the Bowie area ranged from less than 120 to nearly 370 feet below land surface in the spring of 1964. The greatest depths to water are in the watertable wells south of Bowie.
Water-level fluctuations in the artesian We 11 s ranged from less than 5 to nearly 30 feet from spring 1963 to spring 1964. From spring 1959 to spring 1964, the water-level declines in these wells averaged about 40 feet. Figure 7 shows contours of the change in water level from spring 1954 to spring 1964 and indicates that in this 10-year period the water level in the artesian wells in the center of the area of heaviest pumping declined as much as 100 feet. The water level in well (D-13-29}18 (fig. 8) declined about 33 feet from spring 1959 to spring 1964.
The decline in water level in wells south of Bowie was as much as 100 feet from spring 1954 to spring 1964 (fig. 7) and nearly 70 feet from spring 1959 to spring 1964. The apparent rise in water level of nearly 20 feet in well (D-13-28)16 (fig. 8) from spring 1963 to spring 1964 is an anomaly; the 1963 water level may be low due to pumping of the well prior to the measurement.
In the essentially undeveloped area between Bowie and San Simon, the depth to water is somewhat shallower than in the two areas of development; one well about 10 miles southeast of Bowie was flowing in the spring of 1964. However, the cones of depression from the two developed areas are extending into this area, and the water level in a well about 9 miles southwest of Bowie has dropped to 25 feet below land surface; this well was flowing in 1957.
19
Bo •• fr=lI.. .. """....,.._"',$<r"o.,.............,.,_ .. ... _ .... 11",~""
Figure 7.-- Map of
20
EXPLANATION
HARO-ROCK AREA
---2.0--
CHANGE IN WATER LEVEL
(20..(001 infervor)
1
.,c
1",9 f Jo!JL£S
San Simon basin, Cochise and Graham Counties, Ariz., showing ground-water level from spring 1954 to spring 1964.
change in
70
80 "-" 90 ........
100
110
"-...... ~
120 -""-" 130 .......
......... 140 r-- i
150 """ 160
170
~ Well (D-13-29)18, depth 800 feet; lower aquifer (artesian) ............... Bowie area, San Simon basin, Cochise County ...
280
270 ~
280 V \ ./'
! 290
300
\ V .... ~
\ • 0
] 310
• • 320 '"
...............
\ ,g %
330
.a 340 t ~ 350 .i1
~ 360
" 370 • ~ ~ 380
390
\ \
.............. t\ \ \ l;
\ / Well (D-13-28)16, depth 895 feet: marginal zone (water table) V South of Bowie San Simon baain Cochise COtulty
10
20 -30
............... ...... r--
40
50 ['-.......
60
Well (D-14-31)24, depth unknown; lower aquifer (artesian) ............ r-San Simon area San Simon basin Cochise County
60
70 "li- I I J 1 I Well (D-13-31}30, depth 80 feet; upper aquifer (water table) San Simon area San Simon basin Cochise County 1954 1 1955 1 1956 1 1957 1 1958 1 1959 1 1960 1 1961 1982 1963 1984 I
Figure 8, --Water levels in selected wells in the San Simon basin. 21
San Simon area. ~,-Ground water occurs under artesian head and under watertable conditions in the San Simon area.
The depth to water in the artesian wells in the San Simon area ranged from less than 20 to more than 150 feet below land surface in the spring of 1964. The water-level changes in these wells ranged from a slight rise to a decline of nearly 25 feet from spring 1963 to spring 1964 and from a slight rise to more than 30 feet of decline from spring 1959 to spring 1964. Figure 7 shows that there was more than 60 feet of decline from spring 1954 to spring 1964. The water level in well {D-14-31)24 (fig. 8) declined slightly more than 20 feet from spring 1959 to spring 1964.
Water levels in water-table wells in the San Simon area and the lesser developed area to the west ranged from about 40 to 80 feet below land surface in the spring of 1964. Changes in water level in these wells ranged from a rise of about 2 feet to a decline of about 2 feet from spring 1963 to spring 1964; from spring 1959 to spring 1964 changes in water IE/vel ranged from a rise of about 4 feet to a decline of about 4 feet. The w ate r level in well {D-13-31)30 (fig. 8) declined about 1 foot from spring 1963 to spring 1964 and about 4 feet from spring 1959 to spring 1964.
In and near the San Simon Cienaga water levels are less than 25 feet below land surface, although only 2 miles to the east and to the west of the cienaga, the water level measured in wells in the spring of 1964 was about 160 feet below land surface.
Rodeo area. -- The development of ground water for irrigation in the Rod e 0
area is comparatively minor; however, near Rodeo some water is withdrawn for irrigation use, and the water levels are declining. In the spring of 1964 water levels in this area ranged from about 100 to slightly more than 175 feet below land surface. From spring 1963 to spring 1964 water-level changes in wells in this area ranged from a slight rise to a decline of about 4 feet; from spring 1959 to spring 1964 water-level changes ranged from a slight rise to a decline of more than 20 feet. Figure 7 shows that there has been as much as 40 feet of dec 1 in e in the area during this period. In the area between Rodeo and the San Simon Cienaga the development of ground water for irrigation is comparatively recent. Data are insufficient to determine any significant pattern of water-level change, although there seems to be some slight decline. The water level in well {D-18-32)11 (fig. 9) declined about 4 feet from spring 1959 to spring 1964; the water level in well {D-18-32)26 rose about 2 feet from spring 1963 to spring 1964 (fig. 9).
22
§ -:;; .", ., 0
'" ] '" -b ] ~ oJ .0
t ., ... .;1
i ~ k ., ~
140
150
160
90
100
110
120
130
Well {D-18-32)11, depth 172 feet North of Rodeo, San Simon basinJ Cochise County
1\ 'v- / -- ........... -.... ~ --~
Well {D-18-32)26, depth 1,000 feet Rodeo area, San Simon basin, Cochise County
19541 1955 119561~957 11958 11959 11960 1961 19~ 1963 ~-
Figure 9. --Water levels in selected wells in the southern part of the San Simon basin.
Sulphur Spring Valley
By
S. G. Brown
1964 J
The Sulphur Spring Valley (fig. 5, Nos. 5 and 6) in southeastern Arizona is part of a structural trough that extends from the Gila River on the north into Mexico on the south. Willcox basin, which has no external drainage, is in the northern three-fifths of the valley; whereas, Douglas basin drains southward into Mexico and is in the southern two-fifths of the valley. A drainage divide in the buttes and ridges south of Pearce separates the Willcox basin from Douglas basin. A drainage divide at the headwaters of Aravaipa Creek marks the northern end of the Willcox basin.
Willcox basin, -- W ate r levels We r e measured in 122 wells in the Willcox basin (fig. 5, No.5) in the spring of 1964. In the extensively developed Kansas Settlement area (fig. 10) water levels continued the rapid decline of the last few years, although rises in water level were noted in a few wells between the Kansas Settlement road and the Willcox Playa. From 1959 to 1964, measured changes in water level ranged from a rise of 24 feet to declines of more than 80 feet; the average change in water level during this period was a decline of 43 feet. From spring 1963 to spring 1964, waterlevel changes ranged from an isolated rise of 18 feet in one well to a decline of 69 feet in one well. Water-level declines from spring 1963 to spring 1964 averaged slightly less than 7 feet.
23
RZIE-
24
+
R2~E. R26E. R27E.
EXPLANATION
HARD-ROCK MEA
WELL FOR \\H:CH HYOROGRAPH IS
SHO~'1i L~ FIGWRE 12
DRAI~AGE DIVIDE
R.26E.
Figure 10.-- Index map for Willcox basin. Cochise and Graham Counties, Ariz.
Water levels in wells in the Stewart area (fig. 10) northwest of Willcox also have continued to decline. From 1959 to 1964 declines of as much as 26 feet Were measured in two wells, and a rise of 2 feet was measured in one well. The average change in water level during the 5-year period was a decline of about 7 feet. From spring 1963 to spring 1964 the average decline in water level, as measured in 56 wells, was more than 2 feet.
In the Cochise-Pearce area (fig. 10) the average change in water level from spring 1959 to spring 1964 was a decline of 6 feet; water-level changes during this period ranged from a rise of 5 feet to a decline of more than 20 feet. From spring 1963 to spring 1964 water-level changes ranged from a rise of 1 foot to a decline of 6 feet; the average water-level change Was a decline of about 1 foot.
The water levels in wells (D-13-24116 and (D-16-26)7 in the highly developed Stewart and Kansas Settlement areas, respectively, show declines typical of the areas (fig. 11). The water level in well (D-14-24)30 (fig. 11) is typical of an area where there is only a small amount of ground-water development.
The cumulative net change in average water level has been computed for five areas in the Willcox basin using the average water level in 1952 as a base (fig. 12). The five areas (fig. 10) were chosen on the basis of the time that development of ground water began, the amount of ground-water withdrawal, and geographic location. In addition to the average declines for each of the five areas, data are plotted for several representative wells in each of the areas. For the most part, the curves show a downward trend of the water level; however, in part of the area where there is little ground-water development for irrigation (such as the Sierra Bonita Ranch area) the curves show little or no decline or even slight rises in the average water levels. However, any increase in pumping for irrigation will accelerate the downward trends of the water levels and reverse any existing upward trends, as the slight decline in average water levels shows that withdrawals already equal or slightly exceed average recharge to the area. The rate of decline is not as great in the Stewart area as it is in the Kansas Settlement area. The rise in water level in a few wells in these two areas may be caused, in part, by infiltrating tailwater from upslope irrigation and, in part, by interaquifer flow through wells from deeper zones of higher head.
Douglas basin. --In the spring of 1964 water levels Were measured in 105
wells in the Douglas basin (fig. 5, No.6). Depth to water in the Douglas basin ranges from about 30 to 150 feet below land surface and in most areas is les s than 100 feet below I and surface. Fro m 1959 to 1964 the average change in water level Was a decline of about 5-lj2 feet, although water-level changes ranged from rises of as much as 12 feet to declines of as much as 30 feet. Figure 13 shows contours of the change in water level in the basin for the 5-year period. From 1963 to 1964 the average water-level change Was a decline of 0.4 foot. Of the 105 wells measured, the water level in 29 wells either rose or did not change since spring 1963; the average rise Was 5.6 feet. Declines were measured in 76 wells, and the average decline Was 2.7 feet.
The water level in wells (D-18-26)28, (D-22-26)28, and (D-21-26)2 declined
25
60
70 -~ 80 i'-.... 90
100
---I---.
~ 110 --- r--....
Well {n-13-24)16. depth 1,400 feet r 120 Stewart area, Willcox basin, Cochise County
90
100
110
120
--- t-. -r-- t-....
130
140
........ ~ ...... ~
! 150 20
~ 0 30
~ ~
Well (D-14-26)2D, depth 200 feet ~ Northeast of Willcox pIa va Willcox basin Cochise County
I _L .1 1 1 -I· -~. .,. I -- .--Well (D-14-24)30, depth unknown West of Willcox playa, Willcox basin, Cochise County
.I, 70 ] ~ 80 ~ .s .ll
90 ~ ~
.Ii 100 .S ... 110 ~
~ " 120 ~ ~ 130
140
-...... ""-
'" "-"" " ~
~ "-
150 "-160
........ ~
170
"'" 180
Well {D-16-26)7, depth 500 feet r'---Kansas Settlement area Willcox basin Cochise County
70 I
80 Well (D-18-26}28, depth 140 feet
90 North portion, Douglas basin, Cochise County
40
50
60
70
Well (D-21-26)2, depth 110 feet -Elfrida area, Douglas basin, Cochise County
30
40
50 Well (D-22-26)28. depth 90 feet Double Adobe area Dou<7las basin eoch; se rountv
26 L 1954 Jl.9.5U~9~57 T 1958 I 1959:=I196U 196~ ~9~ L1~6~ 1964
Figure 11. --Water levels in selected wells in Sulphur Spring Valley.
~961 Z961 1961 0961
// ..
.. " .. , ..
..... .... ... "·~:J(it~91.-Q)
" .. ""O.{gt·9·i:ci)···· ... '\
~ ~
• ," n'" 1'------~ U"'l~~r fenlm. ~!yOA' aA.p"lmm>:)
'-...._.J,!!!,,,,!J,._.- ..............
1--- --~ WPt:'(;:I.:2L_
1-.-.. \-.-. +-. -!J".".o, lila .... It" '" UtllP~P
iU''''''' ~hJa_ .. ' a.'1l1,nwn:)
f--- 1-' ~t;'U-a) q:.q'i
6S61 eS61 l s 61 9S61
.'" .. , ........ . .
...... ::~. », -- .. ,
r----~ !"k:: 1-.-.- /' ... .-. ---.....
---- j..- ..........
. -. 1-.-.•
S S61 PS61 ~S61 ZS61
l ~
il
I'· ... " ~ 1"--.."" r":."",,,., -,
IS611 OS61 J 6p6f
(OlOndJUl ~fitlal"') HJ. ItI~t'fall1"'S "orrox
.....,T~"'"
('"'Wd'lzzl ~utp01lI) 'I .... .. 1"~'r.)·»JUd
"''''T " "'" (IIOlldlZZl afitlallll)
"a ... }l" ... alS
ap6f
".
~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~.~~.~ ... ~.-~--+---t----~---i-----+----+---~----~---+---t-----,---,--~--~ ... .... '" . .........
••••• qq'UII(t~·tI·Q)
I------~-----t------+_--·-··-·~··c·~~~":"··"~-,""'t··c_----+_-----~---_+------+_----~~----_+------+_----~~----_+------+_----~ ~ Ot·
....... " ..... ........ ............ ...... ......
L-___ ~L_ ___ _L ____ 1_ ____ ~~ ____ _L ______ 1_ ____ ~~ ____ _L _____ "_ ___ ~ ______ _L ______ "_ ____ ~ ______ _L ______ "_ ___ -' ,~
r---r--~r---'---~---r----r----.-----.-----.-----,----,---~---------------------, ...
...... _ q1J9(St,:~!:~! ........................... .. ~--
............... .-.
(OlOJrU'iJlJ all11U Hl, 8A"ld I(IlO-,"
L-__ ~ ____ -L ____ -L ____ -1 ____ -1 ____ ~'-____ L-____ "-____ "-____ ~ ____ -L ____ -L ____ -L ____ -1 ____ -" ____ -"., •
'" .... ~:St(H·II-Q)
'-:;-;..-m l'OT~ .. t·-·-· .-.- rma .... 11" i-!:;;:J;f"nA1 ;AI 1(11wn:)
' ..... \. ":~::.:.::: ":~'- '''' .-. (tIOlldlUl ~!l1!U
"a'" Iptl"lll VU"<>!I "'JOIS
...
1,2, and 3 feet, respectively, from spring 1963 to 1964; this decline is the continuation of a gradual decline in the Wa t e r level that began about 1950 (fig. ll).
San Pedro River Valley
By
Natalie D. White
The San Pedro River valley (fig. 5, Nos. 7 and 8) is divided into the upper and lower San Pedro basins. The upper San Pedro basin (fig. 5, No.7) extends from the International Boundary to th e Narrows near Tres Alamos. The lower San Pedro basin (fig. 5, No.8) extends from the Narrows to the Gila River near Winkleman. Davidson U!!. White and others, 1963} described the rocks in the San Pedro River valley and their relation to the hydrology of the area.
Upper San Pedro basin. --In the upper San Pedro basin (fig. 5, No.7) ground water is withdrawn from the water-table and artesian aquifers for irrigation, chiefly in the areas between Palominas and Hereford and between St. David and Pomerene. The depth to water in wells along the flood plain of the river ranged from less than 30 to more than 85 feet below land surface in the spring of 1964. Water-level fluctuations in these wells are erratic due to recharge from flow in the San Pedro River and irregular pumping of the wells. Waterlevel declines ranged from about 2 to 7 feet from spring 1959 to spring 1964; from spring 1963 to spring 1964 water-level changes ranged from a rise of about 8 feet to a decline of 5 feet. The water level in well (D-16-20}34 declined about 2 feet (fig. 14) from spring 1963 to spring 1964, but no overall pattern of rise or decline is discernible. Some artesian wells along the flood plain of the river flowed at the surface, and the water levels in other artesian wells were more than 30 feet below land surface in spring 1964. The change in water level in well (D-17-21}32 (fig. 14) probably is typical of these wells; in general the water level is declining slightly. From spring 1963 to spring 1964 a rise in water level was indicated due to the fact that the measurement in 1963 had been influenced by recent pumping of the well. The water level in the deeper wells along the flanks of the valley ranged from about 30 to more than 300 feet below land sur f aCe in spring 1964. The water level in well (D- 20- 20}3 2 (fig. 14) declined 1 e s s than 2 feet fro m spring 1963 to spring 1964.
Lower San Pedro basin. --Most of the water used for irrigation in the lower
San Pedro basin (fig. 5, No.8) is withdrawn from shallow wells along the flood plain of the river. South of Mammoth a few deep wells along the ~flood plain yield small amounts of water under artesian pressure.
The depth to water inwells along the flood plain of the river generally is less than 60 feet below land sur f ace but increases rapidly to the northeast and southwest away from the river. Water levels in the shallow wells fluctuate erratically, depending on the flo w in the river and the pattern of pumping.
28
N
IIII EXPLANATION
D ALLUVIAL AREA
[[!illillllj HARD - ROCK AREA
----la--
CHANGE IN WATER LEVEL
(5-{001 in/uval)
DRAINAGE DIVIDE
~~~_~~_~~5 ""LES
Figure 13.-- Map of Douglas basin. Cochise County. Ariz.. showing change in ground-water level from spring 1959 to spring 1964.
29
From spring 1963 to spring 1964 water-level changes generally ranged from a rise of Z feet to a decline of Z feet; however, the water level in two wells, in which the water level fluctuates with flow in Aravaipa Creek, declined 6 and 10 feet, respectively, due to lack of flo w in the creek. From 1959 to 1964 water-level changes ranged from a rise of about half a foot to a decline of 3 feet. The water level in wells {D-13-l9)Z3 and {D-8-l7)l9 (fig. 14) fluctuates mainly in response to flow in the San Pedro River--rising during periods of runoff in the river and declining in dry periods.
Upper Santa Cruz Basin
By
H. C. Schwalen.!:./
The par t of the Santa Cruz River valley extending from the International Boundary north to the Rillito Narrows, about 16 miles northwest of Tucson, is included in the upper Santa Cruz basin (fig. 5, No.9). It has been divided into the Cortaro-Canada del Oro, Tucson, Sahuarita-Continental, and Santa Cruz County are a s. The ann u a 1 water-level-measuring program of the Agricultural Engineering Department includes measurement of about 1,500 wells in the basin.
Cortaro-Canada del Oro area. --The Cortaro-Canada del Oro area (fig. 15) is north of Rillito Creek between the Santa Catalina and the Tucson Mountains and south and east of the Tortolita Mountains. Pumping of ground water in the area is confined mainly to the Cortaro bottom lands, which occupy the flood plain along the Santa Cruz River between the Rillito Narrows and the mouth of Rillito Creek.
From spring 1963 to spring 1964 water-level declines of from 1 to 3 feet occurred in alar ge par t of the are a. However, the water level in well {D-1l-14)Z (fig. 16) in the upper Canada del Oro area adjacent to the stream declined about 9 feet from s p r in g 1963 to spring 1964. Water-level rises ranged from 1 to 3 feet above the Rillito Narrows; there has been little decline in the water table from Cortaro to the Rillito Narrows.
Tucson area. --The Tucson area (fig. 15) is the wide central part of the Santa
Cruz R i v e r valley from Rillito C r e e k 0 n the north to the south line of T. ISS., Rs. 13 and 14E. It includes the irrigated lands in the San Xavier Indian Reservation and the area southeast of Tucson.
Measurements in spring 1964 indicated water-level declines of from 3 to 5 feet in a large part of the metropolitan area, and declines of more than 10 feet occurred in some small isolated are a s. The w ate r 1 eve 1 in well {D-15-13)Z (fig. 16), although it fluctuates with flow in the Santa Cruz River
I/ Agricultural engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Arizona.
30
70
80 i-....... -90 -
Well {D..r16-20)34. depth 98 feet; water-table well Pomerene-Benson area upper San Pedro basin Cochise County
80
90
---100 ---Well (D-20-20)32, depth 275 feet; wa~er-table well
! F_ort Huachuca area, upper San Pedro basin. Cochise County
• u
] 10 ~ ..
20 ]
~ 30
.li ~ 40 • .Ii
- " "'-.... /
"-:/ Well (D-17-21)32, depth 520 feet; artesian well
.~ St. David area upper San Pedro basin, Cochise County
1 .. 30 •
~ 40
50 '\A. ./ V ./ ....... ........... ... Well {D-13-19)23, depth 85 feet; water-table well Cascabel area, lower San Pedro basin. Cochise County
o
J - --- I-10
20 Well (D-8-17)19, depth 46 feeti water-table well Mammoth area, lower San Pedro basin, Cochise County
1954 I 1955 I 1956 I 1957 I 1958 I 1959 I 1960 I 1961 1962 1963 1964
Figure 14. --Water levels in selected wells in the San Pedro River valley.
31
R9E,
i~-:f,i/r(J\ " \
\
R12£ R.13E. RIDE R.IIE, ' ,
_-El~AL _CO'.--T.-r~--·---r----\PIMA CO ..•. ~ TORT/LUrA MTS.
", ::.. \ \., '-', '~\
\. \. MARANA ~ \ ,so "'" '\ ',.~ .,
R.!4E. R.!5E. R.!6E. ---.-.. ,-... -~?
vi
f:'
Ui/ \ ~c ~ --r--- I~ // I I I l ~.?~ ;W-I~n _r(; '7 Q~' ) )
(}<:-y
-, (7 G\
I / <:::;;;;,f'-. or,"~ .... 'I ' , ....... \ f \ ':v"'"~ ~~ \.U \ \.\ ~ ,.'
o \ \
t'I:. <t \,
~
" RYAN AIRFIELO :"~'
I SANTA :',CATALINA Mrs.
~\~: ,,~.,
':% -~ I (F
1 ....
Mrs.
~
vi
'" ,.:
.,;
" ;::'
vi :t I-'
L"
i'-'
I
THREE POINTS I "1 SAN
,~~C,00'05, T. I.
'" ~t '" " ~,I • I
,"; !!l I-'
~ ~
! / INDIAN ,(
/'
XAVIER 1
RESERVATION "-, . ....-.1J'i
'!' I-'
/ I
~ / I'~ 't ~ "~ 7 \"", II f\'Q~ ". ! \"'--if= , ~ \
h:
)t~:1 ~ " I I ( r::::
1(11 h1r &~/ ~,I J~~l' f~F~:AL ~ I 1
SIERR/TA Mrs.
~ EXPLANATION
O MOUNTAIN AREA OF BEDROGK OUTCROP
"-",J APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF GROUND-WATER RESERVOIR
7T7TT1 TUCSON CITY LIMITS
INDIAN RESERVATION BOUNDARY
, ,.....IT r ~~ , RITA \
i:' \." / '-0~ ...... A. __ ~~~t<~ "
Mrs.
__ pJ.M~ "'""', _______ ,_ SANTA CRUZ CO,
Agricultural Engineering D<>partment, University of Arizona, October 1964
o 2 4 6
MILES
32. Figure 15.--lndex map for upper Santo Cruz basin, Pima and Santo Cruz Counties, Ariz.
vi to I-'
'" "' I-'
vi
'" I-'
350
•
360
370 Well {D-12-13)18, depth 456 feet ,Northeast of Cortaro Pima Countv
20
30
40
r---1/ \ 50 \ /\
60 / 1\ / -'" 70 / V \ 80 / "" ~ 90 J
•
~ 100 • 0
] Well (D-1l-14)2, depth unknown Upper Canada del Oro area Pima COlll1tv
• ~
30
~ 40
0 ~ • .0 50 n ..... .. • ~ 60 f\ '\ " n .S .., 70 ~ • ~ "
80 • ... '"
90
"J " '\...AI' '\.I ..... \fu \r.. " 1\ n '\J ... \/\.. r-....fJ~
Well (D-15-13)2, depth 104 feet • r-South Tucson, Pima County
60
70
80 "'-..I 'V l(,- I\. /" 1\.../
90
"- ~ tv-""' ~ I--Well (D-17-14)18. depth 124 feet Near Sahuarita. Pima County
30
40 Well (D-20-13)19. depth 150 feet 2.1 miles southeast of Amado, Santa Cruz County
o I I I I I J I
J Well (D-24-15)18, depth 47 feet
I 5 miles east of Nogales, Santa Cruz County
10
1954 , 1955 , 1956 '1957 , 1958 , 1959 I 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
Figure 16 . - - Water levels in selected wells in the upper Santa Cruz basin.
33
J .. " ~ " I
'" ~ !l 0 ~ ,Q
4j .. .... .S
t .!l .. .. +'
~
170
180
190 ~ t..... ............. !-
200
210
220
--r--- --" Well (D-11-10)32, depth 500 feet .... 230 Avra Valley, Pima County
340
350
360 Well (D-15-11)1l, depth 479 feet
370 Near Ryan airfield, Pima County
210
220 1 I I I
Well (D-15-10)35, depth 295 feet 230 Near Three Points, Pima County
1954 1 1955 1 1956 1 1957 1 1958 11959 1960 1961 1962 19~3 1964
Figure 17. -- Water levels in selected wells in the Avra-Marana area.
A recent report (White, Stulik, and Rauh, 1964) describes current groundwater conditions in the area and predicts the status of the water table to the year 1969. The prediction of the water level is shown as a depth-to-water map for that time.
The Salt River Valley is the largest area of agricultural development in the S tat e and, consequently, is first in the amount of ground w ate r pumped annually. For the most part, water levels in the Salt River Valley continued to decline at varying rates during 1963. The maximum declines were in the heavily pumped areas such as Deer Valley, northwest of Litchfield Park, and east of Mesa; minimum declines occurred in the areas where surface-water diversions supplemented ground-water withdrawal. Figures 21, 22, and 23 are hydrographs of the cumulative net change in water levels in five of the areas of the Salt River Valley. Average declines in these areas ranged from about 3 feet to nearly 10 feet from spring 1963 to spring 1964. Depth to water in the Salt River Valley in the spring of 1964 ranged from a few feet to more than 500 feet below land surface.
36
. ; o , •
p""':><'~. In ~~odre1. 01 T~,c>.,a"d, 01 atre-fe.l u 0 0 g ~
, • i , , l ,
CW"".Mt1.~ r.~T dl~r.;; .. ;n ~ater I.,ell, i~ le'T
Q § ~ B ~ 1 S 8 6 ~ S 8 ! ~ B 1 0 0 0 0 0
[ H , f-~ , f-'
r-i
!
I /
/ ./
/'
./ ./
V 1/
V /
V I
CU"'~'OT;¥e "", &.0"9" io 1>ot", Ie-.I" In teet.
0 0 0 0 0 g ! ~ ~ I;; o~ ~ 8.!. 8: g 1. ~ ,\ ~~~~~,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-o
g ~ 0
, , 0 0 ,
~
t
I II
f-! i , I-~
t-I , / t-~ II
/
/
/ /
/ ./ /
/ J /' /
/ , I I , II
/ I 1/ , /
/ / /
0
I I I
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
! 340
~ 0
" 1i 120 ~ , '" 130 j ~ 140 0 41 ,Q
150 0; ~ .a 160
41' 170 I> .!i " 180 • ~ ~
190
200
80
90
100
110
120
130
38
............... ..........
r\ \
\ -- r-...
'" ..... r-... .......
"" " •
"-"-r-..
"-Well (D-9-8)22, depth 600 feet South of Eloy. Eloy area, Pinal County ,
~ ..............
~ -'" '" -~ i
~ Well (D-5-6)28, depth 390 feet North of Casa Grande, Casa Grande- Florence area, Pinal CO\U1ty
r- -- ............. - -~ -'" Well (D-6-6)35, depth 602 feet I East of Cas a Grande, Cas a Grande- Florence area, Pinal County
1954 I 1955 ~ 1956 I 1957 I 1958 ~ 1959 I 1960 I 1961 1962 1963 1964 I Figure 19 . - - Water levels in selected wells in the Eloy and Casa Grande- Florence areas,
lower Santa Cruz basin.
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
~ 310
~ .g 320 • 0
~ 330
• , 340 '0
~ ~ 350 0 ~ • .Q
~ • • ~ .~ 60 .-> ~ • 70 ~
" • 80
~ 90
100
110
120
130
140
I . J
"" ~ '" " "'-
'\.
"'-~ ~ ~
"'-
"" ,
Well (D-7-5)5. depth 450 feet \ V: Southeast of Stanfield, Stanfield-Maricopa area, Pinal County
,.... ~
.......... ......
............... -........ I--
~ "-~
r--.......... Well {D-4-3)22, depth 735 feet East of Maricopa, Stanfield-Maricopa area, Pinal County
1954 1955 I 1956 I 1957 I 1958 I 195B-.l1960 I 1961 196~~ 1963
Figure 20. -- Water levels in selected wells in the stanfield-Maricopa area, lower Santa Cruz basin.
1964 '--- --
39
o
,
"
0
~I-J " , , ,
~:I ~ ~ , , , ! ,
! , • i ! ! !
! ! ~ ! ~ ~
I ! §
~
! ! ! ! • , , i ! ! !
! I !II • ,
0 0 0
1 7
'/
7 I
/
0 0 0 0 0
/
1
/ II 1\ /
L I r I"
/
/
/' /
/
/'
ot
• , I -! I I
• , I , I Q
it , r-i I
I
i I I
I
/
/ /
/ 7
7 1/
1/ /
/ /'
'7 /
/ /
C·J"'"IOli.~ net ch~"gu in woter levels, ;0 feet.
§ ,,~~~~~~~~~-+~ ~~~~4-4-4-~~~~~~~ a g
" !~4-~~~~~~~~~1 " iF " , , "~-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-4-4-4-+1 :-g~4-~~~~~~~-+~
~ ~4-~~-4-~~~~~-~~ ~
! /
0
r~ r-~ • ,~
f-3 <
I-l -: ,
-
0 0
V /
7 [7
V
0 0
/
V
0 0 0
/ If
/ /
/ /
--
0
/ /
/
/
0
/ !/
0
I I
I
, I o
o
~ o o
€ o
o o o
o
,.
Pumpoge, in hundreds of thousonds of aCre-feel
Zv
Cumulotive nel changes in water levels, in feet.
B 0t-- c: ;0 g !:" ~
-I- ' • ru ~ 1-.2-
;0 ~ ~ , f-~ _ 0 · . " .
• 0 ~ ,----]
" v
--Q • g ~
· " " • ~
• ~ • ~
• • • • N
• • " • t • &
• ~
• ~
• • • • • • • 0 0
~
~ • ~
~ • • ~
~ • 0 , • g
• W
• 0 0
· • • ~
• ~
• ~
I ~ o
/
I N o
7
J
I
o o
"-
/ If
/ /
1/
~---
± o
1-
I
~~-
+ N o
--
Waterman Wash Area
By
R. S. Stulik
The Waterman Wash area (fig. 5, No. 13) is an area of about 400 square miles drained by Waterman Wash, a northwest-trending ephemeral stream. Only the northern part of the area has been developed for agriculture, and it is in this part that most of the water-level declines have been observed. From spring 1963 to spring 1964 water I eVe I s continued to decline, as is shown by the hydrograph of the water level in well (C-2-2)25 (fig. 24). The maximum depth to water measured in the spring of 1964 was 401 feet below land surface in a well 1 mile south of Mobile.
Gila Bend Area
By
R. S. Stulik
The Gila Bend area (fig. 5, No. 14) is that part of the Gila River valley extending from Gillespie Dam on the Gila River to a point 36 miles downstream near the Painted Rock Narrows. The northern end of the Gila Bend area is known as Rainbow Valley.
From spring 1963 to spring 1964, water-level changes in the Gila Bend area ranged from a rise of about 10 feet in the west end of the area to a decline of about 4 feet in Rainbow Valley. In the spring of 1964 the measured depth to water in the Gila Bend area ranged from about 24 feet below land surface in the West end of the area to about 285 feet in Rainbow Valley.
Harquahala Plains Area
By
R. S. Stulik
The Harquahala Plains are a (fig. 5, No. 15) is a northwest-trending basin drained principally by Centennial Wash.
A recent report (Stulik, 1964) noted that the withdrawal of ground water for irrigation has increased from about 33, 000 acre-feet in 1954 to about 200, 000 acre-feet in 1963. From 1954 to 1964 water levels have declined as much as 200 feet and are continuing to decline at an increasing rate. The hydrograph for well (B-2-9)13 (fig. 24) shows the decline in an irrigation well in the cultivated area. In the spring of 1964 depth to water ranged from less than 50
43
220
230
240
250
260
270
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
! 340
350 • 0 • ~ 360 0 , '0 370 ~ ~ 380 ~ • .0
" 390
.Ii
.S 400
t 380 ~
" 390 $
~ 400
410
420
430
440
100
110
120
130
140
110
120
44
" ~ ~
" --- .......... I'--...
Well {C-2-2)25. depth 882 feet ............... Waterman Wash area Maricopa County
'-..... ~
'\.
" , , "
" " "
" , \ \
\
"" Well (B-2-9)13, depth 603 feet Harquahala Plains area, Maricopa County
r-
\ ........
.... 1-- .... ,
"' ' .......... -.............
Well {B-7-8)30, depth 1,620 feet -......~ McMullen Valley area Maricona County
............. --.......
........ Well (B-5-13)9, depth 140 feet r--...... McMullen Valley area, Yuma County
I I I I I I T I I 1
., Well (B-5-16)10, depth 164 feet Ranegras Plain area, Yuma County
1954 I 1955 r 1956 I 1957 I 1958 I 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963
Figure 24. --Water levels in selected wells in several areas in the Basin and Range lowlands province.
1964
feet to more than 400 feet below land surface.
McMullen Valley Area
By
R. S. Stulik
The McMullen Valley area (fig. 5, No. 16) is a northeast-trending valley about 40 miles long lying between the Harcuvar and Harquahala Mountains. The west half of the area is in Yuma County and the east half is in Maricopa and Yavapai Counties. The two areaS of irrigation development are near Wenden and Aguila.
From spring 1963 to spring 1964 measured water-level changes Were as great as 6 feet southeast of Aguila. In the larger cultivated area north of Aguila water-level data are nearly impossible to collect because of continual pumping. As a result, the amount of decline that has occurred here is not known. The hydrograph of well (B-7-8)30 (fig. 24) shows the decline in a well southeast of Aguila where pumping is less concentrated.
Near Wenden water-level changes from spring 1963 to spring 1964 were as great as 8 feet. The hydrograph of the water level in well (B-5-13)9 (fig. 24) shows the water-level changes prior to and after development of ground-water supplies for irrigation. Depth to water below land sur fa c e in McMullen Valley in the spring of 1964 ranged from slightly less than 100 feet near Salome to about 480 feet near Aguila.
Palomas Plain Area
By
R. S. Stulik
Palomas Plain (fig. 5, No. 17) is an alluvial area that extends northwestward from the Gila River in Yuma and Maricopa Counties. Most of the agricultural development is in Yuma County, although some development has begun in Maricopa County.
From spring 1963 to spring 1964 water levels rose from less than half a foot to slightly more than 1 foot in an undeveloped area northeast of Hyder and along the river bottom north of Hyder. Elsewhere in the area water-level changes ranged from almost no decline to a decline of nearly 2 feet. The maximum decline measured occurred in a well south of the developed area northwest of Hyder. In the spring of 1964 the depth to water below land surface ranged from 21 feet along the Gila River to about 265 feet south of Hyder.
45
Ranegras Plain Area
By
R, S, Stulik
Agricultural development in the Ranegras Plain area of northern Yuma County (fig, 5, No, 18) has increased very little in the last several years, and as a resultwater-level changes are slight, From spring 1963 to spring 1964 most of the observed water-level changes were less than 1 foot, The hydrograph of the water level in we 11 {B-5-16)l0 (fig, 24) shows water-level changes typical of the undeveloped parts of the area, Essentially, there has been no change in the water level in this well during the last 10 years, The depth to water in the Ranegras Plain area in the spring of 1964 ranged from about 32 feet to about 230 feet below land surface,
South Gila Valley, Yuma Mesa, and Yuma Valley Area
By
F, J, Frank
In the South Gila Valley, Yuma Mesa, and Yuma Valley area (fig, 5, No, 20), in the extreme southwestern corner of Arizona, water levels are affected by the use of Colorado River water for irrigation, In general, water levels are rising or show little overall change,
The South Gila Valley is that part of the Gila River flood plain south of the Gila River and bounded on the south by Yuma Mesa, Ground water is the principal source of irrigation water, although a system using Colorado River w ate r is under construction, Fro m s p r in g 1963 to spring 1964 overall changes in water levels in the South Gila Valley were minor, The water level in well {C-8-21)21 (fig, 25) declined less than 1 foot from spring 1963 to spring 1964, Depth to water in most of the area in spring 1964 was from about 12 to 18 feet below 1 and surface, In the South Gila Valley the water table is being controlled in a large part by nine drainage wells installed during 1961.
Yuma Mesa is south of South Gila Valley, east of Yuma Valley, and is limited arbitrarily on the south by the boundary between the United States and Mexico, In this area the principal source of water for irrigation is the Colorado River, but a relatively small amount of ground water is used in the outer fringes of the area, The rise in water levels in the irrigated parts of Yuma Mesa continued and amounted to several feet from spring 1963 to spring 1964, Water levels in this area started to rise in early summer and reached maximum levels in early fall, The hydrograph of the water level in well {C-9-23)31 (fig, 25) shows this trend, Along the unirrigated outer margin of Yuma Mesa water levels were about the same in spring 1964 and in spring 1963, The depth to water in the irrigated parts of Yuma Mesa ranged from about 8 to 35 feet below land surface and from about 70 to 145 feet in the undeveloped parts
46
of Yuma Mesa in spring 1964.
Yuma Valley is that part of the Colorado River flood plain in Arizona lying south and east of the Colorado River and west of Yuma Mesa. The Colorado River is the principal source of irrigation water in Yuma Valley. However, some land between the levee and the river from the city of Yuma south to the International Boundary is irrigated by pumping from ground water. With the exception of a response to seasonal fluctuation in flow of the Colorado River, there Was little change in the water level in wells adjacent to the Colorado River from spring 1963 to spring 1964. Water levels ranged from 13 to 17 feet below land surface in this part of Yuma Valley. In most of the valley area, water levels are controlled by the surface-drainage system and, with a few exceptions, very little change occurred from spring 1963 to spring 1964. However, in the center of the valley water levels rose a few hundredths of a foot, and in the part of the valley along the mar gin of Yuma Me sa water levels rOSe several feet, reflecting the continued rise of water levels on the mesa. In March 1964 another well Was added to the drainage system for additional control in this part of the vall e y. Water levels in the valley as a whole ranged fro m about 3 to 14 feet below land sur f ace in the spring of 1964.
Big Sandy Valley
By
R. S. Stulik
The Big San d y Valley (fig. 5, No. 21) is drained by the Big San d y River, which receives water from Trout and Burro Creeks, Cottonwood and Little Sandy Washes, and many other washes. Most of the agricultural development is along the flood plain of the Big Sandy River.
Water levels in the shallow wells along the flood plain of the Big Sandy River fluctuate erratically due to recharge from flow in the river. From spring 1963 to spring 1964 water-level changes in these wells ranged from a rise of les s than 1 foot to a decline of about 7 feet. For the most part, water levels in the area fluctuated only slightly as shown in the hydro graph of the water level in well (B-16-13}36 (fig. 25). Depth to water below land surface in the spring of 1964 ranged from 11 feet near Wickieup to about 395 feet in a stock well near the extreme north end of the area.
Kingman-Hackberry Area
By
R. S. Stulik
The Kingman-Hackberry area (fig. 5, No. 22), which is largely undeveloped, trends in a northeast direction from near Kingman to Hackberry. Ground
47
41
43
45
47
49
51
25
! ~ 30 0
~ ID
.!, ] 35
~ 0 'il .0 ;; ~ ~
.S
i 10 ~ ~
" ~ ~ 15
105
110
115
120
48
~ V --
Well (C-8-21)21, depth 66 feet South Gila Valley, Yuma County
1954 I 1955 I 1956 I 1957 I 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
..... - ............ l-
f 'Iv
Well (E-1S-13)3S, depth 15 feet Bil'1 S~ndv Valley. Mohave County
- "'-~
.......... ...... Well (E-21-17)24, depth 120 feet ~ Kingman area. Mohave County "-
1954 1955 1956 I 1957 I 1958 1959 1960 I 1961 1962 1963
Figure 25. - - Water levels in selected wells in several areas in Yuma and Mohave Counties.
1964
water in the Kingman-Hackberry area is used mostly for pub 1 i c supply.
From spring 1963 to spring 1964 water-level changes in the area ranged from a rise of about 4 feet to a decline of about 4 feet. The hydrograph of the water level in well (B-Zl-17)Z4 (fig. Z5) shows water-level changes in a well in Kingman. In the spring of 1964 depth to water in the Kingman-Hackberry area ranged from about 3 Z feet below land surface in a well north of Kingman to about 5ZZfeet below land surface in an abandoned well near Antare.
Plateau Uplands Province
By
Natalie D. White
The Plateau uplands pro v inc e includes a variety of landforms --canyons, buttes, mesas, and volcanic mountains. The altitude ranges from about 4,000 to 13,000 feet above mean sea level but is mostly between 5, 000 and 7,000 feet. The soil covering in most places is thin, and vegetationis sparse below altitudes of 6,000 feet. Forests abound above altitudes of 6,000 feet; grasses and shrubs provide pasture for cattle and sheep at all altitudes and support a lar ge part of the economy of the area.
Development of ground water for irrigation or other purposes is comparatively small, and no sustained declines of the water levels are evident at the present time. Only about 30,000 acres of land Was cultivated in the province in 1963. Recently there has been some increase in the use of ground water due to a small increase in agricultural development in the Snowflake area and near Tuba City, installation of a new pulp mill at Snowflake, and an increase in population in the Flagstaff area. The effects of these increases in pumping of ground water are discussed in the following paragraphs. Because development in the Plateau uplands is not concentrated in particular areas, the ground-water conditions in this province are discussed by counties.
Apache County
By
E. H. McGavock
The Permian Coconino Sandstone and Kaibab Limestone are the chief aquifers yielding water to irrigation, stock, and domestic wells in the central part of Apache County. Water levels have remained relatively stable for the last 6 years, although there may be a slight downward trend as indicated by the hydrograph of the water level for well (A-13-Z8)Z7 (fig. Z6). Pumping in the Hunt area has caused some wells to cease flowing. The water level in many irrigation wells declines during the summer pumping season but recovers during the winter. The hydro graph of the water level in well (A-14- Z6)18
49
+10
o ....... ../
-10
l;,;e11 (A-13-28)27, depth 162 feet Johns area Anache Coun.1Y
0
-10
~ -20
-30
V\ --........ ./
~ 0
] -40 M ,
-50 ] ~
/ V
Well (A-14-26)18, depth 410 feet 1 Hunt area, Apache County
0 ~ ~ .0
S g -60 .0
" ~ -70 • • ~ .S
1 I I I I I I ......... ~ ""
Well (A-13-21)24, depth 328 feet 1'-/ " Snowflake area, Navajo County
1 • ~ " • -170
~ -180
V 1\ \
-190
-200
-210 ~ ~ "" -220
Well (A-13-21)29, depth 671 feet West of Snowflake, Navajo COlmty
1954 J 1955 1 1956 I 1957 1 1958 11959 11960 1 1961 1962 1963 1964
Figure 26. --Water levels in selected wells in the Plateau uplands province.
50
(fig. 26), completed in the Coconino Sandstone, shows this trend.
The quality of the water in the Coconino Sandstone is generally good south of the Little Colorado River in the area west of Hunt and Concho. In the St. Johns are a the quality of the w ate r is only fair, and between the Little Colorado and Puerco Rivers the water usually is unsuitable for irrigation.
The Permian De Chelly and Coconino Sandstones yield small to moderate amounts of water to wells in Chinle Valley and the Defiance Plateau area of northern Apache County. Depths to water vary widely in the area. Near Sunrise Trading Post water levels are more than 1,600 feet below land surface; near Many Farms, several wells flow.
The Jurassic and Triassic (1) Navajo Sandstone furnishes small to moderate quantities of good-quality water to wells in the Dinnehotso area. Near Rough Rock about 30 gpm (gallons per minute) of fair-quality water can be obtained from wells that penetrate the Navajo Sandstone, Upper Trias sic (?) Kayenta. For mat ion, and the upper part of the Wingate Sandstone Upper Triassic. Small quantities of fair-quality water can be obtained from Cretaceous rocks on Black Mesa; Jurassic rocks yield fair-to good-quality water towells in the Teec Nos Pos area.
The Pliocene (7) Bidahochi Formation yields from 5 to 50 gpm of good-quality water to wells south and east of Sanders and in a few areas near Klagetoh.
Near Red Lake north of Fort Defiance wells in stream alluvium yield 100 to 200 gpm. Along Chinle Wash near Chinle and Many Farms, the alluvium may yield 300 to 400 gpm, and several irrigation wells are being drilled in this area. Some wells near Sanders produce as much as 600 gpm from alluvium along the Puerco River.
Navajo County
By
E. H. McGavock
The major development of ground-water supplies in Navajo County is concentrated between the Little Colorado River and the Mogollon Rim. Water is withdrawn mainly fro m the Coconino Sandstone for irrigation, industrial, stock, and domestic uses. Recharge along the Mogollon Rim has been sufficient to prevent anywidespread decline of water levels in the area. Locally, pumping for industrial or irrigation uses Causes marked seasonal declines and may be creating an overall decline in water levels near Snowflake and Joseph City.
In the Snowflake -Hay Hollow area there are about 35 irrigation wells that produce from 150 to 2,000 gpm. The water level in most of these wells shows only a seasonal decline; however, a general decline in water level is indicated about 4 miles west of Snowflake, as shown by the hydrograph of the water
51
level in well {A-13-21l29 (fig. 26). Near Joseph City, Holbrook, and Woodruff, water levels in wells in the Coconino Sandstone decline during the summer pumping season, but no overall long-term declines have been observed. E a s t of Holbrook the alluvium along the Puerco River furnishes water of fair quality to irrigation, stock, and domestic wells.
The Dakota (Cretaceous) and Navajo Sandstones and the Toreva Formation (Upper Cretaceous) are the major aquifers in the nor the r n two-thirds of Navajo County. The Dakota Sandstone and Toreva Formation furnish small quantities of fair-quality water to stock, domestic, and school wells in the Black Mesa area. The Navajo Sandstone yields water of good quality to most wells north of Black Mesa. Water levels range from 200 to 500 feet below land surface; no long-term declines have been observed.
Coconino County
By
E. H. McGavock
The Coconino Sandstone is the most important aquifer presently developed in Coconino County. Well yields in the Coconino Sandstone range from less than 5 to 600 gpm; the yield is dependent mainly on the amount of fracturing in the rocks. The locations of the well fields for Flagstaff-Woody Mountain and Lake Mary well fields - were chosen to take advantage of increased permeability due to fracturing along faults. In some instances, however, fractured zones allow water to percolate downward through the Coconino Sandstone so that water is below the effective depth of well s in much of the Coconino Plateau. A hole 2,500 feet deep was completed recently near Williams without encountering water.
The quality of water in the Coconino Sandstone is excellent near Flagstaff and in the southeast part of the county. The quality of the water is progressively worse northeastward from Flagstaff; north of the Little Colorado River the water may be unfit for stock use.
Five wells in the Woody Mountain well field produce from 200 to 600 gpm of water from the Coconino Sandstone and the Permian and Pennsylvanian Supai Formation. Water levels in the well field range from about 1, 000 to 1. 200 feet below land surface. The only well currently in operation in the Lake Mary well field yields about 300 gpm from a pumping level of less than 1, 000 feet. A significant part of Flagstaff's water supply comes from glaciofluvial deposits on the east side of San Francisco Mountain.
The Navajo Sandstone yields small to large quantities of good-quality water to wells in the northeast part of Coconino County. Yields range from 5 to 1,300 gpm except in an area near Copper Mine Trading Post where the Navajo Sandstone may be dry. Water levels are as much as 1,400 feet below land surface, but near Tuba City several wells flow. The only measured declines occurred in the P age area due to pumping for the Glen Canyon Dam construction.
52
Central Highlands Province
By
Natalie D. White
The Central highlands province forms a topographic high in the central part of the State and separates the Plateau uplands from the Basin and Range lowlands. The province consists principally of rugged sharply pinnacled ranges and mountains, which are several thousand feet higher in altitude than the adjoining valleys of the Basin and Range lowlands and generally lower than the high mesas in the Colorado Plateaus. It is in this province that Arizona receives its greatest amount of precipitation; sum mer thundershowers are common and winter snowfall is heavy. Although a large part of this precipitation is evaporated from the land surface or transpired from vegetation, it is nevertheless the source of streamflow that is utilized extensively for agricultural irrigation in the Phoenix basin.
Because the province is largely mountainous and only a few small alluvial valleys are suitable for agricultural use, less than 15, 000 acres of land was cultivated in the province in 1963, and that acreage mostly was in Chino and Verde Valleys. Some surface water from the Verde River is used to irrigate land in part of Verde Valley, but ground-water use in the province is small.
Chino Valley
By
H. C. Schwalen!./
Chino Valley (fig. 5, No. 23) is north of Prescott in Yavapai County. A small amount of surface water is available from Willow Creek Res e r v 0 i rand Watson Lake, but, for the most part, ground water is used for irrigation and other purposes. A part of the municipal water supply for Prescott is obtained from wells in Chino Valley, and a few outlying wells pump water for domestic and stock supplies.
Ground water occurs under water-table and artesian conditions in Chino Valley. The area in which ground water is under artesian pressure is about 3 miles wide and extends from 3 miles south to 3 miles north of the small town of Chino Valley. About 10 miles north of the town of Chino Valley near Paulden and east along Granite Creek and in Lonesome Valley, ground water is under water-table conditions.
Flowing artesian water was first discovered about 2 to 3 miles north of the town of Chino Valley in 1930. In 1964 only two wells in the area were flowing
1/ Agricultural engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Arizona.
53
throughout the year, and their dis c h a l' g e is reduced greatly during the SUil1il1er pUil1ping season. In the south end of the a l' e a the water level in artesian wells is as il1uch as 300 feet below land surface. Water levels in water-table wells il1easured in spring 1963 ranged froil1 il10re than 130 to nearly 270 feet.
The artesian-pressure surface declines rapidly during the SUil1il1er pUil1ping season-as il1uch as 35 feet in the north end of the area-but generally recovers following the pUil1ping season to within a few feet of the previous spring level. Froil1 spring 1963 to spring 1964 water-level declines in artesian wells generally ranged froil1 2 to 4 feet. In the south end of the area the water-level decline in well (B-16-2)34 (fig. 27) was about 3 feet froil1 spring 1963 to spring 1964. In the center of the area, near the town of Chino Valley, the water level in well (B-16-2)21 (fig. 27) declined about 4 feet froil1 spring 1963 to spring 1964. The water level in well (B-16-2)3 (fig. 27), in the north end of the area, declined abo u t 2 feet froil1 spring 1963 to spring 1964; in spring 1964 the water level was nearly 10 feet above land surface.
For the il10st part, water levels in water-table wells near Paulden rose froil1 spring 1963 to spring 1964. The h y d l' 0 g l' a p h of the water level in well (B-17-2)6 (fig. 27) shows the water-level trend in this area. Near Del Rio the water level in wells rose about half a foot froil1 spring 1963 to spring 1964. Along Granite Cl'eek and in Lonesoil1e Valley the average water-level decline was about 2.5 feet. The hydr 0 gr aph of the water level in well( B-16-1}l4 (fig. 27) shows the uniforil1 and continuous decline of the water table in this area, probably resulting froil1 the concentrated pUil1ping in the central part of Chino Valley il10re than 6 il1iles away.
Verde Valley
By
R. S. Stulik
The Verde Valley (fig. 5, No. 24) trends northwestward froil1 the junction of Fossil Creek and the Verde River to Perkinsville. The area is divided into th e Clarkdale-Cottonwood_Cail1p Verde area and the Sedona Area. In the Clarkdale-Cottonwood-Cail1p Verde area the principal source of ground water is the Pliocene (7) or Pleistoncene Verde Foril1ation. In the Sedona area the principal source of ground water is the Supai Foril1ation. A cOil1prehensive discussion of the Verde Valley is contained in a recently published report (Twenter and Metzger, 1963).
Clarkdale-Cottonwood-Cail1p Verde area. --Most of the ground-water supplies in the Clarkdale-Cottonwood-Cail1p Verde area are obtained froil1 wells that penetrate the Verde Foril1ation. Ground water in the Verde Foril1ation is under artesian head; in SOil1e parts of the area the artesian head is sufficient to cause wells to flow. In the non-flowing wells depth to water ranges froil1 a few feet to il10re than 200 feet below land surface.
54
-200
-210
-220 ...;;::::::: -230 •
------ •
Well (B-16-2)34, depth 270 feet (artesian) ......... --Southern end of Chino Valley, Yavapai County
-240
-250
-150
j -160
.g -170 ~ u
] -180 m -........... ,
-190 " ] ~ -200
Well (B-16-2)21, depth 413 feet (artesian) " r--Center of Chino Valley, Yavapai County 0 ~ • .0
" 0
~ +50 0 .;j +40 ~ ~ • ~ +30 .i1
I-
'" ~ -t--
!--. ~' +20 ~ • ~ " +10
~ ~ o.
"-r----. Well (B-16-2)3, depth 516 feet (artesian) Northern end of Chino Valley, Yavapai County
-240
-250
-260 ---270 Well (B-16-1)14, depth 270 feet (water table) East of Granite Creek, Yavapai County
-120
-130
-140 -.... ~
~
Well (B-17- 2)6, depth 342 feet (water table) 3 miles west of Paulden, Yavapai County
1954 1 1955 11956 11957 11958 11959 I 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
Figure 21. --Water levels in selected wells in Chino Valley.
55
From spring 1963 to spring 1964 water-level changes in the C I ark d a I eCottonwood-Camp Verde area ranged from a rise of about 4 feet to a decline of about 10 feet. Depth to water in wells measured in spring 1964 ranged from about 16 to about 147 feet below land surface.
Sedona area. --Domestic water supplies sufficient to meet the demands of an increasing population constitute the principal use of ground water in the Sedona area. The principal source of ground water in the Sedona area is the lower member of the Supai Formation. Measured depth to water in the area ranged from about 126 feet to 583 feet below I and surface in the spring of 1964. Data were insufficient to determine the amount of water-level changes that occurred from spring 1963 to spring 1964.
Gila County
By
Clara R. Smith
Gila County is situated almost entirely in the Central highlands province in the east-central part of the State. The terrain is mostly rugged mountains having altitudes as great as 8, 000 feet above mean sea level.
The are a receives fro m about 12 to more than 24 inches of precipitation annually; several major perennial streams originate in the county and carry surface water to the reservoirs of the Gila and Salt River systems. Ground water occurs mostly as discharge from numerous springs in the mountains, perched supplies in the crystalline rocks, and in the alluvial deposits along the stream drainages. Due to the mountainous terrain, agricultural development is restricted mostly to the flood plains along the tributaries to the Gila and Salt River drainage.
In the Gila County, ground-water levels are measured principally in three areas-in and near Globe, in the Dripping Spring Valley, and on the San Carlos Indian Reservation. In the Globe area water levels in wells along the valley floor are shallow and fluctuate rapidly in response to flow in the two major drainages in the area-Pinal Creek and Ice House Canyon. For the most part, water levels in this area rose from spring 1963 to spring 1964, although no overall long-term trend of the water level is discernible.
In Dripping Spring Valley, at the southern tip of the county, water levels in wells along the valley floor rose from spring 1963 to spring 1964. The water levels in these wells are affected by surface flow from the surrounding mountain areas.
Water levels in wells along Ranch Creek in the San Carlos Indian Reservation declined slightly from spring 1963 to spring 1964, although no overall longterm trend of the water table is discernible. Water levels in wells in this area are affected by surface-water runoff from the surrounding mountains.
56
USE OF GR OUND WATER
By
E. K. Morse, R. S. Stulik, and Clara R. Smith
Nearly4.5 million acre-feet of groundwater was withdrawn from the groundwater reservoirs in Arizona in 1963-about the same as in 1962, About 90 percent of this water is used for irrigation, mostly in the Basin and Range lowlands province. In addition to the 4.5 million acre-feet of ground water withdrawn, slightly more than 2.7 million acre -feet of surface wa t e r was diverted for use in the State in 1963. Thus, nearly two-thirds of the Statefs water supplies Came from ground water. The Salt River Valley and the lower Santa Cruz basin continued to be the largest users of ground water in the State.
Salt River Valley
Slightly more than 2,100, 000 acre-feet of ground water wa s pumped from underground storage in the Salt River Valley in 1963. Pumpage in the Salt River Valley may be considered conveniently in terms of the location of areas east or west of the Agua Fria River. East of the Agua Fria River, which includes the Queen Creek-Higley-Gilbert-Magma, Phoenix-Glendale- TollesonDeer Valley, Tempe-Mesa-Chandler, and Paradise Valley areas, pumpage in 1963 Was about 1,240, 000 acre-feet. West of the Agua Fria River, which includes the Litchfield Park_Beardsley_Marinette, Liberty-BuckeyeHassayampa, lower Centennial, and Tonopah are a s, pumpage in 1963 was about 900, 000 acre-feet.
Lower Santa Cruz Basin
Nearly 1, 000, 000 acre-feet of ground water was withdrawn from the alluvial reservoir in the lower Santa Cruz basin of Pinal County in 1963. For the most part, this water was used to irrigate crops in the three major areas of agricultural development in the basin. The amount of ground water pumped in each of the three developed areas during 1963 is as follows: Eloy area, 250, 000 acre-feet; Cas a G ran d e-F lor e nee area, 290, 000 acre-feet; and Stanfield-Maricopa area, 440, 000 acre-feet. Other uses of water amounted to about 20, 000 acre-feet during 1963.
Upper Santa Cruz Basin
About 180, 000 acre-feet of ground water was pumped from the underground reservoirs in the upper Santa Cruz basin during 1963. The underground reservoirs are the principal developed sources of water supplies in the basin.
57
Although the use of water for irrigation continues to exceed that for other purposes, municipal, domestic, and industrial uses are increasing, largely due to the rapid growth of metropolitan Tucson. Nearly 70,000 acre-feet of ground water was used for nonirrigation purposes during 1963, of which more than 45, 000 acre-feet was pumped from wells operated by the city of Tucson water utility for municipal use in metropolitan Tucson.
Avra-Marana Area
The Avra-Marana are a includes the A v r a Vall e y and a small area near Marana. Several thousand acres of farmland is irrigated with ground water in the area. In 1963, about 115,000 acre-feet of ground water Was pumped for irrigation use in the area, about Z5, 000 acre-feet less than in 196Z. The reduction in use probably is attributable to the oCCurrence of rain during the growing season.
Willcox Basin
The three main areas of agricultural development in the Willcox basin of northern Sulphur Spring Valley are the Stewart area, the Kansas Settlement area, and the Pearce-Cochise area. Only ground water is used to irrigate crops in these areas, and the use of ground water for purposes other than irrigation is minor. In 1963 about 180,000 acre-feet of ground water Was pumped in the basin. The distribution among the three areas, based on estimates 0 f the number of a c res under cultivation, is as follows: Kansas Set tIe men t area, 95,000 acre-feet; Stewart are a, 63,000 acre-feet; and Pearce-Cochise area, ZZ, 000 acre-feet.
San Simon Basin
Ground water is the only source of supply for the irrigation of farmland and other purposes in the San Simon basin. About 65,000 acre-feet of water was withdrawn from the aquifers in the San Simon basin in 1963, the same as in 196 Z. Distribution of the pumpage among the three areas 0 f development, based on estimates of the number of acres under cultivation, is as follows: Bowie area, Z5, 000 acre-feet; San Simon area, Z3, 000 acre-feet; and RodeoCienaga area (Arizona and New Mexico), 17,000 acre-feet.
Other Areas
A number of other areas in the southern part of Arizona USe ground water for the irrigation of crops. For the most part, data are not sufficient to compute the amount of ground water pumped separately for each of the areas. The areas where comparatively large amounts of ground water are pumped for
58
irrigation and other uses include: Safford basin, Douglas basin, Harquahala P I a ins area, McMullen Valley, Palomas Plain are a, and Gila Bend area, The amount of ground water withdrawn from the underground reservoirs in these areas probably Was slightly more than 600, 000 acre-feet in 1963, An additional 150, 000 to 200, 000 acre-feet of ground water was used for the irrigation of small areas of farmland and by private water companies and individuals locally throughout the State, This amount includes the ground water withdrawn in the Plateau uplands and Central highland provinces,
59
REFERENCES CITED
Aldridge, B, N" 1963, Floods of Au gu s t 1963 in Prescott, Arizona: U,S, Geol, Survey open-file report, 12 p,
Hillman, J, S" 1964, Arizona agriculture 1964: Univ, Arizona, Agr, Expt, Sta, Bull, A-31, 27 p,
Stulik, R, S" 1964, Effects of g r 0 u n d-w ate r withdrawal, 1954-63, in the lower Harquahala Plains, Maricopa County, Arizona: Arizona State Land Dept, Water Resources Rept, 17, 8 p,
TWenter, F, R" and Metzger, D, G., 1963, Geology and ground water in Verde Valley-the Mogollon Rim region: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1177, 13 2 p.
U. S, Weather Bureau, 1963, Climatological data, Arizona, annual summary 1963: U. S. Dept. Commerce, v. 67, no. 13, p. 230-242.
White, Natalie D., 1963, Analysis and evaluation of availa ble hydrologic data for San Simon basin, Cochise and Graham Counties, Arizona: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1619-DD, 33 p.
White, Natalie D., Stulik, R. S., M 0 r s e, E. K., and others, 1963, Annual report on ground water in Arizona, spring 1962 to spring 1963: Arizona State Land Dept. Water Resources Rept. 15, 136p.
White, Natalie D., Stulik, R. S,' and others, 1962, Annual report on ground water in Arizona, spring 1961 to spring 1962: Arizona State Land Dept, Water Resources Rept. II, 116 p.
White, Natalie D., Stulik, R, S., and Rauh, Clara L., 1964, Effects of ground-water withdrawal in part of central Arizona projected to 1969: Arizona State Land Dept. Water Resources Rept. 16, 25 p.
60
I
I I
I
