Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · pp813A

Summary appraisals of the nation's ground-water resources – Ohio region

Abstract

Ground water in the Ohio Region is a large, important, and manageable resource that should have a significant role in regional water development. On the basis of a comparison of ground-water withdrawals with estimated ground-water recharge, it appears that the ground-water resources of the Ohio Region probably will not be used at full potential under existing development plans. Annual ground-water use (1960) by municipalities and rural residents was about 1,000 million gallons per day. Average annual regional ground-water recharge is about 35,000 million gallons per day. Therefore, base-year (1960) municipal and rural ground-water use is only about 3 percent of recharge. Annual regionwide ground-water use (1965) by industry also is only about 3 percent of recharge. Not all ground water in storage is recoverable for development, but estimates of the amounts that can be obtained from storage, under specified conditions, are calculated to show the magnitude of water that is available. Total potable ground water available from storage in the outwash and alluvial aquifers in the Ohio River valley and the subbasins is about 23,000 billion gallons. This about four times the floodcontrol storage of all Ohio Region Corps of Engineers reservoirs constructed, under construction, or in advance planning as of July 1965. Approximately 85,000 billion gallons of potable ground water is available from storage in the region in aquifers other than the outwash and alluvial aquifers. This is about 20 percent of estimated storage in Lake Ontario. About 5 percent of the region has ground-water resources capable of supplying more than local needs. For example, under certain specified conditions the excess of ground-water recharge over base-year (1960) ground-water use is available for 22 million additional people in the Wabash subbasin; for 4, 1.5, and 12 million additional people, respectively, in the Miami, lower Scioto, and Allegheny subbasins; for 5 million additional people in the Ohio River valley; or for equivalent quantities of water supply for industrial or a~ricultural expansion or other use. A reasonable assumption is that much of the available ground water in these areas can be pumped and transported to reasonably distant points of need. The Wabash and White subbasins probably have the highest potential of all Ohio River subbasins for additional ground-water development. About 30,000 billion gallons, or about 28 percent of the total potable ground water available from storage in the Ohio Region, is in storage in these subbasins. Estimated average annual ground-water recharge in the Wabash and White subbasins is 7,300 million gallons per day. Annual ground-water use (1960) by municipalities and rural residents of the subbasins of about 220 million gallons per day is only about 3 percent of estimated annual ground-water recharge and only about 0.3 percent of the potable ground water in storage in the subbasins. Also, many high-yield aquifers are present and offer excellent reservoir-manipulation possibilities in conjunction with existing and planned surface reservoirs. Practically all areas of high population density in the Ohio Region have the potential for development of ground-water resources. The Indianapolis, Ind., area probably has the highest potential. Assuming that future population growth will be heaviest in the areas paralleling the interstate highway system, much of the increased water demand associated with these growth areas can be supplied by ground water. The areas of population growth in Indiana and southwestern and south-central Ohio are especially well situated in terms of potential ground-water supplies. Underground space in the Ohio Region, consisting of natural pore spaces and fractures in rocks and sediments, can be considered a regional resource in the sense that it can be included in regional water-pollution control or waste-disposal plans. Much of this space is already occupied by ground water or other fluids which must be displaced for any alternate use. There is a potential for underground waste storage in practically the entire Ohio Region. Rapid advance of techniques in ground-water hydrology during recent years has provided methods which the hydrologist can use for evaluating planned ground-water development. Therefore, the manager can resolve the inherent problems that historically have bred caution when this part of our total water resource was considered for development.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 38.403202° to 41.977513° latitude; -84.820157° to -80.518991° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Richard M. Bloyd. 1974. Summary appraisals of the nation's ground-water resources – Ohio region. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp813a

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona↗

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper↗