USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70221387

Estimating cost of ground‐water withdrawal for river basin planning

Abstract

Comparative costs of ground water were needed for comprehensive planning of water resources development in the Susquehanna River basin in order to appraise the feasibility of alternative sources of water supply. Log‐normal plots on logarithmic‐probability paper that represented specific capacities adjusted to 180 days of pumping were used to estimate well yields and costs of obtaining the ground water from each of 65 potential aquifers. The 25, 50, and 75 percent probability of occurrence of the specific capacities of successful wells were used in the calculations. The estimated well yields at these probabilities of occurrence were obtained using hypothetical well designs and selected drawdowns. Ground‐water costs for the estimated or design yields were calculated using amortized costs of well construction, electrical power costs, and maintenance costs, all obtained from standard sources. The calculated well yields and costs for the 25 to 75 percent probability interval range from 15 to 9,000 gpm (gallons per minute) and from $0.004 to $0.11 per thousand gallons of design yield. The yields and costs group according to aquifer rock type. The calculated costs decrease with increasing well yield and the available yield depends upon the aquifer rock type available. Representative costs per thousand gallons of design yield for selected yields from aquifers composed of different rock types analyzed are: 50 gpm −$0.060 for shale and interbedded sandstone and shale, and $0.050 for metamorphic rock; 100 gpm ‐ $0.043 or shale and interbedded sandstone and shale, $0.037 for metamorphic rock, and $0.032 for carbonate rock; 500 gpm—$0.020 for sandstone, $0.015 for carbonate rock, and $0.012 for glacial sand and gravel; and 1,000 gpm —$0.009 for glacial sand and gravel. Differences in cost to obtain the same yield from different rock types are primarily due to differences in electrical power costs as determined by differences in pumping water levels. If used with caution, the generalized yield and cost estimates for aquifer rock types may have usefulness in estimating ground‐water costs and yields in similar humid areas. They are primarily useful for planning and comparative purposes, but not for the actual design of engineering projects.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Este F. Hollyday, Paul R. Seaber. 2006-07-06. Estimating cost of ground‐water withdrawal for river basin planning. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1968.tb01652.x

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Computing flow-field distortion coefficients from well-construction and formation properties

Direct measurements of groundwater velocity made with borehole flowmeters in screened wells must be compensated for the effects of flow-field distortion (also known as borehole acceleration). A theoretical equation developed by Drost et al. (1968) and simple inputs describing hydraulic properties of well construction and geologic formation were programmed into an Excel workbook to facilitate computation by groundwater-flowmeter users. Tables describing the physical and hydraulic properties for well constructions and gravel pack media are provided with an example to facilitate use of the workbook. Groundwater flowlines converge or diverge as they pass from a geologic formation, through a gravel pack and well screen. The extent of flowline convergence or divergence and the value of the flow-field distortion coefficient is related to the relative changes in hydraulic conductivity of the well screen, gravel pack, and geologic formation. Convergence or divergence is accompanied by acceleration or deceleration of groundwater. Direct measurements of groundwater velocity at the center of the monitoring well can be adjusted to provide a more accurate estimate of velocity in the formation by applying a correction for flow-field distortion. Variables required to compute the flow-field distortion coefficient include the hydraulic conductivity of the gravel pack, well screen, and the geologic formation surrounding the well screen; the borehole radius, and the inside radius and outside radius of the well screen.

Groundwater

Deep groundwater total dissolved solids mapping in the Dakota Group, Williston Basin, USA

Growing concern about the quantity of available freshwater around the world has led to interest in surveying groundwater total dissolved solids (TDS) below water well depths. Deep TDS has not been systematically mapped, and there is much to learn about the distribution and controls on deeper groundwater. In sedimentary basins across the United States, groundwater resources often overlie hydrocarbon resources, providing an opportunity to use borehole geophysical data collected for hydrocarbons to characterize groundwater and pore space resources. This study adapts a recently developed subsurface geostatistical and geophysical modeling approach to continuously map groundwater TDS, porosity, and temperature in the Dakota Group of the Williston Basin—an undercharacterized regional aquifer system overlying deeper hydrocarbon reservoirs. Groundwater TDS in the Dakota Group ranges from approximately 4800 to 26,900 mg/L. TDS patterns are stratified with higher TDS in the lower and upper Dakota Group, and relatively lower TDS in the middle Dakota Group. The lower TDS in the middle zone may represent a preferential regional flow path for lower-TDS meteoric recharge from the west. The alternating pattern of TDS may also be evidence of higher-TDS inflows into the Dakota Group from underlying and potentially from overlying aquifers. Porosity is lower near the center of the Williston Basin and tends to be higher to the east, which may be related to grain size distributions. The new regional TDS and porosity modeling serves as a quantitative reference for water users and provides supporting evidence for hypotheses on Dakota Group recharge.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota