Texas Water Development Board

Open-File Report 99-02

Updated Evaluation of Water Resources inPart of North-Central Texas

By

Lon Langley

September 1999

ABSTRACT

This updated evaluation of water resources of part of north-central Texas includes all orportions of Collin Cooke Dallas Delta Denton Ellis Fannin Grayson Hood HuntJohnson Kaufman Lamar Montague Navarro Parker Red River Rockwall Tarrantand Wise Counties This report is in response to Senate Bill 1 passed in 1997 by the75th Texas Legislature This Act calls for the identification of areas in the stateexperiencing or expected to experience critical groundwater problems within the next25-year period

A reduction in groundwater withdrawals since 1990 has slowed water-level declines insome parts of the study area Water levels in the Trinity aquifer have remained stablesince 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant and Johnson Counties Water-leveldeclines of about 100 feet have occurred in southwestern Wise County The DallasshyFort Worth metroplex area in northeastern Tarrant County has experienced water-leveldeclines of 200 feet Minor water-level declines of approximately 50 feet have occurredin southern Johnson County The northern parts of Johnson County as well assouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties have experienced a rise in water levels from 50to 200 feet Water levels have not changed significantly in the Paluxy aquifer SouthernWise County and Denton County have undergone minor yvater-Ievel declines of 5 to 30feet Water levels in the Woodbine aquifer have remained stable with the exception ofnorthern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of Denton County andnorthern Grayson County where declines of 10 to 60 feet have been observed

Overall groundwater quality has not degraded appreciably since the last reportingperiod in 1990 Average TDS values for the Trinity aquifer were 718 mg1 The Paluxyaquifer had average TDS values of 607 mg1 The Woodbine aquifer had the highestTDS values averaging 877 mg1 This is primarily due to high sulfate levels associatedwith extensive lignite beds

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continual conversion to surface water usewithin the study area should allow future demands to be met These projectionssuggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and groundwater exist to meet currentand future needs of the study area through the year 2030

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT II

TABLE OF CONTENTS 111

FIGURES IV

TABLES V

INTRODUCTION 1

HYDROGEOLOGY 3

GEOLOGy 3WATER-LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS 6PRECIPITATION 14WATER QUALITY 18

WATER DEMANDS 26

POPULATION 26HISTORICAL WATER USE 26PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS 35

WATER AVAILABILITy 35

GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY 35SURFACE WATER AVAILABILITy 49

CONCLUSiONS 56

REFERENCES 58

APPENDiX 60

iii

Figure 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10Figure 11

Figure 12Figure 13Figure 14Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17Figure 18

Figure A-1

Figure A-2

Figure A-3

Figure A-4

Figure A-5

Figure A-6

FIGURES

Location of the study area in north-central Texas 2Location of the Trinity aquifer in the study area 4Location of minor aquifers in the study area 5Approximate water-level elevations in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1997 7Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989 and 1997 8Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers andTwin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 9Approximate water-level elevations in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer 1997 11Approximate water-level differences in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer between 1989 and 1997 12Hydrographs of selected wells in the Paluxy FormationTrinity aquifer 13Approximate water-level elevations in the Woodbine aquifer 1997 15Approximate water-level differences in the Woodbineaquifer between 1989 and 1997 16Hydrographs of selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 17Precipitation at the Weatherford gage 1960-1996 19Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996 20TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998 21TDS concentrations in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1990-1998 24TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998 25Surface reservoirs and river basins within and in thevicinity of the study area 53Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers andTwin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1997 61Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers andTwin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997 62Water-level elevations for selected wells in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer 1997 63Water-level differences for selected wells in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997 64Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbineaquifer 1997 65Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbineaquifer between 1989-1997 66

iv

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3Table 4

Table 5Table 6Table 7Table 8Table 9Table 10Table 11

Table 12

Table 13Table 14

TABLES

Water-level differences within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 10Water-level differences within the Paluxy FormationTrinity aquifer 10Water-level differences within the Woodbine aquifer 14Groundwater quality in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 22Groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer 23Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer 23Historical and projected populations for the study area 27Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 34Historical water use for the study area 36Projected water demands by source type for the study area 48Estimated groundwater availability for Cooke DentonGrayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise Counties 50Historical groundwater and pumpage for Cooke DentonGrayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise Counties 51Future water allocations based on the 1997 State Water Plan 52Reservoir capacity and supply 54

v

INTRODUCTION

North-central Texas is the most populous region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe population and is expected to more than double by 2050 (1WDB 1997) The areaaccounts for approximately 6 percent of the States annual water use By 2050 wateruse in this area is expected to increase about 90 percent (1WDB1997) Water isimportant to sustain the areas growing population and an economy Although there hasnot been any major water deficits in the area groundwater levels have declined 100 to1100 feet in the Trinity aquifer and 200 to 400 feet in the Woodbine aquifer since 1900(Mace and others 1994)

This report is an update to Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Report 318Evaluation of Water Resources in Part of North-Central Texas by Baker and otherspublished in January 1990 1WDB Report 318 was prepared in response to the 1985passage of House Bill 2 by the 69th Texas Legislature This Act in part focused onaddressing areas of the State where groundwater quality and quantity weredeteriorating This report is in response to Senate Bill 1 (SB-1) passed in 1997 by the75th Texas Legislature This Act requires identification of those areas of the State thatare experiencing or are expected to experience critical water problems within theimmediately following 25-year period This may include shortages of surface water orgroundwater land subsidence resulting from groundwater withdrawal and contamination of groundwater supplies Presently no groundwater districts have beencreated in the study area

This report updates the hydrogeological conditions water demands and wateravailability in the study area Water levels and water quality were used to assess thecurrent status of the groundwater resource and possible future trends Populationhistorical water use and projected water demands were compiled from 1WDB reportsand databases and analyzed for the study area

The study area is in north-central Texas (Figure 1) and is defined by the Red River tothe north the outcrop edge of the Trinity aquifer to the west the downdip limit of theWoodbine aquifer to the east (as defined by the slightly saline line) and the southernboundaries of Hood Johnson and Ellis Counties to the south The study area lieswithin the Red Sulphur Sabine Trinity and Brazos River basins It encompasses all orparts of Collin Cooke Dallas Delta Denton Ellis Fannin Grayson Hood HuntJohnson Kaufman Lamar Montague Navarro Parker Red River Rockwall Tarrantand Wise Counties

1

- ~ ~ ~

N

tO~25~50 Miles

o study area extent-- major highwayso citiesI county

Figure 1 Location of the study area in north-central Texas

2

HYDROGEOLOGY

Groundwater flow and the groundwater resource is controlled in part by the geology inthe region water levels precipitation as it relates to recharge and water quality

Geology

The primary aquifers in the area include the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers with minoramounts of water also produced from the Blossom and Nacatoch Sands Theseaquifers are briefly discussed below The geology and hydrogeology of the study areaare discussed in more detail by Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) and Bakerand others (1990)

The Trinity aquifer is composed of Cretaceous age formations of the Trinity Group andextends through the central part of Texas from the Red River to the north and throughthe Hill Country to the south (Ashworth and Hopkins 1995) The Trinity aquifer is theonly major aquifer within the study area (Figure 2) and includes the Antlers TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations The Antlers Formation consists of the TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations where the Glen Rose Formation confining layerpinches out Because the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations are closely relatedhydrologically they are often discussed together (eg Baker and others 1990)

Outcrops of the Antlers Formation are located mainly in Montague Wise and CookeCounties The Antlers Formation is about 400 feet in thickness near the outcrop andincreases to about 900 feet in southeast Grayson County The Twin MountainsFormation outcrops in the western part of the study area in Hood Parker and WiseCounties The thickness of the Twin Mountains Formation varies from less than 200feet near the outcrop to approximately 1000 feet at the downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water The Paluxy Formation outcrops in Hood Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties The thickness of the Paluxy Formation varies considerably from about 400feet in the northernpart of the study area to less than 100 feet in the southern part(Nordstrom 1982)

Minor aquifers in the area consist of the Woodbine Formation the Blossom Sand andthe Nacatoch Sand (Figure 3) The Woodbine Formation outcrops in Johnson TarrantDenton Cooke and Grayson Counties (Baker and others 1990) The WoodbineFormation trends in a north-south direction extending from the Red River to the northand to northern McClennan County to the south The thickness of the WoodbineFormation ranges from about 230 feet near the southern extent of the outcrop toapproximately 700 feet near the downdip limit of fresh to slightly saline water

The Blossom Sand outcrops in central Fannin Lamar and Red River Counties TheNacatoch Sand is exposed in Delta Hunt Kaufman Lamar Navarro and Red River

3

N

t

~ - o county

Trinity aquifero outcrop1---1 downdip

Ity aqUifer in the studyareaFigure 2 L ocatlon of the Trinmiddot

4

JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

N

i~~~~50 Miles

o countyBlossom Sand a _ outcrop qUifer

II IdowndipNacatoch Sand ~ outcrop aquifer

0downdiproodbine aquifer

outcrop1-1 downdip

Figure 3 Locatlon of mlnor aqUifers in the st du yarea

5

Counties (Baker and others 1990) Because wells from these aquifers typicallyproduce smaiLyields of usable water (Baker and others 1990) they will not bediscussed in this report The Blossom and Nacatoch Sands are discussed in more detailby Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) Ashworth (1988) and McLaurin (1988)

Water-Level Fluctuations

Water-level changes from 1989 to the present are shown in contour maps hydrographsand tables constructed using groundwater-level elevation data from the TWDBgroundwater database for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations the PaluxyFormation and the Woodbine Formation (TWDB 1998a control data in Appendix A)Most of the wells used to investigate water levels in TWDB Report 318 (Baker andothers 1990) are also used in this report Wells 19-23-701 32-37-702 and 33-19-301were not used due to unreliable water-level measurements owing to well problems andwere replaced with nearby wells 19-15-701 19-60-601 and 33-50-502 respectively

Groundwater flow in the Antlers and twin Mountains Formations of the Trinity aquifer isgenerally to the east-southeast (Figure 4) A cone of depression caused by heavypumpage is centered in northern-eastern Tarrant County and extends into Dallas andDenton Counties (Figure 4) Another potential cone of depression may exist innorthwest Ellis County The largest change in water level between 1989 and 1997 iscentered around the city of Euless within the Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex (Figure 5)Water-level declines in this area range from 50 to 200 feet and extend fromnortheastern Tarrant County to western Dallas County Water levels have risenapproximately 100 feet in southern Denton County and 200 feet in southeastern TarrantCounty and southwestern Dallas County Water levels have recovered in northernJohnson County but continue to decline in the southern part of the county

Water levels in individual wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show avariety of historical water-level changes (Figure 6) Some wells show little change overthe past 30 years (19-20-801 19-51-901 19-15-701) while others show overall declinesranging from 200 to 500 ft (32-46-90719-24-70232-16-101) A well in Dallas County(33-19-101) shows a water-level decline of 143 feet from 1970 to 1985 and hasrecovered 99 feet since 1985 Since 1989 water levels in selected wells have declinedas much as 235 feet and rebounded as much as about 75 feet (Table 1) Rates ofwater-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +833 to -2936 feet per year(Table 1)

Groundwater flow in the Paluxy Formation is generally to the east-southeast (Figure 7)Water levels have declined in the northern portion of the aquifer and risen for most ofthe southern portion since 1989 (Figure 8) The greatest water-level differencesbetween 1989 to 1997 occur north of Parker and Tarrant Counties Water-levelelevations in Denton County have decreased 15 to 35 feet while most of TarrantCounty shows an increase of 5 to 25 feet (Figure 8)

6

25 50 Miles

bull wellscontours (feet above msl)

i-j countyT-rfnify aquifero outcropI1 downdip

contour interval - 200 feetdatum - mean sea level

oHUNT

JACK

25 50 Miles

wellscontours (feet above msl)

-~countyTriniiy aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 50 feet

o

HUNT

r- -

i

~1

~

bull ~ --_

Figure 5 Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers an - between 1989 and 1997

co

Well No 19-20-801Montague CountyAntlers Formation

Well No 19middot15-701Cooke County

Antlers Formation

20001990

Surface ee 763 ItWell Depth 34 It

Surface e 405 ItWell Qeplh 3076 It

1970 1980Date

Well No 19middot24middot702Cooke County

Antlers Formation

Well No 33-19middot101City of Dallas Dallas CountyTwin Mountains Formation

1960

SuTface Elebull 880 FLWell Dep lh 1238 Ft

-__--~----~

V --

o1950

200 J--------~~----__r_-__-__I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

100 --------------------

-400 1-_---_------_--- --_---_--

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

800

cJ600O(J)

~ Igt ~III- 0 400Wc s _III $ 200

1000

cJO(J) 800~~gt IIQ) gt 600iii8 III$-III U 400~

cJg (J) 200 +-----------------~iiigt at011 gtiii ~ 0~ ell

c~~ ~2oo

Surface Elebull 610 II_____Well 0epIh 1690 fl

rr ~ JIpr- I

) J V

o----~=------------

Well No 32middot15-1 01City of Euless Tarrant County

Twin Mountains Formation

~o -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

cJ2 (J) -200 +-----r-shyiit -gt Qlbull gtiii 8 -400 f-----

S~~~O

Surface Elev 725 ftWell Deplh 621t

Surface Elev 828 IIWell Depth 560 II

Surface 111-1 1DO PlWell Depth 128 R

~ ~_~~---- eo -bull

1000

c-JOf) 800iiEgt QlQ) gt- 0 600wg III

Ql -ftj a 400~

400 --------------------

200 +-----------------------1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Well No 32middot46middot907Johnson County

Twin Mountains Formation

cJo (J) 200 ii-----Ogt__~igt tlQ) gtiii8 0

~~~ ~ -200

-400 L--------r--shy

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

1400 ---~-----------------

Well No 19-51-901Wise County

Twin Mountains Formation

c-Jg ~ 1200(Vgt Q)

~ ] 1000iii ~ -~ ~ 800

600 l-__~_~~-_--- ~_---l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Figure 6 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

9

ABSTRACT

This updated evaluation of water resources of part of north-central Texas includes all orportions of Collin Cooke Dallas Delta Denton Ellis Fannin Grayson Hood HuntJohnson Kaufman Lamar Montague Navarro Parker Red River Rockwall Tarrantand Wise Counties This report is in response to Senate Bill 1 passed in 1997 by the75th Texas Legislature This Act calls for the identification of areas in the stateexperiencing or expected to experience critical groundwater problems within the next25-year period

A reduction in groundwater withdrawals since 1990 has slowed water-level declines insome parts of the study area Water levels in the Trinity aquifer have remained stablesince 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant and Johnson Counties Water-leveldeclines of about 100 feet have occurred in southwestern Wise County The DallasshyFort Worth metroplex area in northeastern Tarrant County has experienced water-leveldeclines of 200 feet Minor water-level declines of approximately 50 feet have occurredin southern Johnson County The northern parts of Johnson County as well assouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties have experienced a rise in water levels from 50to 200 feet Water levels have not changed significantly in the Paluxy aquifer SouthernWise County and Denton County have undergone minor yvater-Ievel declines of 5 to 30feet Water levels in the Woodbine aquifer have remained stable with the exception ofnorthern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of Denton County andnorthern Grayson County where declines of 10 to 60 feet have been observed

Overall groundwater quality has not degraded appreciably since the last reportingperiod in 1990 Average TDS values for the Trinity aquifer were 718 mg1 The Paluxyaquifer had average TDS values of 607 mg1 The Woodbine aquifer had the highestTDS values averaging 877 mg1 This is primarily due to high sulfate levels associatedwith extensive lignite beds

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continual conversion to surface water usewithin the study area should allow future demands to be met These projectionssuggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and groundwater exist to meet currentand future needs of the study area through the year 2030

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT II

TABLE OF CONTENTS 111

FIGURES IV

TABLES V

INTRODUCTION 1

HYDROGEOLOGY 3

GEOLOGy 3WATER-LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS 6PRECIPITATION 14WATER QUALITY 18

WATER DEMANDS 26

POPULATION 26HISTORICAL WATER USE 26PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS 35

WATER AVAILABILITy 35

GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY 35SURFACE WATER AVAILABILITy 49

CONCLUSiONS 56

REFERENCES 58

APPENDiX 60

iii

Figure 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10Figure 11

Figure 12Figure 13Figure 14Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17Figure 18

Figure A-1

Figure A-2

Figure A-3

Figure A-4

Figure A-5

Figure A-6

FIGURES

Location of the study area in north-central Texas 2Location of the Trinity aquifer in the study area 4Location of minor aquifers in the study area 5Approximate water-level elevations in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1997 7Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989 and 1997 8Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers andTwin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 9Approximate water-level elevations in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer 1997 11Approximate water-level differences in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer between 1989 and 1997 12Hydrographs of selected wells in the Paluxy FormationTrinity aquifer 13Approximate water-level elevations in the Woodbine aquifer 1997 15Approximate water-level differences in the Woodbineaquifer between 1989 and 1997 16Hydrographs of selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 17Precipitation at the Weatherford gage 1960-1996 19Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996 20TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998 21TDS concentrations in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1990-1998 24TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998 25Surface reservoirs and river basins within and in thevicinity of the study area 53Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers andTwin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1997 61Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers andTwin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997 62Water-level elevations for selected wells in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer 1997 63Water-level differences for selected wells in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997 64Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbineaquifer 1997 65Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbineaquifer between 1989-1997 66

iv

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3Table 4

Table 5Table 6Table 7Table 8Table 9Table 10Table 11

Table 12

Table 13Table 14

TABLES

Water-level differences within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 10Water-level differences within the Paluxy FormationTrinity aquifer 10Water-level differences within the Woodbine aquifer 14Groundwater quality in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 22Groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer 23Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer 23Historical and projected populations for the study area 27Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 34Historical water use for the study area 36Projected water demands by source type for the study area 48Estimated groundwater availability for Cooke DentonGrayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise Counties 50Historical groundwater and pumpage for Cooke DentonGrayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise Counties 51Future water allocations based on the 1997 State Water Plan 52Reservoir capacity and supply 54

v

INTRODUCTION

North-central Texas is the most populous region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe population and is expected to more than double by 2050 (1WDB 1997) The areaaccounts for approximately 6 percent of the States annual water use By 2050 wateruse in this area is expected to increase about 90 percent (1WDB1997) Water isimportant to sustain the areas growing population and an economy Although there hasnot been any major water deficits in the area groundwater levels have declined 100 to1100 feet in the Trinity aquifer and 200 to 400 feet in the Woodbine aquifer since 1900(Mace and others 1994)

This report is an update to Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Report 318Evaluation of Water Resources in Part of North-Central Texas by Baker and otherspublished in January 1990 1WDB Report 318 was prepared in response to the 1985passage of House Bill 2 by the 69th Texas Legislature This Act in part focused onaddressing areas of the State where groundwater quality and quantity weredeteriorating This report is in response to Senate Bill 1 (SB-1) passed in 1997 by the75th Texas Legislature This Act requires identification of those areas of the State thatare experiencing or are expected to experience critical water problems within theimmediately following 25-year period This may include shortages of surface water orgroundwater land subsidence resulting from groundwater withdrawal and contamination of groundwater supplies Presently no groundwater districts have beencreated in the study area

This report updates the hydrogeological conditions water demands and wateravailability in the study area Water levels and water quality were used to assess thecurrent status of the groundwater resource and possible future trends Populationhistorical water use and projected water demands were compiled from 1WDB reportsand databases and analyzed for the study area

The study area is in north-central Texas (Figure 1) and is defined by the Red River tothe north the outcrop edge of the Trinity aquifer to the west the downdip limit of theWoodbine aquifer to the east (as defined by the slightly saline line) and the southernboundaries of Hood Johnson and Ellis Counties to the south The study area lieswithin the Red Sulphur Sabine Trinity and Brazos River basins It encompasses all orparts of Collin Cooke Dallas Delta Denton Ellis Fannin Grayson Hood HuntJohnson Kaufman Lamar Montague Navarro Parker Red River Rockwall Tarrantand Wise Counties

1

- ~ ~ ~

N

tO~25~50 Miles

o study area extent-- major highwayso citiesI county

Figure 1 Location of the study area in north-central Texas

2

HYDROGEOLOGY

Groundwater flow and the groundwater resource is controlled in part by the geology inthe region water levels precipitation as it relates to recharge and water quality

Geology

The primary aquifers in the area include the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers with minoramounts of water also produced from the Blossom and Nacatoch Sands Theseaquifers are briefly discussed below The geology and hydrogeology of the study areaare discussed in more detail by Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) and Bakerand others (1990)

The Trinity aquifer is composed of Cretaceous age formations of the Trinity Group andextends through the central part of Texas from the Red River to the north and throughthe Hill Country to the south (Ashworth and Hopkins 1995) The Trinity aquifer is theonly major aquifer within the study area (Figure 2) and includes the Antlers TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations The Antlers Formation consists of the TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations where the Glen Rose Formation confining layerpinches out Because the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations are closely relatedhydrologically they are often discussed together (eg Baker and others 1990)

Outcrops of the Antlers Formation are located mainly in Montague Wise and CookeCounties The Antlers Formation is about 400 feet in thickness near the outcrop andincreases to about 900 feet in southeast Grayson County The Twin MountainsFormation outcrops in the western part of the study area in Hood Parker and WiseCounties The thickness of the Twin Mountains Formation varies from less than 200feet near the outcrop to approximately 1000 feet at the downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water The Paluxy Formation outcrops in Hood Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties The thickness of the Paluxy Formation varies considerably from about 400feet in the northernpart of the study area to less than 100 feet in the southern part(Nordstrom 1982)

Minor aquifers in the area consist of the Woodbine Formation the Blossom Sand andthe Nacatoch Sand (Figure 3) The Woodbine Formation outcrops in Johnson TarrantDenton Cooke and Grayson Counties (Baker and others 1990) The WoodbineFormation trends in a north-south direction extending from the Red River to the northand to northern McClennan County to the south The thickness of the WoodbineFormation ranges from about 230 feet near the southern extent of the outcrop toapproximately 700 feet near the downdip limit of fresh to slightly saline water

The Blossom Sand outcrops in central Fannin Lamar and Red River Counties TheNacatoch Sand is exposed in Delta Hunt Kaufman Lamar Navarro and Red River

3

N

t

~ - o county

Trinity aquifero outcrop1---1 downdip

Ity aqUifer in the studyareaFigure 2 L ocatlon of the Trinmiddot

4

JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

N

i~~~~50 Miles

o countyBlossom Sand a _ outcrop qUifer

II IdowndipNacatoch Sand ~ outcrop aquifer

0downdiproodbine aquifer

outcrop1-1 downdip

Figure 3 Locatlon of mlnor aqUifers in the st du yarea

5

Counties (Baker and others 1990) Because wells from these aquifers typicallyproduce smaiLyields of usable water (Baker and others 1990) they will not bediscussed in this report The Blossom and Nacatoch Sands are discussed in more detailby Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) Ashworth (1988) and McLaurin (1988)

Water-Level Fluctuations

Water-level changes from 1989 to the present are shown in contour maps hydrographsand tables constructed using groundwater-level elevation data from the TWDBgroundwater database for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations the PaluxyFormation and the Woodbine Formation (TWDB 1998a control data in Appendix A)Most of the wells used to investigate water levels in TWDB Report 318 (Baker andothers 1990) are also used in this report Wells 19-23-701 32-37-702 and 33-19-301were not used due to unreliable water-level measurements owing to well problems andwere replaced with nearby wells 19-15-701 19-60-601 and 33-50-502 respectively

Groundwater flow in the Antlers and twin Mountains Formations of the Trinity aquifer isgenerally to the east-southeast (Figure 4) A cone of depression caused by heavypumpage is centered in northern-eastern Tarrant County and extends into Dallas andDenton Counties (Figure 4) Another potential cone of depression may exist innorthwest Ellis County The largest change in water level between 1989 and 1997 iscentered around the city of Euless within the Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex (Figure 5)Water-level declines in this area range from 50 to 200 feet and extend fromnortheastern Tarrant County to western Dallas County Water levels have risenapproximately 100 feet in southern Denton County and 200 feet in southeastern TarrantCounty and southwestern Dallas County Water levels have recovered in northernJohnson County but continue to decline in the southern part of the county

Water levels in individual wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show avariety of historical water-level changes (Figure 6) Some wells show little change overthe past 30 years (19-20-801 19-51-901 19-15-701) while others show overall declinesranging from 200 to 500 ft (32-46-90719-24-70232-16-101) A well in Dallas County(33-19-101) shows a water-level decline of 143 feet from 1970 to 1985 and hasrecovered 99 feet since 1985 Since 1989 water levels in selected wells have declinedas much as 235 feet and rebounded as much as about 75 feet (Table 1) Rates ofwater-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +833 to -2936 feet per year(Table 1)

Groundwater flow in the Paluxy Formation is generally to the east-southeast (Figure 7)Water levels have declined in the northern portion of the aquifer and risen for most ofthe southern portion since 1989 (Figure 8) The greatest water-level differencesbetween 1989 to 1997 occur north of Parker and Tarrant Counties Water-levelelevations in Denton County have decreased 15 to 35 feet while most of TarrantCounty shows an increase of 5 to 25 feet (Figure 8)

6

25 50 Miles

bull wellscontours (feet above msl)

i-j countyT-rfnify aquifero outcropI1 downdip

contour interval - 200 feetdatum - mean sea level

oHUNT

JACK

25 50 Miles

wellscontours (feet above msl)

-~countyTriniiy aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 50 feet

o

HUNT

r- -

i

~1

~

bull ~ --_

Figure 5 Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers an - between 1989 and 1997

co

Well No 19-20-801Montague CountyAntlers Formation

Well No 19middot15-701Cooke County

Antlers Formation

20001990

Surface ee 763 ItWell Depth 34 It

Surface e 405 ItWell Qeplh 3076 It

1970 1980Date

Well No 19middot24middot702Cooke County

Antlers Formation

Well No 33-19middot101City of Dallas Dallas CountyTwin Mountains Formation

1960

SuTface Elebull 880 FLWell Dep lh 1238 Ft

-__--~----~

V --

o1950

200 J--------~~----__r_-__-__I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

100 --------------------

-400 1-_---_------_--- --_---_--

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

800

cJ600O(J)

~ Igt ~III- 0 400Wc s _III $ 200

1000

cJO(J) 800~~gt IIQ) gt 600iii8 III$-III U 400~

cJg (J) 200 +-----------------~iiigt at011 gtiii ~ 0~ ell

c~~ ~2oo

Surface Elebull 610 II_____Well 0epIh 1690 fl

rr ~ JIpr- I

) J V

o----~=------------

Well No 32middot15-1 01City of Euless Tarrant County

Twin Mountains Formation

~o -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

cJ2 (J) -200 +-----r-shyiit -gt Qlbull gtiii 8 -400 f-----

S~~~O

Surface Elev 725 ftWell Deplh 621t

Surface Elev 828 IIWell Depth 560 II

Surface 111-1 1DO PlWell Depth 128 R

~ ~_~~---- eo -bull

1000

c-JOf) 800iiEgt QlQ) gt- 0 600wg III

Ql -ftj a 400~

400 --------------------

200 +-----------------------1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Well No 32middot46middot907Johnson County

Twin Mountains Formation

cJo (J) 200 ii-----Ogt__~igt tlQ) gtiii8 0

~~~ ~ -200

-400 L--------r--shy

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

1400 ---~-----------------

Well No 19-51-901Wise County

Twin Mountains Formation

c-Jg ~ 1200(Vgt Q)

~ ] 1000iii ~ -~ ~ 800

600 l-__~_~~-_--- ~_---l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Figure 6 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

9

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT II

TABLE OF CONTENTS 111

FIGURES IV

TABLES V

INTRODUCTION 1

HYDROGEOLOGY 3

GEOLOGy 3WATER-LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS 6PRECIPITATION 14WATER QUALITY 18

WATER DEMANDS 26

POPULATION 26HISTORICAL WATER USE 26PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS 35

WATER AVAILABILITy 35

GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY 35SURFACE WATER AVAILABILITy 49

CONCLUSiONS 56

REFERENCES 58

APPENDiX 60

iii

Figure 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10Figure 11

Figure 12Figure 13Figure 14Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17Figure 18

Figure A-1

Figure A-2

Figure A-3

Figure A-4

Figure A-5

Figure A-6

FIGURES

Location of the study area in north-central Texas 2Location of the Trinity aquifer in the study area 4Location of minor aquifers in the study area 5Approximate water-level elevations in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1997 7Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989 and 1997 8Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers andTwin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 9Approximate water-level elevations in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer 1997 11Approximate water-level differences in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer between 1989 and 1997 12Hydrographs of selected wells in the Paluxy FormationTrinity aquifer 13Approximate water-level elevations in the Woodbine aquifer 1997 15Approximate water-level differences in the Woodbineaquifer between 1989 and 1997 16Hydrographs of selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 17Precipitation at the Weatherford gage 1960-1996 19Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996 20TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998 21TDS concentrations in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1990-1998 24TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998 25Surface reservoirs and river basins within and in thevicinity of the study area 53Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers andTwin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1997 61Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers andTwin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997 62Water-level elevations for selected wells in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer 1997 63Water-level differences for selected wells in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997 64Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbineaquifer 1997 65Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbineaquifer between 1989-1997 66

iv

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3Table 4

Table 5Table 6Table 7Table 8Table 9Table 10Table 11

Table 12

Table 13Table 14

TABLES

Water-level differences within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 10Water-level differences within the Paluxy FormationTrinity aquifer 10Water-level differences within the Woodbine aquifer 14Groundwater quality in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 22Groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer 23Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer 23Historical and projected populations for the study area 27Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 34Historical water use for the study area 36Projected water demands by source type for the study area 48Estimated groundwater availability for Cooke DentonGrayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise Counties 50Historical groundwater and pumpage for Cooke DentonGrayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise Counties 51Future water allocations based on the 1997 State Water Plan 52Reservoir capacity and supply 54

v

INTRODUCTION

North-central Texas is the most populous region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe population and is expected to more than double by 2050 (1WDB 1997) The areaaccounts for approximately 6 percent of the States annual water use By 2050 wateruse in this area is expected to increase about 90 percent (1WDB1997) Water isimportant to sustain the areas growing population and an economy Although there hasnot been any major water deficits in the area groundwater levels have declined 100 to1100 feet in the Trinity aquifer and 200 to 400 feet in the Woodbine aquifer since 1900(Mace and others 1994)

This report is an update to Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Report 318Evaluation of Water Resources in Part of North-Central Texas by Baker and otherspublished in January 1990 1WDB Report 318 was prepared in response to the 1985passage of House Bill 2 by the 69th Texas Legislature This Act in part focused onaddressing areas of the State where groundwater quality and quantity weredeteriorating This report is in response to Senate Bill 1 (SB-1) passed in 1997 by the75th Texas Legislature This Act requires identification of those areas of the State thatare experiencing or are expected to experience critical water problems within theimmediately following 25-year period This may include shortages of surface water orgroundwater land subsidence resulting from groundwater withdrawal and contamination of groundwater supplies Presently no groundwater districts have beencreated in the study area

This report updates the hydrogeological conditions water demands and wateravailability in the study area Water levels and water quality were used to assess thecurrent status of the groundwater resource and possible future trends Populationhistorical water use and projected water demands were compiled from 1WDB reportsand databases and analyzed for the study area

The study area is in north-central Texas (Figure 1) and is defined by the Red River tothe north the outcrop edge of the Trinity aquifer to the west the downdip limit of theWoodbine aquifer to the east (as defined by the slightly saline line) and the southernboundaries of Hood Johnson and Ellis Counties to the south The study area lieswithin the Red Sulphur Sabine Trinity and Brazos River basins It encompasses all orparts of Collin Cooke Dallas Delta Denton Ellis Fannin Grayson Hood HuntJohnson Kaufman Lamar Montague Navarro Parker Red River Rockwall Tarrantand Wise Counties

1

- ~ ~ ~

N

tO~25~50 Miles

o study area extent-- major highwayso citiesI county

Figure 1 Location of the study area in north-central Texas

2

HYDROGEOLOGY

Groundwater flow and the groundwater resource is controlled in part by the geology inthe region water levels precipitation as it relates to recharge and water quality

Geology

The primary aquifers in the area include the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers with minoramounts of water also produced from the Blossom and Nacatoch Sands Theseaquifers are briefly discussed below The geology and hydrogeology of the study areaare discussed in more detail by Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) and Bakerand others (1990)

The Trinity aquifer is composed of Cretaceous age formations of the Trinity Group andextends through the central part of Texas from the Red River to the north and throughthe Hill Country to the south (Ashworth and Hopkins 1995) The Trinity aquifer is theonly major aquifer within the study area (Figure 2) and includes the Antlers TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations The Antlers Formation consists of the TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations where the Glen Rose Formation confining layerpinches out Because the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations are closely relatedhydrologically they are often discussed together (eg Baker and others 1990)

Outcrops of the Antlers Formation are located mainly in Montague Wise and CookeCounties The Antlers Formation is about 400 feet in thickness near the outcrop andincreases to about 900 feet in southeast Grayson County The Twin MountainsFormation outcrops in the western part of the study area in Hood Parker and WiseCounties The thickness of the Twin Mountains Formation varies from less than 200feet near the outcrop to approximately 1000 feet at the downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water The Paluxy Formation outcrops in Hood Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties The thickness of the Paluxy Formation varies considerably from about 400feet in the northernpart of the study area to less than 100 feet in the southern part(Nordstrom 1982)

Minor aquifers in the area consist of the Woodbine Formation the Blossom Sand andthe Nacatoch Sand (Figure 3) The Woodbine Formation outcrops in Johnson TarrantDenton Cooke and Grayson Counties (Baker and others 1990) The WoodbineFormation trends in a north-south direction extending from the Red River to the northand to northern McClennan County to the south The thickness of the WoodbineFormation ranges from about 230 feet near the southern extent of the outcrop toapproximately 700 feet near the downdip limit of fresh to slightly saline water

The Blossom Sand outcrops in central Fannin Lamar and Red River Counties TheNacatoch Sand is exposed in Delta Hunt Kaufman Lamar Navarro and Red River

3

N

t

~ - o county

Trinity aquifero outcrop1---1 downdip

Ity aqUifer in the studyareaFigure 2 L ocatlon of the Trinmiddot

4

JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

N

i~~~~50 Miles

o countyBlossom Sand a _ outcrop qUifer

II IdowndipNacatoch Sand ~ outcrop aquifer

0downdiproodbine aquifer

outcrop1-1 downdip

Figure 3 Locatlon of mlnor aqUifers in the st du yarea

5

Counties (Baker and others 1990) Because wells from these aquifers typicallyproduce smaiLyields of usable water (Baker and others 1990) they will not bediscussed in this report The Blossom and Nacatoch Sands are discussed in more detailby Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) Ashworth (1988) and McLaurin (1988)

Water-Level Fluctuations

Water-level changes from 1989 to the present are shown in contour maps hydrographsand tables constructed using groundwater-level elevation data from the TWDBgroundwater database for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations the PaluxyFormation and the Woodbine Formation (TWDB 1998a control data in Appendix A)Most of the wells used to investigate water levels in TWDB Report 318 (Baker andothers 1990) are also used in this report Wells 19-23-701 32-37-702 and 33-19-301were not used due to unreliable water-level measurements owing to well problems andwere replaced with nearby wells 19-15-701 19-60-601 and 33-50-502 respectively

Groundwater flow in the Antlers and twin Mountains Formations of the Trinity aquifer isgenerally to the east-southeast (Figure 4) A cone of depression caused by heavypumpage is centered in northern-eastern Tarrant County and extends into Dallas andDenton Counties (Figure 4) Another potential cone of depression may exist innorthwest Ellis County The largest change in water level between 1989 and 1997 iscentered around the city of Euless within the Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex (Figure 5)Water-level declines in this area range from 50 to 200 feet and extend fromnortheastern Tarrant County to western Dallas County Water levels have risenapproximately 100 feet in southern Denton County and 200 feet in southeastern TarrantCounty and southwestern Dallas County Water levels have recovered in northernJohnson County but continue to decline in the southern part of the county

Water levels in individual wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show avariety of historical water-level changes (Figure 6) Some wells show little change overthe past 30 years (19-20-801 19-51-901 19-15-701) while others show overall declinesranging from 200 to 500 ft (32-46-90719-24-70232-16-101) A well in Dallas County(33-19-101) shows a water-level decline of 143 feet from 1970 to 1985 and hasrecovered 99 feet since 1985 Since 1989 water levels in selected wells have declinedas much as 235 feet and rebounded as much as about 75 feet (Table 1) Rates ofwater-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +833 to -2936 feet per year(Table 1)

Groundwater flow in the Paluxy Formation is generally to the east-southeast (Figure 7)Water levels have declined in the northern portion of the aquifer and risen for most ofthe southern portion since 1989 (Figure 8) The greatest water-level differencesbetween 1989 to 1997 occur north of Parker and Tarrant Counties Water-levelelevations in Denton County have decreased 15 to 35 feet while most of TarrantCounty shows an increase of 5 to 25 feet (Figure 8)

6

25 50 Miles

bull wellscontours (feet above msl)

i-j countyT-rfnify aquifero outcropI1 downdip

contour interval - 200 feetdatum - mean sea level

oHUNT

JACK

25 50 Miles

wellscontours (feet above msl)

-~countyTriniiy aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 50 feet

o

HUNT

r- -

i

~1

~

bull ~ --_

Figure 5 Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers an - between 1989 and 1997

co

Well No 19-20-801Montague CountyAntlers Formation

Well No 19middot15-701Cooke County

Antlers Formation

20001990

Surface ee 763 ItWell Depth 34 It

Surface e 405 ItWell Qeplh 3076 It

1970 1980Date

Well No 19middot24middot702Cooke County

Antlers Formation

Well No 33-19middot101City of Dallas Dallas CountyTwin Mountains Formation

1960

SuTface Elebull 880 FLWell Dep lh 1238 Ft

-__--~----~

V --

o1950

200 J--------~~----__r_-__-__I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

100 --------------------

-400 1-_---_------_--- --_---_--

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

800

cJ600O(J)

~ Igt ~III- 0 400Wc s _III $ 200

1000

cJO(J) 800~~gt IIQ) gt 600iii8 III$-III U 400~

cJg (J) 200 +-----------------~iiigt at011 gtiii ~ 0~ ell

c~~ ~2oo

Surface Elebull 610 II_____Well 0epIh 1690 fl

rr ~ JIpr- I

) J V

o----~=------------

Well No 32middot15-1 01City of Euless Tarrant County

Twin Mountains Formation

~o -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

cJ2 (J) -200 +-----r-shyiit -gt Qlbull gtiii 8 -400 f-----

S~~~O

Surface Elev 725 ftWell Deplh 621t

Surface Elev 828 IIWell Depth 560 II

Surface 111-1 1DO PlWell Depth 128 R

~ ~_~~---- eo -bull

1000

c-JOf) 800iiEgt QlQ) gt- 0 600wg III

Ql -ftj a 400~

400 --------------------

200 +-----------------------1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Well No 32middot46middot907Johnson County

Twin Mountains Formation

cJo (J) 200 ii-----Ogt__~igt tlQ) gtiii8 0

~~~ ~ -200

-400 L--------r--shy

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

1400 ---~-----------------

Well No 19-51-901Wise County

Twin Mountains Formation

c-Jg ~ 1200(Vgt Q)

~ ] 1000iii ~ -~ ~ 800

600 l-__~_~~-_--- ~_---l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Figure 6 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

9

Figure 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10Figure 11

Figure 12Figure 13Figure 14Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17Figure 18

Figure A-1

Figure A-2

Figure A-3

Figure A-4

Figure A-5

Figure A-6

FIGURES

Location of the study area in north-central Texas 2Location of the Trinity aquifer in the study area 4Location of minor aquifers in the study area 5Approximate water-level elevations in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1997 7Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989 and 1997 8Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers andTwin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 9Approximate water-level elevations in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer 1997 11Approximate water-level differences in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer between 1989 and 1997 12Hydrographs of selected wells in the Paluxy FormationTrinity aquifer 13Approximate water-level elevations in the Woodbine aquifer 1997 15Approximate water-level differences in the Woodbineaquifer between 1989 and 1997 16Hydrographs of selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 17Precipitation at the Weatherford gage 1960-1996 19Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996 20TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998 21TDS concentrations in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1990-1998 24TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998 25Surface reservoirs and river basins within and in thevicinity of the study area 53Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers andTwin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1997 61Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers andTwin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997 62Water-level elevations for selected wells in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer 1997 63Water-level differences for selected wells in the PaluxyFormation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997 64Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbineaquifer 1997 65Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbineaquifer between 1989-1997 66

iv

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3Table 4

Table 5Table 6Table 7Table 8Table 9Table 10Table 11

Table 12

Table 13Table 14

TABLES

Water-level differences within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 10Water-level differences within the Paluxy FormationTrinity aquifer 10Water-level differences within the Woodbine aquifer 14Groundwater quality in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 22Groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer 23Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer 23Historical and projected populations for the study area 27Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 34Historical water use for the study area 36Projected water demands by source type for the study area 48Estimated groundwater availability for Cooke DentonGrayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise Counties 50Historical groundwater and pumpage for Cooke DentonGrayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise Counties 51Future water allocations based on the 1997 State Water Plan 52Reservoir capacity and supply 54

v

INTRODUCTION

North-central Texas is the most populous region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe population and is expected to more than double by 2050 (1WDB 1997) The areaaccounts for approximately 6 percent of the States annual water use By 2050 wateruse in this area is expected to increase about 90 percent (1WDB1997) Water isimportant to sustain the areas growing population and an economy Although there hasnot been any major water deficits in the area groundwater levels have declined 100 to1100 feet in the Trinity aquifer and 200 to 400 feet in the Woodbine aquifer since 1900(Mace and others 1994)

This report is an update to Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Report 318Evaluation of Water Resources in Part of North-Central Texas by Baker and otherspublished in January 1990 1WDB Report 318 was prepared in response to the 1985passage of House Bill 2 by the 69th Texas Legislature This Act in part focused onaddressing areas of the State where groundwater quality and quantity weredeteriorating This report is in response to Senate Bill 1 (SB-1) passed in 1997 by the75th Texas Legislature This Act requires identification of those areas of the State thatare experiencing or are expected to experience critical water problems within theimmediately following 25-year period This may include shortages of surface water orgroundwater land subsidence resulting from groundwater withdrawal and contamination of groundwater supplies Presently no groundwater districts have beencreated in the study area

This report updates the hydrogeological conditions water demands and wateravailability in the study area Water levels and water quality were used to assess thecurrent status of the groundwater resource and possible future trends Populationhistorical water use and projected water demands were compiled from 1WDB reportsand databases and analyzed for the study area

The study area is in north-central Texas (Figure 1) and is defined by the Red River tothe north the outcrop edge of the Trinity aquifer to the west the downdip limit of theWoodbine aquifer to the east (as defined by the slightly saline line) and the southernboundaries of Hood Johnson and Ellis Counties to the south The study area lieswithin the Red Sulphur Sabine Trinity and Brazos River basins It encompasses all orparts of Collin Cooke Dallas Delta Denton Ellis Fannin Grayson Hood HuntJohnson Kaufman Lamar Montague Navarro Parker Red River Rockwall Tarrantand Wise Counties

1

- ~ ~ ~

N

tO~25~50 Miles

o study area extent-- major highwayso citiesI county

Figure 1 Location of the study area in north-central Texas

2

HYDROGEOLOGY

Groundwater flow and the groundwater resource is controlled in part by the geology inthe region water levels precipitation as it relates to recharge and water quality

Geology

The primary aquifers in the area include the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers with minoramounts of water also produced from the Blossom and Nacatoch Sands Theseaquifers are briefly discussed below The geology and hydrogeology of the study areaare discussed in more detail by Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) and Bakerand others (1990)

The Trinity aquifer is composed of Cretaceous age formations of the Trinity Group andextends through the central part of Texas from the Red River to the north and throughthe Hill Country to the south (Ashworth and Hopkins 1995) The Trinity aquifer is theonly major aquifer within the study area (Figure 2) and includes the Antlers TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations The Antlers Formation consists of the TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations where the Glen Rose Formation confining layerpinches out Because the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations are closely relatedhydrologically they are often discussed together (eg Baker and others 1990)

Outcrops of the Antlers Formation are located mainly in Montague Wise and CookeCounties The Antlers Formation is about 400 feet in thickness near the outcrop andincreases to about 900 feet in southeast Grayson County The Twin MountainsFormation outcrops in the western part of the study area in Hood Parker and WiseCounties The thickness of the Twin Mountains Formation varies from less than 200feet near the outcrop to approximately 1000 feet at the downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water The Paluxy Formation outcrops in Hood Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties The thickness of the Paluxy Formation varies considerably from about 400feet in the northernpart of the study area to less than 100 feet in the southern part(Nordstrom 1982)

Minor aquifers in the area consist of the Woodbine Formation the Blossom Sand andthe Nacatoch Sand (Figure 3) The Woodbine Formation outcrops in Johnson TarrantDenton Cooke and Grayson Counties (Baker and others 1990) The WoodbineFormation trends in a north-south direction extending from the Red River to the northand to northern McClennan County to the south The thickness of the WoodbineFormation ranges from about 230 feet near the southern extent of the outcrop toapproximately 700 feet near the downdip limit of fresh to slightly saline water

The Blossom Sand outcrops in central Fannin Lamar and Red River Counties TheNacatoch Sand is exposed in Delta Hunt Kaufman Lamar Navarro and Red River

3

N

t

~ - o county

Trinity aquifero outcrop1---1 downdip

Ity aqUifer in the studyareaFigure 2 L ocatlon of the Trinmiddot

4

JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

N

i~~~~50 Miles

o countyBlossom Sand a _ outcrop qUifer

II IdowndipNacatoch Sand ~ outcrop aquifer

0downdiproodbine aquifer

outcrop1-1 downdip

Figure 3 Locatlon of mlnor aqUifers in the st du yarea

5

Counties (Baker and others 1990) Because wells from these aquifers typicallyproduce smaiLyields of usable water (Baker and others 1990) they will not bediscussed in this report The Blossom and Nacatoch Sands are discussed in more detailby Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) Ashworth (1988) and McLaurin (1988)

Water-Level Fluctuations

Water-level changes from 1989 to the present are shown in contour maps hydrographsand tables constructed using groundwater-level elevation data from the TWDBgroundwater database for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations the PaluxyFormation and the Woodbine Formation (TWDB 1998a control data in Appendix A)Most of the wells used to investigate water levels in TWDB Report 318 (Baker andothers 1990) are also used in this report Wells 19-23-701 32-37-702 and 33-19-301were not used due to unreliable water-level measurements owing to well problems andwere replaced with nearby wells 19-15-701 19-60-601 and 33-50-502 respectively

Groundwater flow in the Antlers and twin Mountains Formations of the Trinity aquifer isgenerally to the east-southeast (Figure 4) A cone of depression caused by heavypumpage is centered in northern-eastern Tarrant County and extends into Dallas andDenton Counties (Figure 4) Another potential cone of depression may exist innorthwest Ellis County The largest change in water level between 1989 and 1997 iscentered around the city of Euless within the Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex (Figure 5)Water-level declines in this area range from 50 to 200 feet and extend fromnortheastern Tarrant County to western Dallas County Water levels have risenapproximately 100 feet in southern Denton County and 200 feet in southeastern TarrantCounty and southwestern Dallas County Water levels have recovered in northernJohnson County but continue to decline in the southern part of the county

Water levels in individual wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show avariety of historical water-level changes (Figure 6) Some wells show little change overthe past 30 years (19-20-801 19-51-901 19-15-701) while others show overall declinesranging from 200 to 500 ft (32-46-90719-24-70232-16-101) A well in Dallas County(33-19-101) shows a water-level decline of 143 feet from 1970 to 1985 and hasrecovered 99 feet since 1985 Since 1989 water levels in selected wells have declinedas much as 235 feet and rebounded as much as about 75 feet (Table 1) Rates ofwater-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +833 to -2936 feet per year(Table 1)

Groundwater flow in the Paluxy Formation is generally to the east-southeast (Figure 7)Water levels have declined in the northern portion of the aquifer and risen for most ofthe southern portion since 1989 (Figure 8) The greatest water-level differencesbetween 1989 to 1997 occur north of Parker and Tarrant Counties Water-levelelevations in Denton County have decreased 15 to 35 feet while most of TarrantCounty shows an increase of 5 to 25 feet (Figure 8)

6

25 50 Miles

bull wellscontours (feet above msl)

i-j countyT-rfnify aquifero outcropI1 downdip

contour interval - 200 feetdatum - mean sea level

oHUNT

JACK

25 50 Miles

wellscontours (feet above msl)

-~countyTriniiy aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 50 feet

o

HUNT

r- -

i

~1

~

bull ~ --_

Figure 5 Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers an - between 1989 and 1997

co

Well No 19-20-801Montague CountyAntlers Formation

Well No 19middot15-701Cooke County

Antlers Formation

20001990

Surface ee 763 ItWell Depth 34 It

Surface e 405 ItWell Qeplh 3076 It

1970 1980Date

Well No 19middot24middot702Cooke County

Antlers Formation

Well No 33-19middot101City of Dallas Dallas CountyTwin Mountains Formation

1960

SuTface Elebull 880 FLWell Dep lh 1238 Ft

-__--~----~

V --

o1950

200 J--------~~----__r_-__-__I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

100 --------------------

-400 1-_---_------_--- --_---_--

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

800

cJ600O(J)

~ Igt ~III- 0 400Wc s _III $ 200

1000

cJO(J) 800~~gt IIQ) gt 600iii8 III$-III U 400~

cJg (J) 200 +-----------------~iiigt at011 gtiii ~ 0~ ell

c~~ ~2oo

Surface Elebull 610 II_____Well 0epIh 1690 fl

rr ~ JIpr- I

) J V

o----~=------------

Well No 32middot15-1 01City of Euless Tarrant County

Twin Mountains Formation

~o -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

cJ2 (J) -200 +-----r-shyiit -gt Qlbull gtiii 8 -400 f-----

S~~~O

Surface Elev 725 ftWell Deplh 621t

Surface Elev 828 IIWell Depth 560 II

Surface 111-1 1DO PlWell Depth 128 R

~ ~_~~---- eo -bull

1000

c-JOf) 800iiEgt QlQ) gt- 0 600wg III

Ql -ftj a 400~

400 --------------------

200 +-----------------------1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Well No 32middot46middot907Johnson County

Twin Mountains Formation

cJo (J) 200 ii-----Ogt__~igt tlQ) gtiii8 0

~~~ ~ -200

-400 L--------r--shy

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

1400 ---~-----------------

Well No 19-51-901Wise County

Twin Mountains Formation

c-Jg ~ 1200(Vgt Q)

~ ] 1000iii ~ -~ ~ 800

600 l-__~_~~-_--- ~_---l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Figure 6 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

9

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3Table 4

Table 5Table 6Table 7Table 8Table 9Table 10Table 11

Table 12

Table 13Table 14

TABLES

Water-level differences within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 10Water-level differences within the Paluxy FormationTrinity aquifer 10Water-level differences within the Woodbine aquifer 14Groundwater quality in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 22Groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer 23Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer 23Historical and projected populations for the study area 27Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 34Historical water use for the study area 36Projected water demands by source type for the study area 48Estimated groundwater availability for Cooke DentonGrayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise Counties 50Historical groundwater and pumpage for Cooke DentonGrayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise Counties 51Future water allocations based on the 1997 State Water Plan 52Reservoir capacity and supply 54

v

INTRODUCTION

North-central Texas is the most populous region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe population and is expected to more than double by 2050 (1WDB 1997) The areaaccounts for approximately 6 percent of the States annual water use By 2050 wateruse in this area is expected to increase about 90 percent (1WDB1997) Water isimportant to sustain the areas growing population and an economy Although there hasnot been any major water deficits in the area groundwater levels have declined 100 to1100 feet in the Trinity aquifer and 200 to 400 feet in the Woodbine aquifer since 1900(Mace and others 1994)

This report is an update to Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Report 318Evaluation of Water Resources in Part of North-Central Texas by Baker and otherspublished in January 1990 1WDB Report 318 was prepared in response to the 1985passage of House Bill 2 by the 69th Texas Legislature This Act in part focused onaddressing areas of the State where groundwater quality and quantity weredeteriorating This report is in response to Senate Bill 1 (SB-1) passed in 1997 by the75th Texas Legislature This Act requires identification of those areas of the State thatare experiencing or are expected to experience critical water problems within theimmediately following 25-year period This may include shortages of surface water orgroundwater land subsidence resulting from groundwater withdrawal and contamination of groundwater supplies Presently no groundwater districts have beencreated in the study area

This report updates the hydrogeological conditions water demands and wateravailability in the study area Water levels and water quality were used to assess thecurrent status of the groundwater resource and possible future trends Populationhistorical water use and projected water demands were compiled from 1WDB reportsand databases and analyzed for the study area

The study area is in north-central Texas (Figure 1) and is defined by the Red River tothe north the outcrop edge of the Trinity aquifer to the west the downdip limit of theWoodbine aquifer to the east (as defined by the slightly saline line) and the southernboundaries of Hood Johnson and Ellis Counties to the south The study area lieswithin the Red Sulphur Sabine Trinity and Brazos River basins It encompasses all orparts of Collin Cooke Dallas Delta Denton Ellis Fannin Grayson Hood HuntJohnson Kaufman Lamar Montague Navarro Parker Red River Rockwall Tarrantand Wise Counties

1

- ~ ~ ~

N

tO~25~50 Miles

o study area extent-- major highwayso citiesI county

Figure 1 Location of the study area in north-central Texas

2

HYDROGEOLOGY

Groundwater flow and the groundwater resource is controlled in part by the geology inthe region water levels precipitation as it relates to recharge and water quality

Geology

The primary aquifers in the area include the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers with minoramounts of water also produced from the Blossom and Nacatoch Sands Theseaquifers are briefly discussed below The geology and hydrogeology of the study areaare discussed in more detail by Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) and Bakerand others (1990)

The Trinity aquifer is composed of Cretaceous age formations of the Trinity Group andextends through the central part of Texas from the Red River to the north and throughthe Hill Country to the south (Ashworth and Hopkins 1995) The Trinity aquifer is theonly major aquifer within the study area (Figure 2) and includes the Antlers TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations The Antlers Formation consists of the TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations where the Glen Rose Formation confining layerpinches out Because the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations are closely relatedhydrologically they are often discussed together (eg Baker and others 1990)

Outcrops of the Antlers Formation are located mainly in Montague Wise and CookeCounties The Antlers Formation is about 400 feet in thickness near the outcrop andincreases to about 900 feet in southeast Grayson County The Twin MountainsFormation outcrops in the western part of the study area in Hood Parker and WiseCounties The thickness of the Twin Mountains Formation varies from less than 200feet near the outcrop to approximately 1000 feet at the downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water The Paluxy Formation outcrops in Hood Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties The thickness of the Paluxy Formation varies considerably from about 400feet in the northernpart of the study area to less than 100 feet in the southern part(Nordstrom 1982)

Minor aquifers in the area consist of the Woodbine Formation the Blossom Sand andthe Nacatoch Sand (Figure 3) The Woodbine Formation outcrops in Johnson TarrantDenton Cooke and Grayson Counties (Baker and others 1990) The WoodbineFormation trends in a north-south direction extending from the Red River to the northand to northern McClennan County to the south The thickness of the WoodbineFormation ranges from about 230 feet near the southern extent of the outcrop toapproximately 700 feet near the downdip limit of fresh to slightly saline water

The Blossom Sand outcrops in central Fannin Lamar and Red River Counties TheNacatoch Sand is exposed in Delta Hunt Kaufman Lamar Navarro and Red River

3

N

t

~ - o county

Trinity aquifero outcrop1---1 downdip

Ity aqUifer in the studyareaFigure 2 L ocatlon of the Trinmiddot

4

JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

N

i~~~~50 Miles

o countyBlossom Sand a _ outcrop qUifer

II IdowndipNacatoch Sand ~ outcrop aquifer

0downdiproodbine aquifer

outcrop1-1 downdip

Figure 3 Locatlon of mlnor aqUifers in the st du yarea

5

Counties (Baker and others 1990) Because wells from these aquifers typicallyproduce smaiLyields of usable water (Baker and others 1990) they will not bediscussed in this report The Blossom and Nacatoch Sands are discussed in more detailby Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) Ashworth (1988) and McLaurin (1988)

Water-Level Fluctuations

Water-level changes from 1989 to the present are shown in contour maps hydrographsand tables constructed using groundwater-level elevation data from the TWDBgroundwater database for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations the PaluxyFormation and the Woodbine Formation (TWDB 1998a control data in Appendix A)Most of the wells used to investigate water levels in TWDB Report 318 (Baker andothers 1990) are also used in this report Wells 19-23-701 32-37-702 and 33-19-301were not used due to unreliable water-level measurements owing to well problems andwere replaced with nearby wells 19-15-701 19-60-601 and 33-50-502 respectively

Groundwater flow in the Antlers and twin Mountains Formations of the Trinity aquifer isgenerally to the east-southeast (Figure 4) A cone of depression caused by heavypumpage is centered in northern-eastern Tarrant County and extends into Dallas andDenton Counties (Figure 4) Another potential cone of depression may exist innorthwest Ellis County The largest change in water level between 1989 and 1997 iscentered around the city of Euless within the Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex (Figure 5)Water-level declines in this area range from 50 to 200 feet and extend fromnortheastern Tarrant County to western Dallas County Water levels have risenapproximately 100 feet in southern Denton County and 200 feet in southeastern TarrantCounty and southwestern Dallas County Water levels have recovered in northernJohnson County but continue to decline in the southern part of the county

Water levels in individual wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show avariety of historical water-level changes (Figure 6) Some wells show little change overthe past 30 years (19-20-801 19-51-901 19-15-701) while others show overall declinesranging from 200 to 500 ft (32-46-90719-24-70232-16-101) A well in Dallas County(33-19-101) shows a water-level decline of 143 feet from 1970 to 1985 and hasrecovered 99 feet since 1985 Since 1989 water levels in selected wells have declinedas much as 235 feet and rebounded as much as about 75 feet (Table 1) Rates ofwater-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +833 to -2936 feet per year(Table 1)

Groundwater flow in the Paluxy Formation is generally to the east-southeast (Figure 7)Water levels have declined in the northern portion of the aquifer and risen for most ofthe southern portion since 1989 (Figure 8) The greatest water-level differencesbetween 1989 to 1997 occur north of Parker and Tarrant Counties Water-levelelevations in Denton County have decreased 15 to 35 feet while most of TarrantCounty shows an increase of 5 to 25 feet (Figure 8)

6

25 50 Miles

bull wellscontours (feet above msl)

i-j countyT-rfnify aquifero outcropI1 downdip

contour interval - 200 feetdatum - mean sea level

oHUNT

JACK

25 50 Miles

wellscontours (feet above msl)

-~countyTriniiy aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 50 feet

o

HUNT

r- -

i

~1

~

bull ~ --_

Figure 5 Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers an - between 1989 and 1997

co

Well No 19-20-801Montague CountyAntlers Formation

Well No 19middot15-701Cooke County

Antlers Formation

20001990

Surface ee 763 ItWell Depth 34 It

Surface e 405 ItWell Qeplh 3076 It

1970 1980Date

Well No 19middot24middot702Cooke County

Antlers Formation

Well No 33-19middot101City of Dallas Dallas CountyTwin Mountains Formation

1960

SuTface Elebull 880 FLWell Dep lh 1238 Ft

-__--~----~

V --

o1950

200 J--------~~----__r_-__-__I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

100 --------------------

-400 1-_---_------_--- --_---_--

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

800

cJ600O(J)

~ Igt ~III- 0 400Wc s _III $ 200

1000

cJO(J) 800~~gt IIQ) gt 600iii8 III$-III U 400~

cJg (J) 200 +-----------------~iiigt at011 gtiii ~ 0~ ell

c~~ ~2oo

Surface Elebull 610 II_____Well 0epIh 1690 fl

rr ~ JIpr- I

) J V

o----~=------------

Well No 32middot15-1 01City of Euless Tarrant County

Twin Mountains Formation

~o -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

cJ2 (J) -200 +-----r-shyiit -gt Qlbull gtiii 8 -400 f-----

S~~~O

Surface Elev 725 ftWell Deplh 621t

Surface Elev 828 IIWell Depth 560 II

Surface 111-1 1DO PlWell Depth 128 R

~ ~_~~---- eo -bull

1000

c-JOf) 800iiEgt QlQ) gt- 0 600wg III

Ql -ftj a 400~

400 --------------------

200 +-----------------------1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Well No 32middot46middot907Johnson County

Twin Mountains Formation

cJo (J) 200 ii-----Ogt__~igt tlQ) gtiii8 0

~~~ ~ -200

-400 L--------r--shy

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

1400 ---~-----------------

Well No 19-51-901Wise County

Twin Mountains Formation

c-Jg ~ 1200(Vgt Q)

~ ] 1000iii ~ -~ ~ 800

600 l-__~_~~-_--- ~_---l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Figure 6 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

9

INTRODUCTION

North-central Texas is the most populous region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe population and is expected to more than double by 2050 (1WDB 1997) The areaaccounts for approximately 6 percent of the States annual water use By 2050 wateruse in this area is expected to increase about 90 percent (1WDB1997) Water isimportant to sustain the areas growing population and an economy Although there hasnot been any major water deficits in the area groundwater levels have declined 100 to1100 feet in the Trinity aquifer and 200 to 400 feet in the Woodbine aquifer since 1900(Mace and others 1994)

This report is an update to Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Report 318Evaluation of Water Resources in Part of North-Central Texas by Baker and otherspublished in January 1990 1WDB Report 318 was prepared in response to the 1985passage of House Bill 2 by the 69th Texas Legislature This Act in part focused onaddressing areas of the State where groundwater quality and quantity weredeteriorating This report is in response to Senate Bill 1 (SB-1) passed in 1997 by the75th Texas Legislature This Act requires identification of those areas of the State thatare experiencing or are expected to experience critical water problems within theimmediately following 25-year period This may include shortages of surface water orgroundwater land subsidence resulting from groundwater withdrawal and contamination of groundwater supplies Presently no groundwater districts have beencreated in the study area

This report updates the hydrogeological conditions water demands and wateravailability in the study area Water levels and water quality were used to assess thecurrent status of the groundwater resource and possible future trends Populationhistorical water use and projected water demands were compiled from 1WDB reportsand databases and analyzed for the study area

The study area is in north-central Texas (Figure 1) and is defined by the Red River tothe north the outcrop edge of the Trinity aquifer to the west the downdip limit of theWoodbine aquifer to the east (as defined by the slightly saline line) and the southernboundaries of Hood Johnson and Ellis Counties to the south The study area lieswithin the Red Sulphur Sabine Trinity and Brazos River basins It encompasses all orparts of Collin Cooke Dallas Delta Denton Ellis Fannin Grayson Hood HuntJohnson Kaufman Lamar Montague Navarro Parker Red River Rockwall Tarrantand Wise Counties

1

- ~ ~ ~

N

tO~25~50 Miles

o study area extent-- major highwayso citiesI county

Figure 1 Location of the study area in north-central Texas

2

HYDROGEOLOGY

Groundwater flow and the groundwater resource is controlled in part by the geology inthe region water levels precipitation as it relates to recharge and water quality

Geology

The primary aquifers in the area include the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers with minoramounts of water also produced from the Blossom and Nacatoch Sands Theseaquifers are briefly discussed below The geology and hydrogeology of the study areaare discussed in more detail by Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) and Bakerand others (1990)

The Trinity aquifer is composed of Cretaceous age formations of the Trinity Group andextends through the central part of Texas from the Red River to the north and throughthe Hill Country to the south (Ashworth and Hopkins 1995) The Trinity aquifer is theonly major aquifer within the study area (Figure 2) and includes the Antlers TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations The Antlers Formation consists of the TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations where the Glen Rose Formation confining layerpinches out Because the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations are closely relatedhydrologically they are often discussed together (eg Baker and others 1990)

Outcrops of the Antlers Formation are located mainly in Montague Wise and CookeCounties The Antlers Formation is about 400 feet in thickness near the outcrop andincreases to about 900 feet in southeast Grayson County The Twin MountainsFormation outcrops in the western part of the study area in Hood Parker and WiseCounties The thickness of the Twin Mountains Formation varies from less than 200feet near the outcrop to approximately 1000 feet at the downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water The Paluxy Formation outcrops in Hood Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties The thickness of the Paluxy Formation varies considerably from about 400feet in the northernpart of the study area to less than 100 feet in the southern part(Nordstrom 1982)

Minor aquifers in the area consist of the Woodbine Formation the Blossom Sand andthe Nacatoch Sand (Figure 3) The Woodbine Formation outcrops in Johnson TarrantDenton Cooke and Grayson Counties (Baker and others 1990) The WoodbineFormation trends in a north-south direction extending from the Red River to the northand to northern McClennan County to the south The thickness of the WoodbineFormation ranges from about 230 feet near the southern extent of the outcrop toapproximately 700 feet near the downdip limit of fresh to slightly saline water

The Blossom Sand outcrops in central Fannin Lamar and Red River Counties TheNacatoch Sand is exposed in Delta Hunt Kaufman Lamar Navarro and Red River

3

N

t

~ - o county

Trinity aquifero outcrop1---1 downdip

Ity aqUifer in the studyareaFigure 2 L ocatlon of the Trinmiddot

4

JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

N

i~~~~50 Miles

o countyBlossom Sand a _ outcrop qUifer

II IdowndipNacatoch Sand ~ outcrop aquifer

0downdiproodbine aquifer

outcrop1-1 downdip

Figure 3 Locatlon of mlnor aqUifers in the st du yarea

5

Counties (Baker and others 1990) Because wells from these aquifers typicallyproduce smaiLyields of usable water (Baker and others 1990) they will not bediscussed in this report The Blossom and Nacatoch Sands are discussed in more detailby Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) Ashworth (1988) and McLaurin (1988)

Water-Level Fluctuations

Water-level changes from 1989 to the present are shown in contour maps hydrographsand tables constructed using groundwater-level elevation data from the TWDBgroundwater database for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations the PaluxyFormation and the Woodbine Formation (TWDB 1998a control data in Appendix A)Most of the wells used to investigate water levels in TWDB Report 318 (Baker andothers 1990) are also used in this report Wells 19-23-701 32-37-702 and 33-19-301were not used due to unreliable water-level measurements owing to well problems andwere replaced with nearby wells 19-15-701 19-60-601 and 33-50-502 respectively

Groundwater flow in the Antlers and twin Mountains Formations of the Trinity aquifer isgenerally to the east-southeast (Figure 4) A cone of depression caused by heavypumpage is centered in northern-eastern Tarrant County and extends into Dallas andDenton Counties (Figure 4) Another potential cone of depression may exist innorthwest Ellis County The largest change in water level between 1989 and 1997 iscentered around the city of Euless within the Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex (Figure 5)Water-level declines in this area range from 50 to 200 feet and extend fromnortheastern Tarrant County to western Dallas County Water levels have risenapproximately 100 feet in southern Denton County and 200 feet in southeastern TarrantCounty and southwestern Dallas County Water levels have recovered in northernJohnson County but continue to decline in the southern part of the county

Water levels in individual wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show avariety of historical water-level changes (Figure 6) Some wells show little change overthe past 30 years (19-20-801 19-51-901 19-15-701) while others show overall declinesranging from 200 to 500 ft (32-46-90719-24-70232-16-101) A well in Dallas County(33-19-101) shows a water-level decline of 143 feet from 1970 to 1985 and hasrecovered 99 feet since 1985 Since 1989 water levels in selected wells have declinedas much as 235 feet and rebounded as much as about 75 feet (Table 1) Rates ofwater-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +833 to -2936 feet per year(Table 1)

Groundwater flow in the Paluxy Formation is generally to the east-southeast (Figure 7)Water levels have declined in the northern portion of the aquifer and risen for most ofthe southern portion since 1989 (Figure 8) The greatest water-level differencesbetween 1989 to 1997 occur north of Parker and Tarrant Counties Water-levelelevations in Denton County have decreased 15 to 35 feet while most of TarrantCounty shows an increase of 5 to 25 feet (Figure 8)

6

25 50 Miles

bull wellscontours (feet above msl)

i-j countyT-rfnify aquifero outcropI1 downdip

contour interval - 200 feetdatum - mean sea level

oHUNT

JACK

25 50 Miles

wellscontours (feet above msl)

-~countyTriniiy aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 50 feet

o

HUNT

r- -

i

~1

~

bull ~ --_

Figure 5 Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers an - between 1989 and 1997

co

Well No 19-20-801Montague CountyAntlers Formation

Well No 19middot15-701Cooke County

Antlers Formation

20001990

Surface ee 763 ItWell Depth 34 It

Surface e 405 ItWell Qeplh 3076 It

1970 1980Date

Well No 19middot24middot702Cooke County

Antlers Formation

Well No 33-19middot101City of Dallas Dallas CountyTwin Mountains Formation

1960

SuTface Elebull 880 FLWell Dep lh 1238 Ft

-__--~----~

V --

o1950

200 J--------~~----__r_-__-__I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

100 --------------------

-400 1-_---_------_--- --_---_--

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

800

cJ600O(J)

~ Igt ~III- 0 400Wc s _III $ 200

1000

cJO(J) 800~~gt IIQ) gt 600iii8 III$-III U 400~

cJg (J) 200 +-----------------~iiigt at011 gtiii ~ 0~ ell

c~~ ~2oo

Surface Elebull 610 II_____Well 0epIh 1690 fl

rr ~ JIpr- I

) J V

o----~=------------

Well No 32middot15-1 01City of Euless Tarrant County

Twin Mountains Formation

~o -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

cJ2 (J) -200 +-----r-shyiit -gt Qlbull gtiii 8 -400 f-----

S~~~O

Surface Elev 725 ftWell Deplh 621t

Surface Elev 828 IIWell Depth 560 II

Surface 111-1 1DO PlWell Depth 128 R

~ ~_~~---- eo -bull

1000

c-JOf) 800iiEgt QlQ) gt- 0 600wg III

Ql -ftj a 400~

400 --------------------

200 +-----------------------1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Well No 32middot46middot907Johnson County

Twin Mountains Formation

cJo (J) 200 ii-----Ogt__~igt tlQ) gtiii8 0

~~~ ~ -200

-400 L--------r--shy

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

1400 ---~-----------------

Well No 19-51-901Wise County

Twin Mountains Formation

c-Jg ~ 1200(Vgt Q)

~ ] 1000iii ~ -~ ~ 800

600 l-__~_~~-_--- ~_---l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Figure 6 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

9

- ~ ~ ~

N

tO~25~50 Miles

o study area extent-- major highwayso citiesI county

Figure 1 Location of the study area in north-central Texas

2

HYDROGEOLOGY

Groundwater flow and the groundwater resource is controlled in part by the geology inthe region water levels precipitation as it relates to recharge and water quality

Geology

The primary aquifers in the area include the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers with minoramounts of water also produced from the Blossom and Nacatoch Sands Theseaquifers are briefly discussed below The geology and hydrogeology of the study areaare discussed in more detail by Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) and Bakerand others (1990)

The Trinity aquifer is composed of Cretaceous age formations of the Trinity Group andextends through the central part of Texas from the Red River to the north and throughthe Hill Country to the south (Ashworth and Hopkins 1995) The Trinity aquifer is theonly major aquifer within the study area (Figure 2) and includes the Antlers TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations The Antlers Formation consists of the TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations where the Glen Rose Formation confining layerpinches out Because the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations are closely relatedhydrologically they are often discussed together (eg Baker and others 1990)

Outcrops of the Antlers Formation are located mainly in Montague Wise and CookeCounties The Antlers Formation is about 400 feet in thickness near the outcrop andincreases to about 900 feet in southeast Grayson County The Twin MountainsFormation outcrops in the western part of the study area in Hood Parker and WiseCounties The thickness of the Twin Mountains Formation varies from less than 200feet near the outcrop to approximately 1000 feet at the downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water The Paluxy Formation outcrops in Hood Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties The thickness of the Paluxy Formation varies considerably from about 400feet in the northernpart of the study area to less than 100 feet in the southern part(Nordstrom 1982)

Minor aquifers in the area consist of the Woodbine Formation the Blossom Sand andthe Nacatoch Sand (Figure 3) The Woodbine Formation outcrops in Johnson TarrantDenton Cooke and Grayson Counties (Baker and others 1990) The WoodbineFormation trends in a north-south direction extending from the Red River to the northand to northern McClennan County to the south The thickness of the WoodbineFormation ranges from about 230 feet near the southern extent of the outcrop toapproximately 700 feet near the downdip limit of fresh to slightly saline water

The Blossom Sand outcrops in central Fannin Lamar and Red River Counties TheNacatoch Sand is exposed in Delta Hunt Kaufman Lamar Navarro and Red River

3

N

t

~ - o county

Trinity aquifero outcrop1---1 downdip

Ity aqUifer in the studyareaFigure 2 L ocatlon of the Trinmiddot

4

JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

N

i~~~~50 Miles

o countyBlossom Sand a _ outcrop qUifer

II IdowndipNacatoch Sand ~ outcrop aquifer

0downdiproodbine aquifer

outcrop1-1 downdip

Figure 3 Locatlon of mlnor aqUifers in the st du yarea

5

Counties (Baker and others 1990) Because wells from these aquifers typicallyproduce smaiLyields of usable water (Baker and others 1990) they will not bediscussed in this report The Blossom and Nacatoch Sands are discussed in more detailby Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) Ashworth (1988) and McLaurin (1988)

Water-Level Fluctuations

Water-level changes from 1989 to the present are shown in contour maps hydrographsand tables constructed using groundwater-level elevation data from the TWDBgroundwater database for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations the PaluxyFormation and the Woodbine Formation (TWDB 1998a control data in Appendix A)Most of the wells used to investigate water levels in TWDB Report 318 (Baker andothers 1990) are also used in this report Wells 19-23-701 32-37-702 and 33-19-301were not used due to unreliable water-level measurements owing to well problems andwere replaced with nearby wells 19-15-701 19-60-601 and 33-50-502 respectively

Groundwater flow in the Antlers and twin Mountains Formations of the Trinity aquifer isgenerally to the east-southeast (Figure 4) A cone of depression caused by heavypumpage is centered in northern-eastern Tarrant County and extends into Dallas andDenton Counties (Figure 4) Another potential cone of depression may exist innorthwest Ellis County The largest change in water level between 1989 and 1997 iscentered around the city of Euless within the Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex (Figure 5)Water-level declines in this area range from 50 to 200 feet and extend fromnortheastern Tarrant County to western Dallas County Water levels have risenapproximately 100 feet in southern Denton County and 200 feet in southeastern TarrantCounty and southwestern Dallas County Water levels have recovered in northernJohnson County but continue to decline in the southern part of the county

Water levels in individual wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show avariety of historical water-level changes (Figure 6) Some wells show little change overthe past 30 years (19-20-801 19-51-901 19-15-701) while others show overall declinesranging from 200 to 500 ft (32-46-90719-24-70232-16-101) A well in Dallas County(33-19-101) shows a water-level decline of 143 feet from 1970 to 1985 and hasrecovered 99 feet since 1985 Since 1989 water levels in selected wells have declinedas much as 235 feet and rebounded as much as about 75 feet (Table 1) Rates ofwater-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +833 to -2936 feet per year(Table 1)

Groundwater flow in the Paluxy Formation is generally to the east-southeast (Figure 7)Water levels have declined in the northern portion of the aquifer and risen for most ofthe southern portion since 1989 (Figure 8) The greatest water-level differencesbetween 1989 to 1997 occur north of Parker and Tarrant Counties Water-levelelevations in Denton County have decreased 15 to 35 feet while most of TarrantCounty shows an increase of 5 to 25 feet (Figure 8)

6

25 50 Miles

bull wellscontours (feet above msl)

i-j countyT-rfnify aquifero outcropI1 downdip

contour interval - 200 feetdatum - mean sea level

oHUNT

JACK

25 50 Miles

wellscontours (feet above msl)

-~countyTriniiy aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 50 feet

o

HUNT

r- -

i

~1

~

bull ~ --_

Figure 5 Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers an - between 1989 and 1997

co

Well No 19-20-801Montague CountyAntlers Formation

Well No 19middot15-701Cooke County

Antlers Formation

20001990

Surface ee 763 ItWell Depth 34 It

Surface e 405 ItWell Qeplh 3076 It

1970 1980Date

Well No 19middot24middot702Cooke County

Antlers Formation

Well No 33-19middot101City of Dallas Dallas CountyTwin Mountains Formation

1960

SuTface Elebull 880 FLWell Dep lh 1238 Ft

-__--~----~

V --

o1950

200 J--------~~----__r_-__-__I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

100 --------------------

-400 1-_---_------_--- --_---_--

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

800

cJ600O(J)

~ Igt ~III- 0 400Wc s _III $ 200

1000

cJO(J) 800~~gt IIQ) gt 600iii8 III$-III U 400~

cJg (J) 200 +-----------------~iiigt at011 gtiii ~ 0~ ell

c~~ ~2oo

Surface Elebull 610 II_____Well 0epIh 1690 fl

rr ~ JIpr- I

) J V

o----~=------------

Well No 32middot15-1 01City of Euless Tarrant County

Twin Mountains Formation

~o -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

cJ2 (J) -200 +-----r-shyiit -gt Qlbull gtiii 8 -400 f-----

S~~~O

Surface Elev 725 ftWell Deplh 621t

Surface Elev 828 IIWell Depth 560 II

Surface 111-1 1DO PlWell Depth 128 R

~ ~_~~---- eo -bull

1000

c-JOf) 800iiEgt QlQ) gt- 0 600wg III

Ql -ftj a 400~

400 --------------------

200 +-----------------------1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Well No 32middot46middot907Johnson County

Twin Mountains Formation

cJo (J) 200 ii-----Ogt__~igt tlQ) gtiii8 0

~~~ ~ -200

-400 L--------r--shy

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

1400 ---~-----------------

Well No 19-51-901Wise County

Twin Mountains Formation

c-Jg ~ 1200(Vgt Q)

~ ] 1000iii ~ -~ ~ 800

600 l-__~_~~-_--- ~_---l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Figure 6 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

9

HYDROGEOLOGY

Groundwater flow and the groundwater resource is controlled in part by the geology inthe region water levels precipitation as it relates to recharge and water quality

Geology

The primary aquifers in the area include the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers with minoramounts of water also produced from the Blossom and Nacatoch Sands Theseaquifers are briefly discussed below The geology and hydrogeology of the study areaare discussed in more detail by Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) and Bakerand others (1990)

The Trinity aquifer is composed of Cretaceous age formations of the Trinity Group andextends through the central part of Texas from the Red River to the north and throughthe Hill Country to the south (Ashworth and Hopkins 1995) The Trinity aquifer is theonly major aquifer within the study area (Figure 2) and includes the Antlers TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations The Antlers Formation consists of the TwinMountains and Paluxy Formations where the Glen Rose Formation confining layerpinches out Because the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations are closely relatedhydrologically they are often discussed together (eg Baker and others 1990)

Outcrops of the Antlers Formation are located mainly in Montague Wise and CookeCounties The Antlers Formation is about 400 feet in thickness near the outcrop andincreases to about 900 feet in southeast Grayson County The Twin MountainsFormation outcrops in the western part of the study area in Hood Parker and WiseCounties The thickness of the Twin Mountains Formation varies from less than 200feet near the outcrop to approximately 1000 feet at the downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water The Paluxy Formation outcrops in Hood Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties The thickness of the Paluxy Formation varies considerably from about 400feet in the northernpart of the study area to less than 100 feet in the southern part(Nordstrom 1982)

Minor aquifers in the area consist of the Woodbine Formation the Blossom Sand andthe Nacatoch Sand (Figure 3) The Woodbine Formation outcrops in Johnson TarrantDenton Cooke and Grayson Counties (Baker and others 1990) The WoodbineFormation trends in a north-south direction extending from the Red River to the northand to northern McClennan County to the south The thickness of the WoodbineFormation ranges from about 230 feet near the southern extent of the outcrop toapproximately 700 feet near the downdip limit of fresh to slightly saline water

The Blossom Sand outcrops in central Fannin Lamar and Red River Counties TheNacatoch Sand is exposed in Delta Hunt Kaufman Lamar Navarro and Red River

3

N

t

~ - o county

Trinity aquifero outcrop1---1 downdip

Ity aqUifer in the studyareaFigure 2 L ocatlon of the Trinmiddot

4

JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

N

i~~~~50 Miles

o countyBlossom Sand a _ outcrop qUifer

II IdowndipNacatoch Sand ~ outcrop aquifer

0downdiproodbine aquifer

outcrop1-1 downdip

Figure 3 Locatlon of mlnor aqUifers in the st du yarea

5

Counties (Baker and others 1990) Because wells from these aquifers typicallyproduce smaiLyields of usable water (Baker and others 1990) they will not bediscussed in this report The Blossom and Nacatoch Sands are discussed in more detailby Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) Ashworth (1988) and McLaurin (1988)

Water-Level Fluctuations

Water-level changes from 1989 to the present are shown in contour maps hydrographsand tables constructed using groundwater-level elevation data from the TWDBgroundwater database for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations the PaluxyFormation and the Woodbine Formation (TWDB 1998a control data in Appendix A)Most of the wells used to investigate water levels in TWDB Report 318 (Baker andothers 1990) are also used in this report Wells 19-23-701 32-37-702 and 33-19-301were not used due to unreliable water-level measurements owing to well problems andwere replaced with nearby wells 19-15-701 19-60-601 and 33-50-502 respectively

Groundwater flow in the Antlers and twin Mountains Formations of the Trinity aquifer isgenerally to the east-southeast (Figure 4) A cone of depression caused by heavypumpage is centered in northern-eastern Tarrant County and extends into Dallas andDenton Counties (Figure 4) Another potential cone of depression may exist innorthwest Ellis County The largest change in water level between 1989 and 1997 iscentered around the city of Euless within the Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex (Figure 5)Water-level declines in this area range from 50 to 200 feet and extend fromnortheastern Tarrant County to western Dallas County Water levels have risenapproximately 100 feet in southern Denton County and 200 feet in southeastern TarrantCounty and southwestern Dallas County Water levels have recovered in northernJohnson County but continue to decline in the southern part of the county

Water levels in individual wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show avariety of historical water-level changes (Figure 6) Some wells show little change overthe past 30 years (19-20-801 19-51-901 19-15-701) while others show overall declinesranging from 200 to 500 ft (32-46-90719-24-70232-16-101) A well in Dallas County(33-19-101) shows a water-level decline of 143 feet from 1970 to 1985 and hasrecovered 99 feet since 1985 Since 1989 water levels in selected wells have declinedas much as 235 feet and rebounded as much as about 75 feet (Table 1) Rates ofwater-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +833 to -2936 feet per year(Table 1)

Groundwater flow in the Paluxy Formation is generally to the east-southeast (Figure 7)Water levels have declined in the northern portion of the aquifer and risen for most ofthe southern portion since 1989 (Figure 8) The greatest water-level differencesbetween 1989 to 1997 occur north of Parker and Tarrant Counties Water-levelelevations in Denton County have decreased 15 to 35 feet while most of TarrantCounty shows an increase of 5 to 25 feet (Figure 8)

6

25 50 Miles

bull wellscontours (feet above msl)

i-j countyT-rfnify aquifero outcropI1 downdip

contour interval - 200 feetdatum - mean sea level

oHUNT

JACK

25 50 Miles

wellscontours (feet above msl)

-~countyTriniiy aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 50 feet

o

HUNT

r- -

i

~1

~

bull ~ --_

Figure 5 Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers an - between 1989 and 1997

co

Well No 19-20-801Montague CountyAntlers Formation

Well No 19middot15-701Cooke County

Antlers Formation

20001990

Surface ee 763 ItWell Depth 34 It

Surface e 405 ItWell Qeplh 3076 It

1970 1980Date

Well No 19middot24middot702Cooke County

Antlers Formation

Well No 33-19middot101City of Dallas Dallas CountyTwin Mountains Formation

1960

SuTface Elebull 880 FLWell Dep lh 1238 Ft

-__--~----~

V --

o1950

200 J--------~~----__r_-__-__I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

100 --------------------

-400 1-_---_------_--- --_---_--

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

800

cJ600O(J)

~ Igt ~III- 0 400Wc s _III $ 200

1000

cJO(J) 800~~gt IIQ) gt 600iii8 III$-III U 400~

cJg (J) 200 +-----------------~iiigt at011 gtiii ~ 0~ ell

c~~ ~2oo

Surface Elebull 610 II_____Well 0epIh 1690 fl

rr ~ JIpr- I

) J V

o----~=------------

Well No 32middot15-1 01City of Euless Tarrant County

Twin Mountains Formation

~o -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

cJ2 (J) -200 +-----r-shyiit -gt Qlbull gtiii 8 -400 f-----

S~~~O

Surface Elev 725 ftWell Deplh 621t

Surface Elev 828 IIWell Depth 560 II

Surface 111-1 1DO PlWell Depth 128 R

~ ~_~~---- eo -bull

1000

c-JOf) 800iiEgt QlQ) gt- 0 600wg III

Ql -ftj a 400~

400 --------------------

200 +-----------------------1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Well No 32middot46middot907Johnson County

Twin Mountains Formation

cJo (J) 200 ii-----Ogt__~igt tlQ) gtiii8 0

~~~ ~ -200

-400 L--------r--shy

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

1400 ---~-----------------

Well No 19-51-901Wise County

Twin Mountains Formation

c-Jg ~ 1200(Vgt Q)

~ ] 1000iii ~ -~ ~ 800

600 l-__~_~~-_--- ~_---l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Figure 6 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

9

N

t

~ - o county

Trinity aquifero outcrop1---1 downdip

Ity aqUifer in the studyareaFigure 2 L ocatlon of the Trinmiddot

4

JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

N

i~~~~50 Miles

o countyBlossom Sand a _ outcrop qUifer

II IdowndipNacatoch Sand ~ outcrop aquifer

0downdiproodbine aquifer

outcrop1-1 downdip

Figure 3 Locatlon of mlnor aqUifers in the st du yarea

5

Counties (Baker and others 1990) Because wells from these aquifers typicallyproduce smaiLyields of usable water (Baker and others 1990) they will not bediscussed in this report The Blossom and Nacatoch Sands are discussed in more detailby Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) Ashworth (1988) and McLaurin (1988)

Water-Level Fluctuations

Water-level changes from 1989 to the present are shown in contour maps hydrographsand tables constructed using groundwater-level elevation data from the TWDBgroundwater database for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations the PaluxyFormation and the Woodbine Formation (TWDB 1998a control data in Appendix A)Most of the wells used to investigate water levels in TWDB Report 318 (Baker andothers 1990) are also used in this report Wells 19-23-701 32-37-702 and 33-19-301were not used due to unreliable water-level measurements owing to well problems andwere replaced with nearby wells 19-15-701 19-60-601 and 33-50-502 respectively

Groundwater flow in the Antlers and twin Mountains Formations of the Trinity aquifer isgenerally to the east-southeast (Figure 4) A cone of depression caused by heavypumpage is centered in northern-eastern Tarrant County and extends into Dallas andDenton Counties (Figure 4) Another potential cone of depression may exist innorthwest Ellis County The largest change in water level between 1989 and 1997 iscentered around the city of Euless within the Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex (Figure 5)Water-level declines in this area range from 50 to 200 feet and extend fromnortheastern Tarrant County to western Dallas County Water levels have risenapproximately 100 feet in southern Denton County and 200 feet in southeastern TarrantCounty and southwestern Dallas County Water levels have recovered in northernJohnson County but continue to decline in the southern part of the county

Water levels in individual wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show avariety of historical water-level changes (Figure 6) Some wells show little change overthe past 30 years (19-20-801 19-51-901 19-15-701) while others show overall declinesranging from 200 to 500 ft (32-46-90719-24-70232-16-101) A well in Dallas County(33-19-101) shows a water-level decline of 143 feet from 1970 to 1985 and hasrecovered 99 feet since 1985 Since 1989 water levels in selected wells have declinedas much as 235 feet and rebounded as much as about 75 feet (Table 1) Rates ofwater-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +833 to -2936 feet per year(Table 1)

Groundwater flow in the Paluxy Formation is generally to the east-southeast (Figure 7)Water levels have declined in the northern portion of the aquifer and risen for most ofthe southern portion since 1989 (Figure 8) The greatest water-level differencesbetween 1989 to 1997 occur north of Parker and Tarrant Counties Water-levelelevations in Denton County have decreased 15 to 35 feet while most of TarrantCounty shows an increase of 5 to 25 feet (Figure 8)

6

25 50 Miles

bull wellscontours (feet above msl)

i-j countyT-rfnify aquifero outcropI1 downdip

contour interval - 200 feetdatum - mean sea level

oHUNT

JACK

25 50 Miles

wellscontours (feet above msl)

-~countyTriniiy aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 50 feet

o

HUNT

r- -

i

~1

~

bull ~ --_

Figure 5 Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers an - between 1989 and 1997

co

Well No 19-20-801Montague CountyAntlers Formation

Well No 19middot15-701Cooke County

Antlers Formation

20001990

Surface ee 763 ItWell Depth 34 It

Surface e 405 ItWell Qeplh 3076 It

1970 1980Date

Well No 19middot24middot702Cooke County

Antlers Formation

Well No 33-19middot101City of Dallas Dallas CountyTwin Mountains Formation

1960

SuTface Elebull 880 FLWell Dep lh 1238 Ft

-__--~----~

V --

o1950

200 J--------~~----__r_-__-__I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

100 --------------------

-400 1-_---_------_--- --_---_--

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

800

cJ600O(J)

~ Igt ~III- 0 400Wc s _III $ 200

1000

cJO(J) 800~~gt IIQ) gt 600iii8 III$-III U 400~

cJg (J) 200 +-----------------~iiigt at011 gtiii ~ 0~ ell

c~~ ~2oo

Surface Elebull 610 II_____Well 0epIh 1690 fl

rr ~ JIpr- I

) J V

o----~=------------

Well No 32middot15-1 01City of Euless Tarrant County

Twin Mountains Formation

~o -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

cJ2 (J) -200 +-----r-shyiit -gt Qlbull gtiii 8 -400 f-----

S~~~O

Surface Elev 725 ftWell Deplh 621t

Surface Elev 828 IIWell Depth 560 II

Surface 111-1 1DO PlWell Depth 128 R

~ ~_~~---- eo -bull

1000

c-JOf) 800iiEgt QlQ) gt- 0 600wg III

Ql -ftj a 400~

400 --------------------

200 +-----------------------1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Well No 32middot46middot907Johnson County

Twin Mountains Formation

cJo (J) 200 ii-----Ogt__~igt tlQ) gtiii8 0

~~~ ~ -200

-400 L--------r--shy

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

1400 ---~-----------------

Well No 19-51-901Wise County

Twin Mountains Formation

c-Jg ~ 1200(Vgt Q)

~ ] 1000iii ~ -~ ~ 800

600 l-__~_~~-_--- ~_---l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Figure 6 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

9

JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

N

i~~~~50 Miles

o countyBlossom Sand a _ outcrop qUifer

II IdowndipNacatoch Sand ~ outcrop aquifer

0downdiproodbine aquifer

outcrop1-1 downdip

Figure 3 Locatlon of mlnor aqUifers in the st du yarea

5

Counties (Baker and others 1990) Because wells from these aquifers typicallyproduce smaiLyields of usable water (Baker and others 1990) they will not bediscussed in this report The Blossom and Nacatoch Sands are discussed in more detailby Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) Ashworth (1988) and McLaurin (1988)

Water-Level Fluctuations

Water-level changes from 1989 to the present are shown in contour maps hydrographsand tables constructed using groundwater-level elevation data from the TWDBgroundwater database for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations the PaluxyFormation and the Woodbine Formation (TWDB 1998a control data in Appendix A)Most of the wells used to investigate water levels in TWDB Report 318 (Baker andothers 1990) are also used in this report Wells 19-23-701 32-37-702 and 33-19-301were not used due to unreliable water-level measurements owing to well problems andwere replaced with nearby wells 19-15-701 19-60-601 and 33-50-502 respectively

Groundwater flow in the Antlers and twin Mountains Formations of the Trinity aquifer isgenerally to the east-southeast (Figure 4) A cone of depression caused by heavypumpage is centered in northern-eastern Tarrant County and extends into Dallas andDenton Counties (Figure 4) Another potential cone of depression may exist innorthwest Ellis County The largest change in water level between 1989 and 1997 iscentered around the city of Euless within the Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex (Figure 5)Water-level declines in this area range from 50 to 200 feet and extend fromnortheastern Tarrant County to western Dallas County Water levels have risenapproximately 100 feet in southern Denton County and 200 feet in southeastern TarrantCounty and southwestern Dallas County Water levels have recovered in northernJohnson County but continue to decline in the southern part of the county

Water levels in individual wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show avariety of historical water-level changes (Figure 6) Some wells show little change overthe past 30 years (19-20-801 19-51-901 19-15-701) while others show overall declinesranging from 200 to 500 ft (32-46-90719-24-70232-16-101) A well in Dallas County(33-19-101) shows a water-level decline of 143 feet from 1970 to 1985 and hasrecovered 99 feet since 1985 Since 1989 water levels in selected wells have declinedas much as 235 feet and rebounded as much as about 75 feet (Table 1) Rates ofwater-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +833 to -2936 feet per year(Table 1)

Groundwater flow in the Paluxy Formation is generally to the east-southeast (Figure 7)Water levels have declined in the northern portion of the aquifer and risen for most ofthe southern portion since 1989 (Figure 8) The greatest water-level differencesbetween 1989 to 1997 occur north of Parker and Tarrant Counties Water-levelelevations in Denton County have decreased 15 to 35 feet while most of TarrantCounty shows an increase of 5 to 25 feet (Figure 8)

6

25 50 Miles

bull wellscontours (feet above msl)

i-j countyT-rfnify aquifero outcropI1 downdip

contour interval - 200 feetdatum - mean sea level

oHUNT

JACK

25 50 Miles

wellscontours (feet above msl)

-~countyTriniiy aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 50 feet

o

HUNT

r- -

i

~1

~

bull ~ --_

Figure 5 Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers an - between 1989 and 1997

co

Well No 19-20-801Montague CountyAntlers Formation

Well No 19middot15-701Cooke County

Antlers Formation

20001990

Surface ee 763 ItWell Depth 34 It

Surface e 405 ItWell Qeplh 3076 It

1970 1980Date

Well No 19middot24middot702Cooke County

Antlers Formation

Well No 33-19middot101City of Dallas Dallas CountyTwin Mountains Formation

1960

SuTface Elebull 880 FLWell Dep lh 1238 Ft

-__--~----~

V --

o1950

200 J--------~~----__r_-__-__I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

100 --------------------

-400 1-_---_------_--- --_---_--

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

800

cJ600O(J)

~ Igt ~III- 0 400Wc s _III $ 200

1000

cJO(J) 800~~gt IIQ) gt 600iii8 III$-III U 400~

cJg (J) 200 +-----------------~iiigt at011 gtiii ~ 0~ ell

c~~ ~2oo

Surface Elebull 610 II_____Well 0epIh 1690 fl

rr ~ JIpr- I

) J V

o----~=------------

Well No 32middot15-1 01City of Euless Tarrant County

Twin Mountains Formation

~o -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

cJ2 (J) -200 +-----r-shyiit -gt Qlbull gtiii 8 -400 f-----

S~~~O

Surface Elev 725 ftWell Deplh 621t

Surface Elev 828 IIWell Depth 560 II

Surface 111-1 1DO PlWell Depth 128 R

~ ~_~~---- eo -bull

1000

c-JOf) 800iiEgt QlQ) gt- 0 600wg III

Ql -ftj a 400~

400 --------------------

200 +-----------------------1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Well No 32middot46middot907Johnson County

Twin Mountains Formation

cJo (J) 200 ii-----Ogt__~igt tlQ) gtiii8 0

~~~ ~ -200

-400 L--------r--shy

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

1400 ---~-----------------

Well No 19-51-901Wise County

Twin Mountains Formation

c-Jg ~ 1200(Vgt Q)

~ ] 1000iii ~ -~ ~ 800

600 l-__~_~~-_--- ~_---l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Figure 6 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

9

Counties (Baker and others 1990) Because wells from these aquifers typicallyproduce smaiLyields of usable water (Baker and others 1990) they will not bediscussed in this report The Blossom and Nacatoch Sands are discussed in more detailby Muller and Price (1979) Nordstrom (1982) Ashworth (1988) and McLaurin (1988)

Water-Level Fluctuations

Water-level changes from 1989 to the present are shown in contour maps hydrographsand tables constructed using groundwater-level elevation data from the TWDBgroundwater database for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations the PaluxyFormation and the Woodbine Formation (TWDB 1998a control data in Appendix A)Most of the wells used to investigate water levels in TWDB Report 318 (Baker andothers 1990) are also used in this report Wells 19-23-701 32-37-702 and 33-19-301were not used due to unreliable water-level measurements owing to well problems andwere replaced with nearby wells 19-15-701 19-60-601 and 33-50-502 respectively

Groundwater flow in the Antlers and twin Mountains Formations of the Trinity aquifer isgenerally to the east-southeast (Figure 4) A cone of depression caused by heavypumpage is centered in northern-eastern Tarrant County and extends into Dallas andDenton Counties (Figure 4) Another potential cone of depression may exist innorthwest Ellis County The largest change in water level between 1989 and 1997 iscentered around the city of Euless within the Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex (Figure 5)Water-level declines in this area range from 50 to 200 feet and extend fromnortheastern Tarrant County to western Dallas County Water levels have risenapproximately 100 feet in southern Denton County and 200 feet in southeastern TarrantCounty and southwestern Dallas County Water levels have recovered in northernJohnson County but continue to decline in the southern part of the county

Water levels in individual wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show avariety of historical water-level changes (Figure 6) Some wells show little change overthe past 30 years (19-20-801 19-51-901 19-15-701) while others show overall declinesranging from 200 to 500 ft (32-46-90719-24-70232-16-101) A well in Dallas County(33-19-101) shows a water-level decline of 143 feet from 1970 to 1985 and hasrecovered 99 feet since 1985 Since 1989 water levels in selected wells have declinedas much as 235 feet and rebounded as much as about 75 feet (Table 1) Rates ofwater-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +833 to -2936 feet per year(Table 1)

Groundwater flow in the Paluxy Formation is generally to the east-southeast (Figure 7)Water levels have declined in the northern portion of the aquifer and risen for most ofthe southern portion since 1989 (Figure 8) The greatest water-level differencesbetween 1989 to 1997 occur north of Parker and Tarrant Counties Water-levelelevations in Denton County have decreased 15 to 35 feet while most of TarrantCounty shows an increase of 5 to 25 feet (Figure 8)

6

25 50 Miles

bull wellscontours (feet above msl)

i-j countyT-rfnify aquifero outcropI1 downdip

contour interval - 200 feetdatum - mean sea level

oHUNT

JACK

25 50 Miles

wellscontours (feet above msl)

-~countyTriniiy aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 50 feet

o

HUNT

r- -

i

~1

~

bull ~ --_

Figure 5 Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers an - between 1989 and 1997

co

Well No 19-20-801Montague CountyAntlers Formation

Well No 19middot15-701Cooke County

Antlers Formation

20001990

Surface ee 763 ItWell Depth 34 It

Surface e 405 ItWell Qeplh 3076 It

1970 1980Date

Well No 19middot24middot702Cooke County

Antlers Formation

Well No 33-19middot101City of Dallas Dallas CountyTwin Mountains Formation

1960

SuTface Elebull 880 FLWell Dep lh 1238 Ft

-__--~----~

V --

o1950

200 J--------~~----__r_-__-__I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

100 --------------------

-400 1-_---_------_--- --_---_--

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

800

cJ600O(J)

~ Igt ~III- 0 400Wc s _III $ 200

1000

cJO(J) 800~~gt IIQ) gt 600iii8 III$-III U 400~

cJg (J) 200 +-----------------~iiigt at011 gtiii ~ 0~ ell

c~~ ~2oo

Surface Elebull 610 II_____Well 0epIh 1690 fl

rr ~ JIpr- I

) J V

o----~=------------

Well No 32middot15-1 01City of Euless Tarrant County

Twin Mountains Formation

~o -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

cJ2 (J) -200 +-----r-shyiit -gt Qlbull gtiii 8 -400 f-----

S~~~O

Surface Elev 725 ftWell Deplh 621t

Surface Elev 828 IIWell Depth 560 II

Surface 111-1 1DO PlWell Depth 128 R

~ ~_~~---- eo -bull

1000

c-JOf) 800iiEgt QlQ) gt- 0 600wg III

Ql -ftj a 400~

400 --------------------

200 +-----------------------1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Well No 32middot46middot907Johnson County

Twin Mountains Formation

cJo (J) 200 ii-----Ogt__~igt tlQ) gtiii8 0

~~~ ~ -200

-400 L--------r--shy

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

1400 ---~-----------------

Well No 19-51-901Wise County

Twin Mountains Formation

c-Jg ~ 1200(Vgt Q)

~ ] 1000iii ~ -~ ~ 800

600 l-__~_~~-_--- ~_---l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Figure 6 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

9

25 50 Miles

bull wellscontours (feet above msl)

i-j countyT-rfnify aquifero outcropI1 downdip

contour interval - 200 feetdatum - mean sea level

oHUNT

JACK

25 50 Miles

wellscontours (feet above msl)

-~countyTriniiy aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 50 feet

o

HUNT

r- -

i

~1

~

bull ~ --_

Figure 5 Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers an - between 1989 and 1997

co

Well No 19-20-801Montague CountyAntlers Formation

Well No 19middot15-701Cooke County

Antlers Formation

20001990

Surface ee 763 ItWell Depth 34 It

Surface e 405 ItWell Qeplh 3076 It

1970 1980Date

Well No 19middot24middot702Cooke County

Antlers Formation

Well No 33-19middot101City of Dallas Dallas CountyTwin Mountains Formation

1960

SuTface Elebull 880 FLWell Dep lh 1238 Ft

-__--~----~

V --

o1950

200 J--------~~----__r_-__-__I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

100 --------------------

-400 1-_---_------_--- --_---_--

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

800

cJ600O(J)

~ Igt ~III- 0 400Wc s _III $ 200

1000

cJO(J) 800~~gt IIQ) gt 600iii8 III$-III U 400~

cJg (J) 200 +-----------------~iiigt at011 gtiii ~ 0~ ell

c~~ ~2oo

Surface Elebull 610 II_____Well 0epIh 1690 fl

rr ~ JIpr- I

) J V

o----~=------------

Well No 32middot15-1 01City of Euless Tarrant County

Twin Mountains Formation

~o -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

cJ2 (J) -200 +-----r-shyiit -gt Qlbull gtiii 8 -400 f-----

S~~~O

Surface Elev 725 ftWell Deplh 621t

Surface Elev 828 IIWell Depth 560 II

Surface 111-1 1DO PlWell Depth 128 R

~ ~_~~---- eo -bull

1000

c-JOf) 800iiEgt QlQ) gt- 0 600wg III

Ql -ftj a 400~

400 --------------------

200 +-----------------------1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Well No 32middot46middot907Johnson County

Twin Mountains Formation

cJo (J) 200 ii-----Ogt__~igt tlQ) gtiii8 0

~~~ ~ -200

-400 L--------r--shy

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

1400 ---~-----------------

Well No 19-51-901Wise County

Twin Mountains Formation

c-Jg ~ 1200(Vgt Q)

~ ] 1000iii ~ -~ ~ 800

600 l-__~_~~-_--- ~_---l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Figure 6 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

9

25 50 Miles

wellscontours (feet above msl)

-~countyTriniiy aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 50 feet

o

HUNT

r- -

i

~1

~

bull ~ --_

Figure 5 Approximate water-level differences in the Antlers an - between 1989 and 1997

co

Well No 19-20-801Montague CountyAntlers Formation

Well No 19middot15-701Cooke County

Antlers Formation

20001990

Surface ee 763 ItWell Depth 34 It

Surface e 405 ItWell Qeplh 3076 It

1970 1980Date

Well No 19middot24middot702Cooke County

Antlers Formation

Well No 33-19middot101City of Dallas Dallas CountyTwin Mountains Formation

1960

SuTface Elebull 880 FLWell Dep lh 1238 Ft

-__--~----~

V --

o1950

200 J--------~~----__r_-__-__I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

100 --------------------

-400 1-_---_------_--- --_---_--

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

800

cJ600O(J)

~ Igt ~III- 0 400Wc s _III $ 200

1000

cJO(J) 800~~gt IIQ) gt 600iii8 III$-III U 400~

cJg (J) 200 +-----------------~iiigt at011 gtiii ~ 0~ ell

c~~ ~2oo

Surface Elebull 610 II_____Well 0epIh 1690 fl

rr ~ JIpr- I

) J V

o----~=------------

Well No 32middot15-1 01City of Euless Tarrant County

Twin Mountains Formation

~o -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

cJ2 (J) -200 +-----r-shyiit -gt Qlbull gtiii 8 -400 f-----

S~~~O

Surface Elev 725 ftWell Deplh 621t

Surface Elev 828 IIWell Depth 560 II

Surface 111-1 1DO PlWell Depth 128 R

~ ~_~~---- eo -bull

1000

c-JOf) 800iiEgt QlQ) gt- 0 600wg III

Ql -ftj a 400~

400 --------------------

200 +-----------------------1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Well No 32middot46middot907Johnson County

Twin Mountains Formation

cJo (J) 200 ii-----Ogt__~igt tlQ) gtiii8 0

~~~ ~ -200

-400 L--------r--shy

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

1400 ---~-----------------

Well No 19-51-901Wise County

Twin Mountains Formation

c-Jg ~ 1200(Vgt Q)

~ ] 1000iii ~ -~ ~ 800

600 l-__~_~~-_--- ~_---l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Figure 6 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

9

Well No 19-20-801Montague CountyAntlers Formation

Well No 19middot15-701Cooke County

Antlers Formation

20001990

Surface ee 763 ItWell Depth 34 It

Surface e 405 ItWell Qeplh 3076 It

1970 1980Date

Well No 19middot24middot702Cooke County

Antlers Formation

Well No 33-19middot101City of Dallas Dallas CountyTwin Mountains Formation

1960

SuTface Elebull 880 FLWell Dep lh 1238 Ft

-__--~----~

V --

o1950

200 J--------~~----__r_-__-__I

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

100 --------------------

-400 1-_---_------_--- --_---_--

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

800

cJ600O(J)

~ Igt ~III- 0 400Wc s _III $ 200

1000

cJO(J) 800~~gt IIQ) gt 600iii8 III$-III U 400~

cJg (J) 200 +-----------------~iiigt at011 gtiii ~ 0~ ell

c~~ ~2oo

Surface Elebull 610 II_____Well 0epIh 1690 fl

rr ~ JIpr- I

) J V

o----~=------------

Well No 32middot15-1 01City of Euless Tarrant County

Twin Mountains Formation

~o -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

cJ2 (J) -200 +-----r-shyiit -gt Qlbull gtiii 8 -400 f-----

S~~~O

Surface Elev 725 ftWell Deplh 621t

Surface Elev 828 IIWell Depth 560 II

Surface 111-1 1DO PlWell Depth 128 R

~ ~_~~---- eo -bull

1000

c-JOf) 800iiEgt QlQ) gt- 0 600wg III

Ql -ftj a 400~

400 --------------------

200 +-----------------------1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Well No 32middot46middot907Johnson County

Twin Mountains Formation

cJo (J) 200 ii-----Ogt__~igt tlQ) gtiii8 0

~~~ ~ -200

-400 L--------r--shy

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

1400 ---~-----------------

Well No 19-51-901Wise County

Twin Mountains Formation

c-Jg ~ 1200(Vgt Q)

~ ] 1000iii ~ -~ ~ 800

600 l-__~_~~-_--- ~_---l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Date

Figure 6 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

9

Average Total Water-Measurement Yearly Level

WelllD County Formation Period Difference Difference(tt) (tt)

19-20-801 Montague Antlers 1970-1989 +220 +4187

1989-1997 -026 -20919-51-901 Wise Twin Mtns 1970-1989 -002 -041

1989-1997 +052 +41432-46-907 Johnson Trinity 1972-1989 -2241 -38100

1989-1997 -1250 1000019-15-701 Cooke Antlers 1970-1989 -140 -2665

1989-1997 -152 -121719-24-702 Cooke Antlers 1960-1989 -700 -18190

1989-1997 -412 -329933-19-101 Dallas Twin Mtns 1970-1989 -626 -11881

1989-1998 +833 +749832-16-101 Tarrant Twin Mtns 1970-1989 -1068 -20300

1989-1997 -2936 -23485Table 1 Water-level differences within the Antlers and TWin Mountains Formations

Trinity aquifer (based on data from TWDB 1998a)

Water levels in individual wells in the Paluxy Formation show a variety of historicalwater-level changes (Figure 9) Two wells show little change over the past 30 years(19-60-601 32-02-101) while one shows an overall decline of about 220 It (18-49-101)A well in Tarrant County (32-16-201) shows large historical variations including a 220foot rise between 1972 and 1976 and 25 to 100 tt variations since 1980 Since 1989water levels in selected wells have declined as much as 55 feet and rebounded lessthan 3 feet (Table 2) Rates of water-level changes between 1989-1997 range from+036 to -1375 feet per year (Table 2)

Table 2 Water-level differences within the Paluxy Formation Trlmty aqUifer (based ondata from TWDB 1998a)

Average Total Water-Measurement Yearly Level

WelllD County Formation Period Difference Difference(ft) (tt)

19-60-601 Wise Paluxy 1970-1989 -263 -50031989-1996 +036 +252

32-02-101 Parker Paluxy 1971-1989 +011 +2031989-1997 -247 -1975

18-49-101 Denton Paluxy 1970-1989 -999 -18999 1989-1996 -431 -3016

32-16-201 Tarrant Paluxy 1971-1989 +833 +150001989-1993 -1375 -5500

10

( ~

~

~

o 25 50 Miles

J

bull wellscontours (feet above msl)

I i countyTrinity aquiferD outcrop1_-1 downdip

contour intervalmiddot 100 feetdatummiddot mean sea level

elevations in the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997Figure 7 -A~-- pproximate fu~----- -J

water-level lVa

25 50 Miles

~

N

970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995Date

150

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Date

125 -----------------

Well No 32-16-201City of Euless Tarrant County

Well No 18-49-101Den10n County

400 -r----o-------=-~------Surlace Bev 590 ItWell Depth 91 5 IIbull

c J 75jltl)1lI~~ ~ 251JI8Qj III -25 ~ -III Gl

3= ~ -75

-125

1965

o OOlIllyTrinity aquifero rutcropo cbMldip

Surface Elcv 150 IIWell Depth 80

900 -r-----~~------s-ur-c-e--EI-ev- 7-82-n---

g J 850 +-_________ ~~II Oltplh 140ft_ VJ(~~ ~ 800 -1----

w~~ III 750i~ ~ 700

650 -l----------------r---r-----r------l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Date

1000 4==__-----T------------J

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Date

Well No 19-60-601Wise County

Well No 32-02-101Parker County

1250 -r---~-~------=--------

5 a- 1200~~i ~ 1150 1---------shyW8~ ~ 11 00 l---~ ~~==-- -=-----yIII GI

3= ~ 1050

Figure 9 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer13

Groundwater flow in the Woodbine aquifer is generally to the east-southeast (Figure10) Water-level elevations have not changed significantly since 1989 (Figure 11) Thegreatest water-level differences occur in northern Collin County the central tonortheastern portion of Denton County eastern Cooke County and northern GraysonCounty (Figure 11) Water levels have declined an average of 10 feet over most of thisarea with declines of 60 feet observed in the northern part of Grayson County Waterlevels in Johnson County have remained steady from 1989 to 1997

Water levels in individual wells in the Woodbine aquifer show a variety of historicalwater-level changes (Figure 12) Some wells show little change over the past 30 years(18-25-301 32-39-505 17-12-101) while others show overall declines (18-50-202 18shy38-30233-50-502) A well in Fannin County (18-38-302) shows a decline of about 179feet frorn 1971 to 1989 with generally stable water levels since 1989 Since 1989 waterlevels in selected wells have declined as much as 42 feet and rebounded less than 3feet (Table 3) Rates of water-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +034 toshy594 feet per year (Table 3)

Average Total Water-Measurement Yearly Level

Well 10 County Formation Period Difference Difference(tt) (tt)

18-25-301 Grayson Woodbine 1971-1989 -067 -12071989-1997 -017 -138

18-50-202 Collin Woodbine 1969-1989 -125 -25051989-1997 -116 -927

32-39-505 Johnson Woodbine 1966-1989 -090 -20691989-1997 +010 +082

17-12-101 Lamar Woodbine 1959-1989 +014 +4121989-1997 +034 +270

18-38-302 Fannin Woodbine 1971-1989 -994 -179001989-1997 -048 -380

33-50-502 Ellis Woodbine 1971-1989 +014 +2451989-1996 -594 -4160

Table 3 Water-level differences within the Woodbine aqUifer (based on data fromTWOS 1998a)

Precipitation

The primary source of recharge to the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers is infiltration fromprecipitation falling on the outcrop (Nordstrom 1982) The arnount of recharge to theTrinity and Woodbine aquifers is estimated to be less than one inch per year(Nordstrom 1982) This arnounts to about 3 percent of average annual precipitation inthe area

Annual precipitation varies from 28-32 inches in the western part of the study area to44-48 inches in the eastern part (Nordstrom 1982) From 1960 through 1996 average

14

~

cn

i JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOO

COOKE

NAVARRO

o

fmiddot ~~

---~

N

I25 50 Miles

- contours (feet above msl)bull wells

r--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop11 downdip

contour interval - 100 feetdatum mean sea level

Figure 10 Approximate water-level elevations in the Woodbine aquifer winter 1997

~

(J)

I

JACK

PALO PINTO

~

l~

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

COOKE

DENTON

-10~

~- --I

NAVARRO

o

N

I25 50 Miles

contours (feet above msl)bull wells

[-- countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 10 feet

Well No 18-25middot301Grayson County

Well No 17-12middot101Lamar County

2000

2000

2000

--

1990

1990

1990

1970 1980Date

1970 1980

Date

1970 1980

Date

----------

Well No 33-50-502City of Avalon Ellis County

1960

1960

Well No 18-38-302City of Randolph Fannin County

1960

SUrfaa Elevallon 52~ fIWellgtpIll1238 fl

v

~ -

-

SurfacR lev 66811

Well O~ln 1297 fl

h~

~

o1950

250

150

1950

550 ~=---------~---Surface El vallon 500 IWell 0ep1ll165 fI1

o (J) 500~ii ~ 450 f----=======7+---=o=-iw8Ai ~ 400III III ~ 35G +----~

300 L----------------------l

1950

FED RVER

400

c 3502 (J)o oounty iigt III 300

Woodbine aquifer ~ ~o aJtcropwJ)

251)i~o dMIndip III Il

~ 200

v4SE

PARKER

tv1CNTAGUE

PALOANTO

2000

2000

2000

1990

1990

1990

970 1980

Date

1970 1980Date

1970 1980Date

1960

1960

1960

Surfaoc ElevUon 7U ft

Well Depth 210 fI

- --~

500 +- ---__---- J

1950

500

1950

750

200 l--~~---r-----------1

1950

Well No 8-50-202Collin County

Well No 32-39-505Johnson Counly

450 ---~~------su=rf~a-ee-E-le-v-62-0-1t----

Well Depth 840 11----

750 ---~-----~----------SUIl Elevation 740 HWell 0ep11 280 It

c 400O(f)

~~~ ~ 350

~ ~ 300 +---------~----III ell

~ 250

Figure 12 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer17

annual precipitation at the Weatherford gage located on the Trinity outcrop has been33 inches with a minimum of 19 inches in 1963 and a maximum of 49 inches in 1991(Figure 13) Precipitation has been above average from 1989 through 1996

From 1965 through 1996 average annual precipitation at the Denton SE gage locatedon the Woodbine outcrop has been 38 inches with a minimum of 275 inches in 1972and a maximum of 57 inches in 1981 (Figure 14) Precipitation has been aboveaverage from 1992 through 1995

Water Quality

The TWOB collected water samples following standard procedures (Nordstrom andBeynon 1991) from the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers beiween 1990 to 1998throughout the study area Samples were analyzed for major anions and cations andselected trace elements including nitrate nitrogen (as N03) sulfate chloride sodiumcalcium magnesium silica total potassium strontium carbonate bicarbonate andfluoride

Measured concentrations were compared to the primary constituent levels Primaryconstituent levels are the maximum contaminant levels for a pollutant that is allowed indrinking water which will cause no adverse effects on human health Secondaryconstituent levels are usually based on reasons such as color taste odor staining andscaling and are recommended limits (30 TAC sect290 1999)

Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for applicable constituents (30 TAC sect290 1999)include

bull a secondary constituent level of 1000 mgll for TOSbull a primary constituent level of 10 mgll for nitrate as nitrogenbull a primary constituent level of 443 mgll for nitrate as nitratebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for sulfatebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for chloridebull a primary constituent level of 40 mgll for fluoride andbull a secondary constituent level of 20 mgll for fluoride

Trinity Aquifer

TOS concentrations for groundwater samples from the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer tend to increase downdip towards the eastern part ofthe study area (Figure 15) Twenty wells exhibited TOS concentrations in excess of thesecondary constituent level Only 2 wells showed TOS concentrations above 2000mgl Chloride concentrations averaged 98 rngll (Table 4) with 12 samples exceedingsecondary constituent levels Sodium concentrations had an average of 245 mgll(Table 4) Nitrate concentrations averaged 100 mgll (Table 4) with 5 samplesexceeding primary constituent levels

18

~

lt0

o CXJlJ1tyiNTrinity aquifer~ artcropo cbvndip

Station 9532 - Weatherford55 -I I--yearly totals

Ul - 3 year moving average ~45 - - 1960-96 average annual RreclpJillgn ( Ioc=-co35s00~25 I Vl1

1995199019851975 1980Year

15 I I

1960 1965 1970

Figure 13 Precipitation at the Weatherford gage 1960-1996

1995199019851980

-- yearly totals-- 3 year moving average- - 1965-96 average annual RreciRitation

1975

Station 2404 - Denton 2 SE

MlIfPGLEI ro4l~~0~Ijl FffiRiVER It~N

J6Dlt I I ~1iiffiiliNW7 ID COLl1ly I1M Woodbine aquifer~ cutcrop c cbw1dip

PALOF1NTD PARKER

~I vp 65

VIQ)

1i 55sectcQ45~

III~

0~b5 ~

a

25 j

1965 1970

Year

Figure 14 Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996

_ f ~ ~ c( )~ )(~i MONTA i f i GUE ~~l-- -0~r So~M ~~-

~-= ~ ~ -

_ 1~~~_~~~W i)~_NW-~raquo ~t~~~~~~ COLLtN~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~amp- ~ HUNT t

10 bullbull ~

12 ~~~ -~~~~~~~I[h - ~--_~~ ~~~~ 0 ~ ~~~_ M~HOOO~ ~~~ = 0_ bull iO(f~hl (gILl

~~--0 ~~_~bullbull~lt~-_ ~~ ~ c~unt 3000 (slightly saline) bull ~~ rlnltyaqUife ~ r

~o=p8 fSSl downdip

~ 1 NAVARRO

~

Oowndip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 T08)

Figure 15 TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

~

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 131 71767 22100 203800Chloride 131 9821 300 64700Sodium 131 24526 880 65700Nitrate as N 129 100 lt004 1850Sulfate 131 10310 1200 72500Fluoride 131 090 004 306

Table 4 Groundwater quality In the Antlers and TWin Mountains Formations Tnnlty

aquifer (based on data from TWDB 1998a)

Sulfate levels had an average of 103 mgI (Table 4) with 4 samples exceeding 300 mgIThe average fluoride concentration was 090 mgI (Table 4) with the highestconcentration reading 306 mg1

The highest TDS chloride and sodium levels were recorded in samples from well 32shy06-104 located in north-central Tarrant County The TDS concentration was 3302mgI chloride was 1822 mgI and sodium was 1210 mg1 This area exhibits higherthan normal TDS values possibly due to contamination from oil and gas production aswell as various other industries (Baker and others 1990) Therefore this well was notincluded in computing the average concentrations above

Well 33-26-301 located in south-central Dallas County is owned by the City ofLancaster and is currently used for backup purposes only The TDS concentration was2038 mgI with chloride sodium and sulfate concentrations of 326 mgI 657 mgI and725 mgI respectively and probably reflects natural conditions

The majority of samples exhibiting elevated TDS chloride sodium and sulfateconcentrations were collected from the Twin Mountains Formation The areas showinghigh TDS concentrations include north-central Tarrant County and parts of DentonCollin Dallas and Ellis Counties Current TDS ranges are not significantly higher thanhistorical values reported by Baker and others (1990)

In general groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer hasremained acceptable throughout the study area TDS concentrations for water samplescollected from the Paluxy Formation averaged 607 mgI (Table 5)with only 4 out of 51wells sampled showing TDS concentrations above the secondary constituent level(Figure 16) The highest TDS concentration was 1339 mgI and was recorded at anirrigation well (18-58-503) located in Collin County Chloride sodium sulfate and nitrateconcentrations for this well were 31 mgI 431 mgI 590 mgI and lt004 mgIrespectively

22

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 51 60670 20300 133900Chloride 51 3608 400 27300Sodium 51 18776 710 44400Nitrate as N 51 100 lt004 2585Sulfate 51 10125 089 59000Fluoride 51 106 017 410

Table 5 Groundwater quality In the Paluxy FormalJon Tnnlty aquifer (based on datafrom TWDB 1998a)

Chloride and nitrate as nitrogen levels averaged 36 mgI and 1 mgI respectively andwere all within primary constituent levels with the exception of one nitrate sample (Table5) The highest nitrate concentration originated from well 32-10-603 located north ofWeatherford in Parker County

Sulfate and fluoride levels averaged 103 mgI and 09 mgI respectively (Table 5) Thiswell is designated as a public supply well and had a nitrate level of 2585 mg1 Onesulfate sample (from well 18-58-503 described above) and one fluoride sample (fromwell 32-39-805 located in Johnson County) exceeded secondary constituent levels

Woodbine Aquifer

Generally TDS concentrations increase downdip towards the eastern part of the studyarea (Figure 17) Average TDS was 877 mgI (Table 6) with the highst concentration(2278 mgI) from a public supply well (32-47-805) for the city of Grandview insoutheastern Johnson County well Chloride has an average concentration of 86 mgI(Table 6) with 5 wells exceeding secondary constituent levels Well 18-55-401 a publicsupply well owned by Caddo Basin Special Utility District located in Greenville (Hunt

County) had the highest chloride concentration of 507 mg1

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 76 87739 8300 227800Chloride 76 8588 407 50700Sodium 76 31176 953 82500Nitrate as N 76 067 lt004 1041Sulfate 76 20918 542 126300Fluoride 76 130 024 627

Table 6 Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer (based on data from TWDB1998a)

23

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

( ~

~

~

o 25 50 Miles

J

bull wellscontours (feet above msl)

I i countyTrinity aquiferD outcrop1_-1 downdip

contour intervalmiddot 100 feetdatummiddot mean sea level

elevations in the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997Figure 7 -A~-- pproximate fu~----- -J

water-level lVa

25 50 Miles

~

N

970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995Date

150

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Date

125 -----------------

Well No 32-16-201City of Euless Tarrant County

Well No 18-49-101Den10n County

400 -r----o-------=-~------Surlace Bev 590 ItWell Depth 91 5 IIbull

c J 75jltl)1lI~~ ~ 251JI8Qj III -25 ~ -III Gl

3= ~ -75

-125

1965

o OOlIllyTrinity aquifero rutcropo cbMldip

Surface Elcv 150 IIWell Depth 80

900 -r-----~~------s-ur-c-e--EI-ev- 7-82-n---

g J 850 +-_________ ~~II Oltplh 140ft_ VJ(~~ ~ 800 -1----

w~~ III 750i~ ~ 700

650 -l----------------r---r-----r------l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Date

1000 4==__-----T------------J

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Date

Well No 19-60-601Wise County

Well No 32-02-101Parker County

1250 -r---~-~------=--------

5 a- 1200~~i ~ 1150 1---------shyW8~ ~ 11 00 l---~ ~~==-- -=-----yIII GI

3= ~ 1050

Figure 9 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer13

Groundwater flow in the Woodbine aquifer is generally to the east-southeast (Figure10) Water-level elevations have not changed significantly since 1989 (Figure 11) Thegreatest water-level differences occur in northern Collin County the central tonortheastern portion of Denton County eastern Cooke County and northern GraysonCounty (Figure 11) Water levels have declined an average of 10 feet over most of thisarea with declines of 60 feet observed in the northern part of Grayson County Waterlevels in Johnson County have remained steady from 1989 to 1997

Water levels in individual wells in the Woodbine aquifer show a variety of historicalwater-level changes (Figure 12) Some wells show little change over the past 30 years(18-25-301 32-39-505 17-12-101) while others show overall declines (18-50-202 18shy38-30233-50-502) A well in Fannin County (18-38-302) shows a decline of about 179feet frorn 1971 to 1989 with generally stable water levels since 1989 Since 1989 waterlevels in selected wells have declined as much as 42 feet and rebounded less than 3feet (Table 3) Rates of water-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +034 toshy594 feet per year (Table 3)

Average Total Water-Measurement Yearly Level

Well 10 County Formation Period Difference Difference(tt) (tt)

18-25-301 Grayson Woodbine 1971-1989 -067 -12071989-1997 -017 -138

18-50-202 Collin Woodbine 1969-1989 -125 -25051989-1997 -116 -927

32-39-505 Johnson Woodbine 1966-1989 -090 -20691989-1997 +010 +082

17-12-101 Lamar Woodbine 1959-1989 +014 +4121989-1997 +034 +270

18-38-302 Fannin Woodbine 1971-1989 -994 -179001989-1997 -048 -380

33-50-502 Ellis Woodbine 1971-1989 +014 +2451989-1996 -594 -4160

Table 3 Water-level differences within the Woodbine aqUifer (based on data fromTWOS 1998a)

Precipitation

The primary source of recharge to the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers is infiltration fromprecipitation falling on the outcrop (Nordstrom 1982) The arnount of recharge to theTrinity and Woodbine aquifers is estimated to be less than one inch per year(Nordstrom 1982) This arnounts to about 3 percent of average annual precipitation inthe area

Annual precipitation varies from 28-32 inches in the western part of the study area to44-48 inches in the eastern part (Nordstrom 1982) From 1960 through 1996 average

14

~

cn

i JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOO

COOKE

NAVARRO

o

fmiddot ~~

---~

N

I25 50 Miles

- contours (feet above msl)bull wells

r--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop11 downdip

contour interval - 100 feetdatum mean sea level

Figure 10 Approximate water-level elevations in the Woodbine aquifer winter 1997

~

(J)

I

JACK

PALO PINTO

~

l~

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

COOKE

DENTON

-10~

~- --I

NAVARRO

o

N

I25 50 Miles

contours (feet above msl)bull wells

[-- countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 10 feet

Well No 18-25middot301Grayson County

Well No 17-12middot101Lamar County

2000

2000

2000

--

1990

1990

1990

1970 1980Date

1970 1980

Date

1970 1980

Date

----------

Well No 33-50-502City of Avalon Ellis County

1960

1960

Well No 18-38-302City of Randolph Fannin County

1960

SUrfaa Elevallon 52~ fIWellgtpIll1238 fl

v

~ -

-

SurfacR lev 66811

Well O~ln 1297 fl

h~

~

o1950

250

150

1950

550 ~=---------~---Surface El vallon 500 IWell 0ep1ll165 fI1

o (J) 500~ii ~ 450 f----=======7+---=o=-iw8Ai ~ 400III III ~ 35G +----~

300 L----------------------l

1950

FED RVER

400

c 3502 (J)o oounty iigt III 300

Woodbine aquifer ~ ~o aJtcropwJ)

251)i~o dMIndip III Il

~ 200

v4SE

PARKER

tv1CNTAGUE

PALOANTO

2000

2000

2000

1990

1990

1990

970 1980

Date

1970 1980Date

1970 1980Date

1960

1960

1960

Surfaoc ElevUon 7U ft

Well Depth 210 fI

- --~

500 +- ---__---- J

1950

500

1950

750

200 l--~~---r-----------1

1950

Well No 8-50-202Collin County

Well No 32-39-505Johnson Counly

450 ---~~------su=rf~a-ee-E-le-v-62-0-1t----

Well Depth 840 11----

750 ---~-----~----------SUIl Elevation 740 HWell 0ep11 280 It

c 400O(f)

~~~ ~ 350

~ ~ 300 +---------~----III ell

~ 250

Figure 12 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer17

annual precipitation at the Weatherford gage located on the Trinity outcrop has been33 inches with a minimum of 19 inches in 1963 and a maximum of 49 inches in 1991(Figure 13) Precipitation has been above average from 1989 through 1996

From 1965 through 1996 average annual precipitation at the Denton SE gage locatedon the Woodbine outcrop has been 38 inches with a minimum of 275 inches in 1972and a maximum of 57 inches in 1981 (Figure 14) Precipitation has been aboveaverage from 1992 through 1995

Water Quality

The TWOB collected water samples following standard procedures (Nordstrom andBeynon 1991) from the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers beiween 1990 to 1998throughout the study area Samples were analyzed for major anions and cations andselected trace elements including nitrate nitrogen (as N03) sulfate chloride sodiumcalcium magnesium silica total potassium strontium carbonate bicarbonate andfluoride

Measured concentrations were compared to the primary constituent levels Primaryconstituent levels are the maximum contaminant levels for a pollutant that is allowed indrinking water which will cause no adverse effects on human health Secondaryconstituent levels are usually based on reasons such as color taste odor staining andscaling and are recommended limits (30 TAC sect290 1999)

Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for applicable constituents (30 TAC sect290 1999)include

bull a secondary constituent level of 1000 mgll for TOSbull a primary constituent level of 10 mgll for nitrate as nitrogenbull a primary constituent level of 443 mgll for nitrate as nitratebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for sulfatebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for chloridebull a primary constituent level of 40 mgll for fluoride andbull a secondary constituent level of 20 mgll for fluoride

Trinity Aquifer

TOS concentrations for groundwater samples from the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer tend to increase downdip towards the eastern part ofthe study area (Figure 15) Twenty wells exhibited TOS concentrations in excess of thesecondary constituent level Only 2 wells showed TOS concentrations above 2000mgl Chloride concentrations averaged 98 rngll (Table 4) with 12 samples exceedingsecondary constituent levels Sodium concentrations had an average of 245 mgll(Table 4) Nitrate concentrations averaged 100 mgll (Table 4) with 5 samplesexceeding primary constituent levels

18

~

lt0

o CXJlJ1tyiNTrinity aquifer~ artcropo cbvndip

Station 9532 - Weatherford55 -I I--yearly totals

Ul - 3 year moving average ~45 - - 1960-96 average annual RreclpJillgn ( Ioc=-co35s00~25 I Vl1

1995199019851975 1980Year

15 I I

1960 1965 1970

Figure 13 Precipitation at the Weatherford gage 1960-1996

1995199019851980

-- yearly totals-- 3 year moving average- - 1965-96 average annual RreciRitation

1975

Station 2404 - Denton 2 SE

MlIfPGLEI ro4l~~0~Ijl FffiRiVER It~N

J6Dlt I I ~1iiffiiliNW7 ID COLl1ly I1M Woodbine aquifer~ cutcrop c cbw1dip

PALOF1NTD PARKER

~I vp 65

VIQ)

1i 55sectcQ45~

III~

0~b5 ~

a

25 j

1965 1970

Year

Figure 14 Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996

_ f ~ ~ c( )~ )(~i MONTA i f i GUE ~~l-- -0~r So~M ~~-

~-= ~ ~ -

_ 1~~~_~~~W i)~_NW-~raquo ~t~~~~~~ COLLtN~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~amp- ~ HUNT t

10 bullbull ~

12 ~~~ -~~~~~~~I[h - ~--_~~ ~~~~ 0 ~ ~~~_ M~HOOO~ ~~~ = 0_ bull iO(f~hl (gILl

~~--0 ~~_~bullbull~lt~-_ ~~ ~ c~unt 3000 (slightly saline) bull ~~ rlnltyaqUife ~ r

~o=p8 fSSl downdip

~ 1 NAVARRO

~

Oowndip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 T08)

Figure 15 TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

~

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 131 71767 22100 203800Chloride 131 9821 300 64700Sodium 131 24526 880 65700Nitrate as N 129 100 lt004 1850Sulfate 131 10310 1200 72500Fluoride 131 090 004 306

Table 4 Groundwater quality In the Antlers and TWin Mountains Formations Tnnlty

aquifer (based on data from TWDB 1998a)

Sulfate levels had an average of 103 mgI (Table 4) with 4 samples exceeding 300 mgIThe average fluoride concentration was 090 mgI (Table 4) with the highestconcentration reading 306 mg1

The highest TDS chloride and sodium levels were recorded in samples from well 32shy06-104 located in north-central Tarrant County The TDS concentration was 3302mgI chloride was 1822 mgI and sodium was 1210 mg1 This area exhibits higherthan normal TDS values possibly due to contamination from oil and gas production aswell as various other industries (Baker and others 1990) Therefore this well was notincluded in computing the average concentrations above

Well 33-26-301 located in south-central Dallas County is owned by the City ofLancaster and is currently used for backup purposes only The TDS concentration was2038 mgI with chloride sodium and sulfate concentrations of 326 mgI 657 mgI and725 mgI respectively and probably reflects natural conditions

The majority of samples exhibiting elevated TDS chloride sodium and sulfateconcentrations were collected from the Twin Mountains Formation The areas showinghigh TDS concentrations include north-central Tarrant County and parts of DentonCollin Dallas and Ellis Counties Current TDS ranges are not significantly higher thanhistorical values reported by Baker and others (1990)

In general groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer hasremained acceptable throughout the study area TDS concentrations for water samplescollected from the Paluxy Formation averaged 607 mgI (Table 5)with only 4 out of 51wells sampled showing TDS concentrations above the secondary constituent level(Figure 16) The highest TDS concentration was 1339 mgI and was recorded at anirrigation well (18-58-503) located in Collin County Chloride sodium sulfate and nitrateconcentrations for this well were 31 mgI 431 mgI 590 mgI and lt004 mgIrespectively

22

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 51 60670 20300 133900Chloride 51 3608 400 27300Sodium 51 18776 710 44400Nitrate as N 51 100 lt004 2585Sulfate 51 10125 089 59000Fluoride 51 106 017 410

Table 5 Groundwater quality In the Paluxy FormalJon Tnnlty aquifer (based on datafrom TWDB 1998a)

Chloride and nitrate as nitrogen levels averaged 36 mgI and 1 mgI respectively andwere all within primary constituent levels with the exception of one nitrate sample (Table5) The highest nitrate concentration originated from well 32-10-603 located north ofWeatherford in Parker County

Sulfate and fluoride levels averaged 103 mgI and 09 mgI respectively (Table 5) Thiswell is designated as a public supply well and had a nitrate level of 2585 mg1 Onesulfate sample (from well 18-58-503 described above) and one fluoride sample (fromwell 32-39-805 located in Johnson County) exceeded secondary constituent levels

Woodbine Aquifer

Generally TDS concentrations increase downdip towards the eastern part of the studyarea (Figure 17) Average TDS was 877 mgI (Table 6) with the highst concentration(2278 mgI) from a public supply well (32-47-805) for the city of Grandview insoutheastern Johnson County well Chloride has an average concentration of 86 mgI(Table 6) with 5 wells exceeding secondary constituent levels Well 18-55-401 a publicsupply well owned by Caddo Basin Special Utility District located in Greenville (Hunt

County) had the highest chloride concentration of 507 mg1

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 76 87739 8300 227800Chloride 76 8588 407 50700Sodium 76 31176 953 82500Nitrate as N 76 067 lt004 1041Sulfate 76 20918 542 126300Fluoride 76 130 024 627

Table 6 Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer (based on data from TWDB1998a)

23

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

25 50 Miles

~

N

970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995Date

150

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Date

125 -----------------

Well No 32-16-201City of Euless Tarrant County

Well No 18-49-101Den10n County

400 -r----o-------=-~------Surlace Bev 590 ItWell Depth 91 5 IIbull

c J 75jltl)1lI~~ ~ 251JI8Qj III -25 ~ -III Gl

3= ~ -75

-125

1965

o OOlIllyTrinity aquifero rutcropo cbMldip

Surface Elcv 150 IIWell Depth 80

900 -r-----~~------s-ur-c-e--EI-ev- 7-82-n---

g J 850 +-_________ ~~II Oltplh 140ft_ VJ(~~ ~ 800 -1----

w~~ III 750i~ ~ 700

650 -l----------------r---r-----r------l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Date

1000 4==__-----T------------J

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Date

Well No 19-60-601Wise County

Well No 32-02-101Parker County

1250 -r---~-~------=--------

5 a- 1200~~i ~ 1150 1---------shyW8~ ~ 11 00 l---~ ~~==-- -=-----yIII GI

3= ~ 1050

Figure 9 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer13

Groundwater flow in the Woodbine aquifer is generally to the east-southeast (Figure10) Water-level elevations have not changed significantly since 1989 (Figure 11) Thegreatest water-level differences occur in northern Collin County the central tonortheastern portion of Denton County eastern Cooke County and northern GraysonCounty (Figure 11) Water levels have declined an average of 10 feet over most of thisarea with declines of 60 feet observed in the northern part of Grayson County Waterlevels in Johnson County have remained steady from 1989 to 1997

Water levels in individual wells in the Woodbine aquifer show a variety of historicalwater-level changes (Figure 12) Some wells show little change over the past 30 years(18-25-301 32-39-505 17-12-101) while others show overall declines (18-50-202 18shy38-30233-50-502) A well in Fannin County (18-38-302) shows a decline of about 179feet frorn 1971 to 1989 with generally stable water levels since 1989 Since 1989 waterlevels in selected wells have declined as much as 42 feet and rebounded less than 3feet (Table 3) Rates of water-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +034 toshy594 feet per year (Table 3)

Average Total Water-Measurement Yearly Level

Well 10 County Formation Period Difference Difference(tt) (tt)

18-25-301 Grayson Woodbine 1971-1989 -067 -12071989-1997 -017 -138

18-50-202 Collin Woodbine 1969-1989 -125 -25051989-1997 -116 -927

32-39-505 Johnson Woodbine 1966-1989 -090 -20691989-1997 +010 +082

17-12-101 Lamar Woodbine 1959-1989 +014 +4121989-1997 +034 +270

18-38-302 Fannin Woodbine 1971-1989 -994 -179001989-1997 -048 -380

33-50-502 Ellis Woodbine 1971-1989 +014 +2451989-1996 -594 -4160

Table 3 Water-level differences within the Woodbine aqUifer (based on data fromTWOS 1998a)

Precipitation

The primary source of recharge to the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers is infiltration fromprecipitation falling on the outcrop (Nordstrom 1982) The arnount of recharge to theTrinity and Woodbine aquifers is estimated to be less than one inch per year(Nordstrom 1982) This arnounts to about 3 percent of average annual precipitation inthe area

Annual precipitation varies from 28-32 inches in the western part of the study area to44-48 inches in the eastern part (Nordstrom 1982) From 1960 through 1996 average

14

~

cn

i JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOO

COOKE

NAVARRO

o

fmiddot ~~

---~

N

I25 50 Miles

- contours (feet above msl)bull wells

r--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop11 downdip

contour interval - 100 feetdatum mean sea level

Figure 10 Approximate water-level elevations in the Woodbine aquifer winter 1997

~

(J)

I

JACK

PALO PINTO

~

l~

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

COOKE

DENTON

-10~

~- --I

NAVARRO

o

N

I25 50 Miles

contours (feet above msl)bull wells

[-- countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 10 feet

Well No 18-25middot301Grayson County

Well No 17-12middot101Lamar County

2000

2000

2000

--

1990

1990

1990

1970 1980Date

1970 1980

Date

1970 1980

Date

----------

Well No 33-50-502City of Avalon Ellis County

1960

1960

Well No 18-38-302City of Randolph Fannin County

1960

SUrfaa Elevallon 52~ fIWellgtpIll1238 fl

v

~ -

-

SurfacR lev 66811

Well O~ln 1297 fl

h~

~

o1950

250

150

1950

550 ~=---------~---Surface El vallon 500 IWell 0ep1ll165 fI1

o (J) 500~ii ~ 450 f----=======7+---=o=-iw8Ai ~ 400III III ~ 35G +----~

300 L----------------------l

1950

FED RVER

400

c 3502 (J)o oounty iigt III 300

Woodbine aquifer ~ ~o aJtcropwJ)

251)i~o dMIndip III Il

~ 200

v4SE

PARKER

tv1CNTAGUE

PALOANTO

2000

2000

2000

1990

1990

1990

970 1980

Date

1970 1980Date

1970 1980Date

1960

1960

1960

Surfaoc ElevUon 7U ft

Well Depth 210 fI

- --~

500 +- ---__---- J

1950

500

1950

750

200 l--~~---r-----------1

1950

Well No 8-50-202Collin County

Well No 32-39-505Johnson Counly

450 ---~~------su=rf~a-ee-E-le-v-62-0-1t----

Well Depth 840 11----

750 ---~-----~----------SUIl Elevation 740 HWell 0ep11 280 It

c 400O(f)

~~~ ~ 350

~ ~ 300 +---------~----III ell

~ 250

Figure 12 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer17

annual precipitation at the Weatherford gage located on the Trinity outcrop has been33 inches with a minimum of 19 inches in 1963 and a maximum of 49 inches in 1991(Figure 13) Precipitation has been above average from 1989 through 1996

From 1965 through 1996 average annual precipitation at the Denton SE gage locatedon the Woodbine outcrop has been 38 inches with a minimum of 275 inches in 1972and a maximum of 57 inches in 1981 (Figure 14) Precipitation has been aboveaverage from 1992 through 1995

Water Quality

The TWOB collected water samples following standard procedures (Nordstrom andBeynon 1991) from the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers beiween 1990 to 1998throughout the study area Samples were analyzed for major anions and cations andselected trace elements including nitrate nitrogen (as N03) sulfate chloride sodiumcalcium magnesium silica total potassium strontium carbonate bicarbonate andfluoride

Measured concentrations were compared to the primary constituent levels Primaryconstituent levels are the maximum contaminant levels for a pollutant that is allowed indrinking water which will cause no adverse effects on human health Secondaryconstituent levels are usually based on reasons such as color taste odor staining andscaling and are recommended limits (30 TAC sect290 1999)

Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for applicable constituents (30 TAC sect290 1999)include

bull a secondary constituent level of 1000 mgll for TOSbull a primary constituent level of 10 mgll for nitrate as nitrogenbull a primary constituent level of 443 mgll for nitrate as nitratebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for sulfatebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for chloridebull a primary constituent level of 40 mgll for fluoride andbull a secondary constituent level of 20 mgll for fluoride

Trinity Aquifer

TOS concentrations for groundwater samples from the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer tend to increase downdip towards the eastern part ofthe study area (Figure 15) Twenty wells exhibited TOS concentrations in excess of thesecondary constituent level Only 2 wells showed TOS concentrations above 2000mgl Chloride concentrations averaged 98 rngll (Table 4) with 12 samples exceedingsecondary constituent levels Sodium concentrations had an average of 245 mgll(Table 4) Nitrate concentrations averaged 100 mgll (Table 4) with 5 samplesexceeding primary constituent levels

18

~

lt0

o CXJlJ1tyiNTrinity aquifer~ artcropo cbvndip

Station 9532 - Weatherford55 -I I--yearly totals

Ul - 3 year moving average ~45 - - 1960-96 average annual RreclpJillgn ( Ioc=-co35s00~25 I Vl1

1995199019851975 1980Year

15 I I

1960 1965 1970

Figure 13 Precipitation at the Weatherford gage 1960-1996

1995199019851980

-- yearly totals-- 3 year moving average- - 1965-96 average annual RreciRitation

1975

Station 2404 - Denton 2 SE

MlIfPGLEI ro4l~~0~Ijl FffiRiVER It~N

J6Dlt I I ~1iiffiiliNW7 ID COLl1ly I1M Woodbine aquifer~ cutcrop c cbw1dip

PALOF1NTD PARKER

~I vp 65

VIQ)

1i 55sectcQ45~

III~

0~b5 ~

a

25 j

1965 1970

Year

Figure 14 Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996

_ f ~ ~ c( )~ )(~i MONTA i f i GUE ~~l-- -0~r So~M ~~-

~-= ~ ~ -

_ 1~~~_~~~W i)~_NW-~raquo ~t~~~~~~ COLLtN~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~amp- ~ HUNT t

10 bullbull ~

12 ~~~ -~~~~~~~I[h - ~--_~~ ~~~~ 0 ~ ~~~_ M~HOOO~ ~~~ = 0_ bull iO(f~hl (gILl

~~--0 ~~_~bullbull~lt~-_ ~~ ~ c~unt 3000 (slightly saline) bull ~~ rlnltyaqUife ~ r

~o=p8 fSSl downdip

~ 1 NAVARRO

~

Oowndip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 T08)

Figure 15 TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

~

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 131 71767 22100 203800Chloride 131 9821 300 64700Sodium 131 24526 880 65700Nitrate as N 129 100 lt004 1850Sulfate 131 10310 1200 72500Fluoride 131 090 004 306

Table 4 Groundwater quality In the Antlers and TWin Mountains Formations Tnnlty

aquifer (based on data from TWDB 1998a)

Sulfate levels had an average of 103 mgI (Table 4) with 4 samples exceeding 300 mgIThe average fluoride concentration was 090 mgI (Table 4) with the highestconcentration reading 306 mg1

The highest TDS chloride and sodium levels were recorded in samples from well 32shy06-104 located in north-central Tarrant County The TDS concentration was 3302mgI chloride was 1822 mgI and sodium was 1210 mg1 This area exhibits higherthan normal TDS values possibly due to contamination from oil and gas production aswell as various other industries (Baker and others 1990) Therefore this well was notincluded in computing the average concentrations above

Well 33-26-301 located in south-central Dallas County is owned by the City ofLancaster and is currently used for backup purposes only The TDS concentration was2038 mgI with chloride sodium and sulfate concentrations of 326 mgI 657 mgI and725 mgI respectively and probably reflects natural conditions

The majority of samples exhibiting elevated TDS chloride sodium and sulfateconcentrations were collected from the Twin Mountains Formation The areas showinghigh TDS concentrations include north-central Tarrant County and parts of DentonCollin Dallas and Ellis Counties Current TDS ranges are not significantly higher thanhistorical values reported by Baker and others (1990)

In general groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer hasremained acceptable throughout the study area TDS concentrations for water samplescollected from the Paluxy Formation averaged 607 mgI (Table 5)with only 4 out of 51wells sampled showing TDS concentrations above the secondary constituent level(Figure 16) The highest TDS concentration was 1339 mgI and was recorded at anirrigation well (18-58-503) located in Collin County Chloride sodium sulfate and nitrateconcentrations for this well were 31 mgI 431 mgI 590 mgI and lt004 mgIrespectively

22

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 51 60670 20300 133900Chloride 51 3608 400 27300Sodium 51 18776 710 44400Nitrate as N 51 100 lt004 2585Sulfate 51 10125 089 59000Fluoride 51 106 017 410

Table 5 Groundwater quality In the Paluxy FormalJon Tnnlty aquifer (based on datafrom TWDB 1998a)

Chloride and nitrate as nitrogen levels averaged 36 mgI and 1 mgI respectively andwere all within primary constituent levels with the exception of one nitrate sample (Table5) The highest nitrate concentration originated from well 32-10-603 located north ofWeatherford in Parker County

Sulfate and fluoride levels averaged 103 mgI and 09 mgI respectively (Table 5) Thiswell is designated as a public supply well and had a nitrate level of 2585 mg1 Onesulfate sample (from well 18-58-503 described above) and one fluoride sample (fromwell 32-39-805 located in Johnson County) exceeded secondary constituent levels

Woodbine Aquifer

Generally TDS concentrations increase downdip towards the eastern part of the studyarea (Figure 17) Average TDS was 877 mgI (Table 6) with the highst concentration(2278 mgI) from a public supply well (32-47-805) for the city of Grandview insoutheastern Johnson County well Chloride has an average concentration of 86 mgI(Table 6) with 5 wells exceeding secondary constituent levels Well 18-55-401 a publicsupply well owned by Caddo Basin Special Utility District located in Greenville (Hunt

County) had the highest chloride concentration of 507 mg1

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 76 87739 8300 227800Chloride 76 8588 407 50700Sodium 76 31176 953 82500Nitrate as N 76 067 lt004 1041Sulfate 76 20918 542 126300Fluoride 76 130 024 627

Table 6 Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer (based on data from TWDB1998a)

23

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995Date

150

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Date

125 -----------------

Well No 32-16-201City of Euless Tarrant County

Well No 18-49-101Den10n County

400 -r----o-------=-~------Surlace Bev 590 ItWell Depth 91 5 IIbull

c J 75jltl)1lI~~ ~ 251JI8Qj III -25 ~ -III Gl

3= ~ -75

-125

1965

o OOlIllyTrinity aquifero rutcropo cbMldip

Surface Elcv 150 IIWell Depth 80

900 -r-----~~------s-ur-c-e--EI-ev- 7-82-n---

g J 850 +-_________ ~~II Oltplh 140ft_ VJ(~~ ~ 800 -1----

w~~ III 750i~ ~ 700

650 -l----------------r---r-----r------l

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Date

1000 4==__-----T------------J

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Date

Well No 19-60-601Wise County

Well No 32-02-101Parker County

1250 -r---~-~------=--------

5 a- 1200~~i ~ 1150 1---------shyW8~ ~ 11 00 l---~ ~~==-- -=-----yIII GI

3= ~ 1050

Figure 9 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer13

Groundwater flow in the Woodbine aquifer is generally to the east-southeast (Figure10) Water-level elevations have not changed significantly since 1989 (Figure 11) Thegreatest water-level differences occur in northern Collin County the central tonortheastern portion of Denton County eastern Cooke County and northern GraysonCounty (Figure 11) Water levels have declined an average of 10 feet over most of thisarea with declines of 60 feet observed in the northern part of Grayson County Waterlevels in Johnson County have remained steady from 1989 to 1997

Water levels in individual wells in the Woodbine aquifer show a variety of historicalwater-level changes (Figure 12) Some wells show little change over the past 30 years(18-25-301 32-39-505 17-12-101) while others show overall declines (18-50-202 18shy38-30233-50-502) A well in Fannin County (18-38-302) shows a decline of about 179feet frorn 1971 to 1989 with generally stable water levels since 1989 Since 1989 waterlevels in selected wells have declined as much as 42 feet and rebounded less than 3feet (Table 3) Rates of water-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +034 toshy594 feet per year (Table 3)

Average Total Water-Measurement Yearly Level

Well 10 County Formation Period Difference Difference(tt) (tt)

18-25-301 Grayson Woodbine 1971-1989 -067 -12071989-1997 -017 -138

18-50-202 Collin Woodbine 1969-1989 -125 -25051989-1997 -116 -927

32-39-505 Johnson Woodbine 1966-1989 -090 -20691989-1997 +010 +082

17-12-101 Lamar Woodbine 1959-1989 +014 +4121989-1997 +034 +270

18-38-302 Fannin Woodbine 1971-1989 -994 -179001989-1997 -048 -380

33-50-502 Ellis Woodbine 1971-1989 +014 +2451989-1996 -594 -4160

Table 3 Water-level differences within the Woodbine aqUifer (based on data fromTWOS 1998a)

Precipitation

The primary source of recharge to the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers is infiltration fromprecipitation falling on the outcrop (Nordstrom 1982) The arnount of recharge to theTrinity and Woodbine aquifers is estimated to be less than one inch per year(Nordstrom 1982) This arnounts to about 3 percent of average annual precipitation inthe area

Annual precipitation varies from 28-32 inches in the western part of the study area to44-48 inches in the eastern part (Nordstrom 1982) From 1960 through 1996 average

14

~

cn

i JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOO

COOKE

NAVARRO

o

fmiddot ~~

---~

N

I25 50 Miles

- contours (feet above msl)bull wells

r--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop11 downdip

contour interval - 100 feetdatum mean sea level

Figure 10 Approximate water-level elevations in the Woodbine aquifer winter 1997

~

(J)

I

JACK

PALO PINTO

~

l~

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

COOKE

DENTON

-10~

~- --I

NAVARRO

o

N

I25 50 Miles

contours (feet above msl)bull wells

[-- countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 10 feet

Well No 18-25middot301Grayson County

Well No 17-12middot101Lamar County

2000

2000

2000

--

1990

1990

1990

1970 1980Date

1970 1980

Date

1970 1980

Date

----------

Well No 33-50-502City of Avalon Ellis County

1960

1960

Well No 18-38-302City of Randolph Fannin County

1960

SUrfaa Elevallon 52~ fIWellgtpIll1238 fl

v

~ -

-

SurfacR lev 66811

Well O~ln 1297 fl

h~

~

o1950

250

150

1950

550 ~=---------~---Surface El vallon 500 IWell 0ep1ll165 fI1

o (J) 500~ii ~ 450 f----=======7+---=o=-iw8Ai ~ 400III III ~ 35G +----~

300 L----------------------l

1950

FED RVER

400

c 3502 (J)o oounty iigt III 300

Woodbine aquifer ~ ~o aJtcropwJ)

251)i~o dMIndip III Il

~ 200

v4SE

PARKER

tv1CNTAGUE

PALOANTO

2000

2000

2000

1990

1990

1990

970 1980

Date

1970 1980Date

1970 1980Date

1960

1960

1960

Surfaoc ElevUon 7U ft

Well Depth 210 fI

- --~

500 +- ---__---- J

1950

500

1950

750

200 l--~~---r-----------1

1950

Well No 8-50-202Collin County

Well No 32-39-505Johnson Counly

450 ---~~------su=rf~a-ee-E-le-v-62-0-1t----

Well Depth 840 11----

750 ---~-----~----------SUIl Elevation 740 HWell 0ep11 280 It

c 400O(f)

~~~ ~ 350

~ ~ 300 +---------~----III ell

~ 250

Figure 12 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer17

annual precipitation at the Weatherford gage located on the Trinity outcrop has been33 inches with a minimum of 19 inches in 1963 and a maximum of 49 inches in 1991(Figure 13) Precipitation has been above average from 1989 through 1996

From 1965 through 1996 average annual precipitation at the Denton SE gage locatedon the Woodbine outcrop has been 38 inches with a minimum of 275 inches in 1972and a maximum of 57 inches in 1981 (Figure 14) Precipitation has been aboveaverage from 1992 through 1995

Water Quality

The TWOB collected water samples following standard procedures (Nordstrom andBeynon 1991) from the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers beiween 1990 to 1998throughout the study area Samples were analyzed for major anions and cations andselected trace elements including nitrate nitrogen (as N03) sulfate chloride sodiumcalcium magnesium silica total potassium strontium carbonate bicarbonate andfluoride

Measured concentrations were compared to the primary constituent levels Primaryconstituent levels are the maximum contaminant levels for a pollutant that is allowed indrinking water which will cause no adverse effects on human health Secondaryconstituent levels are usually based on reasons such as color taste odor staining andscaling and are recommended limits (30 TAC sect290 1999)

Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for applicable constituents (30 TAC sect290 1999)include

bull a secondary constituent level of 1000 mgll for TOSbull a primary constituent level of 10 mgll for nitrate as nitrogenbull a primary constituent level of 443 mgll for nitrate as nitratebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for sulfatebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for chloridebull a primary constituent level of 40 mgll for fluoride andbull a secondary constituent level of 20 mgll for fluoride

Trinity Aquifer

TOS concentrations for groundwater samples from the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer tend to increase downdip towards the eastern part ofthe study area (Figure 15) Twenty wells exhibited TOS concentrations in excess of thesecondary constituent level Only 2 wells showed TOS concentrations above 2000mgl Chloride concentrations averaged 98 rngll (Table 4) with 12 samples exceedingsecondary constituent levels Sodium concentrations had an average of 245 mgll(Table 4) Nitrate concentrations averaged 100 mgll (Table 4) with 5 samplesexceeding primary constituent levels

18

~

lt0

o CXJlJ1tyiNTrinity aquifer~ artcropo cbvndip

Station 9532 - Weatherford55 -I I--yearly totals

Ul - 3 year moving average ~45 - - 1960-96 average annual RreclpJillgn ( Ioc=-co35s00~25 I Vl1

1995199019851975 1980Year

15 I I

1960 1965 1970

Figure 13 Precipitation at the Weatherford gage 1960-1996

1995199019851980

-- yearly totals-- 3 year moving average- - 1965-96 average annual RreciRitation

1975

Station 2404 - Denton 2 SE

MlIfPGLEI ro4l~~0~Ijl FffiRiVER It~N

J6Dlt I I ~1iiffiiliNW7 ID COLl1ly I1M Woodbine aquifer~ cutcrop c cbw1dip

PALOF1NTD PARKER

~I vp 65

VIQ)

1i 55sectcQ45~

III~

0~b5 ~

a

25 j

1965 1970

Year

Figure 14 Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996

_ f ~ ~ c( )~ )(~i MONTA i f i GUE ~~l-- -0~r So~M ~~-

~-= ~ ~ -

_ 1~~~_~~~W i)~_NW-~raquo ~t~~~~~~ COLLtN~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~amp- ~ HUNT t

10 bullbull ~

12 ~~~ -~~~~~~~I[h - ~--_~~ ~~~~ 0 ~ ~~~_ M~HOOO~ ~~~ = 0_ bull iO(f~hl (gILl

~~--0 ~~_~bullbull~lt~-_ ~~ ~ c~unt 3000 (slightly saline) bull ~~ rlnltyaqUife ~ r

~o=p8 fSSl downdip

~ 1 NAVARRO

~

Oowndip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 T08)

Figure 15 TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

~

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 131 71767 22100 203800Chloride 131 9821 300 64700Sodium 131 24526 880 65700Nitrate as N 129 100 lt004 1850Sulfate 131 10310 1200 72500Fluoride 131 090 004 306

Table 4 Groundwater quality In the Antlers and TWin Mountains Formations Tnnlty

aquifer (based on data from TWDB 1998a)

Sulfate levels had an average of 103 mgI (Table 4) with 4 samples exceeding 300 mgIThe average fluoride concentration was 090 mgI (Table 4) with the highestconcentration reading 306 mg1

The highest TDS chloride and sodium levels were recorded in samples from well 32shy06-104 located in north-central Tarrant County The TDS concentration was 3302mgI chloride was 1822 mgI and sodium was 1210 mg1 This area exhibits higherthan normal TDS values possibly due to contamination from oil and gas production aswell as various other industries (Baker and others 1990) Therefore this well was notincluded in computing the average concentrations above

Well 33-26-301 located in south-central Dallas County is owned by the City ofLancaster and is currently used for backup purposes only The TDS concentration was2038 mgI with chloride sodium and sulfate concentrations of 326 mgI 657 mgI and725 mgI respectively and probably reflects natural conditions

The majority of samples exhibiting elevated TDS chloride sodium and sulfateconcentrations were collected from the Twin Mountains Formation The areas showinghigh TDS concentrations include north-central Tarrant County and parts of DentonCollin Dallas and Ellis Counties Current TDS ranges are not significantly higher thanhistorical values reported by Baker and others (1990)

In general groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer hasremained acceptable throughout the study area TDS concentrations for water samplescollected from the Paluxy Formation averaged 607 mgI (Table 5)with only 4 out of 51wells sampled showing TDS concentrations above the secondary constituent level(Figure 16) The highest TDS concentration was 1339 mgI and was recorded at anirrigation well (18-58-503) located in Collin County Chloride sodium sulfate and nitrateconcentrations for this well were 31 mgI 431 mgI 590 mgI and lt004 mgIrespectively

22

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 51 60670 20300 133900Chloride 51 3608 400 27300Sodium 51 18776 710 44400Nitrate as N 51 100 lt004 2585Sulfate 51 10125 089 59000Fluoride 51 106 017 410

Table 5 Groundwater quality In the Paluxy FormalJon Tnnlty aquifer (based on datafrom TWDB 1998a)

Chloride and nitrate as nitrogen levels averaged 36 mgI and 1 mgI respectively andwere all within primary constituent levels with the exception of one nitrate sample (Table5) The highest nitrate concentration originated from well 32-10-603 located north ofWeatherford in Parker County

Sulfate and fluoride levels averaged 103 mgI and 09 mgI respectively (Table 5) Thiswell is designated as a public supply well and had a nitrate level of 2585 mg1 Onesulfate sample (from well 18-58-503 described above) and one fluoride sample (fromwell 32-39-805 located in Johnson County) exceeded secondary constituent levels

Woodbine Aquifer

Generally TDS concentrations increase downdip towards the eastern part of the studyarea (Figure 17) Average TDS was 877 mgI (Table 6) with the highst concentration(2278 mgI) from a public supply well (32-47-805) for the city of Grandview insoutheastern Johnson County well Chloride has an average concentration of 86 mgI(Table 6) with 5 wells exceeding secondary constituent levels Well 18-55-401 a publicsupply well owned by Caddo Basin Special Utility District located in Greenville (Hunt

County) had the highest chloride concentration of 507 mg1

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 76 87739 8300 227800Chloride 76 8588 407 50700Sodium 76 31176 953 82500Nitrate as N 76 067 lt004 1041Sulfate 76 20918 542 126300Fluoride 76 130 024 627

Table 6 Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer (based on data from TWDB1998a)

23

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

Groundwater flow in the Woodbine aquifer is generally to the east-southeast (Figure10) Water-level elevations have not changed significantly since 1989 (Figure 11) Thegreatest water-level differences occur in northern Collin County the central tonortheastern portion of Denton County eastern Cooke County and northern GraysonCounty (Figure 11) Water levels have declined an average of 10 feet over most of thisarea with declines of 60 feet observed in the northern part of Grayson County Waterlevels in Johnson County have remained steady from 1989 to 1997

Water levels in individual wells in the Woodbine aquifer show a variety of historicalwater-level changes (Figure 12) Some wells show little change over the past 30 years(18-25-301 32-39-505 17-12-101) while others show overall declines (18-50-202 18shy38-30233-50-502) A well in Fannin County (18-38-302) shows a decline of about 179feet frorn 1971 to 1989 with generally stable water levels since 1989 Since 1989 waterlevels in selected wells have declined as much as 42 feet and rebounded less than 3feet (Table 3) Rates of water-level changes between 1989-1997 range from +034 toshy594 feet per year (Table 3)

Average Total Water-Measurement Yearly Level

Well 10 County Formation Period Difference Difference(tt) (tt)

18-25-301 Grayson Woodbine 1971-1989 -067 -12071989-1997 -017 -138

18-50-202 Collin Woodbine 1969-1989 -125 -25051989-1997 -116 -927

32-39-505 Johnson Woodbine 1966-1989 -090 -20691989-1997 +010 +082

17-12-101 Lamar Woodbine 1959-1989 +014 +4121989-1997 +034 +270

18-38-302 Fannin Woodbine 1971-1989 -994 -179001989-1997 -048 -380

33-50-502 Ellis Woodbine 1971-1989 +014 +2451989-1996 -594 -4160

Table 3 Water-level differences within the Woodbine aqUifer (based on data fromTWOS 1998a)

Precipitation

The primary source of recharge to the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers is infiltration fromprecipitation falling on the outcrop (Nordstrom 1982) The arnount of recharge to theTrinity and Woodbine aquifers is estimated to be less than one inch per year(Nordstrom 1982) This arnounts to about 3 percent of average annual precipitation inthe area

Annual precipitation varies from 28-32 inches in the western part of the study area to44-48 inches in the eastern part (Nordstrom 1982) From 1960 through 1996 average

14

~

cn

i JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOO

COOKE

NAVARRO

o

fmiddot ~~

---~

N

I25 50 Miles

- contours (feet above msl)bull wells

r--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop11 downdip

contour interval - 100 feetdatum mean sea level

Figure 10 Approximate water-level elevations in the Woodbine aquifer winter 1997

~

(J)

I

JACK

PALO PINTO

~

l~

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

COOKE

DENTON

-10~

~- --I

NAVARRO

o

N

I25 50 Miles

contours (feet above msl)bull wells

[-- countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 10 feet

Well No 18-25middot301Grayson County

Well No 17-12middot101Lamar County

2000

2000

2000

--

1990

1990

1990

1970 1980Date

1970 1980

Date

1970 1980

Date

----------

Well No 33-50-502City of Avalon Ellis County

1960

1960

Well No 18-38-302City of Randolph Fannin County

1960

SUrfaa Elevallon 52~ fIWellgtpIll1238 fl

v

~ -

-

SurfacR lev 66811

Well O~ln 1297 fl

h~

~

o1950

250

150

1950

550 ~=---------~---Surface El vallon 500 IWell 0ep1ll165 fI1

o (J) 500~ii ~ 450 f----=======7+---=o=-iw8Ai ~ 400III III ~ 35G +----~

300 L----------------------l

1950

FED RVER

400

c 3502 (J)o oounty iigt III 300

Woodbine aquifer ~ ~o aJtcropwJ)

251)i~o dMIndip III Il

~ 200

v4SE

PARKER

tv1CNTAGUE

PALOANTO

2000

2000

2000

1990

1990

1990

970 1980

Date

1970 1980Date

1970 1980Date

1960

1960

1960

Surfaoc ElevUon 7U ft

Well Depth 210 fI

- --~

500 +- ---__---- J

1950

500

1950

750

200 l--~~---r-----------1

1950

Well No 8-50-202Collin County

Well No 32-39-505Johnson Counly

450 ---~~------su=rf~a-ee-E-le-v-62-0-1t----

Well Depth 840 11----

750 ---~-----~----------SUIl Elevation 740 HWell 0ep11 280 It

c 400O(f)

~~~ ~ 350

~ ~ 300 +---------~----III ell

~ 250

Figure 12 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer17

annual precipitation at the Weatherford gage located on the Trinity outcrop has been33 inches with a minimum of 19 inches in 1963 and a maximum of 49 inches in 1991(Figure 13) Precipitation has been above average from 1989 through 1996

From 1965 through 1996 average annual precipitation at the Denton SE gage locatedon the Woodbine outcrop has been 38 inches with a minimum of 275 inches in 1972and a maximum of 57 inches in 1981 (Figure 14) Precipitation has been aboveaverage from 1992 through 1995

Water Quality

The TWOB collected water samples following standard procedures (Nordstrom andBeynon 1991) from the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers beiween 1990 to 1998throughout the study area Samples were analyzed for major anions and cations andselected trace elements including nitrate nitrogen (as N03) sulfate chloride sodiumcalcium magnesium silica total potassium strontium carbonate bicarbonate andfluoride

Measured concentrations were compared to the primary constituent levels Primaryconstituent levels are the maximum contaminant levels for a pollutant that is allowed indrinking water which will cause no adverse effects on human health Secondaryconstituent levels are usually based on reasons such as color taste odor staining andscaling and are recommended limits (30 TAC sect290 1999)

Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for applicable constituents (30 TAC sect290 1999)include

bull a secondary constituent level of 1000 mgll for TOSbull a primary constituent level of 10 mgll for nitrate as nitrogenbull a primary constituent level of 443 mgll for nitrate as nitratebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for sulfatebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for chloridebull a primary constituent level of 40 mgll for fluoride andbull a secondary constituent level of 20 mgll for fluoride

Trinity Aquifer

TOS concentrations for groundwater samples from the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer tend to increase downdip towards the eastern part ofthe study area (Figure 15) Twenty wells exhibited TOS concentrations in excess of thesecondary constituent level Only 2 wells showed TOS concentrations above 2000mgl Chloride concentrations averaged 98 rngll (Table 4) with 12 samples exceedingsecondary constituent levels Sodium concentrations had an average of 245 mgll(Table 4) Nitrate concentrations averaged 100 mgll (Table 4) with 5 samplesexceeding primary constituent levels

18

~

lt0

o CXJlJ1tyiNTrinity aquifer~ artcropo cbvndip

Station 9532 - Weatherford55 -I I--yearly totals

Ul - 3 year moving average ~45 - - 1960-96 average annual RreclpJillgn ( Ioc=-co35s00~25 I Vl1

1995199019851975 1980Year

15 I I

1960 1965 1970

Figure 13 Precipitation at the Weatherford gage 1960-1996

1995199019851980

-- yearly totals-- 3 year moving average- - 1965-96 average annual RreciRitation

1975

Station 2404 - Denton 2 SE

MlIfPGLEI ro4l~~0~Ijl FffiRiVER It~N

J6Dlt I I ~1iiffiiliNW7 ID COLl1ly I1M Woodbine aquifer~ cutcrop c cbw1dip

PALOF1NTD PARKER

~I vp 65

VIQ)

1i 55sectcQ45~

III~

0~b5 ~

a

25 j

1965 1970

Year

Figure 14 Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996

_ f ~ ~ c( )~ )(~i MONTA i f i GUE ~~l-- -0~r So~M ~~-

~-= ~ ~ -

_ 1~~~_~~~W i)~_NW-~raquo ~t~~~~~~ COLLtN~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~amp- ~ HUNT t

10 bullbull ~

12 ~~~ -~~~~~~~I[h - ~--_~~ ~~~~ 0 ~ ~~~_ M~HOOO~ ~~~ = 0_ bull iO(f~hl (gILl

~~--0 ~~_~bullbull~lt~-_ ~~ ~ c~unt 3000 (slightly saline) bull ~~ rlnltyaqUife ~ r

~o=p8 fSSl downdip

~ 1 NAVARRO

~

Oowndip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 T08)

Figure 15 TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

~

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 131 71767 22100 203800Chloride 131 9821 300 64700Sodium 131 24526 880 65700Nitrate as N 129 100 lt004 1850Sulfate 131 10310 1200 72500Fluoride 131 090 004 306

Table 4 Groundwater quality In the Antlers and TWin Mountains Formations Tnnlty

aquifer (based on data from TWDB 1998a)

Sulfate levels had an average of 103 mgI (Table 4) with 4 samples exceeding 300 mgIThe average fluoride concentration was 090 mgI (Table 4) with the highestconcentration reading 306 mg1

The highest TDS chloride and sodium levels were recorded in samples from well 32shy06-104 located in north-central Tarrant County The TDS concentration was 3302mgI chloride was 1822 mgI and sodium was 1210 mg1 This area exhibits higherthan normal TDS values possibly due to contamination from oil and gas production aswell as various other industries (Baker and others 1990) Therefore this well was notincluded in computing the average concentrations above

Well 33-26-301 located in south-central Dallas County is owned by the City ofLancaster and is currently used for backup purposes only The TDS concentration was2038 mgI with chloride sodium and sulfate concentrations of 326 mgI 657 mgI and725 mgI respectively and probably reflects natural conditions

The majority of samples exhibiting elevated TDS chloride sodium and sulfateconcentrations were collected from the Twin Mountains Formation The areas showinghigh TDS concentrations include north-central Tarrant County and parts of DentonCollin Dallas and Ellis Counties Current TDS ranges are not significantly higher thanhistorical values reported by Baker and others (1990)

In general groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer hasremained acceptable throughout the study area TDS concentrations for water samplescollected from the Paluxy Formation averaged 607 mgI (Table 5)with only 4 out of 51wells sampled showing TDS concentrations above the secondary constituent level(Figure 16) The highest TDS concentration was 1339 mgI and was recorded at anirrigation well (18-58-503) located in Collin County Chloride sodium sulfate and nitrateconcentrations for this well were 31 mgI 431 mgI 590 mgI and lt004 mgIrespectively

22

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 51 60670 20300 133900Chloride 51 3608 400 27300Sodium 51 18776 710 44400Nitrate as N 51 100 lt004 2585Sulfate 51 10125 089 59000Fluoride 51 106 017 410

Table 5 Groundwater quality In the Paluxy FormalJon Tnnlty aquifer (based on datafrom TWDB 1998a)

Chloride and nitrate as nitrogen levels averaged 36 mgI and 1 mgI respectively andwere all within primary constituent levels with the exception of one nitrate sample (Table5) The highest nitrate concentration originated from well 32-10-603 located north ofWeatherford in Parker County

Sulfate and fluoride levels averaged 103 mgI and 09 mgI respectively (Table 5) Thiswell is designated as a public supply well and had a nitrate level of 2585 mg1 Onesulfate sample (from well 18-58-503 described above) and one fluoride sample (fromwell 32-39-805 located in Johnson County) exceeded secondary constituent levels

Woodbine Aquifer

Generally TDS concentrations increase downdip towards the eastern part of the studyarea (Figure 17) Average TDS was 877 mgI (Table 6) with the highst concentration(2278 mgI) from a public supply well (32-47-805) for the city of Grandview insoutheastern Johnson County well Chloride has an average concentration of 86 mgI(Table 6) with 5 wells exceeding secondary constituent levels Well 18-55-401 a publicsupply well owned by Caddo Basin Special Utility District located in Greenville (Hunt

County) had the highest chloride concentration of 507 mg1

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 76 87739 8300 227800Chloride 76 8588 407 50700Sodium 76 31176 953 82500Nitrate as N 76 067 lt004 1041Sulfate 76 20918 542 126300Fluoride 76 130 024 627

Table 6 Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer (based on data from TWDB1998a)

23

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

~

cn

i JACK

PALO PINTO

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOO

COOKE

NAVARRO

o

fmiddot ~~

---~

N

I25 50 Miles

- contours (feet above msl)bull wells

r--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop11 downdip

contour interval - 100 feetdatum mean sea level

Figure 10 Approximate water-level elevations in the Woodbine aquifer winter 1997

~

(J)

I

JACK

PALO PINTO

~

l~

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

COOKE

DENTON

-10~

~- --I

NAVARRO

o

N

I25 50 Miles

contours (feet above msl)bull wells

[-- countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 10 feet

Well No 18-25middot301Grayson County

Well No 17-12middot101Lamar County

2000

2000

2000

--

1990

1990

1990

1970 1980Date

1970 1980

Date

1970 1980

Date

----------

Well No 33-50-502City of Avalon Ellis County

1960

1960

Well No 18-38-302City of Randolph Fannin County

1960

SUrfaa Elevallon 52~ fIWellgtpIll1238 fl

v

~ -

-

SurfacR lev 66811

Well O~ln 1297 fl

h~

~

o1950

250

150

1950

550 ~=---------~---Surface El vallon 500 IWell 0ep1ll165 fI1

o (J) 500~ii ~ 450 f----=======7+---=o=-iw8Ai ~ 400III III ~ 35G +----~

300 L----------------------l

1950

FED RVER

400

c 3502 (J)o oounty iigt III 300

Woodbine aquifer ~ ~o aJtcropwJ)

251)i~o dMIndip III Il

~ 200

v4SE

PARKER

tv1CNTAGUE

PALOANTO

2000

2000

2000

1990

1990

1990

970 1980

Date

1970 1980Date

1970 1980Date

1960

1960

1960

Surfaoc ElevUon 7U ft

Well Depth 210 fI

- --~

500 +- ---__---- J

1950

500

1950

750

200 l--~~---r-----------1

1950

Well No 8-50-202Collin County

Well No 32-39-505Johnson Counly

450 ---~~------su=rf~a-ee-E-le-v-62-0-1t----

Well Depth 840 11----

750 ---~-----~----------SUIl Elevation 740 HWell 0ep11 280 It

c 400O(f)

~~~ ~ 350

~ ~ 300 +---------~----III ell

~ 250

Figure 12 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer17

annual precipitation at the Weatherford gage located on the Trinity outcrop has been33 inches with a minimum of 19 inches in 1963 and a maximum of 49 inches in 1991(Figure 13) Precipitation has been above average from 1989 through 1996

From 1965 through 1996 average annual precipitation at the Denton SE gage locatedon the Woodbine outcrop has been 38 inches with a minimum of 275 inches in 1972and a maximum of 57 inches in 1981 (Figure 14) Precipitation has been aboveaverage from 1992 through 1995

Water Quality

The TWOB collected water samples following standard procedures (Nordstrom andBeynon 1991) from the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers beiween 1990 to 1998throughout the study area Samples were analyzed for major anions and cations andselected trace elements including nitrate nitrogen (as N03) sulfate chloride sodiumcalcium magnesium silica total potassium strontium carbonate bicarbonate andfluoride

Measured concentrations were compared to the primary constituent levels Primaryconstituent levels are the maximum contaminant levels for a pollutant that is allowed indrinking water which will cause no adverse effects on human health Secondaryconstituent levels are usually based on reasons such as color taste odor staining andscaling and are recommended limits (30 TAC sect290 1999)

Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for applicable constituents (30 TAC sect290 1999)include

bull a secondary constituent level of 1000 mgll for TOSbull a primary constituent level of 10 mgll for nitrate as nitrogenbull a primary constituent level of 443 mgll for nitrate as nitratebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for sulfatebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for chloridebull a primary constituent level of 40 mgll for fluoride andbull a secondary constituent level of 20 mgll for fluoride

Trinity Aquifer

TOS concentrations for groundwater samples from the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer tend to increase downdip towards the eastern part ofthe study area (Figure 15) Twenty wells exhibited TOS concentrations in excess of thesecondary constituent level Only 2 wells showed TOS concentrations above 2000mgl Chloride concentrations averaged 98 rngll (Table 4) with 12 samples exceedingsecondary constituent levels Sodium concentrations had an average of 245 mgll(Table 4) Nitrate concentrations averaged 100 mgll (Table 4) with 5 samplesexceeding primary constituent levels

18

~

lt0

o CXJlJ1tyiNTrinity aquifer~ artcropo cbvndip

Station 9532 - Weatherford55 -I I--yearly totals

Ul - 3 year moving average ~45 - - 1960-96 average annual RreclpJillgn ( Ioc=-co35s00~25 I Vl1

1995199019851975 1980Year

15 I I

1960 1965 1970

Figure 13 Precipitation at the Weatherford gage 1960-1996

1995199019851980

-- yearly totals-- 3 year moving average- - 1965-96 average annual RreciRitation

1975

Station 2404 - Denton 2 SE

MlIfPGLEI ro4l~~0~Ijl FffiRiVER It~N

J6Dlt I I ~1iiffiiliNW7 ID COLl1ly I1M Woodbine aquifer~ cutcrop c cbw1dip

PALOF1NTD PARKER

~I vp 65

VIQ)

1i 55sectcQ45~

III~

0~b5 ~

a

25 j

1965 1970

Year

Figure 14 Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996

_ f ~ ~ c( )~ )(~i MONTA i f i GUE ~~l-- -0~r So~M ~~-

~-= ~ ~ -

_ 1~~~_~~~W i)~_NW-~raquo ~t~~~~~~ COLLtN~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~amp- ~ HUNT t

10 bullbull ~

12 ~~~ -~~~~~~~I[h - ~--_~~ ~~~~ 0 ~ ~~~_ M~HOOO~ ~~~ = 0_ bull iO(f~hl (gILl

~~--0 ~~_~bullbull~lt~-_ ~~ ~ c~unt 3000 (slightly saline) bull ~~ rlnltyaqUife ~ r

~o=p8 fSSl downdip

~ 1 NAVARRO

~

Oowndip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 T08)

Figure 15 TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

~

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 131 71767 22100 203800Chloride 131 9821 300 64700Sodium 131 24526 880 65700Nitrate as N 129 100 lt004 1850Sulfate 131 10310 1200 72500Fluoride 131 090 004 306

Table 4 Groundwater quality In the Antlers and TWin Mountains Formations Tnnlty

aquifer (based on data from TWDB 1998a)

Sulfate levels had an average of 103 mgI (Table 4) with 4 samples exceeding 300 mgIThe average fluoride concentration was 090 mgI (Table 4) with the highestconcentration reading 306 mg1

The highest TDS chloride and sodium levels were recorded in samples from well 32shy06-104 located in north-central Tarrant County The TDS concentration was 3302mgI chloride was 1822 mgI and sodium was 1210 mg1 This area exhibits higherthan normal TDS values possibly due to contamination from oil and gas production aswell as various other industries (Baker and others 1990) Therefore this well was notincluded in computing the average concentrations above

Well 33-26-301 located in south-central Dallas County is owned by the City ofLancaster and is currently used for backup purposes only The TDS concentration was2038 mgI with chloride sodium and sulfate concentrations of 326 mgI 657 mgI and725 mgI respectively and probably reflects natural conditions

The majority of samples exhibiting elevated TDS chloride sodium and sulfateconcentrations were collected from the Twin Mountains Formation The areas showinghigh TDS concentrations include north-central Tarrant County and parts of DentonCollin Dallas and Ellis Counties Current TDS ranges are not significantly higher thanhistorical values reported by Baker and others (1990)

In general groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer hasremained acceptable throughout the study area TDS concentrations for water samplescollected from the Paluxy Formation averaged 607 mgI (Table 5)with only 4 out of 51wells sampled showing TDS concentrations above the secondary constituent level(Figure 16) The highest TDS concentration was 1339 mgI and was recorded at anirrigation well (18-58-503) located in Collin County Chloride sodium sulfate and nitrateconcentrations for this well were 31 mgI 431 mgI 590 mgI and lt004 mgIrespectively

22

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 51 60670 20300 133900Chloride 51 3608 400 27300Sodium 51 18776 710 44400Nitrate as N 51 100 lt004 2585Sulfate 51 10125 089 59000Fluoride 51 106 017 410

Table 5 Groundwater quality In the Paluxy FormalJon Tnnlty aquifer (based on datafrom TWDB 1998a)

Chloride and nitrate as nitrogen levels averaged 36 mgI and 1 mgI respectively andwere all within primary constituent levels with the exception of one nitrate sample (Table5) The highest nitrate concentration originated from well 32-10-603 located north ofWeatherford in Parker County

Sulfate and fluoride levels averaged 103 mgI and 09 mgI respectively (Table 5) Thiswell is designated as a public supply well and had a nitrate level of 2585 mg1 Onesulfate sample (from well 18-58-503 described above) and one fluoride sample (fromwell 32-39-805 located in Johnson County) exceeded secondary constituent levels

Woodbine Aquifer

Generally TDS concentrations increase downdip towards the eastern part of the studyarea (Figure 17) Average TDS was 877 mgI (Table 6) with the highst concentration(2278 mgI) from a public supply well (32-47-805) for the city of Grandview insoutheastern Johnson County well Chloride has an average concentration of 86 mgI(Table 6) with 5 wells exceeding secondary constituent levels Well 18-55-401 a publicsupply well owned by Caddo Basin Special Utility District located in Greenville (Hunt

County) had the highest chloride concentration of 507 mg1

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 76 87739 8300 227800Chloride 76 8588 407 50700Sodium 76 31176 953 82500Nitrate as N 76 067 lt004 1041Sulfate 76 20918 542 126300Fluoride 76 130 024 627

Table 6 Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer (based on data from TWDB1998a)

23

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

~

(J)

I

JACK

PALO PINTO

~

l~

MONTAGUE

WISE

PARKER

HOOD

COOKE

DENTON

-10~

~- --I

NAVARRO

o

N

I25 50 Miles

contours (feet above msl)bull wells

[-- countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

contour interval - 10 feet

Well No 18-25middot301Grayson County

Well No 17-12middot101Lamar County

2000

2000

2000

--

1990

1990

1990

1970 1980Date

1970 1980

Date

1970 1980

Date

----------

Well No 33-50-502City of Avalon Ellis County

1960

1960

Well No 18-38-302City of Randolph Fannin County

1960

SUrfaa Elevallon 52~ fIWellgtpIll1238 fl

v

~ -

-

SurfacR lev 66811

Well O~ln 1297 fl

h~

~

o1950

250

150

1950

550 ~=---------~---Surface El vallon 500 IWell 0ep1ll165 fI1

o (J) 500~ii ~ 450 f----=======7+---=o=-iw8Ai ~ 400III III ~ 35G +----~

300 L----------------------l

1950

FED RVER

400

c 3502 (J)o oounty iigt III 300

Woodbine aquifer ~ ~o aJtcropwJ)

251)i~o dMIndip III Il

~ 200

v4SE

PARKER

tv1CNTAGUE

PALOANTO

2000

2000

2000

1990

1990

1990

970 1980

Date

1970 1980Date

1970 1980Date

1960

1960

1960

Surfaoc ElevUon 7U ft

Well Depth 210 fI

- --~

500 +- ---__---- J

1950

500

1950

750

200 l--~~---r-----------1

1950

Well No 8-50-202Collin County

Well No 32-39-505Johnson Counly

450 ---~~------su=rf~a-ee-E-le-v-62-0-1t----

Well Depth 840 11----

750 ---~-----~----------SUIl Elevation 740 HWell 0ep11 280 It

c 400O(f)

~~~ ~ 350

~ ~ 300 +---------~----III ell

~ 250

Figure 12 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer17

annual precipitation at the Weatherford gage located on the Trinity outcrop has been33 inches with a minimum of 19 inches in 1963 and a maximum of 49 inches in 1991(Figure 13) Precipitation has been above average from 1989 through 1996

From 1965 through 1996 average annual precipitation at the Denton SE gage locatedon the Woodbine outcrop has been 38 inches with a minimum of 275 inches in 1972and a maximum of 57 inches in 1981 (Figure 14) Precipitation has been aboveaverage from 1992 through 1995

Water Quality

The TWOB collected water samples following standard procedures (Nordstrom andBeynon 1991) from the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers beiween 1990 to 1998throughout the study area Samples were analyzed for major anions and cations andselected trace elements including nitrate nitrogen (as N03) sulfate chloride sodiumcalcium magnesium silica total potassium strontium carbonate bicarbonate andfluoride

Measured concentrations were compared to the primary constituent levels Primaryconstituent levels are the maximum contaminant levels for a pollutant that is allowed indrinking water which will cause no adverse effects on human health Secondaryconstituent levels are usually based on reasons such as color taste odor staining andscaling and are recommended limits (30 TAC sect290 1999)

Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for applicable constituents (30 TAC sect290 1999)include

bull a secondary constituent level of 1000 mgll for TOSbull a primary constituent level of 10 mgll for nitrate as nitrogenbull a primary constituent level of 443 mgll for nitrate as nitratebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for sulfatebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for chloridebull a primary constituent level of 40 mgll for fluoride andbull a secondary constituent level of 20 mgll for fluoride

Trinity Aquifer

TOS concentrations for groundwater samples from the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer tend to increase downdip towards the eastern part ofthe study area (Figure 15) Twenty wells exhibited TOS concentrations in excess of thesecondary constituent level Only 2 wells showed TOS concentrations above 2000mgl Chloride concentrations averaged 98 rngll (Table 4) with 12 samples exceedingsecondary constituent levels Sodium concentrations had an average of 245 mgll(Table 4) Nitrate concentrations averaged 100 mgll (Table 4) with 5 samplesexceeding primary constituent levels

18

~

lt0

o CXJlJ1tyiNTrinity aquifer~ artcropo cbvndip

Station 9532 - Weatherford55 -I I--yearly totals

Ul - 3 year moving average ~45 - - 1960-96 average annual RreclpJillgn ( Ioc=-co35s00~25 I Vl1

1995199019851975 1980Year

15 I I

1960 1965 1970

Figure 13 Precipitation at the Weatherford gage 1960-1996

1995199019851980

-- yearly totals-- 3 year moving average- - 1965-96 average annual RreciRitation

1975

Station 2404 - Denton 2 SE

MlIfPGLEI ro4l~~0~Ijl FffiRiVER It~N

J6Dlt I I ~1iiffiiliNW7 ID COLl1ly I1M Woodbine aquifer~ cutcrop c cbw1dip

PALOF1NTD PARKER

~I vp 65

VIQ)

1i 55sectcQ45~

III~

0~b5 ~

a

25 j

1965 1970

Year

Figure 14 Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996

_ f ~ ~ c( )~ )(~i MONTA i f i GUE ~~l-- -0~r So~M ~~-

~-= ~ ~ -

_ 1~~~_~~~W i)~_NW-~raquo ~t~~~~~~ COLLtN~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~amp- ~ HUNT t

10 bullbull ~

12 ~~~ -~~~~~~~I[h - ~--_~~ ~~~~ 0 ~ ~~~_ M~HOOO~ ~~~ = 0_ bull iO(f~hl (gILl

~~--0 ~~_~bullbull~lt~-_ ~~ ~ c~unt 3000 (slightly saline) bull ~~ rlnltyaqUife ~ r

~o=p8 fSSl downdip

~ 1 NAVARRO

~

Oowndip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 T08)

Figure 15 TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

~

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 131 71767 22100 203800Chloride 131 9821 300 64700Sodium 131 24526 880 65700Nitrate as N 129 100 lt004 1850Sulfate 131 10310 1200 72500Fluoride 131 090 004 306

Table 4 Groundwater quality In the Antlers and TWin Mountains Formations Tnnlty

aquifer (based on data from TWDB 1998a)

Sulfate levels had an average of 103 mgI (Table 4) with 4 samples exceeding 300 mgIThe average fluoride concentration was 090 mgI (Table 4) with the highestconcentration reading 306 mg1

The highest TDS chloride and sodium levels were recorded in samples from well 32shy06-104 located in north-central Tarrant County The TDS concentration was 3302mgI chloride was 1822 mgI and sodium was 1210 mg1 This area exhibits higherthan normal TDS values possibly due to contamination from oil and gas production aswell as various other industries (Baker and others 1990) Therefore this well was notincluded in computing the average concentrations above

Well 33-26-301 located in south-central Dallas County is owned by the City ofLancaster and is currently used for backup purposes only The TDS concentration was2038 mgI with chloride sodium and sulfate concentrations of 326 mgI 657 mgI and725 mgI respectively and probably reflects natural conditions

The majority of samples exhibiting elevated TDS chloride sodium and sulfateconcentrations were collected from the Twin Mountains Formation The areas showinghigh TDS concentrations include north-central Tarrant County and parts of DentonCollin Dallas and Ellis Counties Current TDS ranges are not significantly higher thanhistorical values reported by Baker and others (1990)

In general groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer hasremained acceptable throughout the study area TDS concentrations for water samplescollected from the Paluxy Formation averaged 607 mgI (Table 5)with only 4 out of 51wells sampled showing TDS concentrations above the secondary constituent level(Figure 16) The highest TDS concentration was 1339 mgI and was recorded at anirrigation well (18-58-503) located in Collin County Chloride sodium sulfate and nitrateconcentrations for this well were 31 mgI 431 mgI 590 mgI and lt004 mgIrespectively

22

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 51 60670 20300 133900Chloride 51 3608 400 27300Sodium 51 18776 710 44400Nitrate as N 51 100 lt004 2585Sulfate 51 10125 089 59000Fluoride 51 106 017 410

Table 5 Groundwater quality In the Paluxy FormalJon Tnnlty aquifer (based on datafrom TWDB 1998a)

Chloride and nitrate as nitrogen levels averaged 36 mgI and 1 mgI respectively andwere all within primary constituent levels with the exception of one nitrate sample (Table5) The highest nitrate concentration originated from well 32-10-603 located north ofWeatherford in Parker County

Sulfate and fluoride levels averaged 103 mgI and 09 mgI respectively (Table 5) Thiswell is designated as a public supply well and had a nitrate level of 2585 mg1 Onesulfate sample (from well 18-58-503 described above) and one fluoride sample (fromwell 32-39-805 located in Johnson County) exceeded secondary constituent levels

Woodbine Aquifer

Generally TDS concentrations increase downdip towards the eastern part of the studyarea (Figure 17) Average TDS was 877 mgI (Table 6) with the highst concentration(2278 mgI) from a public supply well (32-47-805) for the city of Grandview insoutheastern Johnson County well Chloride has an average concentration of 86 mgI(Table 6) with 5 wells exceeding secondary constituent levels Well 18-55-401 a publicsupply well owned by Caddo Basin Special Utility District located in Greenville (Hunt

County) had the highest chloride concentration of 507 mg1

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 76 87739 8300 227800Chloride 76 8588 407 50700Sodium 76 31176 953 82500Nitrate as N 76 067 lt004 1041Sulfate 76 20918 542 126300Fluoride 76 130 024 627

Table 6 Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer (based on data from TWDB1998a)

23

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

Well No 18-25middot301Grayson County

Well No 17-12middot101Lamar County

2000

2000

2000

--

1990

1990

1990

1970 1980Date

1970 1980

Date

1970 1980

Date

----------

Well No 33-50-502City of Avalon Ellis County

1960

1960

Well No 18-38-302City of Randolph Fannin County

1960

SUrfaa Elevallon 52~ fIWellgtpIll1238 fl

v

~ -

-

SurfacR lev 66811

Well O~ln 1297 fl

h~

~

o1950

250

150

1950

550 ~=---------~---Surface El vallon 500 IWell 0ep1ll165 fI1

o (J) 500~ii ~ 450 f----=======7+---=o=-iw8Ai ~ 400III III ~ 35G +----~

300 L----------------------l

1950

FED RVER

400

c 3502 (J)o oounty iigt III 300

Woodbine aquifer ~ ~o aJtcropwJ)

251)i~o dMIndip III Il

~ 200

v4SE

PARKER

tv1CNTAGUE

PALOANTO

2000

2000

2000

1990

1990

1990

970 1980

Date

1970 1980Date

1970 1980Date

1960

1960

1960

Surfaoc ElevUon 7U ft

Well Depth 210 fI

- --~

500 +- ---__---- J

1950

500

1950

750

200 l--~~---r-----------1

1950

Well No 8-50-202Collin County

Well No 32-39-505Johnson Counly

450 ---~~------su=rf~a-ee-E-le-v-62-0-1t----

Well Depth 840 11----

750 ---~-----~----------SUIl Elevation 740 HWell 0ep11 280 It

c 400O(f)

~~~ ~ 350

~ ~ 300 +---------~----III ell

~ 250

Figure 12 Hydrographs of selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer17

annual precipitation at the Weatherford gage located on the Trinity outcrop has been33 inches with a minimum of 19 inches in 1963 and a maximum of 49 inches in 1991(Figure 13) Precipitation has been above average from 1989 through 1996

From 1965 through 1996 average annual precipitation at the Denton SE gage locatedon the Woodbine outcrop has been 38 inches with a minimum of 275 inches in 1972and a maximum of 57 inches in 1981 (Figure 14) Precipitation has been aboveaverage from 1992 through 1995

Water Quality

The TWOB collected water samples following standard procedures (Nordstrom andBeynon 1991) from the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers beiween 1990 to 1998throughout the study area Samples were analyzed for major anions and cations andselected trace elements including nitrate nitrogen (as N03) sulfate chloride sodiumcalcium magnesium silica total potassium strontium carbonate bicarbonate andfluoride

Measured concentrations were compared to the primary constituent levels Primaryconstituent levels are the maximum contaminant levels for a pollutant that is allowed indrinking water which will cause no adverse effects on human health Secondaryconstituent levels are usually based on reasons such as color taste odor staining andscaling and are recommended limits (30 TAC sect290 1999)

Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for applicable constituents (30 TAC sect290 1999)include

bull a secondary constituent level of 1000 mgll for TOSbull a primary constituent level of 10 mgll for nitrate as nitrogenbull a primary constituent level of 443 mgll for nitrate as nitratebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for sulfatebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for chloridebull a primary constituent level of 40 mgll for fluoride andbull a secondary constituent level of 20 mgll for fluoride

Trinity Aquifer

TOS concentrations for groundwater samples from the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer tend to increase downdip towards the eastern part ofthe study area (Figure 15) Twenty wells exhibited TOS concentrations in excess of thesecondary constituent level Only 2 wells showed TOS concentrations above 2000mgl Chloride concentrations averaged 98 rngll (Table 4) with 12 samples exceedingsecondary constituent levels Sodium concentrations had an average of 245 mgll(Table 4) Nitrate concentrations averaged 100 mgll (Table 4) with 5 samplesexceeding primary constituent levels

18

~

lt0

o CXJlJ1tyiNTrinity aquifer~ artcropo cbvndip

Station 9532 - Weatherford55 -I I--yearly totals

Ul - 3 year moving average ~45 - - 1960-96 average annual RreclpJillgn ( Ioc=-co35s00~25 I Vl1

1995199019851975 1980Year

15 I I

1960 1965 1970

Figure 13 Precipitation at the Weatherford gage 1960-1996

1995199019851980

-- yearly totals-- 3 year moving average- - 1965-96 average annual RreciRitation

1975

Station 2404 - Denton 2 SE

MlIfPGLEI ro4l~~0~Ijl FffiRiVER It~N

J6Dlt I I ~1iiffiiliNW7 ID COLl1ly I1M Woodbine aquifer~ cutcrop c cbw1dip

PALOF1NTD PARKER

~I vp 65

VIQ)

1i 55sectcQ45~

III~

0~b5 ~

a

25 j

1965 1970

Year

Figure 14 Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996

_ f ~ ~ c( )~ )(~i MONTA i f i GUE ~~l-- -0~r So~M ~~-

~-= ~ ~ -

_ 1~~~_~~~W i)~_NW-~raquo ~t~~~~~~ COLLtN~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~amp- ~ HUNT t

10 bullbull ~

12 ~~~ -~~~~~~~I[h - ~--_~~ ~~~~ 0 ~ ~~~_ M~HOOO~ ~~~ = 0_ bull iO(f~hl (gILl

~~--0 ~~_~bullbull~lt~-_ ~~ ~ c~unt 3000 (slightly saline) bull ~~ rlnltyaqUife ~ r

~o=p8 fSSl downdip

~ 1 NAVARRO

~

Oowndip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 T08)

Figure 15 TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

~

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 131 71767 22100 203800Chloride 131 9821 300 64700Sodium 131 24526 880 65700Nitrate as N 129 100 lt004 1850Sulfate 131 10310 1200 72500Fluoride 131 090 004 306

Table 4 Groundwater quality In the Antlers and TWin Mountains Formations Tnnlty

aquifer (based on data from TWDB 1998a)

Sulfate levels had an average of 103 mgI (Table 4) with 4 samples exceeding 300 mgIThe average fluoride concentration was 090 mgI (Table 4) with the highestconcentration reading 306 mg1

The highest TDS chloride and sodium levels were recorded in samples from well 32shy06-104 located in north-central Tarrant County The TDS concentration was 3302mgI chloride was 1822 mgI and sodium was 1210 mg1 This area exhibits higherthan normal TDS values possibly due to contamination from oil and gas production aswell as various other industries (Baker and others 1990) Therefore this well was notincluded in computing the average concentrations above

Well 33-26-301 located in south-central Dallas County is owned by the City ofLancaster and is currently used for backup purposes only The TDS concentration was2038 mgI with chloride sodium and sulfate concentrations of 326 mgI 657 mgI and725 mgI respectively and probably reflects natural conditions

The majority of samples exhibiting elevated TDS chloride sodium and sulfateconcentrations were collected from the Twin Mountains Formation The areas showinghigh TDS concentrations include north-central Tarrant County and parts of DentonCollin Dallas and Ellis Counties Current TDS ranges are not significantly higher thanhistorical values reported by Baker and others (1990)

In general groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer hasremained acceptable throughout the study area TDS concentrations for water samplescollected from the Paluxy Formation averaged 607 mgI (Table 5)with only 4 out of 51wells sampled showing TDS concentrations above the secondary constituent level(Figure 16) The highest TDS concentration was 1339 mgI and was recorded at anirrigation well (18-58-503) located in Collin County Chloride sodium sulfate and nitrateconcentrations for this well were 31 mgI 431 mgI 590 mgI and lt004 mgIrespectively

22

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 51 60670 20300 133900Chloride 51 3608 400 27300Sodium 51 18776 710 44400Nitrate as N 51 100 lt004 2585Sulfate 51 10125 089 59000Fluoride 51 106 017 410

Table 5 Groundwater quality In the Paluxy FormalJon Tnnlty aquifer (based on datafrom TWDB 1998a)

Chloride and nitrate as nitrogen levels averaged 36 mgI and 1 mgI respectively andwere all within primary constituent levels with the exception of one nitrate sample (Table5) The highest nitrate concentration originated from well 32-10-603 located north ofWeatherford in Parker County

Sulfate and fluoride levels averaged 103 mgI and 09 mgI respectively (Table 5) Thiswell is designated as a public supply well and had a nitrate level of 2585 mg1 Onesulfate sample (from well 18-58-503 described above) and one fluoride sample (fromwell 32-39-805 located in Johnson County) exceeded secondary constituent levels

Woodbine Aquifer

Generally TDS concentrations increase downdip towards the eastern part of the studyarea (Figure 17) Average TDS was 877 mgI (Table 6) with the highst concentration(2278 mgI) from a public supply well (32-47-805) for the city of Grandview insoutheastern Johnson County well Chloride has an average concentration of 86 mgI(Table 6) with 5 wells exceeding secondary constituent levels Well 18-55-401 a publicsupply well owned by Caddo Basin Special Utility District located in Greenville (Hunt

County) had the highest chloride concentration of 507 mg1

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 76 87739 8300 227800Chloride 76 8588 407 50700Sodium 76 31176 953 82500Nitrate as N 76 067 lt004 1041Sulfate 76 20918 542 126300Fluoride 76 130 024 627

Table 6 Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer (based on data from TWDB1998a)

23

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

annual precipitation at the Weatherford gage located on the Trinity outcrop has been33 inches with a minimum of 19 inches in 1963 and a maximum of 49 inches in 1991(Figure 13) Precipitation has been above average from 1989 through 1996

From 1965 through 1996 average annual precipitation at the Denton SE gage locatedon the Woodbine outcrop has been 38 inches with a minimum of 275 inches in 1972and a maximum of 57 inches in 1981 (Figure 14) Precipitation has been aboveaverage from 1992 through 1995

Water Quality

The TWOB collected water samples following standard procedures (Nordstrom andBeynon 1991) from the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers beiween 1990 to 1998throughout the study area Samples were analyzed for major anions and cations andselected trace elements including nitrate nitrogen (as N03) sulfate chloride sodiumcalcium magnesium silica total potassium strontium carbonate bicarbonate andfluoride

Measured concentrations were compared to the primary constituent levels Primaryconstituent levels are the maximum contaminant levels for a pollutant that is allowed indrinking water which will cause no adverse effects on human health Secondaryconstituent levels are usually based on reasons such as color taste odor staining andscaling and are recommended limits (30 TAC sect290 1999)

Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for applicable constituents (30 TAC sect290 1999)include

bull a secondary constituent level of 1000 mgll for TOSbull a primary constituent level of 10 mgll for nitrate as nitrogenbull a primary constituent level of 443 mgll for nitrate as nitratebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for sulfatebull a secondary constituent level of 300 mgll for chloridebull a primary constituent level of 40 mgll for fluoride andbull a secondary constituent level of 20 mgll for fluoride

Trinity Aquifer

TOS concentrations for groundwater samples from the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer tend to increase downdip towards the eastern part ofthe study area (Figure 15) Twenty wells exhibited TOS concentrations in excess of thesecondary constituent level Only 2 wells showed TOS concentrations above 2000mgl Chloride concentrations averaged 98 rngll (Table 4) with 12 samples exceedingsecondary constituent levels Sodium concentrations had an average of 245 mgll(Table 4) Nitrate concentrations averaged 100 mgll (Table 4) with 5 samplesexceeding primary constituent levels

18

~

lt0

o CXJlJ1tyiNTrinity aquifer~ artcropo cbvndip

Station 9532 - Weatherford55 -I I--yearly totals

Ul - 3 year moving average ~45 - - 1960-96 average annual RreclpJillgn ( Ioc=-co35s00~25 I Vl1

1995199019851975 1980Year

15 I I

1960 1965 1970

Figure 13 Precipitation at the Weatherford gage 1960-1996

1995199019851980

-- yearly totals-- 3 year moving average- - 1965-96 average annual RreciRitation

1975

Station 2404 - Denton 2 SE

MlIfPGLEI ro4l~~0~Ijl FffiRiVER It~N

J6Dlt I I ~1iiffiiliNW7 ID COLl1ly I1M Woodbine aquifer~ cutcrop c cbw1dip

PALOF1NTD PARKER

~I vp 65

VIQ)

1i 55sectcQ45~

III~

0~b5 ~

a

25 j

1965 1970

Year

Figure 14 Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996

_ f ~ ~ c( )~ )(~i MONTA i f i GUE ~~l-- -0~r So~M ~~-

~-= ~ ~ -

_ 1~~~_~~~W i)~_NW-~raquo ~t~~~~~~ COLLtN~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~amp- ~ HUNT t

10 bullbull ~

12 ~~~ -~~~~~~~I[h - ~--_~~ ~~~~ 0 ~ ~~~_ M~HOOO~ ~~~ = 0_ bull iO(f~hl (gILl

~~--0 ~~_~bullbull~lt~-_ ~~ ~ c~unt 3000 (slightly saline) bull ~~ rlnltyaqUife ~ r

~o=p8 fSSl downdip

~ 1 NAVARRO

~

Oowndip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 T08)

Figure 15 TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

~

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 131 71767 22100 203800Chloride 131 9821 300 64700Sodium 131 24526 880 65700Nitrate as N 129 100 lt004 1850Sulfate 131 10310 1200 72500Fluoride 131 090 004 306

Table 4 Groundwater quality In the Antlers and TWin Mountains Formations Tnnlty

aquifer (based on data from TWDB 1998a)

Sulfate levels had an average of 103 mgI (Table 4) with 4 samples exceeding 300 mgIThe average fluoride concentration was 090 mgI (Table 4) with the highestconcentration reading 306 mg1

The highest TDS chloride and sodium levels were recorded in samples from well 32shy06-104 located in north-central Tarrant County The TDS concentration was 3302mgI chloride was 1822 mgI and sodium was 1210 mg1 This area exhibits higherthan normal TDS values possibly due to contamination from oil and gas production aswell as various other industries (Baker and others 1990) Therefore this well was notincluded in computing the average concentrations above

Well 33-26-301 located in south-central Dallas County is owned by the City ofLancaster and is currently used for backup purposes only The TDS concentration was2038 mgI with chloride sodium and sulfate concentrations of 326 mgI 657 mgI and725 mgI respectively and probably reflects natural conditions

The majority of samples exhibiting elevated TDS chloride sodium and sulfateconcentrations were collected from the Twin Mountains Formation The areas showinghigh TDS concentrations include north-central Tarrant County and parts of DentonCollin Dallas and Ellis Counties Current TDS ranges are not significantly higher thanhistorical values reported by Baker and others (1990)

In general groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer hasremained acceptable throughout the study area TDS concentrations for water samplescollected from the Paluxy Formation averaged 607 mgI (Table 5)with only 4 out of 51wells sampled showing TDS concentrations above the secondary constituent level(Figure 16) The highest TDS concentration was 1339 mgI and was recorded at anirrigation well (18-58-503) located in Collin County Chloride sodium sulfate and nitrateconcentrations for this well were 31 mgI 431 mgI 590 mgI and lt004 mgIrespectively

22

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 51 60670 20300 133900Chloride 51 3608 400 27300Sodium 51 18776 710 44400Nitrate as N 51 100 lt004 2585Sulfate 51 10125 089 59000Fluoride 51 106 017 410

Table 5 Groundwater quality In the Paluxy FormalJon Tnnlty aquifer (based on datafrom TWDB 1998a)

Chloride and nitrate as nitrogen levels averaged 36 mgI and 1 mgI respectively andwere all within primary constituent levels with the exception of one nitrate sample (Table5) The highest nitrate concentration originated from well 32-10-603 located north ofWeatherford in Parker County

Sulfate and fluoride levels averaged 103 mgI and 09 mgI respectively (Table 5) Thiswell is designated as a public supply well and had a nitrate level of 2585 mg1 Onesulfate sample (from well 18-58-503 described above) and one fluoride sample (fromwell 32-39-805 located in Johnson County) exceeded secondary constituent levels

Woodbine Aquifer

Generally TDS concentrations increase downdip towards the eastern part of the studyarea (Figure 17) Average TDS was 877 mgI (Table 6) with the highst concentration(2278 mgI) from a public supply well (32-47-805) for the city of Grandview insoutheastern Johnson County well Chloride has an average concentration of 86 mgI(Table 6) with 5 wells exceeding secondary constituent levels Well 18-55-401 a publicsupply well owned by Caddo Basin Special Utility District located in Greenville (Hunt

County) had the highest chloride concentration of 507 mg1

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 76 87739 8300 227800Chloride 76 8588 407 50700Sodium 76 31176 953 82500Nitrate as N 76 067 lt004 1041Sulfate 76 20918 542 126300Fluoride 76 130 024 627

Table 6 Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer (based on data from TWDB1998a)

23

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

~

lt0

o CXJlJ1tyiNTrinity aquifer~ artcropo cbvndip

Station 9532 - Weatherford55 -I I--yearly totals

Ul - 3 year moving average ~45 - - 1960-96 average annual RreclpJillgn ( Ioc=-co35s00~25 I Vl1

1995199019851975 1980Year

15 I I

1960 1965 1970

Figure 13 Precipitation at the Weatherford gage 1960-1996

1995199019851980

-- yearly totals-- 3 year moving average- - 1965-96 average annual RreciRitation

1975

Station 2404 - Denton 2 SE

MlIfPGLEI ro4l~~0~Ijl FffiRiVER It~N

J6Dlt I I ~1iiffiiliNW7 ID COLl1ly I1M Woodbine aquifer~ cutcrop c cbw1dip

PALOF1NTD PARKER

~I vp 65

VIQ)

1i 55sectcQ45~

III~

0~b5 ~

a

25 j

1965 1970

Year

Figure 14 Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996

_ f ~ ~ c( )~ )(~i MONTA i f i GUE ~~l-- -0~r So~M ~~-

~-= ~ ~ -

_ 1~~~_~~~W i)~_NW-~raquo ~t~~~~~~ COLLtN~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~amp- ~ HUNT t

10 bullbull ~

12 ~~~ -~~~~~~~I[h - ~--_~~ ~~~~ 0 ~ ~~~_ M~HOOO~ ~~~ = 0_ bull iO(f~hl (gILl

~~--0 ~~_~bullbull~lt~-_ ~~ ~ c~unt 3000 (slightly saline) bull ~~ rlnltyaqUife ~ r

~o=p8 fSSl downdip

~ 1 NAVARRO

~

Oowndip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 T08)

Figure 15 TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

~

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 131 71767 22100 203800Chloride 131 9821 300 64700Sodium 131 24526 880 65700Nitrate as N 129 100 lt004 1850Sulfate 131 10310 1200 72500Fluoride 131 090 004 306

Table 4 Groundwater quality In the Antlers and TWin Mountains Formations Tnnlty

aquifer (based on data from TWDB 1998a)

Sulfate levels had an average of 103 mgI (Table 4) with 4 samples exceeding 300 mgIThe average fluoride concentration was 090 mgI (Table 4) with the highestconcentration reading 306 mg1

The highest TDS chloride and sodium levels were recorded in samples from well 32shy06-104 located in north-central Tarrant County The TDS concentration was 3302mgI chloride was 1822 mgI and sodium was 1210 mg1 This area exhibits higherthan normal TDS values possibly due to contamination from oil and gas production aswell as various other industries (Baker and others 1990) Therefore this well was notincluded in computing the average concentrations above

Well 33-26-301 located in south-central Dallas County is owned by the City ofLancaster and is currently used for backup purposes only The TDS concentration was2038 mgI with chloride sodium and sulfate concentrations of 326 mgI 657 mgI and725 mgI respectively and probably reflects natural conditions

The majority of samples exhibiting elevated TDS chloride sodium and sulfateconcentrations were collected from the Twin Mountains Formation The areas showinghigh TDS concentrations include north-central Tarrant County and parts of DentonCollin Dallas and Ellis Counties Current TDS ranges are not significantly higher thanhistorical values reported by Baker and others (1990)

In general groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer hasremained acceptable throughout the study area TDS concentrations for water samplescollected from the Paluxy Formation averaged 607 mgI (Table 5)with only 4 out of 51wells sampled showing TDS concentrations above the secondary constituent level(Figure 16) The highest TDS concentration was 1339 mgI and was recorded at anirrigation well (18-58-503) located in Collin County Chloride sodium sulfate and nitrateconcentrations for this well were 31 mgI 431 mgI 590 mgI and lt004 mgIrespectively

22

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 51 60670 20300 133900Chloride 51 3608 400 27300Sodium 51 18776 710 44400Nitrate as N 51 100 lt004 2585Sulfate 51 10125 089 59000Fluoride 51 106 017 410

Table 5 Groundwater quality In the Paluxy FormalJon Tnnlty aquifer (based on datafrom TWDB 1998a)

Chloride and nitrate as nitrogen levels averaged 36 mgI and 1 mgI respectively andwere all within primary constituent levels with the exception of one nitrate sample (Table5) The highest nitrate concentration originated from well 32-10-603 located north ofWeatherford in Parker County

Sulfate and fluoride levels averaged 103 mgI and 09 mgI respectively (Table 5) Thiswell is designated as a public supply well and had a nitrate level of 2585 mg1 Onesulfate sample (from well 18-58-503 described above) and one fluoride sample (fromwell 32-39-805 located in Johnson County) exceeded secondary constituent levels

Woodbine Aquifer

Generally TDS concentrations increase downdip towards the eastern part of the studyarea (Figure 17) Average TDS was 877 mgI (Table 6) with the highst concentration(2278 mgI) from a public supply well (32-47-805) for the city of Grandview insoutheastern Johnson County well Chloride has an average concentration of 86 mgI(Table 6) with 5 wells exceeding secondary constituent levels Well 18-55-401 a publicsupply well owned by Caddo Basin Special Utility District located in Greenville (Hunt

County) had the highest chloride concentration of 507 mg1

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 76 87739 8300 227800Chloride 76 8588 407 50700Sodium 76 31176 953 82500Nitrate as N 76 067 lt004 1041Sulfate 76 20918 542 126300Fluoride 76 130 024 627

Table 6 Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer (based on data from TWDB1998a)

23

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

1995199019851980

-- yearly totals-- 3 year moving average- - 1965-96 average annual RreciRitation

1975

Station 2404 - Denton 2 SE

MlIfPGLEI ro4l~~0~Ijl FffiRiVER It~N

J6Dlt I I ~1iiffiiliNW7 ID COLl1ly I1M Woodbine aquifer~ cutcrop c cbw1dip

PALOF1NTD PARKER

~I vp 65

VIQ)

1i 55sectcQ45~

III~

0~b5 ~

a

25 j

1965 1970

Year

Figure 14 Precipitation at the Denton 2 SE gage 1965-1996

_ f ~ ~ c( )~ )(~i MONTA i f i GUE ~~l-- -0~r So~M ~~-

~-= ~ ~ -

_ 1~~~_~~~W i)~_NW-~raquo ~t~~~~~~ COLLtN~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~amp- ~ HUNT t

10 bullbull ~

12 ~~~ -~~~~~~~I[h - ~--_~~ ~~~~ 0 ~ ~~~_ M~HOOO~ ~~~ = 0_ bull iO(f~hl (gILl

~~--0 ~~_~bullbull~lt~-_ ~~ ~ c~unt 3000 (slightly saline) bull ~~ rlnltyaqUife ~ r

~o=p8 fSSl downdip

~ 1 NAVARRO

~

Oowndip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 T08)

Figure 15 TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

~

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 131 71767 22100 203800Chloride 131 9821 300 64700Sodium 131 24526 880 65700Nitrate as N 129 100 lt004 1850Sulfate 131 10310 1200 72500Fluoride 131 090 004 306

Table 4 Groundwater quality In the Antlers and TWin Mountains Formations Tnnlty

aquifer (based on data from TWDB 1998a)

Sulfate levels had an average of 103 mgI (Table 4) with 4 samples exceeding 300 mgIThe average fluoride concentration was 090 mgI (Table 4) with the highestconcentration reading 306 mg1

The highest TDS chloride and sodium levels were recorded in samples from well 32shy06-104 located in north-central Tarrant County The TDS concentration was 3302mgI chloride was 1822 mgI and sodium was 1210 mg1 This area exhibits higherthan normal TDS values possibly due to contamination from oil and gas production aswell as various other industries (Baker and others 1990) Therefore this well was notincluded in computing the average concentrations above

Well 33-26-301 located in south-central Dallas County is owned by the City ofLancaster and is currently used for backup purposes only The TDS concentration was2038 mgI with chloride sodium and sulfate concentrations of 326 mgI 657 mgI and725 mgI respectively and probably reflects natural conditions

The majority of samples exhibiting elevated TDS chloride sodium and sulfateconcentrations were collected from the Twin Mountains Formation The areas showinghigh TDS concentrations include north-central Tarrant County and parts of DentonCollin Dallas and Ellis Counties Current TDS ranges are not significantly higher thanhistorical values reported by Baker and others (1990)

In general groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer hasremained acceptable throughout the study area TDS concentrations for water samplescollected from the Paluxy Formation averaged 607 mgI (Table 5)with only 4 out of 51wells sampled showing TDS concentrations above the secondary constituent level(Figure 16) The highest TDS concentration was 1339 mgI and was recorded at anirrigation well (18-58-503) located in Collin County Chloride sodium sulfate and nitrateconcentrations for this well were 31 mgI 431 mgI 590 mgI and lt004 mgIrespectively

22

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 51 60670 20300 133900Chloride 51 3608 400 27300Sodium 51 18776 710 44400Nitrate as N 51 100 lt004 2585Sulfate 51 10125 089 59000Fluoride 51 106 017 410

Table 5 Groundwater quality In the Paluxy FormalJon Tnnlty aquifer (based on datafrom TWDB 1998a)

Chloride and nitrate as nitrogen levels averaged 36 mgI and 1 mgI respectively andwere all within primary constituent levels with the exception of one nitrate sample (Table5) The highest nitrate concentration originated from well 32-10-603 located north ofWeatherford in Parker County

Sulfate and fluoride levels averaged 103 mgI and 09 mgI respectively (Table 5) Thiswell is designated as a public supply well and had a nitrate level of 2585 mg1 Onesulfate sample (from well 18-58-503 described above) and one fluoride sample (fromwell 32-39-805 located in Johnson County) exceeded secondary constituent levels

Woodbine Aquifer

Generally TDS concentrations increase downdip towards the eastern part of the studyarea (Figure 17) Average TDS was 877 mgI (Table 6) with the highst concentration(2278 mgI) from a public supply well (32-47-805) for the city of Grandview insoutheastern Johnson County well Chloride has an average concentration of 86 mgI(Table 6) with 5 wells exceeding secondary constituent levels Well 18-55-401 a publicsupply well owned by Caddo Basin Special Utility District located in Greenville (Hunt

County) had the highest chloride concentration of 507 mg1

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 76 87739 8300 227800Chloride 76 8588 407 50700Sodium 76 31176 953 82500Nitrate as N 76 067 lt004 1041Sulfate 76 20918 542 126300Fluoride 76 130 024 627

Table 6 Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer (based on data from TWDB1998a)

23

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

_ f ~ ~ c( )~ )(~i MONTA i f i GUE ~~l-- -0~r So~M ~~-

~-= ~ ~ -

_ 1~~~_~~~W i)~_NW-~raquo ~t~~~~~~ COLLtN~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~amp- ~ HUNT t

10 bullbull ~

12 ~~~ -~~~~~~~I[h - ~--_~~ ~~~~ 0 ~ ~~~_ M~HOOO~ ~~~ = 0_ bull iO(f~hl (gILl

~~--0 ~~_~bullbull~lt~-_ ~~ ~ c~unt 3000 (slightly saline) bull ~~ rlnltyaqUife ~ r

~o=p8 fSSl downdip

~ 1 NAVARRO

~

Oowndip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 T08)

Figure 15 TDS concentrations in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

~

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 131 71767 22100 203800Chloride 131 9821 300 64700Sodium 131 24526 880 65700Nitrate as N 129 100 lt004 1850Sulfate 131 10310 1200 72500Fluoride 131 090 004 306

Table 4 Groundwater quality In the Antlers and TWin Mountains Formations Tnnlty

aquifer (based on data from TWDB 1998a)

Sulfate levels had an average of 103 mgI (Table 4) with 4 samples exceeding 300 mgIThe average fluoride concentration was 090 mgI (Table 4) with the highestconcentration reading 306 mg1

The highest TDS chloride and sodium levels were recorded in samples from well 32shy06-104 located in north-central Tarrant County The TDS concentration was 3302mgI chloride was 1822 mgI and sodium was 1210 mg1 This area exhibits higherthan normal TDS values possibly due to contamination from oil and gas production aswell as various other industries (Baker and others 1990) Therefore this well was notincluded in computing the average concentrations above

Well 33-26-301 located in south-central Dallas County is owned by the City ofLancaster and is currently used for backup purposes only The TDS concentration was2038 mgI with chloride sodium and sulfate concentrations of 326 mgI 657 mgI and725 mgI respectively and probably reflects natural conditions

The majority of samples exhibiting elevated TDS chloride sodium and sulfateconcentrations were collected from the Twin Mountains Formation The areas showinghigh TDS concentrations include north-central Tarrant County and parts of DentonCollin Dallas and Ellis Counties Current TDS ranges are not significantly higher thanhistorical values reported by Baker and others (1990)

In general groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer hasremained acceptable throughout the study area TDS concentrations for water samplescollected from the Paluxy Formation averaged 607 mgI (Table 5)with only 4 out of 51wells sampled showing TDS concentrations above the secondary constituent level(Figure 16) The highest TDS concentration was 1339 mgI and was recorded at anirrigation well (18-58-503) located in Collin County Chloride sodium sulfate and nitrateconcentrations for this well were 31 mgI 431 mgI 590 mgI and lt004 mgIrespectively

22

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 51 60670 20300 133900Chloride 51 3608 400 27300Sodium 51 18776 710 44400Nitrate as N 51 100 lt004 2585Sulfate 51 10125 089 59000Fluoride 51 106 017 410

Table 5 Groundwater quality In the Paluxy FormalJon Tnnlty aquifer (based on datafrom TWDB 1998a)

Chloride and nitrate as nitrogen levels averaged 36 mgI and 1 mgI respectively andwere all within primary constituent levels with the exception of one nitrate sample (Table5) The highest nitrate concentration originated from well 32-10-603 located north ofWeatherford in Parker County

Sulfate and fluoride levels averaged 103 mgI and 09 mgI respectively (Table 5) Thiswell is designated as a public supply well and had a nitrate level of 2585 mg1 Onesulfate sample (from well 18-58-503 described above) and one fluoride sample (fromwell 32-39-805 located in Johnson County) exceeded secondary constituent levels

Woodbine Aquifer

Generally TDS concentrations increase downdip towards the eastern part of the studyarea (Figure 17) Average TDS was 877 mgI (Table 6) with the highst concentration(2278 mgI) from a public supply well (32-47-805) for the city of Grandview insoutheastern Johnson County well Chloride has an average concentration of 86 mgI(Table 6) with 5 wells exceeding secondary constituent levels Well 18-55-401 a publicsupply well owned by Caddo Basin Special Utility District located in Greenville (Hunt

County) had the highest chloride concentration of 507 mg1

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 76 87739 8300 227800Chloride 76 8588 407 50700Sodium 76 31176 953 82500Nitrate as N 76 067 lt004 1041Sulfate 76 20918 542 126300Fluoride 76 130 024 627

Table 6 Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer (based on data from TWDB1998a)

23

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 131 71767 22100 203800Chloride 131 9821 300 64700Sodium 131 24526 880 65700Nitrate as N 129 100 lt004 1850Sulfate 131 10310 1200 72500Fluoride 131 090 004 306

Table 4 Groundwater quality In the Antlers and TWin Mountains Formations Tnnlty

aquifer (based on data from TWDB 1998a)

Sulfate levels had an average of 103 mgI (Table 4) with 4 samples exceeding 300 mgIThe average fluoride concentration was 090 mgI (Table 4) with the highestconcentration reading 306 mg1

The highest TDS chloride and sodium levels were recorded in samples from well 32shy06-104 located in north-central Tarrant County The TDS concentration was 3302mgI chloride was 1822 mgI and sodium was 1210 mg1 This area exhibits higherthan normal TDS values possibly due to contamination from oil and gas production aswell as various other industries (Baker and others 1990) Therefore this well was notincluded in computing the average concentrations above

Well 33-26-301 located in south-central Dallas County is owned by the City ofLancaster and is currently used for backup purposes only The TDS concentration was2038 mgI with chloride sodium and sulfate concentrations of 326 mgI 657 mgI and725 mgI respectively and probably reflects natural conditions

The majority of samples exhibiting elevated TDS chloride sodium and sulfateconcentrations were collected from the Twin Mountains Formation The areas showinghigh TDS concentrations include north-central Tarrant County and parts of DentonCollin Dallas and Ellis Counties Current TDS ranges are not significantly higher thanhistorical values reported by Baker and others (1990)

In general groundwater quality in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer hasremained acceptable throughout the study area TDS concentrations for water samplescollected from the Paluxy Formation averaged 607 mgI (Table 5)with only 4 out of 51wells sampled showing TDS concentrations above the secondary constituent level(Figure 16) The highest TDS concentration was 1339 mgI and was recorded at anirrigation well (18-58-503) located in Collin County Chloride sodium sulfate and nitrateconcentrations for this well were 31 mgI 431 mgI 590 mgI and lt004 mgIrespectively

22

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 51 60670 20300 133900Chloride 51 3608 400 27300Sodium 51 18776 710 44400Nitrate as N 51 100 lt004 2585Sulfate 51 10125 089 59000Fluoride 51 106 017 410

Table 5 Groundwater quality In the Paluxy FormalJon Tnnlty aquifer (based on datafrom TWDB 1998a)

Chloride and nitrate as nitrogen levels averaged 36 mgI and 1 mgI respectively andwere all within primary constituent levels with the exception of one nitrate sample (Table5) The highest nitrate concentration originated from well 32-10-603 located north ofWeatherford in Parker County

Sulfate and fluoride levels averaged 103 mgI and 09 mgI respectively (Table 5) Thiswell is designated as a public supply well and had a nitrate level of 2585 mg1 Onesulfate sample (from well 18-58-503 described above) and one fluoride sample (fromwell 32-39-805 located in Johnson County) exceeded secondary constituent levels

Woodbine Aquifer

Generally TDS concentrations increase downdip towards the eastern part of the studyarea (Figure 17) Average TDS was 877 mgI (Table 6) with the highst concentration(2278 mgI) from a public supply well (32-47-805) for the city of Grandview insoutheastern Johnson County well Chloride has an average concentration of 86 mgI(Table 6) with 5 wells exceeding secondary constituent levels Well 18-55-401 a publicsupply well owned by Caddo Basin Special Utility District located in Greenville (Hunt

County) had the highest chloride concentration of 507 mg1

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 76 87739 8300 227800Chloride 76 8588 407 50700Sodium 76 31176 953 82500Nitrate as N 76 067 lt004 1041Sulfate 76 20918 542 126300Fluoride 76 130 024 627

Table 6 Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer (based on data from TWDB1998a)

23

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 51 60670 20300 133900Chloride 51 3608 400 27300Sodium 51 18776 710 44400Nitrate as N 51 100 lt004 2585Sulfate 51 10125 089 59000Fluoride 51 106 017 410

Table 5 Groundwater quality In the Paluxy FormalJon Tnnlty aquifer (based on datafrom TWDB 1998a)

Chloride and nitrate as nitrogen levels averaged 36 mgI and 1 mgI respectively andwere all within primary constituent levels with the exception of one nitrate sample (Table5) The highest nitrate concentration originated from well 32-10-603 located north ofWeatherford in Parker County

Sulfate and fluoride levels averaged 103 mgI and 09 mgI respectively (Table 5) Thiswell is designated as a public supply well and had a nitrate level of 2585 mg1 Onesulfate sample (from well 18-58-503 described above) and one fluoride sample (fromwell 32-39-805 located in Johnson County) exceeded secondary constituent levels

Woodbine Aquifer

Generally TDS concentrations increase downdip towards the eastern part of the studyarea (Figure 17) Average TDS was 877 mgI (Table 6) with the highst concentration(2278 mgI) from a public supply well (32-47-805) for the city of Grandview insoutheastern Johnson County well Chloride has an average concentration of 86 mgI(Table 6) with 5 wells exceeding secondary constituent levels Well 18-55-401 a publicsupply well owned by Caddo Basin Special Utility District located in Greenville (Hunt

County) had the highest chloride concentration of 507 mg1

Parameter No of Samples Average Minimum Maximum(mgI) (mgI) (mgI)

TDS 76 87739 8300 227800Chloride 76 8588 407 50700Sodium 76 31176 953 82500Nitrate as N 76 067 lt004 1041Sulfate 76 20918 542 126300Fluoride 76 130 024 627

Table 6 Groundwater quality of the Woodbine aquifer (based on data from TWDB1998a)

23

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

I~

N

I

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

25 50 Miles

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

L- countyTrinity aquifero outcrop10-1 downdip

NAVARRO

IluXy Formation Trinity aquifer 1990-1998

JACK

--

~0 V --_-- ~

Figure 16 TDS concentrations in the P

~

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

~-

N

1

Downdip limit of fresh to slightlysaline water (3000 TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids (mgL)bull lt 1000 (fresh)bull 1000 - 3000 (slightly saline)

f countyWoodbine aquifero outcrop1-~I downdip

25 50 Miles~~~a

~~~~~gtV1 _~~~~~~fff~)- rn~

DENTON i (~--~~~~ ~~1-7-~~~~raquo~ DELTA

Z~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ _ = ~~__~~~ HUNT

J bullbull ~~~~~~

~_-~~~~(

bull~DALLAS~~W

~~~~~~

JOHNSON ~ ~~~~~~ ELLlS~

amp~1~middotmiddot~~~~~WII 3247-805 ~~~TDS-2278mIL ~~l NAVARRO

HOOD

WISE

~

MONTAGUE

PARKER

1 -

JACK

PALO PINTO

N()l

Figure 17 TDS concentrations in the Woodbine aquifer 1990-1998

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrogen) averaged 067 mgI and with one well exceedingprimary constituent levels throughout the Woodbine aquifer The highest nitrateconcentration (1041 mgI) was recorded at a private well (18-13-803) in GraysonCounty

Historically the Woodbine aquifer has exhibited high sulfate levels associated withextensive lignite beds especially in the southern outcrop areas of Tarrant and Johnsoncounties (Baker and others 1990) Recent groundwater sampling results indicate thatsulfate levels have remained elevated with 28 percent of the sampled wells exceedingsecondary constituent levels Elevated sulfate concentrations (gt300 mgI) wereobserved in 21 wells with 4 wells containing concentrations above 500 mg1 The wellsare generally located downdip of the outcrop towards the east

WATER DEMANDS

Water demands are the projected needs for water in an area Projected water demandsare based on population projections extrapolation of historical water use andassumptions on water use

Population

Population estimates by the TWOB are divided into 2 categories major city and countyshyother Cities that are county seats or have a population of at least 1000 people areclassified as major cities All other cities and the rural county population are classifiedas county-other Population estimates for both major city and county-other were dividedusing Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques on the basis of 1990 censusdata from the Bureau of Census statistics Data for 1985 and 1995 (Table 7) areestimates based on county demographic data and Bureau of Census statistics for 1980and 1990 Projected populations to 2030 (Table 7) are based on projections used inWater for Texas A Consensus-based Update to the State Water Plan (TWOB 1997)

North-central Texas is the most populated region in the State containing 24 percent ofthe states population with 412 million people in 1990 (TWOB 1997) From 1985 to1995 the population in the study area increased by 22 percent (Table 7) and isexpected to increase 63 percent from 1995 to 2030 (Table 7) The 1985 1990 and1995 populations for cities rural areas and counties included in the study area alongwith future projections through the year 2030 are shown in Table 7 (TWOB 1998b)

Historical Water Use

An estimated total of 86982 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the study areafor municipal manufacturing steam-electric mining irrigation and livestock purposes in1995 (Table 8) This reflects a 19 percent reduction in overall groundwater pumpagefrom the previous 10 years

26

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Collin Countv 1

Allen 13260 18309 25349 36269 71847 90582 107716Celina 1784 1737 2069 2354 2816 3476 4060Dallas 2 2443 26325 27423 28678 30407 34329 37262Fairview 1178 1554 2189 2461 3051 3855 4581Farmersville 2810 2640 3178 3537 4125 4999 5761Frisco 2 4557 6141 12331 13783 32295 39227 45450Garland 14 15 16 22 25 31 35Lucas 1682 2205 3059 2969 3909 5135 6263McKinney 19568 21283 29492 32950 50712 58632 65912Melissa 0 557 764 803 1085 1158 1269Murphy 1202 1547 2195 1855 2265 2834 3343New Hope 0 523 587 557 578 589 623-Parker 1482 1235 1422 1585 1975 2505 2984Plano 2 102806 128713 167858 186713 253734 340688 397380Princeton 4436 2321 3187 2156 2115 2112 2108Prosper 0 1018 1281 1356 1743 2256 2726

Richardson 2 6333 9979 11381 11828 12620 14007 15358Sachse 2 49 194 287 472 565 635 738Wylie 4448 8662 10268 12373 16698 21188 25293

County Other 2 20678 31724 38143 44729 34724 78279 143903Total 188730 266682 342479 387450 527289 706517 872765

Cooke County

Gainesville 14101 14256 14843 14531 15667 17052 18023Muenster 1298 1387 1473 1453 1566 1705 1802

County Other 2 13615 16384 1sect112 16535 17860 17941 18081Total 29014 32027 32428 32519 35093 36698 37906

Dallas County

Addision 6995 8783 10579 11892 14382 16128 17893

Balch Springs 18286 17406 18606 21998 24747 26774 27802

Carrollton 2 32204 40024 47400 48387 53102 56692 58280

Cedar HilI 2 11014 19926 23749 27203 37205 48309 62751

Cockrell Hill 4085 3746 4168 4057 4153 4270 4267

Combine 2 0 434 469 504 590

682 762

Coppell 7813 16878 23608 23368 32345 42230 55062

Dallas 2 989758 966168 1006575 1005780 1039119 1071352 1104535

De Soto 22404 30544 34147 35571 45670 55264 63870

Duncanville 33569 35748 37021 39323 42924 45691 46865

Farmers Branch 27999 24250 24974 25381 26665 29021 31039

Garland 2 168772 180635 189626 196391 213697 227069 232590

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)

27

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Dallas County (continued)

Glenn Heights 2 1174 3768 4678 5010 5972 6889 7763Grand Prairie 2 84261 81527 88306 88257 95439 96990 100536Grapevine 2 54 83 94 99 110 122 133Highland Park 9158 8739 9635 8905 9071 9497 10137Hutchins 3777 2719 2842 3085 3594 4290 5235Irving 124672 155037 169265 177002 188410 205810 229994Lancaster 18958 22117 26050 24640 28184 30759 32146Lewisville 2 0 555 683 768 1021 1352 1611Mesquite 83080 101484 112701 117742 138042 159638 180723Ovilla 2 63 279 352 319 366 424 483Richardson 2 71506 64861 74026 73526 76162 81876 86364

Rowlett 2 9215 19907 27485 24689 31309 39178 49564Sachse 2 2797 5152 6840 9082 15948 18735 21435Seagoville 8942 8969 10059 12846 18938 21443 23602Sunnyvale 1885 2228 2733 2666 3413 4292 5448University Park 23853 22259 22156 22528 22797 23163 24008Wilmer 3169 2479 2599 2665 2840 3027 3155County Other 12267 6105 5940 61174 110 613 225826 296551Total 1781730 1852810 1987366 2074858 2286828 2556793 2784604

Delta County 1

County Other 762 767 815 709 695 694 687Total 762 767 815 709 695 694 687

Denton County

Argyle 1313 1575 1828 1916 2369 2898 3496Aubrey 1250 1138 1278 1991 2396 2959 3588

Carrollton 2 25582 42145 49920 48645 56008 61351 64222Copper Canyon 0 978 1302 1539 1967 2489 2647Corinth 1843 3994 5432 6441 10214 14878 20135

Dallas 2 168 14338 14894 18217 19748 21854 25203

Denton 51420 66270 73646 77090 90051 104283 119486

Double Oak 0 1664 2013 2203 2881 3643 4474

Flower Mound 7205 15527 28379 28195 51198 73949 99685

Frisco 2 112 268 538 603 1406 1629 1962

Hebron 0 1128 1364 1590 2156 2798 3484

Hickory Creek 1917 1893 2103 2845 3569 4410 5349

Highland Village 3880 7027 10839 12603 17499 22395 24551

Justin 0 1234 1506 1982 2890 3886 4941

Krum 0 1542 2026 2444 3271 4121 5222

Lake Dallas 3665 3656 4250 4029 4558 5214 6050

Sased on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDS 1998b) (continued)

28

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Denton County (continued)

Lewisville 26162 45966 56730 61953 82070 105051 129831Little Elm 0 1255 1385 2094 3099 4226 5381Oak Point 0 645 927 969 1145 1329 1517Pilot Point 2421 2538 2876 3652 4770 5910 7573Plano 2 2 40 50 57 78 100 130Roanoke 0 1616 2203 2397 3204 4125 5113Sanger 3632 3508 4052 4638 6057 7594 9734Shady Shores 0 1045 1280 1387 1712 2092 2522Southlake 2 18 242 284 625 1109 1341 1740The Colony 24850 22113 25466 27160 31143 34036 33026Trophy Club 0 3992 4586 4998 7397 10087 12859County Other 35554 26308 32280 63693 109240 170540 241634Total 190994 273645 333437 385956 523205 679188 845555

bullEllis County

Cedar Hill 2 2 50 59 68 102 137 181Ennis 13211 13883 14567 14723 16437 18484 20605

Ferris 2 2406 2212 2314 2284 2719 3236 3766

Glenn Heights 2 28 796 988 964 1194 1387 1612

Grand Prairie 2 6 3 3 65 122 220 220Italy 1570 1699 1906 2239 2719 3235 3745

Mansfield 2 60 142 172 430 716 1064 1457Midlothian 5099 5141 5690 9185 11938 14789 17552

Ovilla 2 1418 1748 2201 2011 2495 3006 3500Palmer 1619 1659 1727 2325 2848 3407 3957

Red Oak 2694 3124 3724 4604 5881 7213 8510

Waxahachie 17158 18168 19181 22454 26692 31330 35953

County Other 27984 36148 43368 45569 57004 69013 80653

Total 73255 84773 95900 106921 130867 156521 181711

Fannin County

Bonham 7156 6686 6717 7186 7026 6502 6313

Honey Grove 2 1820 1681 1742 1793 1753 1613 1566

Leonard 2 1423 1744 1830 2046 2093 2039 2063

County Other 2 14206 15283 15785 15667 16094 17254 17893

Total 24605 25394 26074 26692 26966 27408 27835

Grayson County

Collinsville 0 1033 1144 1131 1193 1265 1331

Denison 2 24504 21505 21723 22950 23759 23841 23697

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

29

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Gravson County (continued)

Howe 2 2471 2173 2192 2250 2545 2635 2776Pottsboro 0 1177 1426 1411 1559 1809 2010Sherman 31460 31601 32465 32889 35134 36378 38340Van Alstyne 2127 2090 2257 2388 2595 2930 3202Whitesboro 2 3323 3209 3323 3301 3340 3286 3268

Whitewright 2 1769 1713 1678 1852 1913 1960 2009

County Other 2 31 020 30520 31780 33947 34239 36539 38069Total 96674 95021 97988 102119 106277 110643 114702

Hood County

Granbury 5038 4045 4854 6469 7837 9399 10925County Other 20556 24936 27144 29485 36392 44041 51733

Total 25594 28981 31998 35954 44229 53440 62658

Hunt County 1

Wolfe City 1657 1505 1561 1620 1753 1842 1976

County Other 2 1313 1245 1410 1496 1635 1748 1802Total 2970 2750 2971 3116 3388 3590 3778

Johnson County

Alvarado 5016 2918 3179 3266 4039 4851 5718

Burleson 2 14443 14153 16825 19083 24039 29079 34307

Cleburne 22324 22205 23179 26032 29205 32649 36109

Grandview 1348 1245 1296 1511 1650 1805 1958

Joshua 2608 3828 4405 4761 6474 8189 9981

Keene 2 3156 3944 4433 4636 4994 5412 6732

Mansfield 2 130 617 748 852 954 1247 1371

County Other 2 38648 48255 53124 59337 74097 88936 103550

Total 87673 97165 107189 119478 145452 172168 199726

Kaufman County 1

Combine 785 895 1712 1108 1303 1499 1666

Dallas 2 1 7 7 8 8 8 8

Forney 1155 1083 1247 1527 1753 1913 1973

County Other 2 2472 2618 2768 3076 3654 4294 4853

Total 4413 4603 5734 5719 6718 7714 8500

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 HistOrical and prOjected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Lamar County

Blossom 1811 1440 1658 1798 2170 2566 3002Paris 2 26252 24699 25257 25035 25464 26047 26507Reno 1169 1784 2284 2201 2465 2774 3090County Other 2 14690 15172 15711 16202 17521 18978 20534Total 43922 43095 44910 45236 47620 50365 53133

Montague Countv

Bowie 4688 4047 4344 3953 3872 3793 3630Montague 233 500 490 479 470 460 440

Saint J02 1210 1048 1123 1084 1102 1134 1163

County Other 2 2355 3855 4020 3747 3628 3499 3270Total 8486 9450 9977 9263 9072 8886 8503

Navarro Countv 1

Corsicana 1702 1650 1717 1745 1850 1937 2014County Other 6936 9038 9447 10056 11056 11837 12599Total 8638 10688 11164 11801 12906 13774 14613

Parker County 1

Aledo I 1432 1169 1334 1994 2393 2855 3355

Azle 2 1235 1203 1420 1844 2179 2398 2642

Briar 2 417 588 629 673 797 928 1073

Reno 1645 2322 2561 2712 3091 3546 4049

Springtown 2578 1740 1917 2432 3149 3873 4638

Weathertord 2 15660 14804 17051 19083 23895 28817 34099

Willow Park 1683 2328 2652 3121 4046 4981 5968

County Other 2 30327 37926 42316 45356 55739 66377 77974

Total 54977 62080 69880 77215 95289 113775 133798

Red River County 1

Clarksville 4724 4311 4345 4162 4135 4068 3865

County Other 2 3012 3492 3606 3503 3435 3346 3169

Total 7736 7803 7951 7665 7570 7414 7034

Rockwall Countv 1

Dallas 2 0 39 40 44 51 65 86

Heath 2 1774 2108 2829 3018 4254 5957 8084

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWOS 1998b)(contlnued)

31

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Rockwall County 1 (continued)

Rockwall 6602 7361 9137 12844 19310 27817 38355

Rowlett 2 1323 2713 3744 5120 9753 14071 19417Wylie 27 54 64 60 59 64 71County Other 2 3454 4253 5345 6969 8569 12266 17400Total 13180 16528 21159 28055 41996 60240 83413

Tarrant County

Arlington 231684 261721 286545 318653 336400 366760 384917Azle 2 middot7183 7665 9039 9946 11637 13473 14704Bedford 32269 43762 45974 48998 50000 50000 50000Benbrook 18072 19564 22595 23964 26522 29354 30807

Blue Mound 2631 2133 2272 2218 2302 2593 2710

Briar 2 914 2409 2626 3559 4509 5445 5713

Burleson 2 1415 1960 2330 2415 2638 2957 3105

Colleyville 8533 12724 15270 24524 36762 47451 49795

Crowley 7389 6974 7727 8635 9650 10900 11913

Oalworthington Gardens 1347 1758 2149 2265 3260 3749 4067

Edgecliff 3218 2715 2978 2800 2800 2800 2800

Euless 28594 38149 44985 41463 47186 53634 53634

Everman 5721 5672 6440 5721 5721 5721 5721

Forest Hill 13960 11482 11477 12195 12717 13580 13621

Fort Worth 423049 447619 473291 496622 532717 580375 596112

Grand Prairie 2 6903 18086 19600 26212 37990 50934 53453

Grapevine 2 18767 29199 36887 39434 48611 54530 57223

Haltom City 32539 32856 33909 34510 37050 38443 39075

Hurst 34861 33574 39083 36127 37899 39989 39324

Keller 6419 13683 16640 24761 31592 38146 41677

Kennedale 2880 4096 4909 6428 10087 11974 13710

Lake Worth Village 5191 4591 5050 4896 5126 5517 5556

Mansfield 2 11500 14848 17083 25181 32396 43903 52745

North Richland Hills 40410 45895 50128 60255 72558 86349 98247

Pantego 2577 2371 2666 2471 2534 2668 2681

Pelican Bay 0 1271 1379 1921 2351 2800 3136

Richland Hills 9575 7978 8691 8886 10379 12109 13618

River Oaks 8121 6580 7185 6838 6838 6838 6838

Saginaw 7413 8551 9661 10546 12062 13757 14802

Sansom Park Village 4356 3928 3912 4114 4181 4192 4192

Southlake 2 4046 6823 7994 13015 25224 32109 39074

Watauga 18472 20009 21880 21845 23850 25700 27480

Westworth Village 4777 2350 2354 2408 2430 2518 2600

White Settlement 16742 15472 15419 15950 15950 15950 15950

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Historical and projected populations for the study area (TWOB 1998b)(contlnued)

32

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

Tarrant County (continued)

County Other 34466 31635 35297 65983 90289 121675 154375Total 1055994 1170103 1275425 1415759 1594218 1798893 1915375

Wise County 1

Boyd 962 1041 1146 1499 1749 1968 2188Briar 2 478 902 982 1029 1176 1309 1440Decatur 4925 4252 4623 4982 5761 6453 7139Rhone 538 605 715 757 817 865 936County Other 17701 22410 26453 25584 29146 32434 35620

Total 24604 29210 33919 33851 38649 43029 47323

JTotal Population 3723951 4113575 4538764 4910336 5684327 6607750 7403619

(1) County partially included in study area (2) City or county-other area partially within county included in study area

Based on 1990 CensusTable 7 Hlstoncal and projected populations for the study area (TWDB 1998b)(contlnued)

33

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

Aauifer Use 1985 1990 1995

I (acre-feet per year)

Trinity Aquifer

Municipal 76626 71027 58994Manufacturing 3990 4077 3211Power 3203 889 241Mining 1694 938 2617Irrigation 814 711

745

Livestock 3644 3830 4067

Total 89971 81472 69875

Woodbine Aquifer

Municipal 8823 9353 10407Manufacturing 1394 1030 1126Power 359 206 314Mining 397 406 573Irrigation 5441 2613 3031Livestock 1289 1470 1656

Total 17703 15078 17107

Total-Study Area 107674 96550 86982

Table 8 Estimated groundwater pumpage 1985-1995 (TWDS 1998a)

34

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

Total groundwater and surface water use in 1985 1990 and 1995 for the counties andcities in the study area is summarized in Table 9 The total water use was derived bydetermining the amount of water used for each category for the portion of each countythat fell within the study area These amounts were then proportioned into surface andgroundwater use based on county-wide percentages (TWOB 1998a)

Estimated total water use in the study area for 1995 was 1072879 acre-feet Municipalwater use was the largest water use category and amounted to 903896 acre-feet in1995 (Table 9) Manufacturing and power (steam-electric) uses were second and thirdand amounted to 79130 and 30702 acre-feet respectively Estimated groundwateruse for this period was 92704 acre-feet which amounts to approximately 9 percent ofthe total water use From 1985 to 1995 it is estimated that groundwater use hasdeclined by 14661 acre-feet (14 percent) Estimated surface water use has increasedby 133668 acre-feet (16 percent) for the same period (TWOB1 998a)

Projected Water Demands

Total projected water demands for the year 2000 are 1277761 acre-feet (Table 10)About 6 percent of these demands (70515 acre-feet) are expected to be met throughgroundwater supplies Estimated total water demands for the year 2030 are expectedto be 1623218 acre-feet Less than 4 percent of these demands are expected to besupplied by groundwater Between the years 2000 and 2030 projected groundwateruse is expected to decline by approximately 11 percent from 70515 to 62763 acre-feetper year (TWOB 1998c)

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water availability refers to the amount of water available for use in an area duringdrought of record conditions Groundwater availability is determined by the amount ofrecharge and an acceptable amount of water removed from aquifer storage Surfaceshywater availability is defined by the firm yield of the reservoirs

Groundwater Availability

The estimated annual groundwater availability of an aquifer is the estimated sustainableannual yield or effective recharge plus the acceptable amount of water that can berecovered from storage over a specified period of time This estimate is madeassuming withdrawals occur without causing irreversible effects such as land-surfacesubsidence or water-quality deterioration (Mulier and Price 1987) The estimatedannual groundwater availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area has beenestimated to be about 63000 acre-feet which consists of 51000 acre-feet of annualeffective recharge and 12000 acre-feet of groundwater recoverable from storage(Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge for the Trinity aquifer was determinedusing the trough method described by Klemt and others (1975)

35

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCollin County1

Allen 1996 0 2761 0 4614 0Celina 0 215 0 275 0 210Dallas2 653 0 6997 3 7061 4Fairview 239 0 315 0 569 0Farmersville 534 0 307 0 413 0Frisco2 317 517 887 515 2923 30Garland2 3 0 3 0 3 0Lucas 371 0 374 0 429 0McKinney 3285 0 4269 0 6009 0Murphy 324 0 292 0 364 0Parker 228 0 284 0 270 0

Plano2 25762 0 30245 0 41365 0Princeton 335 0 289 0 312 0Prosper 0 0 1 145 0 231

Richardson2 1427 o - 2625 0 2881 0

Sachse2 11 0 20 0 46 0

Wylie2 747 0 992 0 1254 0

County Other2 3302 1191 4202 2042 5364 2607

Total Municipal Water Use 39534 1923 54863 2980 73877 3082

Other Water UseManufacturing 823 204 1980 93 1320 145Irrigation 0 0 0 0 64 0Steam-Electric 578 482 1076 559 1947 115Mining 71 0 64 0 338 0Livestock 1062 117 980 108 939 106

Total Water Use 42068 2726 58963 3740 78485 3448

Cooke Countv

Gainesville 0 2376 0 2199 0 2859

Muenster 0 251 0 194 0 264

County Other 0 1793 0 1916 0 2287

Total Municipal Water Use 0 4420 0 4309 0 5410

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 185 0 304 0 204

Irrigation 70 429 0 300 126 233

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)

36

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundCooke County (conl)

Mining 96 534 54 421 237 52Livestock 944 944 1009 1009 1164 1164

Total Water Use 1110 6512 1063 6343 1527 7063

Dallas County

Addision 3566 17 3590 0 4984 0Balch Springs 1879 0 1978 0 2111 0

Carrollton2 7740 78 8008 0 8495 0

Cedar Hill2 2094 523 3059 397 3678 153Cockrell Hill 505 0 375 0 431 0

Combine2 0 0 84 0 90 0Coppell 1775 91 3228 0 5097 0

Dallas2 264718 0 256800 128 259223 104Oe Soto 4071 241 6025 104 6209 17Duncanville 6358 54 6516 0 6100 0Farmers Branch 8319 0 10206 0 8777 0

Garland2 31542 0 31908 0 32074 0

Glenn Heights2 Omiddot 426 345 81 271 153

Grand Prairie2 8451 5611 9020 5073 11490 479

Grapevine2 11 1 16 0 19 0

Highland Park 3680 0 3483 0 3609 0

Hutchins 497 124 215 297 285 321

Irving 24737 5067 32242 425 37226 0

Lancaster 700 1489 3000 297 2999 226

Lewisville2 0 0 96 0 115 0

Mesquite 14602 0 17295 0 20824 0

Ovilla2 8 5 40 13 55 8

Richardson2 16113 0 17060 0 18740 0

Rowlete 1968 0 2938 0 4495 0

Sachse2 655 0 533 0 919 0

Seagoville 1340 0 1018 0 1208 0

Sunnyvalle 443 0 498 0 537 0

University Park 6489 0 6085 0 5932 0

Wilmer 0 301 0 260 0 288

County Other 5353 529 3406 217 2615 738

Total Municipal Water Use 417614 14557 429067 7292 448608 2487

Other Water Use

Manufacturing 26602 1849 26906 1063 25436 733

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

37

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

I

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDallas County (cont)

Irrigation 120 130 48 52 767 431Steam-Electric 19387 2569 17959 255 14437 102Mining 813 29 101 3 1601 1386Livestock 382 42 484 53 464 52

Total Water Use 464918 19176 474565 8718 491313 5191

Delta County

County Other 34 39 38 41 53 29

Total Municipal Water Use 34 39 38 41 53 29

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 172 19 189 21 93 10

Total Water Use 206 58 227 62 146 39

Denton County

Argyle 0 413 0 206 106 272

Aubrey 110 0 0 125 0 139

Carrollton 6203 88 8382 51 8945 2

Corinth 626 0 535 0 646 0

Dallas 45 0 3805 8 3835 2

Denton 10187 6 12585 76 12669 25

Double Oak 0 0 0 253 72 230

Flower Mound 1419 193 2157 188 5131 214

Frisco 8 13 39 23 128 1

Hebron 0 0 0 142 0 173

Hickory Creek 0 325 83 144 85 150

Highland Village 0 598 35 1141 256 1420

Justin 0 0 0 147 0 197

Krum 0 0 0 164 0 191

Lake Dallas 0 474 291 190 352 206

lewisville 6790 0 7978 0 9595 0

Little Elm 0 0 0 163 0 203

Pilot Point 0 357 0 359 0 392

Plano 0 0 9 0 12 0

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

38

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundDenton County (cont)

Roanoke 0 0 0 198 14 261Sanger 0 446 0 458 0 465Shady Shores 0 0 53 35 71 42

Southlake2 3 3 44 1 114 1

The Colony 1714 807 1777 1093 2348 461

Trophy Club 0 0 455 318 674 443

County Other 510 4127 96 3106 266 3955

Total Municipal Water Use 27615 7850 38324 8589 45319 9445

Other Water UseManufacturing 776 12 640 21 746 69

Irrigation 0 500 0 middot750 0 670

Steam-Electric 79 0 0 0 76 0

Mining 87 0 73 70 90 49

Livestock 681 681 704 704 711 711

Total Water Use 29238 9043 39741 10134 46942 10944

Ellis County

Cedar Hil12 0 0 8 1 10 1

Ennis 2337 0 2254 0 2020 0

Ferris 0 341 0 287 45 299

Glenn Heights2 0 10 73 17 58 32

Grand Prairie2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Italy 0 216 0 166 0 191

Mansfield2 9 0 19 0 26 0

Midlothian 0 783 280 559 887 0

Ovilla2 181 111 253 79 341 51

Palmer 0 201 0 186 0 200

Red Oak 0 385 1 356 121 343

Waxahachie 5177 47 4502 59 3075 22

County Other 364 3676 566 4146 3146 2204

Total Municipal Water Use 8069 5770 7956 5856 9729 3343

Other Water UseManufacturing 856 2741 1041 2871 1108 2023

Irrigation 0 0 108 12 180 20

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 87 0 73 0 90

Livestock 829 92 946 105 1176 131

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

39

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundEllis County (continued)

Total Water Use 9754 8690 10051 8917 12193 5607

Fannin County

Bonham 1467 0 1577 0 1521 0

Honey Grove2 0 186 0 160 0 396

Leonard2 0 212 0 233 0 248

County Other 108 1550 108 1789 339 1849

Total Municipal Water Use 1575 1948 1685 2182 1860 2493

Other Water UseManufacturing 25 0 33 2 32 27

Irrigation 2871 907 l 930 362 1311 2919

Steam-Electric 6006 356 6517 209 4626 316

Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock 1285 141 1216 134 1372 152

Total Water Use

11762 3352 10381 2889 9201 5907

Gravson County

Collinsville 0 0 0 130 0 125

Denison 4130 63 3875 136 3436 95

Howe2 0 310 0 289 0 282

Pottsboro 0 0 71 77 45 126

Sherman 0 3453 0 4090 2643 3391

Van Alstyne 0 318 0 348 0 290

Whitesboro2 0 555 0 359 0 526

Whitewright 0 169 0 247 0 256

County Other 528 3660 547 4089 850 4005

Total Municipal Water Use 4658 8528 4493 9765 6974 9096

Other Water UseManufacturing 1028 4683 588 5063 3087 3425

Irrigation 1226 4105 15 1528 666 2360

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 228 544 242 505 243 bull 815

Livestock 1001 110 923 101 1187 130

Total Water Use 8141 17970 6261 16962 12157 15826

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

40

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

middot (acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundHood County

Granbury 90 724 264 587 554 402County Other 90 2282 96 2821 643 2573

Total Municipal Water Use 180 3006 360 3408 1197 2975

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 16 a 9 a 20Irrigation 1520 47 6718 208 3967 81Steam-Electric 4382 a 4140 72 4735 21Mining a 81 a 73 a 167Livestock 360 360 280 280 314 314

Total Water Use 6442 3510 11498 4050 10213 3578

Hunt County

Wolfe City 239 99 143 28 107 aCounty Other 102 40 122 37 92 32

Total Municipal Water Use 341 139 265 65 199 32

Other Water UseManufacturing 4 1 5 a 5 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a 0 a a a aMining 1 a a a a 1Livestock 14 1 10 1 10 1

Total Water Use 360 141 280 66 214 34

Johnson County

Alvarado a 314 a 310 22 331

Burleson2 1730 1 1759 1 2128 2

Cleburne 3584 329 3380 41 3915 44

Grandview a 156 a 176 a 196

Joshua a 249 323 24 651 24

Keene2 a 433 a 457 a 471

Mansfield2 19 a 82 a 115 aCounty Other 89 4861 921 4797 1120 5278

Total Municipal Water Use 5422 6343 6465 5806 7951 6346

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

41

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

middot(acre-feet per year)

1985 1990 1995Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Johnson County (continued)

Other Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0Manufacturing 711 321 364 584 265 717Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 473 87 0 27 0 324Livestock 715 715 968 968 1156 1156

Total Water Use 7321 7466 7797 7385 9372 8543

Kaufman County

Combine2 226 0 258 0 135 0Dallas2 0 0 2 0 2 0Forney 70 0 129 0 175 0County Othe~ 268 14 275 15 271 17

Tofal Municipal Water Use 564 14 664 15 583 17

Other Water UseManufacturing 57 2 90 0 89 0Irrigation 671 7 639 7 1022 10Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 8 0 7 0 8 0Livestock 128 14 123 14 123 14

Total Water Use 1428 37 1523 36 1825 41

Lamar County

Blossom 118 0 126 0 127 0

Paris2 4251 2 7923 4 4753 0Reno 111 0 144 0 216 0

County Othe~ 1251 763 1673 748 1380 319

Total Municipal Water Use 5731 765 9866 752 6476 319

Other Water UseManufacturing 5607 0 4459 0 5295 0Irrigation 4667 0 3290 1410 4612 0Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 23 0 19 0 21 0Livestock 1467 161 1293 144 1564 174

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

42

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundLamar County (continued)

Total Water Use 17495 926 18927 2306 17968 493

MontaQue County

Bowie 767 0 626 0 672 0Montague 0 29 0 31 0 31Saint Jo2 0 142 0 151 0 135County Other 29 253 71 335 67 357

Total Municipal Water Use 796 424 697 517 739 523

Other Water UseManufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0Irrigation 80 43 110 47 106 128Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0Mining 52 173 23 142 172 136Livestock 626 69 672 75 676 75

Total Water Use 1554 709 1502 781 1693 862

Navarro County

Corsicana 290 0 255 0 279 0County Other 776 56 1071 87 976 71

Total Municipal Water Use 1066 56 1326 87 1255 71

Other Water UseManufacturing 594 0 648 0 1029 0

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0-

0

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 0 34 0 31 0 33

Livestock 599 67 522 57 458 51

Total Water Use 2259 157 2496 175 2742 155

Parker Countv

Aledo 0 134 0 184 0 143

Azle2 140 0 155 0 194 0

Briar

0 57 0 77 0 82

Reno 36 101 24 181 13 232

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOB 1998a)(contlnued)

43

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Parker Countv (continued)

Springtown 188 99 176 86 192 130

Weatherford 1934 a 2012 20 2346 70Willow Park a 232 a 363 a 366

County Other 565 3230 299 4159 404 4525

Total Municipal Water Use 2863 3853 2666 5070 3149 5548

Other Water UseManufacturing 261 37 224 29 492 5Irrigation 99 77 a a 153 41Steam-Electric 159 a 39 a 87 aMining 1273 49 1164 43 31 48Livestock 1215 134 1160 129 1193 133

Total Water Use 5870 4150 5253 5271 5105 5775

Red River County

Clarksville a 581 383 322 483 297

County Other 118 213 139 263 162 281

Total Municipal Water Use 118 794 522 585 645 578

Other Water UseManufacturing a 4 1 2 3 3

Irrigation 335 a 0 a 481 aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 397 264 349 232 427 285

Total Water Use 850 1062 872 819 1556 866

Rockwall County

Dallas a a 10 a 10 aHeath 320 a 248 a 460 aRockwall 1250 a 1530 a 1884 aRowlett 283 a 401 a 612 aWylie 5 a 6 a 8 aCounty Other 893 12 1074 22 1209 102

Total Municipal Water Use 2751 12 3269 22 4183 102

Table 9 Hlstoncal water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(contlnued)

44

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Rockwall Countv (continued)

Other Water Use)

Manufacturing a a 5 a 10 aIrrigation a a a a a aSteam-Electric a a a a a aMining a a a a a aLivestock 84 9 56 6 37 4

Total Water Use 2835 21 3330 28 4230 106

Tarrant Countv

Arlington 45472 a 48026 a 52123 aAzle2 810 a 989 a 1235 aBedford 3984 2421 6098 1670 6232 1882Benbrook 1747 1612 1955 1445 2696 1328Blue Mound a 211 a 232 a 215

Briar a 125 a 315 a 347

Burleson2 169 a 244 a 295 aColleyville 1027 246 2850 320 3996 184Crowley 693 155 624 219 717 113Dalworthington Gardens 142 167 199 185 276 152Edgecliff 414 a 410 a 357 aEuless 3039 1724 4703 1190 4809 1128

Everman 3 658 210 376 135 458

Forest Hill 1315 210 1465 a 1414 aFort Worth 95003 95 105315 105 100095 100

Grand Prairie2 694 459 1992 1135 2548 109

Grapevine2 3683 342 5469 a 7437 aHaltom City 4340 248 4575 a 4497 aHurst 5065 1347 5550 483 5320 585

Keller 772 252 2366 281 3163 98

Kennedale a 556 a 601 a 751

Lake Worth Village 218 470 247 458 387 315

Mansfield2 1645 8 1969 a 2622 aNewark a a 92 a 92 aNorth Richland Hills 5786 47 6331 a 6813 62

Pantego a 442 a 577 a 551

Pelican Bay a a a 94 a 112

Richland Hills 587 739 656 645 757 383

River Oaks 1141 a 1091 a 846 aSaginaw 627 275 960 279 1204 65

Sansom Park Village 30 401 a 437 a 529

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

45

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface GroundTarrant County (continued)

Southlake 757 553 1226 34 3201 23Watauga 2646 21 2760 0 2974 27Westworth Village 221 3 176 1 160 1White Settlement 1491 636 785 1573 908 1265County Other 6462 2783 2107 2596 4579 2135

Total Municipal Water Use 189983 17206 211440 15251 221888 12918

Other Water UseManufacturing 33620 1076 51826 1274 31932 886Irrigation 300 0 111 0 119 21Steam-Electric 5412 0 4212 0 4240 0Mining 96 0 84 0 88 0Livestock 502 502 418 418 403 403

Total Water Use 229913 18784 268091 16943 258670 14228

Wise County

Boyd 0 141 0 153 0 147

Briar 0 65 0 118 0 130Decatur 826 8 484 0 937 0Rhone 75 0 84 0 99 0County Other 459 1726 436 2190 512 2572

Total Municipal Water Use 1360 1940 1004 2461 1548 2849

Other Water UseManufacturing 22 1 28 0 24 0Irrigation 356 89 106 74 127 96

Steam-Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mining 481 81 2741 36 12029 158

Livestock 764 764 949 949 895 895

Total Water Use 2983 2875 4828 3520 14623 3998

Table 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWDB 1998a)(contlnued)

46

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

(acre-feet per year)1985 1990 1995

Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground

Total of StudY Area

Total Municipal Water Use 710274 79587 774970 75053 836233 67663

Other Water UseManufacturing 70986 11132 88838 11315 70873 8257Irrigation 12315 6334 12075 4750 13701 7010Steam-Electric 36003 3407 33943 1095 30148 554Mining 3702 1699 4572 1424 14858 3259Livestock 13227 5206 13251 5508 14362 5961

Total Water Use 846507 107365 927649 99145 980175 92704

Total Combined Water Use 953872 1026794 1072879

county partially included in study area2 City or county other area oartiallv within countv included in study areaTable 9 Historical water use for the study area (TWOS 1998a)(continued)

47

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

2000 2010 2020 2030Municipal Use

Maior Cities(acre-feet per year)

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 22158 18147 17936 18286Woodbine Aquifer 4398 4581 4923 5324Total Groundwater 26556 22728 22859 23610

Surface Water 958345 1044793 1083239 1121364

Subtotal 984901 1067521 1106098 1144974

County Other

GroundwaterTrinity Aquifer 21709 23255 22747 19019Woodbine Aquifer 6831 6769 6718 6629

Total Groundwater 28540 30024 29465 25648

Surface Water 63357 86010 140389 190937

Subtotal 91897 116034 169854 216585

Total Municioal Use 1076798 1183555 1275952 1361559

Other Uses

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 6470 6725 6543 5186Woodbine Aquifer 8949 8633 8440 8319

Total Groundwater 15419 15358 14983 13505

Surface Water 185544 205914 222020 248154

Subtotal 200963 221272 237003 261659

Study Area

Groundwater

AquiferTrinity Aquifer 50337 48127 47226 42491Woodbine Aquifer 20178 19983 20081 20272

Total Groundwater 70515 68110 67307 62763

Surface WaterTotal Surface Water 1207246 1336717 1445648 1560455

Total for Study Area 1277761 1404827 1512955 1623218

Table 10 Projected water demands and supply sources for the study area (TWOS 1998c)

48

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

Approximately 69875 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped in 1995 (Table 8) which amounts to 140 percent of the estimated effective recharge The estimated annualgroundwater recharge and availability of the Trinity aquifer in the study area for the year2030 has been estimated to be about 49981 acre-feet (TDWR 1990) Estimatedgroundwater demands from the Trinity aquifer for 2000 are expected to be 50337 acreshyfeet subsequently declining to 42491 acre-feet by 2030 (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c)Based on these figures projected demands will be less than estimated annual effectiverecharge However recharge is mainly limited to outcrop areas so local overdraft ofthe aquifer in confined areas will continue to result in water-level declines

The total estimated groundwater availability for the Woodbine aquifer is approximately24500 acre-feet (Nordstrom 1982) The annual effective recharge to the Woodbineaquifer is approximately 24000 acre-feet per year and an additional 500 acre-feet ofrecoverable usable water in storage (Baker and others 1990) Approximately 17107acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Woodbine aquifer in 1995 (Table 8)(TWDB 1998a) The total estimated annual groundwater recharge and availability inthe Woodbine aquifer for the year 2030 is approximately 24500 acre-feet (TDWR1990) Water demand projections estimate groundwater use to rise to 20178 acre-feetby the year 2000 and to be 20272 acre-feet per year in 2030 only slightly above theyear 2000 projections (Table 10) (TWDB 1998c) Based on these projectionsgroundwater demands from the Woodbine aquifer will remain less than the estimatedannual effective recharge As previously mentioned recharge is limited mainly tooutcrop areas Overdraft of the aquifer can result in water-level declines in confinedareas of the aquifer

Even though regional annual effective recharge estimates exceed projected demandsas a whole Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and Wise countieshave experienced continuing local water-level declines in the Antlers Twin MountainsPaluxy and Woodbine Formations Based on the available estimates of effectiverecharge and estimated groundwater availability (Table 11) and historical groundwaterpumpage and estimated supply (Table 12) groundwater use significantly exceedsavailable supply in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker and Tarrant CountiesContinued production at similar rates could result in additional water level declines anddepletion from storage Continued conversion to surface water use will be necessary tocompensate for the lack of groundwater availability in these areas The 1997 StateWater Plan (TWDB 1997) for the above counties shows a gradual switch to surfacewater through 2030 to make up for a lack of groundwater availability (Table 13)

Surface Water Availability

There are 34 major surface water reservoirs with storage capacities greater than 5000acre-feet within the study area that contribute all or part of their respective yields tomeet water needs (Figure 18) These reservoirs have a combined capacity ofapproximately 10361207 acre-feet of water and have a combined firm yield ofapproximately 1875138 acre-feet of water per year (Table 14) (TWDB 1997)

49

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

Table 11 Estimated groundwater availability (TDWR 1990)

Annual AnnualEffective Recoverable Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Availability

County Aquifer Recharge Storage (acre-feet)1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 2030

CookeCounty Trinity 3753 776 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 4529 3753

Woodbine 440 Q 440 440 440 440 440 440 440Total 4193 776 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4969 4193

DentonCounty Trinity 5123 991 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 6144 5123

Woodbine 1010 Q 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010Total 6133 991 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 6133

GraysonCounty Trinity 3088 346 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3434 3088

Woodbine 5710 Q 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710 5710Total 8798 346 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 9144 8798

JohnsonCounty

Trinity 2504 365 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2869 2504Woodbine 866 Q 866 866 866 866 866 866 866

Total 3370 365 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3735 3370

TarrantCounty Trinity 4996 a 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996 4996

Woodbine 766 Q 766 766 766 766 766 766 766Total 5762 a 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762 5762

ParkerCounty Trinity 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 3210 681 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3891 3210

WiseCounty Trinity 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

Woodbine Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QTotal 4163 805 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4968 4163

50

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

(acre-feet per year)Cooke County 1985 1990 1995

Estimated Supply 4969 4969 4969Estimated Pumpage 6392 6223 6656Difference -1423 -1254 -1687

Denton County -Estimated Supply 7124 7124 7124Estimated Pumpage 9038 10235 10807

Difference -1914 -3111 -3683

Grayson County

Estimated Supply 9144 9144 9144Estimated Pumpage 18101 17145 15356Difference -8957 -8001 -6212

Johnson County

Estimated Supply 3735 3735 3735Estimated Pumpage 8035 7950 9010Difference -4300 -4215 -5275

Parker County

Estimated Supply 3891 3891 3891Estimated Pumpage 4351 5133 5802Difference -460 -1242 -1911

Tarrant County

Estimated Supply 5762 5762 5762Estimated Pumpage 17822 14952 13329Difference -12060 -9190 -7567

Wise County

Estimated Supply 4968 4968 4968Estimated Pumpage 3669 3776 4285Difference 1299 1192 683

Table 12 Historical groundwater pumpage and supply as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

51

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

2000 2010 2020 2030(acre-feet per year)

Cooke County Groundwater 5594 3454 3290 3140Surface Water 1805 4659 4783 4935Total 7399 8113 8073 8075

Denton County Groundwater 7124 7048 7124 6133Surface Water 72913 91767 110697 126216Total 80037 98815 117821 132349

Grayson County Groundwater 8809 8811 7977 8061Surface Water 16929 17170 18162 18658Total 25738 25981 26139 26719

Johnson County Grou ndwater 3077 3005 3014 3119Surface Water 17818 20026 21767 24456Total 20895 23031 24781 27575

Parker County Groundwater 5790 5981 6198 5824Surface Water 7813 9166 10106 12538Total 13603 15147 16304 18362

Tarrant County Groundwater 5678 5668 5670 5654Surface Water 340694 370012 374176 396261Total 346372 375680 379846 401915

Wise County Groundwater 4968 4968 4968 4163Surface Water 11877 12525 13308 15124Total 16845 17493 18276 19287

Table 13 Future water allocations as per the 1997 Consensus State Water Plan

52 I

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

25

N

ID River Basin Boundarieso surface reservoirs or lakeso county

o

LAVON

~JE Sabine Rive_ _ -J Basin~

~j -(

~M LAKEVIJ ~J1UWWM

~HI)BBARO --~~~oLAKIO

LAKEWAXAHACHIE-

MOUNTAINCREEK

PLAKEARLINGTON

~-I

JlSENBROOKl LAKE

PAlJXYRESERVOIR

j

MOlt I ~lt~ CARTER I )JJL---r---~--~~ I ~ ~A~--~

i I RAY

~) TrinitylRiver ~ltZig~~~ ~LAKE Basin

BRIDGpoundPORT i

~i I ~~~

1 ~GRAPEEN~

~~~~ 1MLAKE LAKE

~WEATHER WORTH~FORD i

JiPALOPINTO

CJ1

Figure 18 Surface-water reservoirs and river basins within and in the vicinity of the study area

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

Rivermiddot Basin Reservoir Capacity Firm Yield(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Nocona 25400 4500Hubert H Moss 23210 4500Texoma 2643300 147500Pat Mayse 124500 59900Bonham 12000 7138Randall 5400 5280Crook 9664 1000

Total 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Cooper 310000 146520Total 310000 146520

Sabine River Tawakoni 927400 235160Total 927400 235160

Trinity River Bridgeport 386420 79000Eagle Mountain 190460 Amon Carter 28589 2600Worth 38130 2400Weatherford 19470 2000Benbrook 88250 9800Grapevine 188550 27240Ray Roberts 799600 110000Lewisville 640986 110800Arlington 45710 7050Joe Pool 181200 16900Lavon 456500 104000Ray Hubbard 490000 63100Terrell 8712 1650Cedar Creek 679200 162500Waxahachie 13500 2400Bardwell 54900 8300Halbert 7420 600Navarro Mills 63300 23100Richland Chambers 1181866 210000

Total 5562763 943440

Brazos River Possum Kingdom 504100 233500Palo Pinto 27650 14100Mineral Wells 6760 1500Granbury 153500 66500Pat Cleburne 25560 4600

Total 717570 320200

bull not available

Table 14 ReservOir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997)

54

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

bull ~yen~ r -gt~_ bull

Basin Totals Capacity Firm Yield

(acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Red River Basin 2843474 229818

Sulphur River Basin 310000 146520

Sabine River Basin 927400 235160

Trinity River Basin 5562763 943440

Brazos River Basin 717570 320200

Total for Study Area 10361207 1875138

Table 14 Reservoir capacity and firm yield (TWOB1997) (continued)

55

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

Based on current surface-water supplies adequate amounts of water exist to supply theneeds of the study area through the year 2030

CONCLUSIONS

Water levels have remained relatively stable within the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations of the Trinity aquifer since 1989 with the exception of Wise Tarrant andJohnson Counties The southwestern part of Wise County has shown water-level

declines of about 100 feet Additionally water-level declines of 200 feet have occurredin northeastern Tarrant County within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex Minor watershylevel declines of approximately 50 feet have occurred in southern Johnson CountySouthern Denton and Tarrant Counties as well as northern Johnson County haveexperienced a rise in water levels from 50 to 200 feet

Water sampling of wells in the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations show TDSconcentrations to be generally low in the outcrop area and elevated downdip to the eastAverage TDS concentrations for the Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations were 718mg1 Average sodium concentrations were 245 mgl

Water levels in the Paluxy Formation of the Trinity aquifer have not changedmiddotsignificantly since 1989 The greatest water-level declines have occurred in southernWise County and in Denton County where declines of 5 to 35 feet have been recordedWater levels have risen 5 to 25 feet in most of Tarrant and Parker County TDSconcentrations averaged 607 mgI in the Paluxy Formation Average sodiumconcentrations were approximately 188 mg1

Water-level elevations for the Woodbine aquifer have been stable since 1989 with theexception of northern Collin County the central to northeastern portion of DentonCounty and northern Grayson County Water levels have declined an average of 10feet in parts of Denton and Collin Counties Water-level declines of 60 feet have beenobserved in northern Grayson County

The highest reported TDS concentrations within the study area are in the Woodbineaquifer with most of the elevated concentrations occurring downdip These high TDSconcentrations are primarily due to high sulfate concentrations associated withextensive lignite beds The Woodbine aquifer had an average TDS concentration of877 mgI with sodium concentrations averaging 311 mgI and sulfates averaging 209mg1

Groundwater use is projected to decline in the study area which would allow forconservation of groundwater reserves Continued conversion to surface water fromgroundwater should allow future demands to be met and is necessary to reduce watershylevel declines in Cooke Denton Grayson Johnson Parker Tarrant and WiseCounties These projections suggest that adequate supplies of usable surface and

56

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

groundwater exist to meet current and future needs of the study area through the year2030

57

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

REFERENCES

Ashworth JB 1988 Ground-Water Resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 305 50 p

Ashworth JB and Hopkins J 1995 Aquifers of Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Report 345 69p

Baker B Duffin G Flores R and Lynch T 1990 Evaluation of water resources inpart of North-Central Texas Texas Water Development Board Report 318 67p

Klemt WB Perkins RD and Alvarez HJ 1975 Groundwater resources of part ofcentral Texas with emphasis on the Antlers and Travis Peak Formations TexasWater Development Board Report 195 v1 and v2 594 p

Mace RB Dutton AR and Nance HS Water-level declines in the WoodbinePaluxy and Trinity aquifers of North-Central Texas Transactions of the GulfCoast Association of Geological Studies v 1 p 414-420

McLaurin C 1988 Occurrence Availability and Chemical Quality of Ground Water inthe Blossom Sand Aquifer Texas Water Development Board Report 307 32 p

Muller DA and Price RD 1987 Ground-water availability in Texas Texas WaterDevelopment Board Report 238 77 p

Nordstrom PL 1982 Occurrence availability and chemical quality of ground water inthe Cretaceous aquifer of North Central Texas Texas Water Development BoardReport 269 61 p

Nordstrom PL and Beynon BE 1991 A field manual for groundwater sampling(revised) Texas Water Development Board Users manual 51 57p

Texas Administrative Code 1999 Title 30 Chapter 290 Texas Natural ResourceConservation Commission

Texas Department of Water Resources 1990 Groundwater availability estimatesunpublished data

Texas Water Development Board 1997 Water for Texas Texas Water DevelopmentBoard Document No GP-6-2 291 p

Texas Water Development Board 1998a Groundwater and surface water databaseWater Resources Network

58

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

Texas Water Development Board 1998b Population forecasts Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

Texas Water Development Board 1998c Projected water demands Texas WaterDevelopment Board Water Resources Planning Division

United States Geological Survey 1998 Monthly precipitation data National WeatherService Cooperative Program Internet

59

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

APPENDIX

Figure A-1 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Antlers and Twin MountainsFormations Trinity aquifer 1997

Figure A-2 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Antlers and TwinMountains Formations Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-3 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer 1997

Figure A-4 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Paluxy Formation Trinityaquifer between 1989-1997

Figure A-5 Water-level elevations for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer 1997

Figure A-6 Water-level differences for selected wells in the Woodbine aquifer between1989-1997

60

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wells~ countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1--1 downdip

~~~~Ji~~~~~~~~1~~~~1~ ~ ~

~~ Jfi-~r~ ~ ~l~~~~~~)~~~t~S gt

~~~~~~ ~ f-middotI~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o ~ l ~~l~~ARRANlC ~ ~ ~OCKWALL~_~ M~

-r~~~~~~v p~~_lt

bull ~ NAVARRO

FI9ureA-1 W t ~ 0 a er-level elevations f - or selected I ~ 0 Aom 00 T w Moo F=orm~at~~~--UII Ions T nnlty aquifer 1997

~ Ir --

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

Antlers and Twin Mountains Formations Trinity aquifer

) -- B~ -17- 1 ~ (-7

t 11 J~ [ ~~~ bullbullbull_ _~ c~~middot~~~~~ ~i bull-- ltj 0 c wr ~~~bull~~~~~~~W_~~

JACK i -~ ~~ ~LLlN N~( t~~~ If ~ I (J) I i g PARKER ~~ I ~~-_ t-Y I ii ~ ~ _ ~9CKWALL

~ bull -~i~ - - -

i i ~ ~i~ --~i bull bull ~ ~~

f~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~- L IFyr ~~ ~ ~bull ~ i bullbullbullbullbullbullbull wells

~~~~w CsectJ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ NAVARRO

~~ -~ -

Figure A-i Water-level differences for selected wells in th -between 1989 and 1997 e

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

bull wellsI] countyTrinity aquifero outcrop1-1 downdip

uxy Formation Trinity aquifer winter 1997

~)

IGUE ylt tlaquo bull~ 0~middotN_ _ (~~~ 2~~~= ~V)~~~~ ~~ gt0

lrVz PARKER ~l -=1-~~~~~~-ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-- ~ ampC _ ~ bull 0$ 00 M

~ ~9 ~~---~~ouo 1--~ --

~ ~~

FbullbullU ~- Water-level elevat Ions for I se ected w II ----

e s In the Pal

~ I

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

--

s In the Paluxy Formation Trinity aquifer between 1989-1997

) HetR )~)-- ~~-)__ ~~~~~)V~~-C Cjmiddot

25

HOOD 0_~~=~_ c~~ ~ bull -

~~~~~ ~oore reM NAVARRO

Fig A4 ~ bullbull Water-level dlff ~ eren~ f

S or selected well

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

25 50 Miles

N

Ibull wells-- county

Woodbine aquifero outcropkI downdip

elevations in feetdatum - mean sea level

o

NAVARRO

I) c I c~ f~0middot~ltsmiddot_rJ ~OOO~ i~~J~1ct~cZ~~~~~~~~S ~~rAA~- ~~~ DENTON ~ - m sANNIN~~-~~i - 1

1~ =~~~lt2 DELTA

s~middot~~~middotmiddot~-~ pound~~0~~

_ ~I ~i~I-~~c~L~[-~gtlt HUNT

Jr2~~ i

DA~ i

TARRANT ~~Ait~ ~ROCIiN ~~__ ALLr __ ~ _J

~I lt-~ ~ -_ ~

~-t --S ~o809 ~tl5 gt~ --- -~ ~o

JOHNsol~s~ ~~t1 i-----i v~middot ~ miS - ~~

~y~0

WISE

MONTAGUE

HOOD

PARKER

j

~L

JACK

-

PALO PINTO

agt01

Figure A-5 In the Woodbine aquifer 1997

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i

25 50 Miles

water level differences in feet

bull wells--i countyWoodbine aquifero outcropI] downdip

o

HOOD

JACK

PALO PINTO

_~~~t ~ ~ ~1 ~

~~~~~

bull ~-~~ -

F9 A-6 - Wre-0 dff - -ences for selected - - wells in the Waadbine aquif ------er between 1989 and 1997 ---

ffi I i