TECHNICAL REPORT 17

New Mexico Siale Engineer

Sanla Fe, N. Mex.

THE OCCURRENCE OF SALINE GROUND WATER

NEAR ROSWElL, CHAVES COUNTY. NEW MEXICO

By

J. W. Hood, R. W. Mower, and M. J. Grogin

U. S. Geological Survey

1960

CONTENTSPage

Abstract 1Introduction ••••••••••••••••••..••.••••••••••.••.••••.•••••••••• 2

Area of investigation 3Purpose of investigation 3History of ground-water use 3Previous investigations ......•............................. 5Scope and methods of investigation ••••••.•••••••••••••••••• 5Acknowledgments "........................................... 7Location-numbering system .......•........................ a 0 7

Climate ..............................•..................... 8Topography and drainage •.....••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9

Geology ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••.•..•••••••••••.•••••• 10Relation to ground water Q ...................... •• 10Stratigraphy and water-bearing characteristics of formations 11

Permi an system ~ • ~ .• ~ .•.. ~ ~ . . • . .. 11Yeso formation ••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11Glorieta sandstone ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13San A1ldres limestone ..............•.. 0 •••• 0 •••••• 13Chalk Bluff formation •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••• 15

Quaternary system . ~ .. ~ . ~ ~ ~ ....•......•. ~ • 0 ••••••• ~ •• •• 15Grollnd water . ~ •. ~ •...... ~ ~ .....•.........• 0 ••••••••••••••••••• •• 16

Recharge} movement} and discharge ...............•..•..•..•. 16Yeso formation and Glorieta sandstone .........•....... 17San Andres limestone 17Chalk Bluff formation ••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••.•• 22Quaternary a11uviUlU ......•.•.....•......••.•• 0 •••••••• 22

Chemi cal quali ty ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 24Yeso formation •...•..................•.•• 0 ••• ~ •••••••• 24Glorieta sandstone •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.. 24San Andres limestone ....•••.••••••..••.••••••••••••••• 25

Effects caused by changes in artesian head ••••••• 26Source of chloride contamination .....•...... ~ .... 27Shape of saline-water body in project area ••••••• 30Rate of saline-water encroachment .......•........ 33

Chalk Bluff formation •..•••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••• 34Quaternary alluvium •••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••• 34

Courses of action to inhibit encroachment •..•....... 0 ••••••••••• 42Reduction of artesian head in source area of saline water ~. 43Increased recharge in the intake area .•.•...•.............. 45Reduction of pumping ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.••• 46Substi tution of shallow water •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 48Rearrangement of pumping pattern ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 49Injection of fresh water at interface ••••••••••••••.•••••.• 49Transfer of water from east of river ..•..•.•.......•....••. 51Swnmary ...••....•..• ~ 0 • 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 • • • • • • • •• 52

References ......................•........•.........•.•.•..... 0 •• 53Appendix A. Table showing chemical analyses of ground and surfacewaters from part of the Roswell basin, Chaves County, N. Mex ••• 55

i

CONTENTS (continued)Page

showing chloride content of water fromand springs, Roswell basin, N. Mex 00 •• 73

ILLUSTRATIONS

(All plates follow appendices)

1. Map showing locations of wells) springs} and surface-water stationssampled, and outcrops of geologic formations in part of ChavesCounty, N. Mex.

2. Map showing altitude of the water table in the Quaternary alluviumin the vicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex., January 1956.

3. Map showing chloride content of water from selected wells finishedin the San Andres limestone in the vicinity of Roswell, ChavesCounty, N. Mex., August 1952.

4. Map showing chloride content of water from selected wells finishedin the San Andres limestone in the vicinity of Roswell, ChavesCounty, N. Mex., January 1953.

5. Map showing chloride content of water from selected wells finishedin the San Andres limestone in the vicinity of Roswell, ChavesCounty, N. Mex., January 1957.

6. Map showing chloride content of water from selected wells finishedin the San Andres limestone in the vicinity of Roswell} ChavesCounty, N. Mex., September 1957.

7. Map showing chloride content of water from selected wells finishedin the San Andres limestone in the vicinity of Roswell) ChavesCounty, N. Mex., January 1958.

8. Map showing pump age of artesian water and the location of irrigatedland in the vicinity of Roswell, Chaves county, N. Mex.

9. Map showing change of arte~ian head in wells finished in the SanAndres limestone in the vicinity of Roswell) Chaves County) N. Mex.

10. Map showing change in chloride content of water from selected wellsfinished in the San Andres limestone in the vicinity of Roswell)Chaves County, N. Mex., August 1952 to September 1957.

11. Map showing change in chloride content of water from selected wellsfinished in the San Andres limestone in the vicinity of Roswell)Chaves County, N. Mex., January 1953 to January 1958.

ii

CONTENTS (continued)

ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)

Plate

12. Map showing chloride content of water from selected wells andsprings finished in the Quaternary alluvium in the vicinity ofRoswell, Chaves County, N. Mex.

Page

Map showing location and extent of area of saline waterinvestigated in the vicinity of Roswell, Chaves County}N. Mex. 4

System of numbering wells and locations in New Mexico 8

Diagram showing geologic section, the probable pattern ofcirculation of ground water} and the interface between freshand saline water in the San Andres limestone at the latitudeof Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex ••••.••••••••••••.•••••.•• 12

4. Map showing generalized direction of movement of ground waterin the San Andres limestone in part of the Pecos Valley,N. Mex ••••••••••••••••••••• 0 0 ••••••••••••••••• 18

5. Map showing probable circulation of water in the San Andreslimestone prior to the construction of wells in the vicinityof Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 19

6. Map showing probable circulation of water in the San Andreslimestone after the construction of wells in the vicinity ofRoswell, Chaves County, N. Mex ..•.••.•.•.••••.•••.••••.••.• 23

7. Graphs showing chloride content of water from artesian wellsat locations lO.24.35.222a and b and water level in artesianwell 10.24.21.212, Chaves County, N. Mex .••••••••••.•••••.• 28

8. Graphs showing mean monthly water levels in August in theBerrendo} Berrendo-Smith} and Mountain View wells duringtheir periods of record •••••••.•.•.••••.....•.•..•.•••••..• 29

9. Graph showing relation of specific conductance to chloridecontent of water from the San Andres limestone in thevicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex ••••.•.••••.••••• 31

lOG Graph showing relation of specific conductance to sulfatecontent of water from the San Andres limestone in thevicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex .•••.•.•••••••••• 32

iii

CONTENTS (continued)

FigureILLUSTRATIONS (continued)

Page

11. Graph showing relation of specific conductance to sulfatecontent of water from the Chalk Bluff formation in thevicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex • •••••••..•.••.•• 35

12. Graph showing relation of specific conductance to chloridecontent of water from the Chalk Bluff formation in thevicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex . •.•..•••••••.••• 36

13. Graph showing relation of specific conductance to sulfatecontent of water from the Quaternary alluvium in thevicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex • .•.•••..•••••••• 38

14. Graph showing relation of specific conductance to chloridecontent of water from the Quaternary alluvium in thevicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex . •••.•••••..••••• 39

iv

THE OCCURRENCE OF SALINE GROUND WATER NEAR

ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO

By

J. W. Hood, R. W. Mower, and M. J. Grogin

ABSTRACT

The Roswell basin in the Pecos River valley of southeastern NewMexico is semiarid, and irrigation is required to grow crops. Surface­water supplies are insufficient to meet irrigation needs, and most ofthe water for irrigation is pumped from the ground-water reservoir.Ground water is developed principally from two aquifers: the aquifersin the San Andres limestone under artesian pressure and the aquifer inthe alluvium under water-table conditions.

The first wells to supply water for irrigation were drilled in theearly 1900's, and the artesian aquifer was developed extensively beforeshallow-water pumping was begun. Artesian waters essentially werecalcium sulfate waters, except in the immediate vicinity of the PecosRiver and eastward, prior to large-scale pumping. The analyses of waterfrom 10 irrigation wells west of the Pecos River during the early daysof irrigation showed a range in chloride content of water from 69 ppm(parts per million) to 287 ppm. As pumping continued, the chloridecontent of water in artesian wells between Roswell and the river in­creased. By 1958 the chloride content of the water in wells rangedfrom 500 ppm near the eastern limits of Roswell to more than 5,000 ppmnear the Pecos River east of Roswell. The high concentration of chloridein many well waters required the abandonment and plugging of some wells.It appeared that sodium chloride waters were encroaching in the pumpedarea of the artesian aquifer near Roswell and threatening the continueduse of artesian wells for irrigation water in that area. The sodiumchloride content of the water in the shallow aquifer increased onlyslightly, and the problem appeared to be minor, except in a few smallareas.

The problem of salt-water encroachment and ways of combating furtherencroachment were studied. Most of the project time was spent in col­lecting and analyzing water from wells throughout the irrigated area andnear the Pecos River in order to define areas contaminated by salt water,to define the source and causes of movement of the salt water.

The artesian aquifer tapped by irrigation wells is in the upperpart of the San Andres limestone of Permian age. The lower part of the

-1-

-2-

San Andres is considerably less permeable and offers resistance to theupward movement of brine from the underlying formations. Althoughavailable data are inconclusive, it is believed that upward movementof water from depth contributes less to the salinization of water withinreach of wells in the San Andres than does lateral migration of salinewater. The pattern of encroachment indicates that saline waters aremoving westward within the San Andres from the vicinity of the PecosRiver. Artesian waters moving into the project area from the northalong the Pecos River are moderately to very saline. Waters in theSan Andres east of the Pecos River are "stagnant," very saline watersand brines. Both of these sources are near the pr.oject area, and thewater is susceptible to movement toward the irrigation wells when pump­ing lowers artesian pressures.

Maps have been prepared showing areas in which wells pump fresh orsaline water. Areas where wells yield water having chloride concentra­tions greater than 500 ppm are referred to as saline-water areas orsaline areas. This does not mean that in saline areas the artesianaquifer in the San Andres is saturated with saline water. The waterpumped from a well is a mixture of water from all the water-bearingbeds tapped by the well. A well can be pumping fresh water (less than500 ppm of chloride) from beds at shallow depth in the aquifer andsaline water from beds at greater depths. The mixture discharged isfresh or saline, depending on the relative volume of water obtainedfrom the fresh and saline sources. In well 11.25.8.422, drilled to796 feet, one water-bearing zone between 418 and 447 feet yielded waterhaving a chloride content of 330 ppm; water between 477 and 487 feethad 835 ppm; and water between 595 and 796 feet had 7,330 ppm. Datafrom this well and others indicate that the chloride content of watervaries vertically as well as horizontally in the aquifer in the irri­gated area.

In addition to a long-term deterioration, the quality of waterfluctuates through a seasonal cycle of deterioration and improvement.The chloride concentration in well 10.24.35.222b in recent years hasfluctuated seasonally through a range of more than 1,500 ppm, this be­ing approximately the maximum seasonal change observed to date. Therapid deterioration caused by heavy pumping indicates that the sourceof chloride contamination is nearby.

Possible courses of action to stop the enlargement of the salinearea are to: 1) pump a limited quantity of water from the saline sourcearea; 2) reduce irrigation pumping from the artesian aquifer; 3) increaserecharge in the intake area; and 4) salvage water now used nonbeneficiallyin the river-bottom area.

INTRODUCTION

In certain parts of the Roswell bamn, saline ground water isassociated with sedimentary rocks of marine origin. In other parts ofthe basin, the rocks of marine origin have been invaded by saline waterfrom other sources) or connate saline water has been flushed from them

-3-

bY fresh water from other sources. Early travelers through the PecosV~lley found highly mineralized ground water being discharged by springsalong tributaries of the Pecos River northeast of Roswell. Descriptivenames given some of the tributaries include: Salt Creek, Bitter Creek,and Gyp Spring Draw.

Area of Investigation

The principal area of saline ground water is east and northeast ofRoswell. The problem of salt-water encroachment is most acute west of

Pecos River and within Tps. 10 and 11 S., Rs. 24 and 25 E. Theground-water area is defined in this report as that area where

ground water pumped from wells in the San Andres limestone contains morethan 500 ppm of chloride. The location and extent of the project areaare shown in figure 1.

Purpose of Investigation

Encroachment of sodium chloride ground waters poses a seriousproblem to agriculture near Roswell because saline irrigation wateradversely affects both crops and soil. Water having a large chloridecontent either retards plant growth or kills the plant. Water havinga large sodium content deflocculates the soil particles and helps toform dense, relatively impermeable soils. The chloride ion combinedwith the sodium ion forms sodium chloride, common table salt.

Saline ground water east and northeast of Roswell affected theeconomy but little until recent years. Beginning in the late 1930's,the salt content began to increase in water from wells finished in theartesian aquifer near the fringe of the original area of saline water.

With the passing of time, ground water farther from the original,area of saline water became saltier. By 1950 encroachment of saltwater seriously threatened the economy of the area. Some irrigationwells pumped water too saline for use in irrigation, and the encroach­ment began to threaten the city w~ter supply of Roswell.

The United States Geological Survey in cooperation with the StateEngineer of New Mexico began a study of the saline area in 1952. Theprimary purposes of the study were to: 1) determine the area of salinewater in the artesian aquifer; 2) determine if saline water in theartesian aquifer is encroaching into formerly uncontaminated areas;3) determine the causes, if encroachment is occurring; 4) determinethe source of the saline water, if feasible; 5) outline the relationof saline water in the artesian aquifer to that in the shallow aquifer;and 6) suggest remedial measures.

History of Ground-Water Use

The first irrigators in the area diverted flow from springs ontonearby lands. Many irrigation wells were drilled after the discovery

-4-

L

lNEW MEXlco-lI I

I CHAVES \

CO~UTYArea of

I Study II I

Lr-_-r---~

Rio Hon d:;'o-..r--r;tL.&&.aJ

-~

@ Artesia

IN EW--L..:. __ --,,::.--..;

I

j

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 MilesI I I I ! J

FIGURE 1. -- Map showing location and extent of area of saline waterinvestigated in the vicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex.

-5-

of artesian water in the San Andres formation in the Roswell basin a

The withdrawal of large quantities of artesian water by these wellscaused artesian pressures to decline, which in turn caused the springdischarge to diminish. As spring discharge diminished, it becamenecessary for irrigators to drill more wells to supplement thedwindling spring supplies. Most of the springs had ceased to flow by1958.

On August 21, 1931, the State Engineer of New Mexico closed alarge part of the artesian aquifer to further development. After theclosing of the artesian basin, ground water was developed in theQuaternary alluvium, locally called the "shallow aquifer." The shallowaquifer was developed only slightly near Roswell because artesian groundwater and surface water were in sufficient supply to satisfy the needsof most of the irrigated lands.

Previous Investigations

Fisher (1906) made a reconnaissance of the general ground-waterconditions in 1904 and 1905. The area of artesian flow was defined andthe quality of water in part of the present area of study was mentioned.Fiedler and Nye (1933) studied the geology and ground-water resources ofthe San Andres limestone from 1925 to 1928. The presence of saline waterin the San Andres east of Roswell was mentioned, and several chemicalanalyses of water from the saline-water area were reported. Morgan (1938)studied ground water in the alluvium in 1937.

Theis and others (1942) studied the entire Pecos River valley atthe request of the National Resources Planning Board. The results ofthis study were published in "The Pecos River Joint Investigation."Water samples from several wells and springs in the present area ofstudy were collected and analyzed. The study states that the sourcesof chloride in ground water near Roswell probably are halite (crystallinecommon salt) lenses in the San Andres north and east of Bitter Lake. Italso states that ground water in the San Andres probably leaches chloridein moving east-southeastward to the vicinity of the Pecos River, whereit then moves southward into the cone of depression in the vicinity ofRoswell.

Scope and Methods of Investigation

The greatest amount of time expended in this investigation wasused in collecting samples of water from wells, springs, and streamsin the project area (pl. 1) and in analyzing these samples to determinetheir chemical constituents. Other phases of the field work consistedof an inventory of the artesian wells and the collection and assemblyof well logs. Previous analyses of ground water were utilized whereverpossible. Specific conductance and chloride content were determined forapproximately 2,400 water samples. Other constituents were determinedin a few samples of water from representative wells. The data obtainedthrough February 1958 are included in this report. Most of the water

-6-

samples were analyzed by the Geological Survey at their laboratory inAlbuquerque, although some analyses from private companies are included.A few samples of water were analyzed in the field, because it was de­sirable that the concentration of chloride be )cnown immediately.

The concentration) in parts per million, of individual chemicalconstituents is determined as the quantity, by weight, of the givenconstituent in a million unit weights of water. The concentration inparts per million of the various constituents can be converted toequivalents per million in order to make certain comparisons and inter­pretations. For example, the concentration of the var10us constituentsmust be converted to equivalents per million in order to determine theSAR (sodium-adSOl~tion-ratio) value of a water. The SAR value togetherwith the specific conductance of the water may be used to calculate thealkali hazard to' a soil. To convert parts per million to equivalentsper million, the concentration of the individual constituent is multi­plied by its factor as given in the following table.

Factors for Converting Parts per Million toEquivalents per Million

Constituent

Calcium (Ca)Magnesium (Mg)Sodium (Na)Potassium (K)

Factor

0.04990.08224.04350.02558

Constituent

Bicarbonate (HC03)Carbonate (C03)Sulfate (S04)Chloride (Cl)Fluoride (F)Nitrate (N03)

Factor

0.01639.03333.02082.02820.05263.01613

In this report, terms such as "slightly saline" or Hmoderatelysaline" refer to total dissolved solids, after the terminology used byWinslow and Kister (1956) as follows:

Description

Slightly salineModerately salineVery salineBrine

Dissolved Solids, in Parts per Million

1,000 to 3,0003,000 to 10,000

10,000 to 35,000more than 35,000

L. B. Haigler began the study in July 1952 with an inventory ofseveral artesian wells, and he established a network of wells whosewaters were sampled periodically. R. E. Smith continued the samplingprogram and collected other basic data from September 1952 to July 1953.J. W. Howard, Jr., was assigned to the project in August 1953. Hesupervised the construction of a test well in the saline area and col­lected water samples until September 1955. R. W. Mower was assigned tothe project on a part-time basis from September 1955 to June 1956 tocollect water samples periodically. M. J. Grogin was assigned to theproject in June 1956.

-7-

Acknowledgments

The field work was begun in July 1952 in cooperation with theState Engineer of New Mexico and continued until June 1958. The PecosValley Artesian Conservancy District cooperated by drilling test wellsand providing office space and, since July 1957, has been the principalcooperator with the Geological Survey. The writers were assisted invarious phases of the field work by J. D. Hudson of the GeologicalSurvey. R. E. Crawford, Superintendent of the Pecos Valley ArtesianConservancy District, provided data on wells. E. G. Minton, Jr.,former ground-water supervisor, and F. H. Hennighauseu, ground-watersupervisor, District 2, State Engineer Office, made available allrecords of wells and related data. Civic officials, well drillers,and many well owners furnished well records and permitted access towells for sampling.

Location-Numbering System

This report uses a numbering system to designate locations ofwells, springs, and surface-water-sampling points. The numberingsystem is based on the common subdivision of public lands.

The number has four segments. The first segment denotes thetownship north or south of the New Mexico base line; the second de­notes the range east or west of the New Mexico principal meridian.In this report all townships are south of the base line and all rangesare east of the principal meridian. The third segment denotes thesection. The fourth segment consists of 3 digits and denotes theparticular 10-acre tract of the section in which the point is located.For this purpose the section is divided into four quarters, numbered1, 2, 3, and 4, for the northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeastquarters, respectively. The first digit of the fourth segment givesthe quarter section, which generally is a tract of 160 acres. Similar­ly, the quarter section is divided into four 40-acre tracts numberedin the same manner, and the second digit denotes the 40-acre tract.Finally, the 40-acre tract is divided into four lO-acre tracts. Thusa point numbered 11.24.13.144 is in the SE;SE;NW; sec. 13, T. 11 S.,R. 24 E.

If a point cannot be located accurately to a lO-acre tract, azero is used as the third digit, and if it cannot be located accuratelyto a 40-acre tract, zeros are used for both the second and third digits.If a point cannot be located more closely than the section, the fourthsegment of the location number is eliminated. When it becomes possibleto locate more accurately a point in whose number zeros have been used,the proper digit or digits are substituted for the zeros. The lettersa, b, c, etc., are added to the last segment to designate wells in thesame lO-acre tract. In this report the location number is used todesignate wells and sampling and measuring points.

-8-

Sections within 0 Township Trocts within a Section

R24E. Sec 13

Well /1.24.13.144

6 5 4 ~ 2 I iI I 2

10\I

7 8 9 II 12 1----1---- 2- -I! I : 2

~.Well 3 1---4--

18 17 16 15 1\ I I "5/! ~" Well

.~~O 21 22 23\ 24\ /i\"-

~ ~30 29 27 26

l4

~\

31 32 33 ~~i\ '11

T.IIS

FIGURE 2. -- System of numbering wells and locations in New Mexico.

The method of numbering sections within a township and tractswithin a section is illustrated in figure 2.

Climate

The project area is semiarid·and dry-land farming is not practicable.The average annual precipitation at the U. S. Weather Bureau stationat Roswell was 12.64 inches from 1895 to 1957, inclusive. More than 75percent of the precipitation occurs from May to October in the form ofthundershowers. Winters are mild and dry and total precipitation duringthat period generally is inconsequential. The total annual precipita­tion varies Widely from year to year. For the period of record atRoswell, annual precipitation has ranged from a high of 32.02 inches in1941 to a low of 4.35 inches in 1956.

Summer temperatures are high in the vicinity of Roswell; however,the relative humidity is low. Temperatures may exceed 1000 F from Mayto September, peaking in July. The average monthly temperature atRoswell ranges from 410 F in December to 830 F in July; the averageannual temperature is 59.50 F. The average annual relative humidityat Roswell is 62 percent at 5:30 a.m., 33 percent at 11:30 a.m., 28

-9-

percent at 5:30 p.m., and 49 percent at 11:30 p.m.

The mean wind velocity ranges from 8.1 mph (miles per hour) inSeptember to 11.8 mph in March, with an annual mean of 9.5 mph.

The low relative humidity, together with the high summer tempera­tures and high rate of wind movements, results in a high rate ofevaporation. The average annual evaporation from a class "A" land panat the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge is approximately 100 inchesper year.

Topography and Drainage

The Pecos Valley at the latitude of Roswell consists essentiallyof three parts: 1) that part of the east slope of the SacramentoMountains in the drainage basin of the Pecos River, and the uplandlimestone plain; 2) the lowlands adjacent to the river; and 3) theMescalero pediment, which rises from bluffs at the river and extendseastward about 30 miles to the "caprock" that marks the western edgeof the High Plains or Llano Estacado.

The eastern slope of the Sacramento Mountains, their foothills,and the upland limestone plain sloping toward the valley consist oferosion surfaces developed principally on consolidated rock, mainlylimestone. The surfaces have been dissected deeply by Pecos Rivertributaries that originate in the mountains. The upland limestoneplain is covered by only a veneer of soil and generally has scantvegetation. The karst topography of part of the plain influencesground-water recharge tn the area.

The lowlands adjacent to the river extend from near Roswellsouthward to the vicinity of the Seven Rivers Hills at Lake McMillan.The Roswell basin is a broad topographic low which descends gently interraces from the limestone plain to the Pecos River. The river flowsat the base of bluffs marking the eastern edge of the project area.The basin is filled with alluvium on the surface of which relief hasbeen developed by successive periods of scour and fill by the river andits tributaries. Four periods of erosion are recorded on the surfaceof the alluvium: the present flood plain and the Lakewood, Orchard Park,and Blackdom terraces, in ascending order. Broad valleys have been cutin the west edge of the alluvium by the major tributaries of the PecosRiver.

The Mescalero pediment is underlain by rocks of Permian andTriassic age. Drainage on the pediment is poorly developed. Sinks,undrained depressions, and sand dunes alter the otherwise monotonous,gently undulating surface.

The master stream in the Roswell basin, the Pecos River, rises inthe Sangre de Cristo Mountains east of Santa Fe, flows south-southeastwardacross New Mexico, and leaves the State south of Carlsbad. In the Roswellbasin, the river flows southward along a meandering route. From the

-10-

vicinity of Acme southward, the river is an effluent stream, gainingin flow continuously by ground-water discharge to the stream. Almostall tributaries to the Pecos in the Roswell basin enter the river fromthe west. The major tributaries near Roswell are: Cienega del Macho;Salt, Bitter, and South Spring Creeks; North, Middle, and SouthBerrendo Creeks; North Spring River; and the Rio Hondo. All thesestreams are effluent and flow perennially within a few miles of thePecos River. Most of them are dry in the limestone upland and flowonly after heavy precipitation in their drainage basins. The RioHondo heads near the crest of the Sacramento Mountains and SierraBlanca and is perennial except in the limestone upland, where usuallyit is dry owing to diversions and to seepage losses into the San Andreslimestone. The Berrendo Creeks, North Spring River, and South SpringCreek were fed by artesian springs of large head prior to the develop­ment of irrigation wells. Since the lowering of water levels bypumping, the heads of these streams are dry except after heavy precipi­tation. Comanche Draw, which enters the Pecos River from the east, isan intermittent stream that occasionally contributes large quantitiesof runoff to the flow of the river.

Several small natural lakes in the vicinity of Roswell near thePecos River and the edge of the adjacent bluffs are sinks developed inthe Chalk Bluff formation. The Bottomless Lakes, principally in T. 11 S.,R. 26 E., are a chain of lakes that are deep sinks occupying notches inthe bluffs. Their surface areas generally are small, but they are asmuch as 100 feet deep. The lowlands northeast of Roswell and immediatelywest of the river at the edge of the saline-water area contain severalsmall sinks. These lowlands are drained by Bitter and Salt Creeks.Nearly all the area is included in the Bitter Lake National WildlifeRefuge. In the southern part of the refuge, water from Lost River andthe Bitter Creeks is impounded to provide feeding and nesting areas formigratory waterfowl.

GEOLOGY

Relation to Ground Water

Ground water in a saturated water-bearing formation fills the inter­stices between discrete particles if the aqUifer is of clastic sedimentaryorigin. Ground water fills solution cavities along joints and beddingplanes and along Zones of structural distortion in rocks such as limestoneand gypsum. From the recharge area to the discharge area, the physicalcharacter of a water-bearing formation governs the rate at which a forma­tion can accept recharge, the quantity of water it can store, and therate of transmission of water to the discharge area. The chemicalcharacter of a formation affects the chemical quality of the water movingthrough it. Other factors influencing the chemical quality of groundwater include: temperature, which generally depends on the depth of waterbelow the land surface; pressure, which depends both on depth and degreeof confinement of water; and permeability of the aqUifer, which governs

-11-

the rate of movement of water and therefore the length of time thewater remains in contact with the rocks of the aquifer.

Stratigraphy and Water-Bearing Characteristics of Formations

Rocks that crop out in the Roswell basin are of Permian andQuaternary age. The Permian rocks consist of limestone, dolomite,shale, sandstone, gypsum, anhydrite, and, according to oil-testwell logs, some salt. They crop out in the uplands of the SacramentoMountains and Sierra Blanca, in the upland plains west of the PecosRiver, and in a relatively narrow belt east of the river. The bedsdip east-southeastward at an angle greater than the slope of the landsurface; thus, beds that crop out in the adjacent upland plains tothe west pass beneath the river at a depth of several hundred feet.

The Quaternary rocks are composed of a heterogeneous deposit ofimbricating lenses of sand, gravel, conglomerate, and clay. In general,the Quaternary deposits grade from coarse to fine upward from theirbase and from west to east.

The outcrops of geologic formations in the vicinity of Roswellare shown in plate 1, and a generalized section is shown in figure 3.

Permian System

Permian formations of concern in the project area include the Yesoformation, Glorieta sandstone, San Andres limestone, and the ChalkBluff formation. Nye (Fiedler and Nye, 1933) referred to these forma­tions as the Nogal formation, equivalent to the Yeso and Glorietaformations; the Picacho limestone, equivalent to the San Andres lime­stone; and the Pecos formation, equivalent to the Chalk Bluff formation;but his nomenclature has since been abandoned in favor of the older andbetter established formation names.

Yeso Formation

The oldest Permian rocks of concern in the area compose the Yesoformation. It crops out on the west face of the Sacramento Mountainsand in valleys on the eastern dip slope of the mountains. In the out­crop area in the Sacramento Mountains) the formation consists of redto pink and white to yellow shale, brown sandstone, limestone, andgypsum. Farther east in the subsurface salt in the formation is notedin the logs of some oil-test wells -- well 11.23.29.421, Willson No. 1Brown) for example. The Yeso formation ranges in thickness from 1)000to 2,000 feet.

In the outcrop areas in the mountains, the Yeso formation yieldswater suitable for stock and domestic use from shallow wells and springs.At greater depths ground water in the Yeso formation generally is highlymineralized. Little is known of the permeability of the Yeso, but the

'0", ".ww

""w0

"5•

.""

A

NgTlh SJ"i~9

R',B' ROSWELL /lID HOMo

o

HlfGCRM.<l/i

_______ -':-:'::'A!:.- .!!:.."".!!!"i!. _':.!:.u!-R!:!,._

. \\ \ \z \~ \ \'

\ ' \\\\ \'\ ~SAN ANDRES LIMES.W...".. E\ ' \ '

\ \\ \\ \\, '- \ ' \ \~\\\ \\

---c- \_~\

EXPUlNATlO;<

\-

A'

"eo

"",.00

""

U"

".0,...".0"'0

"00

"00

,..."eoH ••

~,..'00."00

"'....."" I".11 i-'"" '"I

An-ow shows Interred direction of ll,...,und­waler rnove"ent. "''''sHan "ark indicatesdoubt 3~ to direction of c:ov~",,,nt.

Zono of diffusion at lnt"dnce betweenfrt>~h and ERline' water. Question ",,,rkindl""te~ <!oubt as to ,,"'act pO"itlon.

Pl"~o,,"tric surfnc<> of water .In the SanAndres l11:lcstonc.

Snl).n,,-wat<'r =nc.Water table 1n Quatcrn.ry alluvlu".

FIGURE 3. -- Diagram showing geologic section, the probable patternof circulation of ground water, and the interface between freshand saline water in the San Andres limestone at the latitude ofRoswell, Chaves County, N. Mex.

-13-

shale in the formation probably is relatively impermeable. The sand­stone generally is well cemented but probably is moderately permeable.The limestone and gypsum in the outcrop area are the most productiveaquifers because of their greater permeability, a result of solutionby circulating ground water. Such solution has led to extensive slump­ing. There has been little solution of soluble rocks in the Yesoformation beneath the Pecos Valley. Little solution has taken placebecause the circulation of ground water has been poor in this areaowing to the relative effective confining beds within and overlyingthe formation and the great distance downdip to areas of possible dis­charge. Owing to the deep burial of the formation in the valley andto its beds of evaporites, the formation probably contains brinessimilar to those reported in the Glorieta sandstone. (See well10.26.30.200, appendix A.) Water in the Yeso beneath the river valleyis under considerable artesian pressure) and it is possible that upwardleakage from the formation contributes some saline water to the SanAndres limestone.

Glorieta Sandstone

The Yeso formation is overlain by buff coarse-grained sandstone,the Glorieta sandstone, ranging in thickness from 50 to 100 feet. Inthe nearby Sacramento Mountains the sandstone is interbedded with lime­stone. The Glorieta crops out between the Yeso and San Andres forma­tions where they are exposed. It generally contains water of goodchemical quality near the outcrop area. Little specific informationis available concerning the quality of water where the formation isdeeply buried, but several oil tests have penetrated Ttsa1t water" inthe formation near Roswell. The sandstone is well cemented and probablyis only moderately permeable.

San Andres Limestone

The San Andres limestone is the principal water-bearing forma-tion in the Roswell basin. It consists mainly of limestone anddolomite with lesser quantities of limy shale and gypsum. Theis andothers (1942) stated that a considerable part of the formation eastof the Pecos River) between Acme and Santa Rosa) consists of halite.They report that the salt beds range in thickness from 15 to 100 feetand are intercalated with beds of limestone and anhydrite. Near Roswelland east of the Pecos River) 11some salt" was penetrated in the San Andresby an oil-test well drilled in 1935: 11.26.10.422 (Comanche DrillingCo., Sloop and Purcell, No.1). According to other oil-test well logs,the formation contains "salt water" in the same general area.

The formation rests conformably on the Glorieta sandstone but isseparated by erosional unconformities from the overlying Chalk Bluffformation and, in places, from the Quaternary alluvium. Owing to theunconformities) the San Andres in the Roswell area ranges in thicknessfrom 500 to 1,000 feet.

-14-

The formation crops out on the crest of the Sacramento Mountains,on the highlands between valleys on the eastern slopes of the mountains,and in the upland plains between the mountains and the Pecos River.From the eastern edge of its outcrop area, about 12 miles west ofRoswell, the formation dips east-southeastward beneath the Chalk Bluffformation and the Quaternary alluvium. The top of the formation isabout 400 feet below the land surface east of Roswell near the PecosRivera

From the latitude of Roswell northward there are thin beds of gyp­sum in the upper part of the San Andres. Local removal of the gypsum,as at Sixmile Hill, has led to surficial slumping of the rock. Else­where in the outcrop area, sinks have resulted from the solution oflimestone along joint and bedding planes and zones of structural dis­tortion by circulating ground water and the subsequent collapse of theoverlying beds. The solution channels thus developed increase thepotential capacity of the formation to absorb water which in turn in­creases the permeability of the limestone by further solution action.

Fiedler and Nye (1933) described in detail the erratic 'worm-eatenporosity .. " Solution is random at a given point, but an areal inspectionreveals a systematic variation in horizontal and vertical permeability.

Horizontal variation in permeability apparently is related to theposition of the Pecos River and its tributaries during Quaternary time.Greater quantities of available recharge in the vicinity of the tribu­taries increased solution and therefore permeability. Areas of greaterand lesser permeability have been delineated by the number of successfulartesian wells in each area (Fiedler and Nye, 1933), but the flow fromartesian wells would have been less in the interstream areas because ofhigher land-surface elevations, even though the aquifer had the samepermeability. Even so, other lines of evidence such as results frompumping tests suggest general zones of greater and lesser permeabilitythat aline roughly with the tributary valleys. The area discussed inthis report is, in general, an area of "greater" permeability.

Vertical variation in permeability apparently is related in partto elevation of the land between San Andres and Chalk Bluff times(Fiedler and Nye, 1933, p. 188). Although the same erratic distribu­tion of permeable zones probably persists throughout the entire SanAndres, the upper part of the formation is more cavernous than thelower.

The chemical quality of ground water in the San Andres is affectedby the zones of different permeability. During Quaternary time themore permeable zones were flushed with fresh water. The less permeablezones were not flushed as thoroughly.

Large quantities of ground water may be pumped from wells in theSan Andres, owing to the solution channels. Theis (1951) estimatedthat the formation has a coefficient of transmissibility of 3 mgd(million gallons per day) per foot at the Hondo Reservoir site, about12 miles southwest of Roswell. Hantush (1955), on the basis of twopumping tests in Tps. 10 and 11 S., R. 24 E., stated that the San Andres

-15-

at the test sites has a coefficient of transmissibility of about 1.4mgd per foot. The limestone is comparatively rigid; consequently, theformation has a low coefficient of storage in areas of artesianpressure. On the basis of Hantush's tests in the irrigated part ofthe project area, the coefficient of storage ranges from 10-4 to 10-5 •According to Theis (1951) and Hantush (1955), the specific yield of theformation under water-table conditions is from 1 to 5 percent.

ChalK Bluff Formation

Near Roswell the San Andres limestone is overlain unconformablyby beds of red shale, gypsum, anhydrite, salt, fine-grained sandstone,and thin beds of limestone and dolomitic limestone of the Chalk Bluffformation. The formation crops out in bluffs east of the Pecos Riverbut is covered by alluvium in most of the lowlands of the Roswellbasin. The undisturbed section is more than 1,000 feet thick. In thePecos River valley, however, much of the formation has been removed byerosion and by solution by circulating ground water. Near Roswell theformation locally has been completely removed, and the Quaternaryalluvium overlies the San Andres limestone directly. Salt has beenlogged in the Chalk Bluff formation in oil-test wells east of thePecos River. According to these logs, salt beds occur at variousstratigraphic intervals in the Chalk Bluff formation in E. G. Levick,Levick-State No.1 (9.26.36.220), and DeKalb-Lyman, A. E. Elliot No.1(10.26.21.222). Salt beds are most frequent near the top of theformation. Oil-test wells, near the Bottomless Lakes, penetratedbeds of salt. These beds persist eastward and most wells 8 miles ormore east of the river encounter them.

Shale in the Chalk Bluff formation is the confining bed thatmaintains in part the artesian pressure in the San Andres limestone.The confining bed is not impermeable; it leaks at rates governed bythe thickness of the bed, its vertical permeability, and the artesianpressure in the underlying San Andres. Thus, upward leakage from theSan Andres limestone is greatest where the Chalk Bluff formation isabsent and is smallest where the shale is thickest. Hantush (1955,p. 26) stated that the rate of upward leakage through the Chalk Bluffformation is relatively large near Roswell and less to the south wherethe formation is thicker.

Ground water circulating in the Chalk Bluff formation has dis­solved much of the easily soluble rock. Resulting collapse of over­lying strata doubtless has altered the permeability of the formationlocally. The presence of sinks, such as the Bottomless Lakes, indicatesthat the process of solution and collapse is active in the area. Thesolution process yields highly mineralized water.

Quaternary System

The Quaternary system is represented by the alluvium which is com­posed of clay, sand, gravel, and conglomerate. The alluvium ranges in

-16-

width f~om 12 to 25 miles and in thickness from 0 to about 350 feet.The alluvium overlies the Chalk Bluff formation unconformably and,locally, the San Andres limestone.

Nye (Fiedler and Nye, 1933) concluded that the alluvium was de­posited in at least four stages separated by periods of erosion. Theerosional surfaces) in order of decreasing age, are: the Blackdom,Orchard Park, and Lakewood terraces, and the present river level. Theentire body of alluvium acts as a hydrologic unit.

The oldest of the Quaternary rocks, the quartzose conglomerate,is the thickest and most consolidated part of the alluvium. Also itis the most coarse-grained part of the alluvium and is the principalshallow-water aquifer. Younger parts of the alluvium generally asso­ciated with the several terraces are relatively thin and fine grained.

The alluvium, especially the quartzose conglomerate, is distortedin some areas by slumping of the underlying Permian formations. Thethickest section of alluvium occupies an ancient channel of the PecosRiver about 4 miles west of and parallel to the present course of theriver. According to Morgan (1938), the alluvium is thicker than theprocesses of downcutting and subsequent backfilling could produce.The overthickening of the alluvium is attributed to slumping of under­lying Permian rocks.

Quaternary rocks in the Roswell basin are second only to the SanAndres limestone in their capacity to yield water to wells. Many irri­gation wells are finished in the alluvium, especially in areas wherethe artesian aquifer yields insufficient water to wells and where noartesian-water rights could be obtained. Pumping tests (Hantush, 1955)indicated coefficients of transmissibility ranging from 31,000 to139,000 gpd (gallons per day) per foot. Ground water in the alluviumgenerally is unconfined; the coefficient of storage is about 0.20.

The chemical quality of ground water varies considerably bothvertically and horizontally within the alluvial aquifer. In generalthe quality improves with depth and with distance from the Pecos River.

GROUND WATER

Recharge, Movement, and Discharge

The five geologic units -- the Yeso, Glorieta, San Andres, ChalkBluff, and alluvium -- in the project area should be considered asparts of a single hydrologic system. The San Andres and Chalk Bluffformations and the Quaternary alluvium, especially, act almost as aunit, and hydrologic changes in anyone of the three causes changesin the other two. The general hyd~ogic relations of the five forma­tions are illustrated in figure 3.

1

-17-

YegG Formation and Glorieta Sandstone

The Yeso formation and the Glorieta sandstone are recharged mainlyif not entirely by infiltration of precipitation and streamflow acrosstheir outcrops. Ground water moves dOlvudip from the outcrop and isconfined under an increasing head as it moves basinward. The degree ofconfinement depends on the vertical permeability of the confining bed.The amount of water that moves downdip in the aquifer depends on thepermeability of the confining bed as well as that of the aquifer.

The water table in the Yeso formation, Glorieta sandstqne, andthe San Andres limestone west of Roswell apparently is continuous fromone formation to another, although the slope of the water table changesrather abruptly across formational contacts. Some water probably movesfrom the Yeso formation through the Glorieta sandstone and into the SanAndres limestone in the project area, but near Roswell the amount probablyis negligible to small because of the low permeabilities of the Yeso andthe Glorieta and the relatively low permeability of the lower part ofthe San Andres.

San Andres Limestone

The San Andres limestone is recharged in a large area of outcropextending from the latitude of Vaughn southward to the latitude of LakeMcMillan (fig. 4). Not all the recharge in this area moves to theproject area. Fiedler and Nye (1933) indicated that the principal re­charge to the Roswell area occurs north of a line between Tps. 15 and16 S. The movement of the artesian water into the project area primarilyis from the west and northwest, although some water moves in from thenorth and from the southwest possibly as a result of being deflectednortheastward by a fault that acts as a partial barrier to the movementof water southward across a line between Tps. 15 and 16 S. The generalpattern of movement of the artesian water prior to its development bywells is shown in figure 5.

Prior to the development of ground water in the San Andres limestoneby means of wells, much of the water moved upward through the Chalk Bluffformation and the Quaternary alluvium and discharged at the land surfacethrough large springs (Berrendo Springs, North Springs, and South Springs)and smaller springs along the Pecos River and its tributaries, and byevapotranspiration in the Pecos River bottom lands (fig. 4). Some under­flow moved southward out of the project area in the vicinity of thePecos River. Fiedler and Nye (1933, p. 155) did not consider it likelythat the artesian water moved appreciable distances east of the PecosRiver. They stated:

There is probably very little if any escape of the artesianwater north and east of the artesian area. There are no surfaceoutlets, except possibly in western Texas, as in both directionsthe land surface rises above the static level of the artesianwater.

It is improbable that there is any underground leakage toward

-18-

rI

rI

\I

I \-----,I I

ILake Me Millon

From Theis and others (1942)

o 10 20 30 40 50 MilesL'__-" '-'__-" '-'__-"

Outcrop of the San Andreslimestone

EXPLANATION

-..........

Arrows show generalized direction ofmovement of ground water in the SanAndres limestone

Western limit of salt inthe San Andres limestone

FIGURE 4. -- Map show,ng generalized direcLion of movement of ground waterin the San Andres limestone in part of the Pecos Valley, N. Mex.

-19-

R.27E.26252423

T. \)7

~ .. \s.

...~I \SO/l- ~ I8

"'~ ..Deep LakeD

":;./ .. ,

9 ~"'"

B.errendo Springs

10 .~';<....J JNort!J Spring

IIless

es

R.22E.

T. ----....13S.

FIGURE 5. -- Map showing probable circulation of water in the San Andreslimestone prior to the construction of wells in the vicinity ofRoswell, Chaves County, N. Mex.

-20-

the north, for if the Picacho limestone [San Andres limestone] iscavernous north of the alluvial basin, the water in it would tendto move south, inasmuch as the direction of the hydraulic gradientis in that direction. It also appears improbable that there isany appreciable underground leakage tpward the east. The Roswellartesian basin is situated on the west flank of a broad structuralbasin formed chiefly by the Permian rocks. The land surface inthe central part of the basin is higher than the static head ofthe artesian water. Consequently the only possible outlets forthe artesian water in the Permian rocks are in western Texas alongthe east and southeast side of the basin where the Permian rocksreappear at the surface.

It appears that the Permian formations in this area changein character toward the east and southeast and that they are notcontinuous as lithologic and stratigraphic units across the basin.Records of numerous wells drilled for oil in southeastern NewMexico show that there are pronounced changes in the characterof the Permian formations between this area and the southeastcorner of the State. The well records also indicate that thePicacho limestone [San Andres limestone] gives place to gypsum,anhydrite, salt, and red beds east of this area and does notcrop out along the east and southeast sides of the Permian basin.The great thickness of relatively impermeable red beds and ofanhydrite east of this area undoubtedly offer considerable re­sistance to the eastward movement of the artesian water fromthe Picacho limestone [San Andres limestone] as well as thatfrom the Pecos formation [Chalk Bluff formation], and it appearsimprobable that the artesian pressure is sufficient to force ap­preciable quantities of artesian water through these beds to theeast side of the Permian basin. If the artesian water were es­caping eastward, oil found in the limestone would probably havebeen flushed out long ago. Consequently, it appears improbablethat there is much escape of artesian water from this area alongthe east and southeast sides of the Permian basin.

Large springs in the vicinity of Roswell discharged artesian waterthat moved toward the Pecos River from southwest, west, and northwestof Roswell, creating a natural lowering of artesian pressure that flat­tened the gradient of the piezometric surface immediately east of thespring area. This reduced gradient caused artesian waters movingsouthward along the Pecos River to swing slightly westward as theypassed east of the spring area. The easternmost springs interceptedsome of the southward moving water. Deep Lake (8.25.22), a sinkholelake in the Chalk Bluff formation, discharged 4 to 5 cfs (cubic feetper second) as late as 1923 and was discharging as much as 2 cfs in1939. Few data are available regarding the discharge from this easternspring area between the mouth of Salt Creek on the north and BottomlessLakes on the south, but it is estimated to have been between 15 and 20cfs.

Regarding the effect of the large springs on the movement and dis­charge of artesian water in the Roswell area, Fiedler and Nye (1933, p.194-195) stated:

7

-21-

According to observations made by Fisher in 1904, the pressureon several wells in the vicinity of Roswell was sufficient to raisethe water to an altitude of 3,586 feet above sea level. This wasthe same as the altitude of the water surface at the head of theNorth Spring River, west of Roswell. During the present investiga­tion [1926-28] these determinations were checked by running levelsto several of the wells observed by Fisher. The exact point ofreference used by him was not ascertained, but after allowance hasbeen made for the maximum possible error due to this cause, theavailable information indicates that in 1904 the artesian water inthe north end of the basin [near Roswell] did not rise higher than3,590 feet above sea level.

The fact that the initial pressure head of the wells wassufficient to raise the water to the same altitude as the watersurface at the North Springs suggests that these springs actedeffectually as controlling valves on the artesian reservoir andprevented the building up in this segment of the reservoir of anartesian head higher than their level. A study of the geology ofthe region indicates that the water of the springs had probablythe same origin as the artesian water, and the springs may, in asense, be regarded as natural artesian wells of large capacity ....Although the artesian head may at times have been somewhat higherthan the level of the springs) such increased head caused an in­creased discharge and thereby automatically prevented the bUildingup of the artesian head.

In June, 1905, the pressure of a well in the SW!Nwi sec. 25,T. 10 S., R. 24 E., was sufficient to raise the water to analtitude of 3,581.8 feet above sea level. This well is about 5miles east of North Spring, and the altitude to which the waterrose was only about 4 feet lower than that of North Spring. Thehydraulic gradient eastward from North Spring was therefore rela­tively flat, indicating that the discharge in this segment priorto 1905 was relatively small compared with the discharge duringthe period 1925 to 1928. The slope of the piezometric surface istoward the point of discharge and it appears that prior to thedrilling of wells the piezometric surface in the north end of thearea [near Roswell] must have been nearly horizontal below thelevel of the springs. Westward from the springs there was un­doubtedly a hydraulic gradient of considerable magnitude, in viewof the large discharge from these openings.

The center of natural discharge in the Roswell area moved 2 to 5miles eastward when artesian wells were developed in the area. Pump­ing of these wells created additional pressure relief in the artesianaqUifer near Roswell. This relief was of sufficient magnitude to stopthe flow of Berrendo Springs, North Springs, and South Springs, and toreduce the flow of other springs in the area. The lowering of artesianpressure by the wells was greater than that occasioned by the springsand caused the artesian water moving southward along the Pecos Riverto be drawn farther west. With the continued pumping and the resultantcontinued lowering of the artesian pressure in the pumped area) some

-22-

artesian water originally near the river reached the wells.

Between 1947 and 1950 about 100 irrigation wells were drilledto tap the artesian system in Tps. 8 and 9 S., R. 24 E. Thesewells intercept some of the artesian water moving toward Roswellfrom the north and northwest.

Figure 6 shows the generalized pattern of water movement inthe San Andres limestone after pump irrigation began.

Chalk Bluff Formation

The Chalk Bluff formation is recharged in outcrop areas byinfiltration of precipitation and streamflow. In the project area,however, the formation is overlain by Quaternary alluvium and theChalk Bluff is recharged only by leakage from the underlying SanAndres. The amount of recharge varies in response to changes inartesian head in the San.Andres. The Chalk Bluff near Roswell isdischarged principally by upward leakage into the overlyingQuaternary alluvium. A few wells finished or partly finished inthe Chalk Bluff formation discharge some water. Some water isdischarged from the formation directly into the Pecos River andits tributaries, as in the vicinity of the Bitter Lake NationalWildlife Refuge.

Quaternary Alluvium

The alluvium is recharged from five sources: 1) interforma­tional leakage from the San Andres through the Chalk Bluff -- Morgan(1938) considered leakage from underlying formations to be the prin­cipal source of recharge to the alluvium; 2) streamflow across thealluvium -- numerous intermittent streams, heading in the plains andmountains west of the river, flow in direct response to precipitation,and occasional large floods inundate parts of the alluvium for shortperiods of time; 3) percolation losses from irrigated fields;4) direct precipitation upon the alluvium; and 5) leakage from faultyartesian wells. Direct precipitation and leakage from faulty wellsprobably are minor sources of recharge.

Ground water in the alluvium moves generally eastward (pl. 2)and discharges into the Pecos River through seeps and a few springs,into the lower'courses of tributaries of the Pecos) and into arti­ficial drains. A large quantity of ground water also is dischargedfrom the alluvium by irrigation wells. The amount of evaporationfrom small lakes and transpiration by phreatophytes in areas ofshallow water table is significant.

-23-

R.27 E.

o

tl BollomlessLakes

•

26

o Biller Lo e

I;

252423

...

R.22E.

T. '.7

\ ~., !S.

SU/l-S " ...~ ..."'/ ",

.. '

9

'"Berrendo Springs

'-...."

';:'"10

.

II

----.... -'!>.'" "0

<'Yo"?O'o

'"

12

T.13S.

FIGURE 6. -- Map showing probable circulation of water in the San Andreslimestone after the construction of wells in the vicinity ofRoswell, Chaves County, N. Mex.

•

-24-

Chemical Quality

YeSG Formation

The quality of water from the Yeso formation in the project areahas not been determined. According to the log of an oil-test well(Southern Production No.1 Cloudcroft Unit), saline water is presentin the YesG formation in the mountain area. Saline water in the YegGformation was noted also in the log of oil-test well 11.23.29.421(Willson No. 1 Brown) about 4 miles west of the project area. Well11.15.12.112, about 45 miles west of the project area, bottomed inthe Yeso at a depth of 800 feet below land surface. Water from thatwell had 101 ppm of chloride. This concentration of chloride issignificantly small and indicates that ground-water circulation hasbeen sufficient at that depth to have removed most of the chloridefrom the formation in the vicinity of the well. Owing to the deepburial of the formation in the project area and the inclusion ofbeds of evaporites) the formation probably contains brine similarto that reported for well 10.26.30.200 (appendix A) in the overlyingGlorieta sandstone.

Glorieta Sandstone

Infiltration from precipitation and streamflow contributes re­charge to the Glorieta sandstone in its outcrop areas) and the chemicalquality of the water in the sandstone generally is good in rechargeareas. Water percolating to depth in the sandstone moves downdip andvalleyward. The quality of the percolating water does not deterioraterapidly everywhere along its path. Test well 10.21.16.222 drilledabout 15 miles west of the study area yielded water having a chloridecontent of 25 ppm from a yellow water-bearing sand at a depth of 600to 610 feet. Eastward from that well, the quality apparently deteri­orates markedly. Several oil tests penetrated "salt water lt in theGlorieta near Roswell. The city of Roswell drilled a test well(11.24.4.114d) that penetrated a water-bearing zone between 318 and400 feet in the San Andres and one from 1,000 to 1,075 feet in theGlorieta. Fiedler and Nye (1933) reported an analysis of water fromthe well but stated that the sample was a mixture of water from theGlorieta sandstone and from the San Andres limestone. The chloridecontent of the water was 82 ppm when the well was 475 feet deep and9,700 ppm (appendix A) when the well was 1,200 feet deep. Using adilution formula, the chloride content of the Glorieta water can beestimated by assuming various mixtures of water from the two zones.In view of the probably low permeability of the Glorieta sandstoneas compared with that of the limestone in the San Andres, it isdoubtful that the well produced more water from the sandstone thanfrom the limestone. If the sample analyzed represented a 1 to 1mixture, water from the deeper zone contained about 20,000 ppm ofchloride. If the ratio was 3 parts of water from the limestone and2 parts from the sandstone, the water from the sandstone containedapproximately 24,000 ppm of chloride. If the ratio was 9 to 1, the

-25-

chloride concentration was about 97,000 ppm. Based on these computa­tions it is estimated that the chloride content of the water from theGlorieta sandstone probably is in excess of 20,000 ppm in the vicinityof that well. An oil test east of Roswell (10.26.30.200, appendix A)penetrated a brine-bearing bed in the Glorieta sandstone. An analysisindicated that the brine contained 141,000 ppm of chloride. The waterwas under sufficient pressure to force the water to a height of 1,500feet above the top of the bed.

San Andres Limestone

Available information indicates that, prior to large-scale pumpingby irrigation wells, the artesian waters in the San Andres limestonewere mainly calcium sulfate waters, except in the immediate vicinityof the Pecos River where sodium chloride waters predominated. Only afew chemical analyses of water from the San Andres date back to theearly days of local irrigation by wells. Means and Gardner (1899) dis­cussed the quality of water in the area only briefly. Fisher (1906)sampled 10 artesian wells near Roswell and some of the large springs.Although the locations of the wells sampled by Fisher are uncertain,most of them probably were in sees. 32 and 33, T. 10 S., R. 24 E., andsees. 4 and 5, T. 11 S.,. R. 24 E. Nine of the 10 wells ranged in depthfrom 155 to 331 feet, the average being 230 feet. Of 12 analyses ofwater samples from the 10 wells, the lowest concentration of chloridewas 69 ppm and the highest was 287 ppm, the average being 175 ppm. Thechloride content of water from the North Spring River springs rangedfrom 50 to 94 ppm, and that from the South Spring Creek springs rangedfrom 26 to 31 ppm. Fiedler and Nye (1933) discussed the geology andwater resources of the area in detail but described the quality of thewater in the San Andres only in general terms. Analyses of watersamples from 16 artesian wells within the project area are includedin their report.

Between 1928 and 1952 the waters in artesian wells east of Roswellincreased significantly in chloride content. By 1952 the chloridecontent of the water in some wells had increased to a concentrationthat required the abandonment and plugging of the wells. Many watersamples were collected and analyzed in August 1952 to determine thechloride content of waters pumped from artesian wells in the projectarea (pl. 3). Plates 4-7 show the concentration of chloride in watersin the project area during other periods between 1952 and 1958.

The areas where wells yield water that has chloride concentrationsgreater than 500 ppm are referred to in this report as saline-waterareas or saline areas. An examination of plates 3-7 reveals that thesaline-water area in the San Andres generally is east of the Roswellcity limits and probably is expanding toward the northwest, west,southwest, and south. The major change from August 1952 to September1957 was in the southeast corner of T. 10 S., R. 24 E., and the north­east corner of T. 11 S., R. 24 E. A comparison of plates 3 and 6indicates that during the period the saline area advanced south­southwestward more rapidly than in other directions. The advance is

-26-

indicated by the closer spacing of the 1,000 to 3,500 ppm isochlor linesand the shifting of those lines from sec. I, T. 11 S., R. 24 E., and sec.6, T. 11 S., R. 25 E., southward to the middle of sec. 12, T. 11 S.,R. 24 E.

In the fall of 1957 the Roswell area received more rainfall thanusual with the result that pumping of ground water was decreased.Water levels rose late in 1957 to heights well above those of severalpreceding years. Plates 5 and 7 show that from January 1957 to January1958 the boundary of the saline area remained essentially static inT. 10 S., R. 24 E., but that the 1,000 ppm isochlor line receded some­what in section 23. The boundary in the northeastern part of T. 11 S.,R. 24 E., extended southwestward into a lobe-shaped area as far assection 10. The boundary remained essentially static in the northernpart of T. 11 S., R. 25 E., except in the vicinity of sections 15 and16 where it receded as much as half a mile.

Effects Caused by Changes in Artesian Head

A change in artesian head in one part of the aquifer relative toother parts causes a change in hydraulic gradient. If the head islowered in an upgradient area, the hydraulic gradient will be less indowngradient areas) and if the head is lowered a sufficient amountupgradient, the hydraulic gradient will be reversed. When the gradientis reversed, the direction of water movement in that part of the aquiferwill be reversed.

Prior to the use of artesian wells in the vicinity of Roswell,the hydraulic gradient was generally eastward toward the Pecos River,but the gradient was relatively small between the westernmost springsand the river. The hydraulic gradient remained essentially stablewhen the springs controlled the gradient. The fresh water movingdowngradient eastward from the principal recharge area discharged,for the most part, at the westernmost springs, but some dischargedat springs closer to the river; the springs near the river discharged,for the most part, saline water that moved southward near the river.

When the artesian wells were put in use, they disturbed thepressure equilibrium in the artesian aquifer near Roswell. Thesewells yielded fresh water and lowered the pressure in the aquifer atpoints east of the large fresh-water springs, and the hydraulic grad­ient toward the river became less. With a lessening of the hydraulicgradient the heavier saline water near the river began to migratewestward beneath the fresh water. As more and more fresh waterwas taken from the aqUifer by the artesian wells, the saline waterwedging beneath the fresh water moved farther west and thickened ina vertical direction. The thickening wedge of saline water inter­sected the lower portion of the deeper artesian wells nearest the river,and those wells pumped some saline water. Thus a wedge of saline waterstarted to develop from the river westward beneath the fresh water,

n

-27-

because of a lessening of the hydraulic gradient, even though thehydraulic gradient in the artesian system sloped downward from westto east.

Pumpage from the artesian aquifer increased and eventually thehydraulic gradient was reversed intermittently. The reversal oc­curred during the pumping season, and the interface between thefresh water and saline water moved westward. The saline water wasmoving westward because of water density differences and because ofan intermittent reversal in hydraulic gradients. Both of these move­ments are attributed to changes in head in the artesian aquifer.

The greatest increase in chloride concentration coincides withthe area of heaviest pumping, which is east of Roswell (pl. 8), butthe area of greatest long-term decline in head is on the west sideof Roswell. The quality of water has deteriorated generally, butdetailed quality data were not available until after 1952 when aperiodic water-sampling program was started. A rough comparisonbetween quality deterioration and head decrease in the period 1928­52 may be obtained from an examination of plates 3 and 9 and figures7 and 8. Numbers are given in brackets at seven wells on plate 3.The upper numbers indicate the chloride content of the water in May1928, and the lower numbers indicate the increase of chloride con­centration from 1928 to 1952, the increases being approximate. Thehydrographs in figures 7 and 8 show that, except for 1941 and 1942,water levels declined from year to year and that the rate of declinewas accelerated after 1950. The concentration of chloride in groundwaters is treated in detail in appendix B; most of the data wereobtained after 1952. Plates 10 and 11 show changes in chloride con­tent for selected periods.

In addition to long-term deterioration, the quality of wateryielded by the artesian wells fluctuates through a seasonal cycleof deterioration and recovery_ Seasonal deterioration starts withthe beginning of pumping and continues until the end of the irriga­tion season. The quality improves after the end of the irrigationseason and becomes best at about the time of maximum recovery ofwater levels. This relation is shown in figure 7. The rapid deter­ioration in quality as a result of the decline in head caused by heavypumping indicates that the source of chloride contamination is nearby.

Source of Chloride Contamination

Saline ground water in the project area, especially water rangingfrom moderately saline to brine, has its mineral source in areas rela­tively high in concentrations of chloride and relatively low in sulfate.

Fresh water in the San Andres limestone near Roswell contains calciumand magnesium in a ratio of approximately 3 to 1 by weight. The calcium­to-sodium and sulfate-to-chloride ratios are about 2 to 1 by weight, ex­cept for those waters with less than 100 ppm chloride. The sulfate-to­chloride ratio is about 5 to 1 for such water. As the quantity of dis-solved minerals increases and the water becomes saline, the concentration of all

1,000

~ 5,000o.~

,-<,-<.~

s 4,000

'"~0.

'"t 3,000~

0.

~.~

, 2,000~

."

.~

'"o,-<.<:u

3,580

+>~~

'H

~ 3,570.~

,,-<~

~ 3,560,-<

'"~+>~

~ 3,550'Ho~."B 3,540.~

+>

'""<t:

, ,, ,r

",

Well: 10 .24.35.222a

l~IV 11

fAlJDepth: 452 feet LAquifer: San Andres limestone I'\\ ..,4)

,~

.~ JY tv ~ r ' I

IA Itfl,, l\ " ~,

I

\/\ !~lr " 'il\ , ... A, / l\- - ,r , ,I , , I

,

II i'v-I , / \ I .~

.J~I Well : 1O.24.35.222bI " I 1\1..j

, I Depth: 465 feet---- \

'~ Aquifer: San Andres limestone

1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958

1\ I '\ 1'\ I "\ 1\

rfl\J V \j V \v \; '11r. / \ (Vii ~1 "\

V10.24.21.212

V -vv \j \/ ~Well:

~ ~ ~Berrendo-Smith recorderDepth: 258 feetAquifer: San Andres limestone \J V~ \/~ ~

V

V

FIGURE 7. -- Graphs showing chloride content of water from artesian wellsat locations 10.24.35.222a and b and water level in artesian well10.24.21.212, Chaves County, N. Mex.

I

'"00I

-29-

.3,590

.3,580

.3,570

.3,560

.3,550

.3,540

.3,5.30

+' .3,580<IJ<IJ'H

;i .3,570,

<IJ .3,560E.,;+' .3,550:;;j

.3,540

.3,5.30

.3,570

.3,560

.3,550

.3,540

.3,5.30

.3,520

- -- - - l- I-1- - - 1- -~r~ [1a~ r .".: n 1 'k tj :to~I- f- -Iof p "s 0 e r C 51 r ae e

Wl O.~~

.9 .3 .3B rJ e

r- r--.. vI-- ..... / "l-I"

..-

I'-I'..

"- - "

Wl o 2 .1- 2 2V "B r e d - mi tb - .....

i'..

~

" I"I'--

'\

ile" 1 1 II '?C ? ," V "-o n a" n Vi ew / I'- "-

~

\ -- "-1'\

FIGURE 8. -- Graphs showing mean monthly water levels in August in theBerrendo, Berrendo-Smith, and Mountain View wells during theirperiods of record.

-30-

chemical constituents except bicarbonate increases. The concentrationsof sodium and chloride increase at a greater rate than the others) how­ever.

In water classified as moderately saline to brine) virtually allthe gain in mineral content is in sodium and chloride. In figures 9and 10, which illustrate this phenomenon with respect to the anions,the concentrations of chloride and sUlfate, respectively, are plottedagainst the specific conductance (a general function of the dissolvedsolids, or total concentration of soluble salts). The specific con­ductance increases continuously as nearly a straight-line function ofthe chloride content. The sulfate content, on the other hand, increasesonly slightly compared with the increase in specific conductance. Therelations of sodium, and calcium and magnesium to the specific conductancechange in a similar manner with increasing concentration of dissolvedsolids.

Three possible sources of high chloride content in water from wellstapping the San Andres in the project area are: 1) upward movement of waterfrom underlying formations; 2) water stored in zones of lower permeabilityin the San Andres at depth and east of the Pecos River that are unflushedor are partly flushed by ground-water circulation; and 3) migration ofsaline water from north and northeast of the project area. Theis andothers (1942) report that beds of halite are present in the San Andreseast of the Pecos River from the vicinity of Acme northward.

Although available data are inconclusive, it is believed that upwardmovement from depth contributes less to the salinization of waters withinthe reach of wells than does lateral migration of saline water. The pat­tern of encroachment apparent from plates 3-7 indicates that saline watersare moving westward from the vicinity of the Pecos River. Waters movinginto the project area from the north along the Pecos River are moderatelyto very saline. Waters in the San Andres east of the Pecos River are"stagnant" very saline waters and brines. Both of these sources are nearbyand the water is susceptible to movement toward the irrigated area whenpumping lowers artesian heads. The saline water in the San Andres lime­stone along the Pecos River from Acme to the latitude of Roswell isthe immediate source of saline water that is encroaching toward Roswell.The area between Acme and Roswell is referred to in this report as the"source area" of the saline water as related to encroachment of salinewater. This does not imply that water acquires its mineral content inthat area. Instead) it refers to that area as the place from whichsaline water in transit from north to south encroaches westward towardRoswell.

Shape of Saline-Water Body in Project Area

Plates 3-7 delineate the areas in which saline water is pumped fromartesian wells. The saline water in the San Andres limestone withinthe project area, however, is wedge shaped, the body of water havinga depth relation to the fresh water as shown in figure 3. Thusthe San Andres is not completely saturated with saline water within

uoIf)(\J

I­<llfJo:c::;;oa::u::;;z

wuz~U:::J

'"ZouUIJ..

UWQ.lfJ

-31-

20,000

/

/H5,OOO /

V/

10,000/

//

Plotted results are from analyses ofwater samples collected from wellseast of Roswell, New Mexico,February 1955

5,000

I

//

CHLORIDE CONTENT, IN I,OOO's OF PARTS PER MILLIONI , I ,

0 I 2 3 4 5

FIGURE 9. -- Graph showing relation of specific conductance to chloridecontent of water from the San Andres limestone in the vicinity ofRoswell, Chaves County, N. Mex.

-32-

uoIII(\J

ti(f)

o:r:;:;;oll::U

:;;Z

wuZ<tI­U=>ClZouULL

UW0­(f)

20,000

15,000

10,000

..

..

5,006 ; .'.

.'

.'SULFATE CONTENT, IN I,OOO's OF PARTS PER MILLION

I I I I0 I 2 3 4 5

FIGURE 10. -- Graph showing relation of specific conductance to sulfatecontent of water from the San Andres limestone in the vicinity ofRoswell, Chaves County, N. Mex.

-33-

part of the saline-water area. Water pumped from a well is a mixtureof water from all water-bearing beds tapped by the well. A well inthe saline-water area can be pumping fresh water from some beds andhighly saline water from other beds; the mixture discharged is saline,but not as saline as that from some of the individual beds. An exampleis well 11.25.8.422 (Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District testwell 6). This well was drilled to a depth of 796 feet and was casedwith three strings of pipe, each pipe tapping a different water-bearingzone. One zone between 418 and 447 feet yielded water having a chloridecontent of 330 ppm; another, between 477 and 487 feet, yielded waterwith a chloride content of 835 ppm; a third zone, between 595 and 796feet, yielded water having a chloride content of 7,330 ppm. A com­bined sample was not taken, but assuming all sources would contributeequal quantities of water, the resultant discharge would contain about2,800 ppm of chloride.

In general, chloride concentration increases with depth in theSan Andres in the project area. It would be possible, by means ofcareful drilling and frequent sampling of the water, to determine thedepth below which all water in th0 formation would be saline. Un­fortunately no such determination has been made, but some generalizedconclusions can be drawn about the configuration of the interface be­tween the fresh water (less than 500 ppm of chloride) and the salinewater (more than 500 ppm of chloride) within the San Andres: 1) salinewater underlies the fresh water near Roswell and in much of the irri­gated area east of the city; 2) the fresh water-saline water interfaceslopes upward from west to east; 3) east of the irrigated area theentire section of the San Andres apparently is saturated with salinewater; 4) the fresh water-saline water interface probably is not aregular and sharply defined line, there being both vertical and hori­zontal irregularities; and 5) the advance of this interface should beconsidered only as the net effect of encroachment at or near a well.

Permeability probably has a great influence on encroachment ofsaline water in some areas. Wells tapping zones that have high per­meability in the direction of the saline-water source would yieldsaline water before other wells tapping zones of low permeability.Certain anomalies in the isochlor lines on plates 3-7 may be theresult of differential permeability.

Rate of saline-Water Encroachment

Isochlor lines on plates 3 and 6 were compared and the distancesthat the 500-ppm and 1,OOO-ppm lines moved from August 1952 toSeptember 1957 were measured. Both lines advanced generally, al­though local retreats were noted. Their net advance was at the rate of0.1 mile annually during the period. Assuming that the average rate ofencroachment continues, wells along the eastern city limits of Roswellshould begin pwnping water with a chloride content of 500 ppm or moresometime in 1960.

-34-

Chalk Bluff Formation

Few irrigation wells tap the Chalk Bluff formation. It is hydro­logically important in the area because it is the confining bed forwaters in the underlying San Andres limestone.

Continuous leakage of water through the Chalk Bluff formationapparently has leached much of the readily soluble minerals in thatformation in the vicinity of Roswell, and the quality of the waterpresently passing through the formation changes little. North andeast of Roswell, the formation is thicker, however, and containsconsiderable evaporites, particularly gypsum and anhydrite. Thewater dissolves large quantities of sulfate in passing through theChalk Bluff formation in this area. As a result, the quality of thewater from the Chalk Bluff formation north and east of Roswell isdifferent from that of water from the San Andres. Figures 11 and 12show plots of the sulfate and chloride contents, respectively, ofsaline waters from the Chalk Bluff formation versus the specificconductances. Comparison of these plots With those for the SanAndres (figs. 9 and 10) indicates that the sulfate content of waterin the Chalk Bluff is much higher as related to specific conductancethan that of water in the San Andres. Water entering the formationfrom the San Andres in the project area is saline and it is principal­ly a sodium chloride water.

Analyses of water from some of the wells in the northern exten­sion of the Roswell Artesian Basin and from springs, sinkholes, andsurface sources near Salt Creek, Bitter Lake, and the BottomlessLakes indicate the quality of saline water that is stored in or dis­charged from the Chalk Bluff formation (appendix A). In all samplessulfate is a large part of the total anions. (See figure 11.) Theplots cannot be correlated exactly, but the upper line enclosingthe plotted points in figure 11 is well to the right of the averageline representing sulfate-specific-conductance relations in figure10. These relations lead to the general conclusion that the ChalkBluff formation may be contributing saline water to a well in whichthe water contains from 500 to more than 1,000 ppm of sulfate andin which the ratio of chloride to sulfate (both measured in partsper million) is 1 to 1 or less.

East of the Pecos River and from Salt Creek northward, theChalk Bluff formation is recharged at the surface. Most areas ofdirect recharge contain shallow, perched zones of ground water whichare high in sulfate content but generally very low in chloride. Thedirect recharge to the formation probably contributes little to thesalinity problem in the Roswell area.

Quaternary Alluvium

The quality of ground water in the Quaternary alluvium is simi­lar to that of the water in other aquifers in the Roswell area.Water in the alluvium generally is a mixture of waters from other

-35-

uolON

!;ieno:r:;:;:o0:U;:;:Z

wuzf'!u::>ozouUll.

UW0­en

1/

20,000/,

I ""

,

,/15,000

//

/1/;:

10,000 /

////

/ //" "

/~/ '.

5,000 ,/

/ .' ./

/j." ;;-j' ./

/ SULFATE CONTENT, IN 1,000's OF PARTS PER MILLIONr r I r

0 ! 2 3 4 5

D

FIGURE 11. -- Graph showing relation of specific conductance to sulfatecontent of water from the Chalk Bluff formation in the vicinity ofRoswell, Chaves County, N. Mex.

-36-

20,000 --+------+------+----i--/-r---I-------I

1//

7 ., 1/

// /~ 15,000 --+----+-----+I/----/----+/-~--1---_I

~ ~.

~ 1-----+------1---,IL--_+~--.L-/_+----_+----___i~ I :. /~ // :." 1Ii 10,000 ----J---/-~-..+-,:-'--/--/-;Lf-----+-----+------l

~ /':: /

~ j, /Ul I ..;.. ": /

5,00v /

II

/.: :;//

1/o

CHLORIDE CONTENT, INI II 2

I,oOO's OF PARTS PER MILLIONI ,

Y ~ 5

FIGURE 12. -- Graph showing relation of specific conductance to chloridecontent of water from the Chalk Bluff formation in the vicinity ofRoswell, Chaves County, N. Mex.

-37-

aquifers and from several other sources of recharge. Comparison offigures 10, 11, and 13 shows that the sulfate content of salinewater from the alluvium ranges from a minimum concentration compar­able with that of San Andres water to a maximum concentration com­parable with that of Chalk Bluff water in the lower concentrations.The 8uifate content of the water from the alluvium with a specificconductance exceeding 1,000 micromhos is greater than that of waterin the san Andres. Comparison of figures 9, 12, and 14 shows thatvalues in the plot of chloride content versus specific conductanceof saline ground water from the alluvium range from slightly lessthan those of the San Andres limestone to slightly more than thoseof the Chalk Bluff formation. In both the sulfate and chlorideplots, the concentrations at which most points are plotted for thealluvium are in the lower ranges of the same plots for the SanAndres limestone and Chalk Bluff formation.

The area of saline water in the alluvium east of Roswell isshown in plate 12. The dashed isochlor lines in the figure indi­cate the approximate position of the saline-water body. The boundar­ies of the area cannot be defined more clearly because of inadequatedata and because of the irregularity in quality of water from onepart of the area to another.

Before irrigation began the alluvium was recharged mainly fromupward leakage of artesian water, from precipitation, and fromflooding of arroyos. The only fluctuation in upward leakage wasdue to the small annual variation in recharge to the artesian aqui­fer. The quality of water in the alluvium was governed largely bythe quality of water leaking from the San Andres. Early dataavailable on quality of water in the alluvium are few. Means andGardner (1899) stated that water from the Berrendo Creeks was salty,and that surface water just downstream from the confluence of theBerrendo Creeks contained 256 parts of soluble matter per 100,000parts of water, or 2,560 ppm of dissolved solids. Their map (Meansand Gardner, 1899, fig. 5) was in error, because they show SouthBerrendo Creek flowing into Middle Berrendo Creek, whereas Northand Middle Berrendo Creeks join and flow southward about a mile tojoin with South Berrendo. If Means and Gardner took their sampleimmediately below the mouth of South Berrendo Creek, the samplingpoint would be in 10.24.22, and the sample would represent thewaters of all three creeks. If the sample was taken at the conflu­ence of North and Middle Berrendo Creeks, the sampling point wouldbe in 10.24.14, and the sample would represent water from the uppertwo creeks only. The sample indicates, nevertheless, that alluviumin the east-central part of T. 10 S., R. 24 E., contained salinewater prior to 1900 because the Berrendo Creeks are effluent in thatreach and act as natural drains for shallow ground water. It isdOUbtful that the saline condition of the alluvium can be attributedto the small amount of surface-water irrigation practiced before1899.

After 1900 the shallow-water regimen changed. As irrigationWith artesian water increased, recharge to the water table by irri­gation return flow increased. The quality of the return flow was

(,)olON

~UloI::<oa::(,)

::<z

w(,)

z~(,)

::0oZo(,)

(,)

LL

(,)W0­Ul

-38-

20,000.

15,000 I . .I

I

/10,000

III

I. .

://./: .

5,007.. ./

./. .' . .

./'. . ..:b "1//. ..;/.:... SULFATE CONTENT, IN 1,000'5 OF PARTS PER MILLION

I I I '

0 I 2 3 4 5

FIGURE 13. -- Graph showing relation of specific conductance to sulfatecontent of water from the Quaternary alluvium in the vicinity ofRoswell, Chaves County, N. Mex.

(.)

oIf)N

tif)

oI::;;oa::(.)

::;;Z

w(.)

z~(.)

::>ozo(.)

ULL

(.)

WQ.if)

-39-

20,000

17,500/

/15,000

./

V12,500 /

10,000 /

I /.0..7,500

/

,,wI00./. .o 0. ..

• •• : 0"

o •

11·· I.: '.:;/00 _0.• .0.

o .. • .~

IV.... 0 \

...... :

.-:"CHLORIDE CONTENT, IN I,OOO's OF PARTS PER MILLION~

: I I I I0 ! ? 3 4 5

FIGURE 14. -- Graph showing relation of specific conductance to chloridecontent of water from the Quaternary alluvium in the vicinity ofRoswell, Chaves County, No Mex.

-40-

affected by the quality and quantity of the artesian water applied.

Ground water in the alluvium was not developed for irrigationuntil the 1930 rs) because irrigation needs from ground-water sourceswere satisfied by artesian water. Shallow water was used only fordomestic and stock supplies. Even after the alluvium became a majorsource of irrigation water elsewhere in the basin} it remained aminor source in the Roswell area. During the 30 years or more ofirrigation before the work of Morgan (1938) and Theis and others(1942), continued irrigation, especially irrigation utilizing arte­sian ground water of growing salinity, increased the salt burden ofthe shallow water in the alluvium. The tile drain at 10.24.35.220discharged water containing 1,380 ppm of chloride in March 1940(appendix A).

A few wells in the alluvium were included in the group used aschloride-observation wells in 1952. The chloride content of waterfrom most of the wells sampled in the winter of 1952-53 is plottedon plate 12; chemical analyses are shown in appendiX A; and chloridegraphs are in appendix B.

The data on chemical quality of the water samples collected from1952 to 1953 indicate that the saline-water area in the alluvium atthat time was similar in shape to that in the San Andres but somewhat'larger.

Chloride content of water from observation wells in the alluviumin the winters of 1956-57 and 1957-58 also is shown on plate 12. Thedashed isochlor lines delineate the general shape of the saline-waterarea in the alluvium early in 1957. The concentration of chloride inwater from the alluvium increased slowly for the most part, in manyplaces amounting to 100 ppm or less. Greater increases in salinityof water in the alluvium all are within the area of encroaching salinewater in the San Andres. Increases in salinity of water in the allu­vium are small, however, compared with salinity increases in the SanAndres. Plate 12 should be interpreted with caution. Generally waterin the alluvium is poorer in quality at shallow depths and better inquality at greater depths. Records for several paired wells nearRoswell illustrate the variation in quality with depth. For example,wells 10.24.28.114 and 114a are 80 and 100 feet in depth, respectively.The chloride content of a sample collected from well 10.24.28.114 inAugust 1952 was 564 ppm and the chloride content of a sample collectedfrom well 10.24.28.114a in August 1953 was 220 ppm. Wells 10.25.33.431and 33.432 are 47 and 85 feet in depth, respectively, and on December 27,1956, discharged water containing 4,610 and 1,360 ppm of chloride,respectively. Several other pairs of wells yield waters that have asimilar relation of chemical quality.

The quality of water varies horizontally also) as is indicatedin plate 12. In general) water in the alluvium increases in mineralcontent as it moves toward the Pecos River. The mineral load from re­charge is superimposed upon the initial load) which increases as theground water moves through the alluvium.

-41-

The fresh and saline waters in the Quaternary alluvium of theRoswell basin have common sources of recharge: floodflow, precipita­tion, upward leakage from underlying rocks, irrigation return flow,and leakage from ditches, reservoirs, and artesian wells.

Floodflow and direct precipitation generally are sources offresh-water recharge; however, flood water that becomes impounded inareas of relatively impervious soil leaches salts from the soil andis desiccated by the sun. The remaining water sinks into the groundslowly, carrying dissolved salts with it. Precipitation generallyis insufficient to recharge the shallow-water reservoir but wets thesoil only to a shallow depth and is evaporated. This process repeatedmany times results in a saline residue concentrated at or near thesurface. The residue subsequently is dissolved by heavier precipi­tation and carried to the water table. Recharge from floodflow andprecipitation are minor sources of saline water.

Upward leakage from underlying rocks and leakage from faultyartesian wells are similar in process and result. Both transferwater from the artesian reservoir to the alluvium and, in places,contaminate the water in the alluvium with saline water. It is be­lieved that the Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District hasplugged most if not all leaky artesian wells. Any such source ofcontamination would have little effect outside of the immediateVicinity of the leaking well. The San Andres, on the other hand,apparently is filled entirely with saline water from the confluenceof the Berrendo Creeks eastward to the Pecos River and southeastwardto the Bottomless Lakes and is transmitting water containing morethan 500 ppm of chloride into the overlying alluvium.

Natural upward leakage of artesian water and return flow of ir­rigation water from fields and ditches are the principal sources ofsaline water in the alluvium. Much irrigation water containing largequantities of dissolved minerals is evaporated and transpired. Themineral residue accumulates on the land and ditch banks and subse­quently is dissolved by heavy application of irrigation water. Someof the mineralized water resulting then percolates to the water table.

Ground water in the alluvium is discharged in several ways. Arelatively small part of the ground water is discharged by wells andby evaporation from lakes and swamps. Another part of the water istranspired from tracts of saltcedar and other phreatophytes. Salt­cedar uses about 5 acre-feet of ground water per acre per year in theRoswell area. The remaining water moves eastward and is dischargedinto drains, the Pecos River, the Berrendo Creeks, Rio Hondo, andSouth Spring Creek. A part of the tributary and drain discharge isintercepted by the Hagerman Canal and flows out of the area.

Owing to the influence of land and aqUifer conditions on thequality of the water, changes in such quality in the alluvium aresignificant only where they are large or follow a trend. Chloridecontent appears to be increasing along the edge of the saline-waterarea. Water from a few wells increased markedly in chloride content,

-42-

50 to more than 100 percent in wells 10.24.20.221, 11.24.13.122, and11.25.6.123a, in areas irrigated by artesian water that is increasing alsoin chloride content.

The increase in salinity of the alluvium will accelerate as thesalinity of water from the artesian aquifer increases; because ofleakage from the artesian aquifer and return flow (artesian water)from irrigation. The increase in salinity of the alluvium also willaccelerate as the natural and artificial drainage systems in theRoswell area decrease in efficiency. Of the 56 miles of tile drainsin the Roswell Drainage District, between Berrendo and South SpringCreeks, and of the 35 miles of drains in the East Grand Plains DrainageDistrict south of South Spring Creek, 37 miles of drains in the RoswellDistrict and 11 miles of drains in the East Grand Plains District hadbecome inactive by January 1957, owing to a declining water table anddisrepair of facilities. Impairment of artificial drainage will aggra­vate the salinity problem in the alluvium. A course of action thatdecreases saline-water encroachment in the San Andres limestone alsowill tend to decrease saline-water encroachment in the Quaternaryalluvium ..

COURSES OF ACTION TO INHIBIT ENCROACHMENT

The encroachment of saline water is caused by the continuing generaldecrease in head in the fresh-water portion of the artesian aquifer inthe vicinity of Roswell and by the availability of a rather uniformsupply of saline water entering the area.. Encroachment would occureven though the gradient of the artesian pressure were from Roswelleastward to the river, so long as the gradient continued to become moregentle with time. Actually, during the pumping season the gradient hasbeen reversed east of Roswell so that the rate of encroachment of salinewater has been accelerated during that part of the year. FolloWing theend of the pumping season the artesian pressures rise and the gradientsteepens in an eastward direction which causes the westward movement ofsaline water to cease and at times causes the saline water to move east­ward. The net effect, however, has been that, whereas the discharge ofsaline water to the Pecos River has diminished, as has the discharge offresh water to the river, the balance of the saline water that formerlywas discharged to the Pecos River is going into storage in the aquiferby moving into parts of the aquifer formerly occupied by fresh water.Thus remedial measures needed to halt the westward movement of salinewater in the Roswell area or to cause a retreat of saline water east­ward would involve methods to stabilize artesian pressures or increasethe pressure gradient eastward and to reduce the supply of saline water.No corrective measures unattended by considerable expense, legal prob­lems, and adverse effects to some users of water in the Pecos Valley areapparent.

Several courses of action would inhibit encroachment of the salinewater or would eject the saline water from the area of encroachment eastof Roswell. Reduction in artesian head in the source area of the saline

-43-

water by pumpage of saline water from wells near the river betweenAcme and Roswell would increase the west-to-east downward slope ofthe piezometric surface of the water in the artesian aquifer. In­creasing recharge of fresh water in the principal intake area of theSan Andres limestone would increase the pressure in the fresh waterof the artesian aquifer near Roswell and increase the slope of thepiezometric surface providing the rate of pumpage of fresh water didnot increase. Reducing the rate of pumpage of fresh water nearRoswell a sufficient amount to eliminate the reversal of gradientwould slow down the rate of saline water encroachment. Decreasingthe rate of annual pumpage of fresh water to equal the average annualrate of fresh-water recharge reaching the Roswell area would halt theencroachment. Further reductions in pumpage would start a slow migra­tion of the saline water back toward the east.

substitution of shallow water pumping for artesian water pumpingin the Roswell area would decrease the draft on the artesian systemtemporarily, but in time the saline water would encroach into theshallow-water aquifers.

Rearranging the pumping pattern of fresh water from the artesianaquifer by pumping more from artesian wells fart~er west and lessfrom artesian wells near the encroachment area would not increase thehead to the west. This rearrangement might stop the intermittent re­versal of hydraulic gradient temporarily, but it would not be a perma­nent corrective measure.

Injecting fresh water into the artesian aquifer along the freshwater-saline water interface would build up a ridge of fresh waterthat would increase the downward slope of the piezometric surfacefrom the interface eastward.

Transfer of fresh water from east of the river for irrigationuse would reduce the pumpage demand in the fresh-water aquifers inthe Roswell area. Reduction in pumpage in the Roswell area wouldcause some rise in head in the fresh-water portions of the artesianaquifer near Roswell.

Some of these solutions apply to local areas only, whereas someapply to the region. Some offer temporary solutions and othersoffer long-range solutions. Each of the proposed plans is discussedindividually and in more detail in the following sections.

Reduction of Artesian Head in Source Area of Saline Water

One method of inhibiting encroachment involves reducing theartesian pressure in the source area of the saline water, therebyreducing or eliminating the hydraulic gradient toward the encroach­ment area. Head reduction might be done by either or both of twomeans: 1) interception of ground water before it moves into thesaline source area, or 2) pumping from the source area. Both methods

-44-

are of limited usefulness, and possibly a combination of them mightproduce the best results.

Pumping of water of fair quality several miles north of Roswell,upgradient from the area in which the water acquires its load ofdissolved salts, would reduce the amount of saline water moving intothe Roswell area. In addition, this water of better quality thatotherwise becomes highly mineralized could be put to beneficial use.The biggest disadvantage of the interception method, however, is thelarge scale of pumping and the relatively long time required to pro­duce the desired effect in the Roswell area.

Pumping of saline water from the source area is a much moredirect method and, if used, would produce more immediate results.The method, ideally, would require continuous pumping of suchamounts of saline water that the hydraulic gradient would be re­versed, the invaded zone flushed, and subsequently, the saline-waterfront held in a fixed position.

The few available data indicate that the saline-water springsbetween the mouth of Salt Creek and the Bottomless Lakes probablydischarged 15 to 20 cfs of water containing about 5,000 ppm ofchloride. Pumping required in the saline source area should ap­proach the rate of the original discharge from the area, for aspumping of saline water was continued the discharge of saline waterby natural means would decrease. The rate of pumping of salinewater together with the resulting natural discharge should equalthe former natural discharge rate.

The main problem of pumping water from the saline source areais that of disposal. If disposal pits were used, either naturaldepressions or excavations, they would need to be made watertightand such treatment would be expensive. An alternative to disposalpits is that of wasting the saline water into the Pecos River. Al­though this procedure may seem objectionable, the net effect on thequality of the river water as compared with present conditions ul­timately might be small. Originally, the river received a largeamount of saline water by natural means, but of course the largerinflow of saline water was accompanied by a relatively larger dis­charge of fresh water. As this inflow of saline water diminished,and as encroachment in the ground-water aqUifer began, saline waterwas applied to some farms and the irrigation return flow dischargedinto the river was of poorer quality than the water applied to theland.

A program of pumping in the saline source area need not imposean additional draft on the artesian aquifer. Some lands in the en­croachment area probably can be considered as Hmarginal landsu oflow productivity, either because the land has been adversely affectedby the application of saline irrigation water or because the soilsoriginally were poor. Retirement of these lands by acquisition oftheir water rights and transfer of the points of diversion into the

-45-

saline source area not only would provide a legal basis for the drill­of the alleviation wells but also would reduce the rate of pumping

of fresher water that presently is inducing encroachment.

Increased Recharge in the Intake Area

Increasing the quantity of recharge in the intake area would re­sult in larger quantities of ground water moving toward the irrigatedarea) which also is the discharge area. An increase in recharge would

in higher artesian heads in the lowlands, provided the dischargethe artesian aquifer did not increase. A higher artesian head

the discharge area would reduce the hydraulic gradient from thearea of the saline water which, in turn, would result in a

reduction of the quantity of saline water moving toward the irrigatedarea.

Increased recharge to the artesian aquifer should be restrictedto the area south of a line extending approximately northwestwardfrom about the northwest corner of T. 10 S., R. 25 E. Water reachingthe cultivated part of the project area from this recharge area would,in time, be of better quality than that now being pumped. Water re­charged north of this diagonal line becomes of poor quality as itmoves through the aquifer. An increase in recharge in the northernquadrant would increase water supplies in the northern extension ofthe Roswell basin; but, because the source area of the saline wateris downgradient from the northern extension, the increased rechargewould increase saline-water encroachment near Roswell.

Increasing recharge west of Roswell would increase quickly therate of ground-water movement into the heavily pumped area nearRoswell and would diminish the present annual decline in artesianhead. Diminishing the rate of decline in artesian head would reducethe rate of saline-water encroachment. Increasing recharge to equaldischarge would stabilize the artesian head and essentially haltencroachment of saline water; however, wells along the front of thesaline-water body would continue to pump saline water. Quality ofground water along the saline-water front probably would improveslowly over a period of years with continued balance between re­charge and discharge, but it always would be necessary to pump somesaline water in the source area in order to preserve the balance.

Additional recharge from induced infiltrations from streamswould decrease the flow of water in surface streams. Streamflowis fully appropriated and as a result considerable work on legalproblems would be needed before such water could be used for arti­ficial recharging of the ground-water reservoirs.

Areas offering possibilities for artificial recharge withoutdepleting streamflow are the numerous sinks north and northwest ofthe project area. The sinks are in small closed drainage basins,and the runoff within each basin goes into a sink. The relatively

-46-

impermeable bottom of the sink ponds the water until the water evapor­ates. Recharge wells in the bottom of the sinks would give the waterready access to the underground reservoir. Studies would indicatewhich sinks could be used and the quantity of recharge which wouldbecome available from this source.

The withdrawal of shallow ground water by nonbeneficial water­loving plants such as saltcedar has the same effect on the aquiferas pumping from a well. If water that now is lost by the Pecos Riverand its tributaries in support of nonbeneficial vegetation along theirchannels could be salvaged, that salvaged could be pumped into theartesian aquifer. This procedure would require the eradication ofthe nonbeneficial vegetation and the accurate determination of theamount of water salvaged. Eradication of regrowth would have tobe sustained to keep the plant cover sparse. Moreover, the salvagesystem would require some installations that would be expensive un­less their use for salinity alleviation was a by-product of a basin­wide program of phreatophyte eradication. Salvage of water forsalinity alleviation would be practiced only where the injection ofsalvage water would not repressure the saline part of the artesianaquifer. Most of the shallow ground water in potential salvageareas, though saline, is not so saline as that in the artesianaquifer in the area; therefore, the shallow water could be usedfor partial salinity alleviation.

Reduction of Pumping

One certain method of inhibiting the encroachment of salinewater is to reduce the quantity of fresh ground water pumped fromthe project area. The principal objection to such a measure is theapparent adverse effect that such a measure would have on the region'seconomy; however, pumping might be reduced in several ways that wouldminimize the adverse economic effect. Pumping could be reduced byretiring marginal farms; improving irrigation practices, substitut­ing crops having a lower duty of water than those presently grown,and forestalling the irrigation of land having no water rights.

Reduced pumping in the problem area would cause the piezometricsurface to remain at higher levels throughout the irrigation seasonthan it does with the present rate of pumping.

Pumping can be reduced by retiring those farms where the soilor the quality of water is So poor that the low returns from theresulting crops make the operation marginal. For example, retiring350 acres of marginal land would reduce annual pumpage by about1,100 acre-feet, assuming that the duty of water on this land isequal to the average in the basin. However, the effect of reducedpumping of water of very poor quality might be adverse in thatpumping of such water tends to inhibit encroachment. This quantityof water is not great enough to halt the encroachment of salinewater, but it would decelerate the rate of encroachment.

-47-

One excellent method of reducing pumping is to improve theefficiency of the irrigation systems and the methods of applicationof water. Since ahout 1954 much stress has been placed upon theinstallation of concrete ditch and pipe-conveyance systems andelimination of the overnight storage reservoir common in many partsof the basin. Several farmers have installed more efficient irri­gation systems and methods of application; however, many have notyet realized the need for improved conservation practices.

Water requirements differ from one crop to another. For a givenplant the quantity of water transpired is proportional to the weightof the transpiring plant material. Alfalfa has the highest duty ofwater of the cultivated crops grown in the Roswell basin. The actualduty of water varies slightly from farm to farm; however, all factorsremaining constant, a season's growth of alfalfa requires about one­fourth more water than a crop of cotton and more than twice as muchwater as one crop of grain. Where two grain crops are grown on thesame field each year, alfalfa requires more water than the totalwater requirements of the two crops of grain combined. A substantialsaving in ground water could be made by replacing alfalfa with cropshaving a smaller duty of water. Assuming that 5,000 acres of alfalfacould be replaced with crops having an annual duty of water 0.5acre-foot less, the reduction in pumping would result in an annualsaving of 2,500 acre-feet of ground water.

Principally as a result of high prices paid for crops, new landswere brought into cultivation during and after World War II. A hydro­graphic survey of the Roswell artesian basin, initiated cooperativelyby the State Engineer and the Pecos Valley Artesian ConservancyDistrict in the autumn of 1952, indicates that about 1,300 acres inthe declared area were being irrigated from artesian wells withoutvalid water rights. All underground-water rights in the Roswellartesian basin now are being adjudicated, and it is estimated thatwhen the adjudication has been completed pumpage from the artesianaquifer will be reduced by about 4,000 acre-feet annually. Someshallow water also has been developed for irrigation since the basinwas closed to ground-water development, and some fields receive waterfrom both aquifers. It is not known what proportion of the water isobtained from each aquifer; therefore no estimate can be made for theeffect that adjudication will have on the pumping of shallow water.

It is estimated that pumpage could be reduced approximately11,000 acre-feet annually if the farmers within the problem areaand upgradient from it cooperated fully by using more efficientirrigation practices, substituting crops having a lower duty ofwater, eliminating farms operating at a marginal profit, and ceas-ing pump age from wells on lands developed since the basin was closedto ground-water development. A reduction in pumpage of this magnitudewould substantially reduce the rate of saline-water encroachment west­ward and southwestward; however, some encroachment could be expectedto continue southward, especially near the southeastern edge of theencroachment area.

-4~-

Substitution of Shallow Water

Available data concerning the alluvium suggest the possibilityof an appreciable quantity of water in storage. The reservoir ap­pears to be full in many localities and discharges naturally. Acomprehensive study has not been made of what might be expected tohappen if additional shallow ground water is pumped, nor has a com­prehensive study been made of the quality of water in the valleyfill. The water in the upper part of the alluvium appears to bemore saline than the deeper water in some places in the area.

ln parts of Tps. 10 and 11 S., Rs. 23-25 E., pumpage from theartesian aquifer is estimated to exceed recharge by apprOXimately13,000 acre-feet annually. Therefore, the average annual pumpagefrom the artesian aquifer must be reduced by at least 13,000 acre­feet annually to slow down the encroachment of saline water. Anaverage annual reduction in purnpage of much more than 13,000 acre­feet would be required to reverse the movement of the saline water.Assuming that artesian pumpage is to be diminished by 13,000 acre­feet annually and that a like quantity is to be pumped from thealluvium, the construction of about 50 new wells would be required.A major problem would be the finding of suitable locations for newwells. The shallow aqUifer is developed fully in parts of the area;in other parts saline artesian water has been applied to the landsfor so long that deep percolation losses have caused the chloridecontent of the shallow water to increase above the tolerable limit(appendix A). In still other areas the soil is too poor to growirrigated crops. Additional shallow wells in certain areas woulddiminish the flow of the Pecos River and tributaries, which wouldaffect adversely the water rights of surface-water appropriators.Pwnping additional shallow water would lower the water table andincrease the pressure differential of the artesian aqUifer overthe shallow aqUifer, which in turn would cause an increase in leak­age from the artesian aqUifer. The higher pressure in the artesianaqUifer, resulting from the decrease in pumping, also would increasethe pressure differential of the artesian aquifer over the shallowaqUifer with the same effect.·

An analysis of the available data indicates that the substi­tution of shallow water for artesian water could be done only ina few local areas, such as the bottomlands along the Pecos Riverand tributaries. Most of the bottomlands are infested with prac­tically worthless native vegetation, principally saltcedar. Mostof these plants, called phreatophytes, habitually send their rootsdown to the water table or the capillary fringe above it to obtaintheir large water requirements. It might be feasible to eliminatethese worthless plants and salvage the water which then could besubstituted for artesian water.

-49-

Rearrangement of Pumping Pattern

Rearrangement of the pumping pattern offers little hope forlessening saline-water encroachment in the problem area. The coneof depression that has created the change in slope of the hydraulicgradient only would be transferred or spread out by a change in thepumping pattern. Locally, water of better quality might be obtainedtemporarily by rearranging the pumping pattern, but the encroachmentproblem would remain.

Injection of Fresh Water at Interface

The injection of fresh water along the contact between the salineand fresh water would stop the encroachment of saline water. Theinjected water would create a "ridge" of higher artesian head thatwould reverse the hydraulic gradient from the saline-water area. Oneof the principal problems in inhibiting saline encroachment by thismethod is the lack of a sufficient supply of suitable water. Severalsources have been suggested. Among supplies most often mentionedare sewage effluent from Roswell, flood waters originating west ofRoswell, flood flows in the Pecos River, and shallow ground water.However, the suitability of suchcwaters and the consequences ofusing them for such a purpose have not received adequate study.

It is assumed for this discussion that the fresh water-saltwater interface is a rather narrow definable front and that mostof the saline water is moving laterally, rather than vertically,into the encroachment area.

In order for the injection-well method to be effective in re­tarding the encroachment of saline water, a net annual hydraulicgradient must be maintained from the fresh-water side of the inter­face to the saline-water side along the entire length of theinterface. The greater the net annual hydraulic gradient towardthe saline-water side of the interface, the more rapid will bethe ejection of saline water from the encroachment area. Absenceof a hydraulic gradient at the interface would result in no en­croachment of saline water for that particular year.

It is assumed that the 1,000-ppm isochlor line (pl. 6) markedthe western and southern limit of the interface during the summerof 1957. The 1,000-ppm isochlor line was selected as the limit ofsaline encroachment because irrigation water containing as much as1,000 ppm chloride generally can be used in the Roswell basin with­out serious reduction in the quantity of crops harvested and withoutcausing serious soil problems. Detrimental effects are visible onsome crops when irrigation water containing more than 1,000 ppmchloride is used. The 1,OOO-ppm isochlor encompasses about 8,500acres of cultivated land that are irrigated with water from theartesian aqUifer.

-50-

A system of injection wells finished in the artesian aquifer wouldneed to be installed along the 1,000-ppm isochlor from the Pecos Riveron the southeast to Middle Berrendo Creek on the northwest, a distanceof about 9.5 miles. To be effective the wells should be drilled onlydeep enough into the San Andres limestone to penetrate a sufficientthickness of permeable limestone so that fresh water could be injectedinto the top of the aquifer. Injecting fresh water at the top of thesaline water would force the saline water back-toward the source area.The chemical character of the water immediately west of the injectionwells would change, but the water would be suitable for irrigation.Some domestic supplies would undoubtedly be affected adversely for atime, and it is possible that some of the Roswell city wells also wouldbe affected adversely.

The most rapid rate of encroachment is at the height of the irri­gation season when the greatest demands are placed upon the artesianaquifer. By the end of the principal irrigation season, the artesianhead declines about 50 feet near the southern edge of the encroachmentarea and about 20 feet near the northern edge. Since 1944 the averagewinter recovery after the irrigation season generally has been about85 percent of the seasonal decline. The highest annual artesian headin the fresh-water area generally is slightly higher than the head inthe saline-water area owing to faster recharge in the fresh-water areaand, to a minor degree, to the difference in densities of the twowaters.

In order to stop the encroachment of saline water effectively, a"ridgell in the artesian head about 10 feet high would have to bemaintained along the entire length of the 1,000-ppm isochlor. Inorder to make the necessary computations, the coefficient of trans­missibility and storage must be known. No aquifer tests have beenmade along the 1,000-ppm isochlor; however, from data available inthe area, T and S are believed to be about 500,000 gpd per foot and0.00003, respectively. It is further assumed that the aqUifer is ofinfinite extent and is homogeneous in all directions. Such idealconditions, of course, do not actually prevail. In general, theaquifer becomes more impermeable eastward and northward, and morepermeable westward and southward from the 1,000-ppm isochlor. Evenso, the computed results obtained should be in the right order ofmagnitude and should indicate the conditions that may be expected.Under the above assumptions and given conditions, an injection-wellsystem would require the injection of about 250 gpm of fresh waterinto each of 20 wells spaced at half-mile intervals along the 1,000­ppm isochlor. The system would have to be in continuous operationfor a year in order to increase the head 10 feet at a distance ofhalf a mile from the line of injection wells, and injection wouldhave to be continued indefinitely at about 200-250 gpm in all thewells in order to maintain that head. Injecting 250 gpm continuous­ly into 20 wells would require a constant supply of 11 cfs of freshwater, which is equivalent to 8,000 acre-feet per year.

The principal problem of the injection-well method is to locate

Transfer of Water from East of River

If a supply of ground water of good quality is available, itprobably would be 8 to 12 miles east of the Pecos River, and a costlysystem of canals or pipeline would be required to transport the waterto the fields.

The principal objection to the use of Roswell city sewage effluentis the unpleasant thought of having sewage effluent, no matter how freeof bacteria it might be, placed in the same formation from which manydomestic and municipal supplies are obtained. If the objection couldbe overcome and the effluent could be obtained, it would provide onlyabout half the water required by the injection system.

-51-

large continuous supply of fresh water necessary forThe shallow ground water has been appropriated fully,

ruling of the State Engineer.

relativelyoperation.

to a

Pecos River appropriators have water rights to all the flow ofPecos River, including floodflows. Storage reservoirs have been

to catch and hold all floodwater originating within theRiver valley in New Mexico. Owners of the floodwater rights

would not permit the use of floodwater for injection. Eventhey would relinquish a part of their water rights for this purpose,

problems would remain. Among these would be: 1) the difficultyproviding adequate storage facilities, 2) a distribution systemcarry the water to the injection wells, 3) a method of removing

suspended sediment from the floodwaters so that the formationnot become plugged, and 4) this recharge water would need treat­

to make it safe for domestic use.

ts

A large area east of the Pecos River contributes both surface andground waters to the river. An appreciable part of the rain that fallson this drainage area is absorbed into the upper few inches of the soiland is transpired or evaporated in a few days. Some of the precipita­tion percolates to the water table, principally through well-developedfractures and solution channelso The remaining water runs off insurface channels and is discharged into the Pecos River.

The streams east of the Pecos River flow only for short periodsof time in direct response to precipitation. The only use that manhas made of the surface water is for watering stock. Small reservoirshave been built on some of the arroyos to collect and store surfacerunoff for watering stock during drought. Aquifers east of the rivercontain ground water; however, the quantity is not adequately knownand only a small amount of information on quality is available. If asupply of ground water could be found east of the Pecos River in suffi­cient quantity and of suitable quality, then perhaps it could be usedin the Roswell basin to replace some of the saline water that now isbeing used for irrigation, depending upon economic factors and theeffect that such use might have upon existing water rights.

-52-

Summary

The direction of movement of saline-water encroachment is bothlateral and vertical within the San Andres limestone. The vertical en­croachment probably takes place in large part from the lowermost toe ofthe front of the saline-water body that is encroaching laterally, butin some areas direct vertical encroachment is indicated by an increasewith depths in the chloride content of water in the artesian aquifer.All the possible courses of action discussed in preceding pages willtend to diminish the apparent vertical encroachment if they help toalleviate lateral encroachment.

Saline-water encroachment is occurring near Roswell because therehas been a continuing reduction in hydraulic gradient from Roswell towardthe saline source area, and at times during the summer there has been anactual reversal of the hydraulic gradient. Pumping saline water from thesource area would lower the artesian head in the source area. This reduc­tion in head would increase the hydraulic gradient from Roswell toward thesource area, and would slow down or stop the movement of saline water towardRoswell.

Ground-water pumping soon will be reduced somewhat throughout theRoswell basin, including the saline-water area, as a result of the presentadjudication of all ground-water rights in the basin. This reduction inpumping of fresh water will amount to an estimated saving of 4,000 acre­feet annually and will bring the fresh-water withdrawals and fresh-waterrecharge more nearly into balance.

Pumping from the problem area can be diminished also by more efficientirrigation practices and by the substitution of crops having a smallerduty of water. Improving the irrigation efficiencies and substitutingcrops having lower duties of water can be brought about only through thecooperation of individual farmers, and such cooperation can be attainedonly through an educational program.

Artificial recharge to the San Andres limestone west of Roswell wouldprovide an excellent means of inhibiting encroachment. Any artificial re­charge in addition to the natural recharge would help to bring rechargeand discharge more nearly into balance, which in turn would tend to inhibitsaline-water encroachment. Data are not currently available with which tocompute a value for artificial recharge, and it is not known if artificialrecharge can be accomplished economicallyo

It may be feasible to substitute shallow water for artesian water ina few local areas; however, this method would not by itself solve the en­croachment problem. In parts of the area the alluVial aquifer is alreadyfully developed; in other parts the mineral content of ground water is toogreat for successful irrigation; in still other areas no large supply ofwater is available in the alluvium.

Rearranging the pumping pattern would help inhibit encroachment lo­cally, but the overall problem would remain. If pumping is rearranged

-53-

in order to benefit one area, detrimental effects could be increased inother areas because the same quantity of saline water would continuemoving into the general encroachment area. Pumping should be rearrangedto alleviate saline conditions in a given area only after some of theother methods have been put in operation. By rearranging pumping after

methods have been put in operation, an intolerable condition in acular area might be relieved.

The injection-well method and the importation of water from eastof the Pecos River do not seem feasible. Even if a dependable supplyof suitable water could be found, the cost of construction and opera­tion probably would be prohibitive.

The best program for equalizing recharge and discharge would be acombination of methods. Probably the most efficient combination wouldbe a limited pumping from the saline source area, increased recharge inthe intake area, salvage of water used nonbeneficially, and reducedpumping.

REFERENCES

Dane, C. H., and Bachman, G. 0., 1958, Preliminary geologic map of thesoutheastern part of New Mexico: U. S. Geol. Survey Map 1-256.

Fiedler, A. G., and Nye, S. S., 1933, Geology and ground-water resourcesof the Roswell artesian basin, New Mexico: U. S. Geol. SurveyWater-Supply Paper 639, 372 p., 46 pls., 37 figs. incl. maps.

Fisher, C. A., 1906, Preliminary report on the geology and undergroundwaters of the Roswell artesian area, New Mexico: U. S. Geol. SurveyWater-Supply Paper 158, 29 p., 9 pls.

Hantush, M. S., 1955, Preliminary quantitative study of the Roswellground-water reservoir, New Mexico: N. Mex. lust. of Mining andTechnology misc. rept., 113 p.

Means, T. H., and Gardner, F. D., 1899, A soil survey of the PecosValley, New Mexico: U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Rept. 64, p. 36-76.

Morgan, A. M., 1938, Geology and shallow-water resources of the Roswellartesian basin, New Mexico, in N. Mex. State Engineer 12th-13thBienn. Repts., 1934-38: p. 155-249, 5 pls., 5 figs. [also publishedas N. Mex. State Engineer Bull. 5].

Nettleton, E. S., 1892, Artesian and underflow investigation, finalreport of the chief engineer: U. S. 52nd Cong., 1st sess., SenateDoc. 41, pt. 2, p. 14-15.

Theis, C. V., 1935, The relation between the lowering of the piezometricsurface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well usingground-water storage: Am. Geophys. Union Trans., 16th Ann. Mtg.,pt. 2, p. 519-524.

-54-

Theis, C. V., 1951, Effect on the artesian aquifer of storage of floodwater in Hondo Reservoir: N. Mex. State Engineer Tech. Rept. 9,p. 33-36 [1957].

Theis, C. V., and others, 1942, Ground-water hydrology of areas in thePecos Valley, New Mexico, in (U. S.) Natl. Resources PlanningBoard, Pecos River Joint Investigation -- Reports of the parti­cipating agencies: Washington, U. S. Govt. Printing Office, p.38-101.

Winslow, A. G., and Kister, L. R., 1956, Saline-water resources ofTexas: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1365, 105 p., 9 pIs.,12 figs.

of andChemical constituents in parts per million; values reported for dissolved solids are calculated from

determined constituents unless otherwise indicated in llRemarks. 11

EXPLANATIONAnalyses by U.S. Geological Survey except as noted. See "Remarks " :for chemical constituents for whichUse of water: nom., domestic; Ind., industrial; columns are not provided.Irr., irrigation; Obs., observation well; P.S., Where an asterisk (*) is shown in bicarbonatepublic supply. column, see "Remarks" for carbonate content.

IenenISln~hole called "De"p

La~e." Flowl"~ -l to 5c!s.

Flowlag 2 efs.

Is102 , 10 PP"'.SW2' 21 pp"'.1'0,,1 on salt Creel,.

IIiC03, 8.9 PI''''.

7.5 FIl"plong, "en.ured 1,0~0

",'.Dissolved soUds, resi­

due after eonpornUon.

7.1!pu"Plng 2 to 3 1:1>"'.

I'1,2604,3702,1603,1307,9108,8403,1802,890

1,010

6,100

2,1102,8302,970

4,330

11,00012,10012,10012,00012} 10012}00011,900H} 10011,000H 600

,.,

,. ;

"

SodIum duC,­adgor nnc"

Hon L(~~~;o~: iratio ",he" at 'I(SAR) 250 C) I'll

2,560 612,580 612,490 622,510 612,500 612,630 602,520 612,4~'" 622,490 622 480 61

2,2802,010 171}2~0 3

83S 36

2,310

2,3:>0 551}360 21

,ro 001,020 211,110 24

'"2,500 402,510 60

2,6102,7ro

2,190

2,'1602,2001,4101,160

1}2001,2SO

'"

2,4501,510

'"

2,1002,7102,6302,6602,6502,7M2,6302,6002,610, "0

·1.60

6.46

9.293.51

4.412.563.05

2.752.82

7.2511.1

11.411.511.511.111.111.411.211.311.1iLl

6,832}581.81

3,38

2,Oro2,07

1,75C

.8 5,35C8,36

5.5

'"'.,

:;:~8,49

1.0 8,418,368,41

8}:~8,29

2.0 8,380

"'"

1,2()(

",C

n

"1,362,91

',03,113,09

~:~~3,072,9B3,01

3,~~

"

1,570

,,,1,000

'"2,2002,440

3,0501,240,,,

1,5101,1101,160

939

2,3602}35O2}3102,3202}31O2,3502,3302,3102,3502 330

'"'"'"

226

",'"m

'"'"'"m161'

'"'"

D1enr- Chlo- Fluo- Nit- D15501ved C81clut; Non- <;r,

bonat" Sulfnt" ride 'lod" rate 1~~'~'~h~'~'=,I",,,gnea-",arlx>n- ~o<l­(HC03) (S01) (Cl) (F) (N03 ) pp" t/~"-ft 1un ate ;un

!

I

H~rdne&~ 85CaCO

Magne So<l- Potas­

"i= Hoo SlUl'J(Mg) (Na) (K)

663 201 121

598 233 1,360398 125 259214 51 341

701 207 781832 157 1}890

836 149 1,9301029 157 1,960810 149 1,990820 149 1,950812 151 1,910830 112 1}900796 156 1,890BOO 147 1,930820 145 1,910813 146 1,810

590 178 202430 103 21J02 99 J06

Cal­clwa(Ca)

1-31-10

7=~~=:~ i :6- 8-55 i 66

Onte T~"p.

coll"~ted (OF)

6- 8-55 6511-19-40

H-19-·l(} I"11-19-10 637_2S_575-11-50

1~=~:=~ i =

H-19-40

'1-17-3912_110_393- 8-108-210-1010~21-10

1- 1-115-27_127- 9-129-21-133_22_51

Stoc~

".".".M.lrr.Nonelrr.

"0.Irr.

S~n Andres orChQl~ Blu!! (1)

".".Ch~lk BluH(1)

Chalk Bluf£(1)San And,e.

Chd~ Blu!!

Chalk Bluf£(1)

Prlncip~l

w~tc'r-bC"rlnl.:

!or"'''llOn

H6

'D~pUl (f~"·tJ

,,~1I c"s,nl.:

Buck Spurrloo:r >:l~

D, Fruit 15i:

Buck Spurrier

Jess Corn HO

do. HOd<>. 100

'00'lih; t" 150;1;Buc~ Spur'loe,Jess Corn 215

do. ·1·14Pool

do. 00U.S. Flah andW11dllfeService

".".".".".".".". :".".

M.E. Stew,,:rt 9{)

~.

5.1oI_ln; .,.8.432

15.Hl18.14·1n.33.

".33.133

8.25. 5.

1-17-39

4.-17-39

1~17-39

3- 1-411-31-38

S102, lil PP".Wlndr.lllL CoHectedfro" rescrVOI:r.

In Lloyd.' Canyon.Sinkhole.

S102, 16 PP".

Snnple !ron right !:anh0.15 ",l1e holow Thre(>­Mile Bend.

S1nkhole .~"ple !ro"

outlet. C03' 12 PI''''FlOWIng 1 gp...Flo"l/lng e.t. 0.25 cr••Pool 0.25 ..ile north""sl

or Ac>::o Bridge.~.

9102' 31 PI'''; Fe, ° 15pp,,; 112, 1.11 PI''''.

30,000

2,9503,0303,0106,500

33,600

2,3502,5302,530

11,200

3,33010,000

43,10011,80063,.100

'"'.,2.8

" .,

1,510 141,IISO 511,090 29

2,810 56

6,990 102,:100 1

470 411

1,620 75

6,550 713,950 61

12,900 71

2,890

7,1302,110

1}6JO1}9701,2:10

,,,

6,7204,010

13,200

38.54.39

3.323.672.91

46.917.113.4

30.7

2,142,702,14

2,600

',007.712,60

1,000

.,

.,

2,61

"2,61

,"""""1,26

11,80

2,680

1,4101,740

'"

6,690 ll} 102,180 7

3,940 10,4()(

~;~: I~;~~11,000 21,50

120'

",

.,'.0

,,,

12·1

",n

1,690

10,1002,990

14,700

"'""

1,250 977 7,560588 29 52

1,120 770929 125902 2,660

1,010 5ro 6}51O

"8- 4-52I-IS-531-16-53

8-10-53

5-11-501_26~·11

5-23-501-27-51

1~29-39

7-30-52

3-10-3811-12-26Stock

lr,.

".".".

Stoc~

".".

".

".Chalk Blu!!San Andres (?)

Ch~ik Blu!!

San Andres

Ch~lk Bluff

Pool

Seep

".C ••\. Marl,,)" 263

SpringI1.S. Flo.h "ndWHdlUeSerVice

".

Pecos RHer

"Inkpots •.

Elowr Sons

".C.A. Marl"yEstate

L. ShortridgeOac", ~'hi IeJ.C. Wiggins

23.

".".35.

35.·122

".36.311

9.2-!. 1.3105. (w,l)

11.:>0035.2l\l

".9.23.35.130

9.25. 1.28.343

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin} Chaves County} N. Mex.( continued)

I IPr,OClpal I ""

Dcpth (feet) ,,~ter-be3r,n!: ofCMner or naOle "'ell e~SlO~ fornHl<m wnter

Cal-Date 're",p. ciuOl

collect"d (OF) (C~)

Magoc 50d- potas­siu" iUl:l s1UIl1(M~) 0"') (K)

SpecH­ic coo-

llardness as Sodiw:l duct-Caco adsor ance

B1car- Ch10- F1uo- Nit- Dissolved C:<lC1U"" Non- \l, tion ('l1cro-bonate Sulfate ride ride rate ,-;;~,~oTU~'~'"""ll:Iagnes-carboo- sod- ratio nhos at(HC03) (501) (Ci) (F) 0>03) 1- ppn t/ac-ft iu", ate iu", (SAR) 250 C) pH Renarks

9.25.28.313 U.S. Fish andWildUfe Serv­,,,

8_10_56 78

"

62. 2,730 2,590

7.1 Subterranean "tream at_I el\lerg"n~e In sinkhole.

-I -- -7.8 -7.0 Sinklloi",

7.5 Auge" hole.7.9 Density 1.006 gJm1.

3,610

20,20015,200

13,100

i2,"0016,00014,10010,700

11,100 8.5 C03, 7 ppm. DensIty1.001 g-/m1.

""

"2,790 63

2,960 622,900 53

1,250 33

1,6004,050 56

2,970

4,7604,120

.3,000 2,910 51

1,100

3,1403,000

3.52

15.5

13.510.8

1,400

S,Os(} 10.9

2,590

9,9307,930

6,111l3,81l0

3,660'"

3,2801,3703,8102,440

2,6102,780

1,150

2,570

3,2303,770

'"'""217

2101,,,

322

2,320

2,3601,580

'"

'"'"

'"

i; 78

"

1-12-538-10-538-30-569-30-56

1_30_52

'0."."'.

None

Stoek

Chall< Bluff

Chall< Bluff

AlluviUJ;lSt, Francis",",

L<>st Ri vcr

Little BitterCreek

"'.'0.".

U.S. F1sh andWl1d1i!e Serv­,,,

32.300

00.00.00.33.333

32.314

'L32.244

I

'"'"I

Pu",p"d 10 ""n. b"for<'"a"'pling-.

17~5 PU"pinl; ~"t. 8 gp"

- I- I

2,7702,7602,7305,0102,4W2 210

9,120s,.mo8,9303 4402,710

3,760

772,'"'"

i 110 981

2,560 2,430 53

H'<"m

'"m

'"

'i95

517

",

156 2,410 2,0202,1101,940

190 916 !'70

'"'"

'"

'"

1,350

"

1-25-51

1-30-528-iO-531-25-517-30-52 63Stock

do. 7-31-52do, 8-19-52do. 5- 2-57

nom.ln, 8-20-52do. 1-16-53

In, 8_20_52

i-30-58

Alluvium

".".'0.'0.

San Andre"'"

"..,."'.

L. 'r. LeWiS

00. do.·1.'12·1 ,L.'r. Lewi" and

IR.I,. Halone 180

do. 180O.S. Stockton' -

IS. E. lIardcastl:l 98

Ira ~~. !1:~

00.8.1118.323

00.8.333

33.33,100.00.

10.21. 2.311

1-22-576-18-57

"vaporat!Ol\.

I'UJ:lped 5 OlIn. beforesaJ:lpHllf;.

"'.

l'unpin~ on arri,"a1.

- jPU",Pln g on arrival.·1 "Rep1a""d l'y 10.2,1.<1,­

! 3.33a.7.1 :

Di3S01>',,<1 soli <.Is'

r",ado" "n",·

2,2<102 830

5,18'.14,55(12,330

2,620 I _

5,230 ­2,2-102,SOO

2,5102,5105,0808,940-l 710

2,300

2,1602,5:N

~:~~~ I:2,·1l0 -3,130 -2,65()5,3003,3<10

2,590 I -2,lGO 1 -2 380 I -

'1.7

,.,

,.,

'"

539 47

'"516 11

'"

820

'"

""'"

1,000

1,314

3.711.94

1.97

2.16

1,145

2,5Q0

2,7501,430

1,630,.,

,.,

''"465

·171

'"'"515

""3S5

'"'",,,625

1151,110

362 1.0385

365

'"1,2602,6301 1401,2001,050

'"'"'"

",

530

'"

1,010

'"

'"'"

'"'"'"

'"272

257

3211

""

112

256

'"'

"

:-:~-408-19-521-16-538-12-531-16-539-16-577-31-52

7-29-529-15-57

1-19-537~24-10

6- 6-50

1-16-538_10_53

8-11-127-30-52

9-15-571-16-551-30-58

1-101-539-13-519-16-521-29-58

10-11-52

Irr.

'0.

'0.do,

no".lrr'0.

Irr.

'0.On",.StockIrr.

Stock000.

00'.Stock

'0.00.

Dom.1rr

'0.

'0.".San Andrendo.

Chalk Bluff

San Andr""

".

Chalk Blutr(1}Alluviul\l

AlluVlu"00.

Oil

23!2.31

173

'"15 111 Willi"" Portor 322Do. do. 322

no. do.15.IIO DorothY I'ost"r 2G1Do, dc>. 261

~.m I\,..,st~ong Farmsl 69-9.32ln do. 1_

0". do. ,,-

9.333 I'.'. do. 18100. do. 18110.223 MeFadin ,; 160

Do. do. 1160d 1160

~~:433 iOOdf,·,,~'~'ell !131

12.222 JIm E"Hlls,sr'I' ,','

Do. <lo.00. <.10. 971·1.132 B. M, Jordan 300

Do. do. 1"'_14.311 Arthur Lake

I <lo. IIlll

8.333a do. 1202Do. do. 202

". I '0. I'"'8.0133 IJ. R. Tho",,,,, 213Do. do. Z13

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin, Chaves County, N. Mex.( continued)

Location ()A<ner Or naoeDepth (feet)wel1 "aul ng

Principalwater-bearing

r01=lt.\on

Due Temp.collected (OF)

Cal­eiu",(Co)

Magne Sod- potas­siuo ium si"",(Mg) (Na) (K)

Bicor- Chlo- Fluo- 111 t­Ix>nate Sulfat" rlde ride rate(llC03) (504) (Cl) (F) (1(03)

SpeeH­lc con-

llardneaa aa Sodhm duct-CacO odaor onCe

Diaoolved Calclum, 1I0n- ';l. tlon (mlcro-soUds .,agn"s- carbon- sod- rUl0 ..hos at

ppm t/ac-ft lim at" i= (SAn) 2:S" C) pll Remarks

Do. do. S06 298

I

:.'lI

SiD2, 11 PPIll; Fe, 0.15n. Flowing 300 I;P".

Si02, 19 ppn; Fe,O.H pp".

Flowing. DissolvedsoUds, residue ofterevoporalion.

Reported sulfurous.Si02 , 18 ppm; Fe,0.20 ppo. flOWing300 gpn.

FlOWing. DissolvedBaUds' residue aCterevaporation.

Si02 , 21 ppn; Fe, 0.15pp". Flowing.

Flowed 15 tHn. beforesampling.

PU<lped 5 ...in. betoresaopllng.

Spring on north side ofBcrrendo Creek, ! "11"cast of BerrendolIridge. Dlssohedsolids, reSidue arterevaporation.

Pumped 5 nln. beforesampling.

Pumping on arrl\'al,

Plugged back 9-:;-:;3.Dlssoh'ed solids,reSidue afterevaporation.

7.7 Do.Pl.L"'ped :; ''In. before

Ip::~~l~g~ln. teton,

sa"pl1ng.PillIped 3 "-in. betore

sampling. Plugged backtroo 128 Ct.

Pu",ped 15 oln. beforesa"p11n(;.

Plugged.Pu",plng 1,800 gp".l'm"plng 1,800 b'llJ:l.

Dlss<>lved solids,reSidue afterevaporation.

P"",plng 1,810 KP".

Dissolved ~olld",

residue afterevaporation.

Pumped 1:; tlin. befon,saJ:lplJng.

2,3-10

2:,3SO

2,'1'10

3,0302,9002,590

3,3902,110

2,440

2,5903,8102:,940

3,110

2,4202,52:0

3.320

3,1002,900

2,9002,860

3,160

3,1103,010

3,320

5,500

4,910

:;,0:;0

2:,390

3,280

5.84.·1

'1.3

,.,

888 58624 58

554 53

426 5'1:;50 16

531 11

586 56

986 31

860 73 18

510 45

198 39

'"

'"

'"

'"

'"'"

'"

,,,

'"

'"

'"

'"

'"

1,220

1,030

1,060

'"

2.51

2.092.14

2.2:4

3.17

2.77

2.58

2.092.092.091.99

4.093.11

2,010

1,900

1,89

3,0102,290

1,5401,5101,6301,460

1,670

2,100 2.86

1,5101,570

1,550 2:.11

3.8 4,650 6.32

2.7 2,OBO 2.B3

,.,

:;.8

690 2,100600 .9 5.4 1,850 2:52

'"'"

""

.""'"'10 .6

1,160

"

1,41

'"'19:;

'"",

'"

""

'"

''''

'"

'"

'"'"781 2,070

'"

""'"

'"""

'"

'"'"'

281

'"

211

'"'

'"''"'"'"

""

""

""""

""""""

'"

'"

251

'"""269

'"

'"

''"'"

'"504 8.0

83 1,300 11

51 227 4.8

64 443 5.2

""

""

W"

2:49

'"'"'"''"

218

""

""

""

'"'

""m

""

,,,'"

",

'"

"

""

"

2_10_39

3- 1-417~23-12

8_14_42

3- 8-48

2_10_39

2:- 9-39

3_25_406_11_40

4_11_497_28_495_10_2:8 69

3- 8-18

5_10_2:8 69

5_10_2:11 69

7_24_108_19_521_30_:;8

7_24_40

3- 8-411

1_23_:;41_23_42

11_ 3-508_20_522_10_39

0.

".'0.'".'0.

'0.".

".".

'0.

'0.

".

do. 9_13_51

do. 4_30_51do. 5_31_51

do. 9_13_57

do. 2~ 0-39

Irr. 5-31_51

Irr.

".'0.'0.'0.

000.

lrr,

'0.

1rr.

1_18_44

Ootl.lrr 5_10_28

0.

All""i"'"

'0.'0.

".".

'0.'".

'0.

".

San Andres(7)San Andres

'0.".".

".'0.'0.'0.

San Andres

'0.

'".'0.'0.'".

A11uviUtl

San Andres

""

130

n,no

'"'"

'"'"""

S06 298506 298

'"'"

'"

'"'"

506 298506 298

'"

'0.

'0.".'0.".

Ira L. Parka

Artlstronl: Far"s ISOdo. 110do. 110do. 231do. 231

::: j'"Mrs. G.O.Perri, 230

do. 1230

'". I'"do. 8-1

I "

00.00.150410

Do. do,

Do. do.

15.43h do.

15.430 Jacob SChtlidt15.431 S.II. Marshall

Do. do.

00.17.11300.00.17 .234

00.

16.31300.

15.342: D. a. Anderson S06 2:98

Do. do.Do. do.

16.13316.2:31

'0.

Do. do. 315 219

10.24.15.320 Ben Anes 315 249

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin) Chaves County) N. Mex.( continued)

SpecU- 'ie con-'

Sodlu'" duct-l

a~~~~p (:~:;o-~Od- ratio "hOS "t.

(SAil) 250 C) pll

.1 IlnrdneS5 as

Di5so1ved j,'"OC'O~,~;~~''''~,cooc_c-I"solids l:Iagnes- carbon-

pp", t/3C-ft lun ate

B1en.\"- Chlo- Fluo- Nlt­bonate Sulfate ndc ride rate(HCOS ) (504.) (Cll (F) (NOS)

Magne Sod- Pota~­

~lurn 1= sltll:1(lIg) (!Is) (K)

C31­elm.(ca)

Due 1'etlp.c"llect"d (OF)

Principalwater-besring

forOtationDepth (feH)well "usIng-Location

10 21.11.333 J. t. Wagner 420 287 no",.Irr. 5-10-28 67

'0.'0.18.233

'0.18.334

'0.19.2Z3

'0.00.

L. T. LeW1S

'0.M1 tehcll Feed 8< 160

Sccd Cc"'!'a"ydc. 160

C. II. Buchana"

281

'"""w,w,

San Andr""

'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.

'0.00.

Irr.00.

'0.Irr.

1-16-539-15-571-16-539-15_57

1-16-53

1-30-588~20-52 "

54 152 4.8 211 ,,,

'"'"'"'"'"

.6 L,210 l.65 '" 493 33 2.6

2,1702,2902,1602,370

2,110

2,4402 170

S102, 18 ppr.t. ~''''

0.10 pp"'.

Pumpl"l: On arrival.

Pu"ped'~ "'In. before"a"'pling.

I",C1JI

p,,"'p,,<1 5 "in. b"for,',,"cpling.

Pump1"1: on arrival.S""pled h'c::! pr"ssur,·

$y<'te" sIte' 5-"i',flow.

Flowi"g On an-i\·al.Dissohed soH<ls:res1du" after",·aporatlo".

Flol<lng On u""","1.

Sampled frc" pressure~ystem.

5a"'pled fro" p,'e,;s\ln'"Iter 5-",",.

Sampl"d fro" pr""su,'csy~t""'.

PumpJ,nll 0" arr,vul.

,<::03' B PP".

2,7102,110

:!,lltIlJ2,!ltO5,'1005,76()6,610

7,1702 1110

2,2606,000

2,970

2,6203,0905,S60

2,5101,990

2,9803.780

2,,1002,2802,'130

5,6102,9902,1802,5110

S,~bO

',"" I­2,220 -

2.6700 31

- - 1625 i33 I 2.7

- I - ,I

~:~: I~~ ~:~2,190 19 2.5

- I-

I 1

862

2,2802,3802,910

2,370 2,2101,140 980 32 3.0

2,160 2,000

1.91

4.912.61

2,03

4.515.115.63

6.49

3,3-10

','0'1,14

4,770

1,490

3,6101,96

1,410

,.,

5.1

9.2

,.,

,.,

'00'"

'00'""

'"'"'"""

545

""'"35S

1.,010

;;~1,2101,3201,100

1,340

'"'"'"~,~~

'185

'"1,300

1,2"10

'"'"

9561,090

9-10

1,010

1,010

'"

'"

'"'

190_,,,'"

'"

'"'"3-U236

'"""'"'"'"'"

'",.,

'"

'""'"'"

1-30-58L-L6~53

1-30-581-16-53

1~31-58

7-23-12

1-SO-588-20_52

9-15_57 681-23_51.

1-20-$3

8-12-539- 1-421-23-56 69

M=;;=~~ 706-29~42

4- 1-437-23_42

1-30-561-23-54

1-30-581-2()-48

10- 7-40

10-21_403-31-411-19-531-30-588-15-521-19_53

'0.

00.lrr.

00.h·r.

no",.Irr

lrr.

n"",.Irr00.

Irr.

'0.

00.

Do".Stock00.

Do",.Irz;

'0.

'0.'0.

'0.Alluvi=(1l

'0.San Andr,,~

'0.San A"dres

'0.

San Andres

'0.'0.

'0.

'0.'0.

San Andres

Io.

'0.All"viu"

'0.'0.

I'" "';'0'do'.Alluvl=

'0.

235

:!J235

244

'"

183 127

216 175125 70

231 1572-15

125 70231 151

'"'

IZ.~8 141218 141,

I

I'"365

'0.'0.

Va" Eh" well00.

Exchange Ser"'­ice SUtio"

W.L. \iia~"er

'0.L. T. GodfreyA. S. nlaU'~

00.00.

Il.P. Sau"d"r..­

'0.t.E. Crockett

,".

00.

ll.od",·ic)<Crandall

'0.n, A. (!wens

00.O~en~,allc.l1anan,

""d Henry

00.M. FrcS'lu,,'"C3pt. Alde"

'0.Clardy's Dairy 194

<10. 194W. T. Clardy 276

22.2-13

00.

Do. do.20.221 Inla lloward

00.20.4332O.433a

00.21,113

00.22.13j

21.431

00.

'".00.21.310

'0.21.330

00.22.32122.+10

".19.233

'0.19.Hl

".21.133

'0.20 .24320.330

00.00.20.33100.:;0.3-1-1

'0.

;1 - I- -1 4480 1- ;pu.~ped.s "in. l"'foH', I sa"'pll"r,.

i 2-15 23·j do. Irr. 3- 8-48 218 66 363 196 sen 605 .6 7.4 1,920 2.61 _816 ~55 I: 5~5 3,0',0, - tl'~~~~~1;':.::!I". l'dot"do. I' 215 231 do. do. 11-18-53 69 545 _ 2,900 II'U'.\I'~d 5 nino bd,,,-"

do. '245 23'\ do. do. 4-29-57 69 602 - ,I -\- 3,010 I' il'~~;~~~"~'; arm'~l'\.a. Carllenter 1- dc. do. 6-22-55 69 620 - - - 3,240 i I 00RO~Well Count,·)' - 1~11l-44 264 78 1.110 205 746 1,140 2.5 11,01, 5.49 9aO l:ll2 71 15 6,1W I .

_____-'_'0'0":" -.1.'_..J__.J.. .J..__.J.. -'-_.J..__L_.L L_..J.__..J.__L_L_.J.._..J.__..J.__-' c_-'-__'- -' _

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin, Chaves County, N. Mex.( continued)

Location O>'ner or na"eDepth (feet>well casing

PrIncipalwater-bearing

for"aUon

",0

"water

Cal~

Date Te,.p. c11mcollected (OF) (Ca)

Ilagne Sod~ potas­dun 1Ull1 s1=(l.lg) (Ns) (K)

Blcar- Chlo- Fluo- Nit­bonate Sulfate r1de ride rate(IlCOS) (504 ) (Cl) (F) (NOS)

SpecH­Ie con-

Hardness as Sodiu:l duct-

Dissolved calcl:;;'C Non- 10 a~~~~1'" (:~~~o-solids "agne,,- carbon- sod- rauo ..hos at

pp'" t/ac-ft 1"", ate 1= (SAR) 2So c) pl1 R""arks

dO. 360± 230do. 360: 230

Harry Leonard 310

I

'"<.0,

Spring flow eat. 150 to200 gp".

Test ,"ell no. 4. sa"'p1ecollected at depth of413 ft; SlO:;:, 16 pp".FlOwing 400 1rP>:l.

8i02 , 9.5 PI""; Fe, 0.17pp". Flo,,",I"g 1,270 I:P".Plug"ged on 1-20-41.

Found plugg"d 9-16-&2.P=pcd 5 Tnin. befor"

"a"pUng.fu.

C03' 6 pp".S102, 18 pp.. ; Fe, 0,13

ppm. Well flOWing 5QOgp".

01ss01ved so11ds:res1due afterevapornUon.

Pu",ped & ..In. befor""""pHng.

Flo~-ed '" '''-In. befoN!sa"pHng.

8102 , 16 PP>:l: Fe, 1, 12pp... Well flowing 770

",'.Dissolved so11ds:

reSidue after<)vaporaUon.

Test ,"ell no. 4. snnple<;ollected at depth of413 ft; Si02, 14 PP".~'lo""lng" 400 g"p>:l.

Te"t well "0. 4. Sa~.ple

collected nt depth or373 ft; SiD, 14 pp".

Sampled fro"'- pressureayst"''' arter 5-,,1n.flow.

Test w.,ll no.4, sn",plecollected n t deptll of283 h; S102 , 15 pp".

Unused In Oct. 1951;now plugged.

PUl:Ipcd 3 ''In. beforesa"'p11ng.

PU>:lp1,,&: on arri"al,

3,230 -

4,9906,140

3,6<)0 Pu"'p1ng on arrival.3,260 7.4 Sewage plant well. 8102,

17 pp"'. ~'lo'I1"g ,we5 to 10 gpOl.

6,100

4,&20

6,6706,9204,420

6,500

6,550

8,'100

4,2406,3104,040

7,190

11,380

5,9804,'1907,910

1,0002,580

11,030 -

7,600

10,2008,450

10,200

10,900

"

818 44

872 18

912 13

768 71700 88

885 14

105 611

892 40

714 61

902 76

1,830 48

1,030 79

'"

'"

.00

'"'"

."

1,020

1,OSO

1,0801,200

1,060

1,060

1,050

3.69

2.86

4.92

5.094.50

2.98

7.60

6.539.07

7.02

, ,

3,90

&,59

5,16

3,7403,31

2,710

4,72

.1 5,630

3.0 3,62l

,.,

'.0'.0

.,

2,040

1,870

'"

3,0201,980

no644 640

.,

1,610

795 ,630

787 2,680

,'"

905 210

70& l,670

1,200719 1,5!lO639 l,370

l,:nol,380

617 1,040

'"1,630000

678 1,&401,0302,150

818 535

790 2,160

793 2,110

'"

'"

",

",

179_

'"

'"

,,,97 2,040

86 1,340

87 1,700

8& 1,360

91 1,330

87 1,660

75 961

,n

81 351

"

7& 1,02071 867

",

",

'"

'"

280

,,,

",

'"

",

'"

"

"

"

""

"

""

1-31-567-24-405-10-28

7-24-40

2-10-39

5-10-28

7-30-57

2- 9-39

8-18-5210-25-56

10-14-52

7_31_5711-30-57

7_2&_&710-14-52

12- 5-50

7-24-4012-16-5210-21-53

11-28-00

11-28-50

".

".

".".

".

".".".

".".

".".

Irr.

lrr.

1-19-&31-2&-&4Do... 3-2&-40

Stockdo. 1-19-&3do. 3-25-53

Do"'.lrr. 11-20-53

00.00,.

".".San Andres

".".

".

".

".San Andres

00.

".San Andre"

00.

".

".

".".

".Allu"1=

".

".".Chalk U1uff{?)

".

".".

".

".

".

'"

,,,

",

""",

'"'",,,

,,,""

,n232

do. 300

do. 327Ilenry RussnllEstate

".

do. 413

do. 328

B.F. Ho1ne 327

W.G. Urton 450

W.O. Jones 300

".

do. 310Urton Brothors 377Roswell Country 300

Club

J. L. Nelson 399do. 399do. 399

do. 413

do. 450

do. 328Torreon L1 "e- 460

stockdo. 460

City of Roswell 396

do. 450Pecos Valley 413Art"s1an Con­servancyDistrict

do. 113

Roswell CountryClub

".".J .L.Kltsworth 360: 230

26.143a

23.421

fu.25,431

2&.133

fu.26.311

fu.26.313

0,.

fu.23.32123.330

24.333

23.331

fu.

".fu.23.124

26.143fu.

".

".".

".".23.142

".

10.24.22.441

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin) Chaves County) N. Mex.( continued)

Location Owner or natleDepth (feet)well CaSing

Pr1nctpnl",nter~beartng

forcntion''"0'

water

Cal-Date Teap. c1"",

collected (OF) (Ca)

Mag-ne Sod- Pot as­sl"", lum stw:a(Ng") (Ua) (K)

Speei!­1e con-

Hardness as sod1wo dllet-CaCO adnorl anee

B1ear- Chlo- Fluo- N1t- DIssolved cale1"'; Ifon- 1. tion (..1ero-bonate Sulfate ride rIde rate I~"""O~'~"~''--." ",sgnea- carbon- sod- ratio ....05 at(/lC03) (504) (Cl) (F) (li03) ppl:l t/ac_tt two ate i"", (SAR) 250 C) pll Re",ar~s

10.24.27.120 L:lcy McFadden27.212 J.W.Isler, et 330 305

0>'

D.N. Pope 330

do. 100Poor Clares'

J,lonastery

'0.M.E. and Lula

DaViS

IgsI

Dissolvcd .ollds~

resld"e nftere"apor3tUm.

Pur.:ped 1 .,In. betoresa.. ling.

P""'ped 5 "in. beforesampling.

Sn"pled from pressuresyste...

P"",pcd 5 "'1n. betoresn"pling.

Tile drain, C03, 9 PP".Est. discharge 30 gpl!l.

SprIng.

Dissolved soUds!resldue a!t"revaporation.

Spring.

Pu!'ped 5 .. in. betoresa",pllng.

SprIng" flow cst. ISO000.

- FlowIng On arrival.- I -=ISpr1ng.

""

5,6706,2106,3806 070

2,340

5,680

2,7403,800

2,2001,9705,400

6,0205,9305,6705,6801,700

1,1102,530

8,2002,3102,51102,600

""

5,3307,460

4,940

1,760

2,8302,320 P""ping on arrivaL

S102, 15 PP"; Fe, 0.41pp...

1,390 7.1 Well no. 6, S102, 15PPOI. D18so1ved so1id~:

restdue a!ter evapora~

Uon.

1,370

1,920 Pu",ped 1 IIlln. beforesa..pl1ng".

1,590 Well no. 8.1,850 7.751°2' 16 pp.,. Well

p=ped 3 "in. betorenn"pl1ng.

2,080 7.7 Well no. 7. 5iO;::,18 pp".2,070

2.3

2.5

6.6 3,3903,510

"802 65

513 39

788 65

461 18

566 30

660 53

405 21

1,730

"'"

'"

'"

,,,

,,,'"

'"'"

'"

1,260

1,920

4.426.15

L82

1.59

L71

1,58

1,26

3,240

2.0 3,2SO

,'"

1,170

5.0 2, llO 2.81

8.2 1,260

5.9 1,160

6.5 1,340

1,9 928

.,

.,

'"'"

'"",

1,090

325

",

1,020

w,",

",

",'"

'"402

"

2,270

'"'"'"'"

,'"1,1901,3001 160

1,520

1,1401,120

'"1,040

'"

'"'"609 1,3&0

&09 1,380695 2,020

'"

",

1,620

188*

"ill

'"

'"

2,560 P"".plni\" on arrival,2,110

'",,,

,,,'"

'"'"

53 196

56 141

"""

51 72 4.5

51 67

'"

254

'"

'"

'"'"

'"

"

"

""

9-15-57

3-31-412-10-39

1-20-53

8-18-521-24-57

1-26-519-13-578-21-531-26-51

2- 1-581-20-533-25-40

7-23-52

4-29-57 64

8-21-531-26-541-26-51

10-13-543-25-10

'0.

lrr.

'0.

'0.~".

In.

'0.

do. 5-11-51do. 11-30-57

do. 9-13-57

SWitl::>!Pool

'0.00.

DoD.Irr'0.

do. 11-30-57IrI". 8-20-52

do. 8-12-53do. 1-19-53

Irr. 6-25-53do. 8-20_52do. 1~31-58

Do... 12-16-52Doc.Irr 8-00-52 65

do. 8-13-53do. 1-20-53

Irr. 1-20-53

do. 1-26-54do. 1-19-53

do. 9-16-57do. 8-26-55

DO:l. 12-28~26

StockP.S. 6- 9-55

7-21.-40Do... !rr 12-16-52

'0.

'0.

San Andres

'0.'0.

'0.San Andres

'0.'0.

'0.

'0.'0.

AlluviU/ll

'0.'0.

'0.

'0.

'0.'0.

'0.'0.

San Andre"

San Andres

San Andren

'0.'0.Alluvllm.

San Andres

'0.All"vi""'(?)A1111Vi"'"

'"

257

'"

237

'"

'"'"

'"

'"'"

284 274

'"'"

'"

330 305

mm

""'"

do. 330do. 325

E.W. Lander'0.

do. 295E.B.Johnson et 281d.

'0.

do. 300do. 300

'0.'0.'0.'0.

Roaw"ll FloralCo..pany

lInge",,,n De- 483"elop.."nt Co.

'0.

'0.Il.Uex.llil1tnry 340

Institutedo. 310

'0.Charles Alston 24

o.

CIty of Roswell 251

J.W. IslerE.P. Herring

'0.S.E. SullinnC.E. Kelly

'0.27.212a27.331~.

27.42328.114

~.

29.221

'0.

31.221n

~.

~.

34.221b~.

34,221<;

'0.34.221d

'0.34.331

34.221~.

~.

29.123

32.242

33.11433.:nl

~.

35.222

32.314~.

~.

34.31435.220

~.

29.41131.400

~.

28.223

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin~

(continued)

Laca Uon

!(Mner or ",me' li'~;;;":T:"""~f~,,~C:~~~};I,,

Principalwater-bearing:

rormatlon

",0

0'waWr

Date Temp.collected (OF)

cal­elll"(ea)

Magne Sod- Pota,,_siun i\l!ii Slum(lIg) (lIa) (K)

Dicar- Chlo- Fiuo- Nit­bonate SuUate ride ride rate(!lC03) (S04) (Cl) (F) (1i03)

Uardnesa asCaCO

Oissolved calcium, lIon- 1;sollds ","gnes- carl>on_ 1\od-

pp" t/ae-it iun ate i ....

Specif-!

'0 00'-1SodlUl:! duct-adsor anee

tion (..lcro­

ratio nhos atl(SAR) 250 Cl pll

IenI-'I

900 to

Plugged April 1949.

Dischar~e cst. ;J,:>Ui)to 4,5Oll jql".

C{)3' 7 ppm. Dischargeest. 2,000 to 3,000W O •

Discharge est. 2,100gp".

Pumpi"ll: on arrival.

Puooped 5 nln. bC£ore"m'l'llng.

~.

Pu"pcd ~ min. beforeM" lin

Flowing cH. 450 gp".Dissolved solid",rcsiduc aftere"aporatloll.

eOJ' 8 ppm. DiSchargecst. 900 I:P".

7.' Collected at depth of

1

100 !t. Di""olved"olids: re"idue aft',revaporation.

6.9, Collected at depth o[12_1 !t. Sampler.S102 , 14 PP'"

-I -

=IFlo-"ed ~r. ''In. h"ror~-I ,,""piing.

7,2106,4aJ5,7908,3308,2307,3209,1207,45<17,0109,6209,01011,720

12,0007,7&06 060

4,3105,51305,7\lQ1,530

5,970

8,650

5,4005,400

11,0507,740

8,3207,9207,920

14,0002,360

18,20016,70017,10013,10011,1009,2W9,6W8,3~0

5,9507,440

20 8,5S0

n

""W"

""'"

""

2Q 8,280

33 11,5008,'110

u

n

""n"""

,.,

'"'"'"

",'",,,",915

'''''"

722

'"'"828m962OW

'"

1,310852

1,180

1,3201,1201,190

852

'''''"'"'"

'"'"

'"

1,0701,0201,050

'"'"

1,300

1,1901,020

1,530

,,,1,0901,000,,,1,HO1,0901,lm

1,010962

''''1,0301,090

1,5501,2901,3701,0301,080

'"'"1,030

4.80

1.623.71

1.21 1,380 1,210 826.91 926

6.077.686.155.826.847.347.10

4.02

7.28

6.72 994 a:'lO 76

6.284.92

7.17 1,090 912 75

6.045.281.696.886.87

4.87

6.816.'126.46

15.6

15.01L111.8

,.'"7 .926.914.836.02

12.96.39

2,960

8,8805,080

3,4002,730

,0008,1608,7605,5905,8205,1003,5504,430

" ,

4,9'10

5,0104,7204,750

9,4604,700

3,580

5,350

4,1403,8803,1505,0605,050

5,270

4,6203 620

4,4605,6:;0·1,5204,2805,0305,.1005,220

1l,5O0

••0

,.,

.,

.,

.,

1,350

1,510

4,7802,130

2,380

1, i80

1,9802,6602,0101,8702,2802,5402,4303,6902,110• '00

1,0201,13l11,4701,000

1,3501,380

5,9005,4805,6204,0004,3102,6502,7702,3301,5102,000

2,3302,1602,1704,370

'"

2,0101,7101,4802,3502,310

'"662

'"565

m",634

'"'"

'"'"",

",'"'"N·I

'"no

'"

'"

'"

'"

1,060

",1,WO1,lllO1,1701,0301,060

no

'"'"'"no

'"219

'"211

210 1,000 4,150767 2,310

216

196* 751 2,270

217 765 2,.170

215,,,215

215215,,,m212

'"m

217m211188·

'"212217m221,,,

,W212

219ro,,,,,nno

1,2~~1,6001,2901,2201,4301,6001,510

3,780

1,550

,,,

1,4601,3701,360

3,0001,350

3,5802,5702,7801,7001,7701,520

'n1,250

1,1130

1,450

932

'"

1,3~0

'"

1,2501,060

'"1,4901,460

"""

"""""""""

""

."

222

288 67

282 94

376 108211 79

,,,

258

,'"

281294

'"252

,,,272

'"

''''

'"

'"

'"216

2611

",",

,'",,,,,,,,,

m'"'"268,..'"'00

'"

8-111-:'>22- 8-553-21-14 683- 8-18

1_23_57 69

3_25_40 69

3- 8-40

9_ 6_102-21-416_24_419-21-438-30-15 70

3-31-39

3- 8-10

9- 1-392- 7-40

10-26-56 699-12-57

9~21-13 I8-30-45 I 709-22-471-19-485- 6-48

11-29-'181-20-193-19-193;-31-399- 1-39

5- 6-469_22_474_19_48J- 9-495- 2-496-15-505- 1-516-21-56 69

10-10-493-20-505- 1-506-15-505- 1-51

11-18-53 698_18_52

10-25-56 68

do.

'0.'0.

'0.

'0.".".'0.'0.

'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.

'0.00.

'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.

rrr.

Irr.

fo"'·Irr.

'0.

'0.'0.

'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.

'0.

'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.

'0.'0.'0.'0.

'0.

'0.'0.'0.

'0.

275

'"293

250

''''

282

282

'"llS3293

'"2S3,,,'"293

'"'"

mm371m

'"

284,,,

",382

",'"",

",

3>:12

",",'"382

'"'"3112mm

",

m

'"'"'"'"'"'"'"452m

'"

"0

m

'"GOOt

""

",

i 465I ·165

'"465

"0

I

, .",

.",

452452

'"'"152452

'"'"I465

I 465

'0.

'0.'0.

'0.

'0.'0.'0.'0.

Virgil 6rantha.,et a1.

".

'0.

w.e. Massey

'0.J.P. WhHe

'0.'0.

T.O. White'0.

~.

35.143

00. do. 483 293 do.

35.'121~.

36.313~.

36.33300.

".~.

~.

~.

35.311

~.

~.

~.

~.

~.

~.

~.

~.

~.

~.

~.

35.2228~.

~.

~.

~.

'0.00.'0.'0.~.

~.

Jf>.222b~.

10.21.35.222 !lager"an De~ ·183 293 San Andre"velo?",e"t Co.

D<>. do. _183 293 do.Do. do. -183 293 do.

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin} Chaves County, N. Mex.( continued)

Owner or na",eDepth (fcet)well casing

Prlnelp"lwater-bearlng

fomatlon""0'

water

Cal-Date Tetlp. el=

collected (OF) (Ca)

nagne Sod- Potas­slu", 1= 51=(Ug) (lla) (K)

Blear- Chlo- Fluo­bonate SuU"te ride rlde(IlC03) (S04) (Cl) (F)

speeH-1Ie eon-i

lIardness aa Sodll1lll duct-

1I1t- Dlssolved Calel~CO1I0n~ % a~~~~p (~~~;o-

~:~:) 1-;;"~:~OT':~:~:o~_,,,,;I ..a~::s- e:~:an- ~:- ~:1~~ ~:~ ~~ I'll n""arks

Ien

'"IHeadquarters "ell.

FlOW cst. 15 Q.

Spr;!;ng.

PU",plng on arrl val,Gaging sta,tion at out­let of Bitter Lake.Flow est. at 5 &1'''.

~.

~.

Sa..pled through.pressure syate...

Wln""'lll.

Pu",ping on arrival,

PVACD test hale no. 1.Plugged.

St02, 17 pp"'.Flowtng.

2,110

1,4901,3901,970

5,2003,9905,5606,610

2,1702,3D02,6307,730

5,960

7,610

3,1403,2tlO

15,2tl0

19,4009,5106,1006,1305,4209.2

,.,,.,

"'"",'"

",

1,140

3,810

"""

1,310 1,140

1,690

1,300

'"'"

1.85

1.90

4.30

7.04

1,40

5, IS!

3,63

3,16

1,36

2.0

,.>'0

.,1,090

'"

'"H',,,

'",,.4,030

,,.'"'"1,890

1,330

""1,4001,760

5,7902,1401,2501,140t,lOo

""

""'"

1,210

""152

,,,

'"

'"'"

165 1,390 1,860

'"

'"",'"",

,n

"2,660

387 GO366 88170 53

192 59

488 116

,,,

8-19-521_25-&41-12-531_25_547- 9-42

7-30-52

7-29-52

1-19-5312-26-541 647-30-521

7-25-52 64

8-19-526-13-531-22-54

5-17-507-30-&21_29 M 583-26-51

8-10-4812- 4-50 6910- 1-52 697~1l!-50 69

Stock

l1'r.'0.'0.

TestWell~o.

00.00.

~O.

00.

00._.Stock

'0.00.

'0._.'0.00.00.

San Andrea

'0.llan Andrea(?)

'0.

Cllalk Bluff

San Andre"'0.'0.'0.

AlluVi"'"

'0.

Chalk Bluff(?)

'"

"'0_600:'00_'"

'0.'0.'0.

00.00.

'0.00.00.

do. 471do, 471do. 471

U.S. Flsh and 485Wildlife Serv-'00

U.S. FiSh. "ndWildlife Serv'00

485 465

T.O. White

'0.'0.'0.

00.W.M. lle;!;nold 471

~.

~.

4.433

36.413~.

36.4.13a

~.

~.

~.

9.412

9.412a Bitter Lakes1l111s1de Drnl

~.

6.142

~.

~.

&.123~.

5.300

~.

10.24.36.33300.00.36.333a

10.25. 1.243

n.

11.333 U.S. Fisll and ISOWildlife serv-Ice

107 do. Irr.

5-13-39 1,5401,140

1-21-57 67

33,100 94* 8,12tl 51,000

1,730

95,00 129 8,53D 8,420 89 156 ll9,000

7,840

C03 ' 17 pp... SeepSprtnl;s. Flowtng fro",flats on e"st aide ofchannel oppost teB1tteriake Head­quarters.

FlOWing on arrival.

17.122 Jatles Eakin, Jr. 505

Do. do. 15015.300

101 do. do.

Strea" at gaging station.Flow cst. 150 gpc..

C03 , 6 pp",. Springflows 2 l;pm.

PUlIlped 5 .,In. beforesa"'pUng.

Equipped \\I1tll wlndmilland pressur" syste".

-

':'1 :- Puc.plng "st. 2 to 3 \.."tI.

5,7W

9,5809,430

3,8703,6803,9001,370

,,'"

6,3209,970

10,3009,100

11,SOO9,540

'"2,140

'"

1,350

'"

""2,210

1,660

""

1,5201,too

9.637.94

7,75012,80 17.4 3,440 3,320 67 24 17,100

3.5 2,32< 3,16 860 688 56 7.3 3,810

1,380

'"m'"'"2,570

,W2,6SO2,8202,1703,4202,780'"""

'"

'"1,430

1,610

210 600 769

1,7101<13* 3,100 5,110

1101

'"'"

'",,.'"

'"'"

3,270

1,370

1,670

2,0601,740

236 66

408 122306 93

905 288

i_13M 531-26~54

9-13-&7 674_19_39

1-1'1-537_29~&2

8-19-522-26-567-24-407-24-40

1-21-51

7_21~52

1-12-538-10 M 535- 1-517-30-&2

00.00.

'0.00.

'0.

Irr.

Irr.

Irr.

Stock

San Andres{7) Doc..Stock

00.00.00.

Alluvl""00.

San Andres

San Andrea

'"

do. 505do. 505do. 505

N.Me". Military 3113Insti tute

Ray RlccBitter Creek

00.

'0.Luelll" LudlowC.T. Murrell 49&

19.411

~.

~.

~.

17.33419.331

'0.~.

2&.12128.321~.

~.

29.13430.111

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell( continued)

,:

Spe.,it-IIe <:on­

SodilL'1l duc-t­adsor!>" an"e

tlon (nlcro­r"tlo "bos at(SAR) 250 C) pH

Hardness ,u.caCO

Dlsaolved Ca1clw; Non- '.'.solids n"gn"a~ earbon- s",d-

PP"' t/ne-ft IUlO ste lU10

Il1car~ Chlo~ Fluo- Nit­bonatc Sulfatc rid" ridc rat.,(IlC03) (S04) (Ci) (F) (N03)

Magn" Sod~ Pot"s­Slun I"'" sl=(Ng) (lIa) (K)

Cal-Date Tenp. clu,"

collect"d (OF) (Cn)

Principal"'aterHb,,"rlng

(0,",":<0""

IIDQPtll (f"et)

Owner or nm,,,, ~'el1 ""SlngLocallon

Pu"ped 5 "In. beforesa", lin

Pu::ped 5 "in. befor.,sampHng.

Flowed 10 "In. lMforesampling.

11,500IG,lOO7,810

10,:i<l05,0003,3:i<17,510

10,500

"

4.3,,,

1,G301,770

1,1303.03.,

2,170

3,2202,260

'"1,690

1,7105,0302,150

H'

1,110

,'"'"'"

7-21-521-12-531-21-57

9-12-577-17-53

10-27-541-23_57

000.Irr.

00.

San Andres00.

".'"

"'"'"

'"'"'"'"

0,.

".J"",-ea A. BirdCougll!tn

C.B. nrowning00.00.

Glen Gravea

'0.W.312a31. 10031.311

30.312

10.25.30.221'0.00.

IVlWI

Pu"plng on arrival.Collected at up.

Collected at tap atterfl""'Ing 1 nln.

~ r=Ping cst. 1,000 gpD.

- IP:''';::~l~g~in. betore

7~2lTest wel~~o. 7. Po",plng

I cst. 15 6P".7.0,Test ",ell 1\0. 6. SiOZ'

21 PF"'.7.2 Tcst well no. 5. SlOZ,

16 PP", Flo~'ing cst, 2to 3 6P". Pluggod aHercollectin •

Wllaon test no. 1.Analyses reported byMidwcst ncUneries.SaDple bailed fro",depth of 'IS{) ft.

7.2 Test well no. 5a. WellpUI:lplng est. 1 ItPD.

,On blutts east ot rl""r.

16 "rleta 1, 90 to Z,045

Ift. Water reportedlyrose 1,SOO ft In 3 daysfro", white !land. Analy­aea rcported byMIdw.,st Re!!"erie".

7.5 PulOping cst. SOO gplll.FlOWing est. 1,800 gp'.f·lowlng. Oi"aoh,.,d

aoHda, reS1due afterevaporat10n.

FlOWing cst. 50 gpD.i ~ FlOWing On arrival.

Plugged In June 1957.

I - Pm::ped:; "In. tetor"

I :,::::::"~; '"'' ,",""·1 - lo~~~~~ation .....el1. Auger

, - :-Test .....ell no, 2. Drill, I ste" test through drillplpe at depth ot 460H. Plugged.

3,520

5,5W4,100

5,330

5,980

2,970

6 2907,290

1,650

3,070

4,180

5,030

5,4905,610

15,100

21,400

13,SOO15,SOO3,2808,U!1O

13,80013,400i5,300

81 32

60 11

84 52

53 6.1

40 1.4

62 19

51 31

" "

'"

H'",

'"

1,2201,210

1,260

3,OW

1,100

1,860

1,720

1,190

1,12U

""

1,950

3,Z40

1,300

1,280

1,400

1,4001,380

1,410

1,900

1,050

5.Z8

2,45

2.86

11.7

18.6

13.6

8,570

3,700

1,8002,160

0,000

, ,

1.5 3,880

2.5 2,100

"'""

"

1,660

U7,370

1,540

"

1,100

7,190

1,1801,210

4,364,950

"2,140

512'"""

""

",

,,,'"

i,670

1,060

1,560

1,750

4,520

4,4 °

1,260

1,010'"

'"

'"

n'226

,,,

286

'"

""

'"

2,410

2,7002,610

1,060

2,730

4,150

'"""

'"

154

617 214 5,840

",'"

'"

'"

'"

2,060 i,10 88,500

""

"

"

"

"""

, "

5- 1-575-IO~Z8

2-10-39

7-31-52

8- -SO

8-12-532_23_51

6- 6-SO7_:n_52i-31-57

7-21-522-10-567-10-126- 1-57

00.'0.

do. 5-31-57

00.

do. 12-27-56

do, 12-27-56

lrr.00.00.

do. lZ-27-56

do. 5-31-57Obs. IZ_27_56

do. 9-1Z-57Doc. 11-21-56

000.Stool<

00.

"n'fest

1I0ne00.

Irr.

".'0.

AlluVI"'"

San Andres

Chalk Bluff

orl.,tastone

AllUVIumSan Andr.,n

00.

'0.

San Andres

".".

00.

AHu"i"",

San Andres

'0.Allu"1=

'0.

''''

'"'"

'"'"'"

'"'"

425m

''''

",

124 112

158 146124 112

Henry Russell Itstate

do. 80

'0.00.

scbaffer OilCoepany

N.IA. Potter00.

".

00.

".State EngineerOUIee,,,.

00.

00.

H.P. FU:og"raid 518do. 548

R.P. f'it"geraldj

P=~:a~:~ley I

ConservancY IDistrict

IS.M, W1gg1nsGeorge French

'0.

33.432

31.34.300.00.

31.413 L.W. llarringer ISO

00.33.311

32.333

32.413

32.131

00.W.WO

33.131

Do, do. lSO

00.3l.311a

".

31.133

".32.30032.331

11.23. 1.43311.24. 1.1H

00.

n.m" I1O.Z6.28.133

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin, Chaves County, N. Mex.( continued)

(),vno,," or nan"Pepth (fect)"ell ,,,,sinl:

PrinCipal""tor-benring

(amaHon

Use

0'wnter

Date To"p,collected (Or)

Cal­,,=(cn)

Magne 50d- P"t"8*sturn 1w:1 51"",

(Mg) (Na) (I()

Ilienr- Chlo- Fluo*bonate Sulfate ride ride(HC03) (S04) (el) (F)

SpecH­10 con-

Hardness as SOdil1Ol duct-

caC01 "d,',~:P" ,:",:'".IHt- Dissolved ClllC1W; I>on- 'k u" _ ~ ~

~~~;) 1-;;,"~:~0~':~:~:,~.7,,;I,.a~:s- c:~:on- ~::- ~;1~~ rn~~~~) pH RCl:Iarks

I(l)

"'I

l''''''I'''d ,,.,In. before""",pllng.

P""'ped 3 .. in. betoresacpUng.

1'"",ping 5 '''In. befo,'",,"opling, Plugged In",inter of 1957-56.

PUlOping on arrival.P"",-ping est. 650 @>:I

for 6 hrs.P=plng "st. O!',a @J:\

tor 2 hrs.

1,650

3,4904,510

2,0(;01,7204,5302,1008.0 Well no. L 5102,17 ppm.2,050 7.4 Well no. 2. 5102,10 pp"'.

PUl:lplng report<>d 1,200

".

2,8201,7504,3801,.HO

2,1007.6 Well no, 3. 5102' 19 ppr.!.PUCP;"\; report"d 650

" ..Well no.4. Unused In

1957."Deep ~'e11" sa"pledWhen drUUng. 5102'17 ppo>; Fe, 3.5 ppr>.IHssol"ed soUds: resi­due after evaporatlcn.

2,2703,0003,600

2,6601,960

5102' 18 ppm; Fe, 2.3Pp". Dlssoh'ed soUds;residue after evapo,"a¥tion.

5102' 11 PPlO; Fe, 0.28ppn.

Plu,a;ed bnck. 5102' 20Pplll; Fe, 0.04 PPlll. Dis­solved sol1ds: res1du"after eva oraUon.

4,210

1,670 7.4

5,0902,5908,8SO

::,120 7 .81~·ell no. 9, SI02 ,17 pp".1,130 - ,Plowing.1,310 - IDls50h<ed solid": re"l.duc

niter evaporation.1,430 ",.IIW"ll no. 13. 5102 , 15

, Pplll. Pump1n~ 1,\15<) GP7.I.\\,,,11 dr111ed to 481 Itand pluggcd back.

..

1.2

6.0 3,160

,.,

(.,

"

"

"

.""

524522

'"

""

,,,

"',

'"

1,210

561

'"

'"

'"

n,

",

'"'"

,n

1,390

1,200

2.61

4.16

1.35

1.15

1.32

1.09

1.90

1.90

1.29

1.861.85

23.7

8.0 1,92

9.6 3,06

2.5 991

7.2 1,'100

2.0 846

4.4 970

3. 805

,5 7,400

·1.2 950

7.1 1,400

6.8 1,3707.0 1,360

.,

.,

.,.,

.,

n,

305

'"

205

'"m'''',,,

,'"

,,,'"555

'"295

'"

, 700

455

'"

,,,

'"'"n,

'"1,080

n,

""1303 1,250

'"2,510

'"

'"

,,,

",

'"'"

'"m",

1,090

235

217

216

,,,

224

227

240

,,,

'"

'"

'"'n

'.'

",

219

'"

'"

'"

6,2(;0

"

"48 74

"

".."

238 74

204 66

''''

'"

'"'"'"

''''

"."

"""

"

5-12-56

8-13-521-20-532- 1-588-21-52

8- 4-30

9-13-576-25-574-23-57

9-15-578-21-52

6- 6-50

11-30-573-19-387~21-10

1-21-538~21-52

2- I-5811-30-5711-30-57

11- 7-26

Ind.Do...

do, 11-30-57

'0.Irr.

"0.

do. 5-11-51

do. 6-30-50do. 11-31-5O 69do. 10-22-53

do. 8-21-52do. 1-26-54

lrr.

. ."

D=.Irr.'0.'0.

eo."..Stock

'0.lrr.

eo.

Test 8-16-20Well

P.s.

Irr.

'0.P.S.

'0.

P.S.

'0.

"0.

'0.'0.

'0.

'0.'0.".

"0.San Andres

San Andre"

Alluvluo

5an Andres

'0.San Andres{?)Alluv;UlO

285

285

""""

",

,,,,,,:l85285

425 286 San Andres

425 286425 286·125 286

395 338395 338

""'"

,,,

'"

",

",

".

,200

'"'"'"

"0.'0."0.

J.P. WhiteIndustrieS

'0.J.A. Mahon

'0.

'0.

'0.

O.B. Clausereo.'0.

\I.B. Wall and\1';1. Washie],e"

'0.l>Iary Lane

eo.City ot Roswell

eo.

'0.Allrleh Nursery/.lorrJ.e Huff

",.F.I'. sargentJ.P. Wh1tc,J r •

I CHy "f Roswell8.121

4.121,.6.444

1.334 TOQ 'lihueDo. do.

".".".

1.431

4.114e

4.114d

".2.111

4.114b

".3.411

".4.1144.1143

".

2.331

".".3.131

'0.2.1212.212

11.24. Llli George ,'renell

Do. do. 368 161 do. do. 8~23-56 69 90 1,420 - J

___C::c:C'C":....L__'_o_.__..L_"_'..J._'_'_'-l_"C'C"_"C:_:_·__.L_'o_,..J._:_:C~~_:C:C;..L_..J._'_"-l_'C'...L__'C'_-'_'_'_'...L_'_"_L:C;_:.L_...L_...l.C'c"='C'LC'C·,='..L_,=,='..L-'-,,=,-'-',,'-'__.,:L_:"-:;:I_·•..~·-'.. J _

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell( continued)

o.ner or na"wDepth (feet)"·ell ""slur,

Prlncipalwater-bearing

for",atton

Use

"water

Cal-Data TeOlp. c11m

collected (OF) (Ca)

Magee Sod- Potas~

slUl'- iun siun(Mg) (Na) (K)

Spce1f-!te <:on-

Hordne"s os Sodi\lOl duel-

91cor- Chlo- Fluo- Nit- Dissolved CalCl:;,C Non- % a~~~;; (:~~~o-bonate SuUnte ride ride rate '-;;;;;'~'TH~'~"""lmagnes- carbon- sod- ratio ",hos at(HC03) (504) (el) (F) (N03) I ppm t/ae-It lu.. ate lurn (SAil) 250 C) pH Ile"nrk"

429 332

<154 329454 329

IOJ

'"I

before

Dissolved solids; resi­due after evaporation.

punplng on arrival.

"".

pu",plng on arrival.$1°2 , 16 ppm; Fe, 0.15

pp"'-. Dissolved solids:,..widu" aftereVaPOratiOn.

Dissolv"d soUds, resi­due after evaporation.

pu"'pin~ on ar1"1 vnl.I

pur>ped 3 "'in, beforesa"pllng.

PU"ped 5 .,In. hefor"I sa",plln:.

!

Ipu",ped 5 Mn,sa",pHng.

I "".".

,Test "'ell no.5. S,,",pleI collected at depth ofI 5()·1 ft. Well the"

plugged,

ISa"pled fro," I'ressureI S)'st,,", after flo~'lng

I' "'.

pu",ped 5 tHn, beforei s""pHng.

= IOiSSDlve~ sollds, reside,' I["ft",. enpor"uon.

-I: -~ pu"'plng on "rrivaL_ purnped:> tlln. betore

s"",pHng.- Il'urn!'lng On arrIvaL- ,PUlOped 5 rain. before

I sa",pllng.

i

4,3504,7101,260

2,3004,100

2,150

2,9302 150

5,970

2,3903,3102,6404,430

6,6406,1705,250

3,9005,320

6,190

3,6709,670

3,72fJ

2,5604 2~0

1,7101,7902,0104,660

1,5001,6'101,Ssajl,6904,760

",'"

8,'100.1,630

10,300

::~~I

.,

.,

.,

.,

.,

6.5

",

954

'"

1,9'10

1,070

826

'"'

'"

'"

,w

'"

1,250

""

2,120

1,120

1,160

1.51

2.23

1.22

2.31

3.10

'"'"

1,64

2,25

1,10

3,36

5,6 1,84

,.,

-

122,,,'"m'""H",",

,,,"

'"'"

"'",,,385

1,060

,,,1,150

"

,,,1,350

1,550

2,4201,090

,170

'",'"

1,870

,180

1,810OW

""

1,11701,7201,000

526 850

,,,

'"'

,,,

467 156

'"'"1,140168 595

'"

1,700

216

2-19

226

'"

n,

'"

n,

"

222

57 395 11

"

294

'"

'"

322

'"121

'"

'"

'"

"

""""

""

"

"

""

8-13-521-24-57

2-28-572-28-57

6-31-51

9-11-572- 1_585-30-10

6-28-40

?-21-40

2-28-576- 3-578-21-521-31-57

9_11_57

1-29-549-11-579-30~53

9-11-57

7_23_408-26-558-27-568-15-522- 1-582- 9-412-10-39

8-21-522- I-58

2-10-39

8-13-':'028_11_532- 1-586-21-575-10-28

9-;m-~3

G- 3-57

9-11-5711-21_527-30-57

10-26_56

9- 6_539_29_53

10-26-56

<0.<0.

<0.

".<0.

".<0.

<0.<0.

".

".

".

<0.

".<0.<0.

".

".

<0.

".<0.

Irr.

lrr.<0.

Do",.<0.

Obs.

lrr.

".".<0.Dotl.

".San Andres

o.<0.

".

c10.

<0.

<0.<0.<0.

<0.<0.

".AliuVitm<0.

".

<0.<0.

".San Andres(?)San Andres

A11uvlu,.

".

San Andres(?)

Sun Andreseo.".<0.

AlluviumChalk Dlut! (7)

<0.Alluvi"",

".<0.<0.

San Andres<0.

San Andr"s

".Alluviu.,

'"

217217

""

'"

'"

'"'",,,,,,

'"'"'"

447 325447 325447 3254867429 332

'"

'"'"'"'"

",

m512

""'"'noHO

'"'"'"'"

",

<0.<0.

Archie Ca",pbell<0.

".

".".

<0.

".First UationalB"nk

".<0.<0.

Henry RussellEstate

<0.

Pecos V"lleyArteshnConservancyDlatrict

Fred Payton<0.

".J .A. PnlniZy

".

E.M. l!i.ley<0.<0.

".

".<0.<0.<0.

".

,.".

Vi.A. Fry

".".J.P. WhiteJ.P. White Co.

A,S. Patterson

H.Il. McG"e

".

<>0.12.4310,.

<>0.12.414

13.223a

".14',100

13.1+1

13.122

"".

13.141a

"".13.223

"".

12,231

12.233b

"".12.233<>

".

"".12,233<>0.12,233"

"".

11.314

""."".12.12112.213

11.213

"".

I 1.2'1. 10. llO10.111<>0.10.113<>0.10.2M10 .232

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin, Chaves County, N. Mex.( continued)

I<Jl<JlI

- Pm'ped 5 ",In. hefor"sa"pllng.

- Spri.ng.

-I 00- Collected CraQ lake ntbase of bluff.

-. Lake.- :Coll'Cted fro", dra1n On

northwest s1de of Inke.- Spring pool.

- Pu"'ped 5 mIn. beforesa"'pling.

- Well pucpcd 3 hra.

- Pumped 5 "in. befores8"'pHng.

".

l>,5Q06,340

2,4403,2201,5501,22Q

3,280

1,910 00.1,lleO - Formerly Rocky ,\rro)'o

School. Dissolvedsolids, residue "fterevaporation.

1,280

1,93014101.5

2,0402,280 - tC03' III PI''''. C<>11ected

from drink1flg founhinin school )-nrd.

1,1301.7 Well deepened. 1'''''pingcst. 40 1:1'''''

5,190 - P",,-ped 1 ,,,In. beforesa"pling.

1,410 _ Dissolved so i.d-,,, re"l-due a!ter evaporation.

1,6901.3 Pu"ping est. "gl''''-.1,690

-l0ll test drilled by Mid­west Exploration Co.Analyses reported bylad"'est Refineriea.

2,990 - Pur.lplng 011 arrIvaL

1,030 _ Disaolved solid", resi-due afte,' evaporation.

1,000 7.4 1'ur::plng 760 bToOl.5,1204,010

1,520 1.8 Well nO, 12. 5102' 16PI''''. """ped 5 ",in. be_fore sa"'pHng. Dis­solved solids, residueafter evaporation.

2,150 - P=ped 5 II1ln. b"foresn"'plinl;.

1,2301,280 - Punped 5 ",in. before

sn", lin •

1,5407 ,850

14,00013,00015,300

.,

L'

,"

'"

'"

'"'"

1,470

'"2,950

2,570

'"1,010

'"'"

,,,

'"

,,,

,,,'"555

3,180

1,650

2,100

1,010

1,1201,200

.H

1.05

1.74

2.072.35

2.071,520

4,600

1,5201,730

1,280

6.3 1,110.,

'""

"

w

'"

"

""'"

",n,

'"

1,5401,620

1,060

4,1604,01l04,910

'"1,1110

",

'"'"

625 2,120

'"

m",'""

",

'"

'"

'"'"

'"

'"'"

'"

'"

2, llO

226

225

""

226

'"2116

,,,

'"160*

'"

,,,

Spcc1f­ie <:On-

lIardness as 50d1u." duct-CaCO ,,<lsorl'" anee

Bicar- ChIo- FIno- IUt- D1ssolved CaICi".., Non- % Hen (lOleTo-

bonate Sulfate :ride ride rate, ~~>?'Th~'~>=,I..agn"s- carbon- 80d- ratio nhos at(Hca3) (SO.,) (el) (F) (N03 ll-pp" tJac-tt 1= ate Icc (SM) 25" c) pH

""

'"

'"'"

85 1,300

2,870

"'"

Alagne 50d- potns­slUT.l lU!ll sl=(M1;) (Nn) (It)

'"

",

,,,

'"'"

CBl­.,=eea)

"

"

"

"

8_12_521-20~53

9- 6-53

8-11-53

2-27-511-21-521-23-57

5- 1-575-30-40

1-29-589-26-56

2-27-577-25-52

7-23-102- 8-44

6- 3-57 665- 1-51

4-11-557-15-522_27_57

2-28-572- 9-39

7-23-40

11-30-57 I -

11-26-56 66

11'1'.

".

".Stock

do. 12_27_56do. 10-26-56dO. 9-13-57dO. 2-28-57

dO. 2-28_57 64

lrl'. 5-18-45

dO. 1-29-58

Oat" Tc"p.collected (oF)

StockM.

'0.

11'1'. 11-21-56 61

P.S.

11'1'.

00'.Stock

I ....

<e.

".

<e.

".".<e.

".".".

<e.<e.

PrIncipalwater-bearing

fornat1on

".<e.

San Andros

".".

M.Chalk Bluff

Alluviu",<e.

San And ..e"

San Andr",;(?)

Alluvhm

AlluviUl:l

H5

""156

'"

900 San Andres

'"

'"

156

'"156 156 do.

115 104 Alluviu",

HO

'"'"'"

'"

115 101 do.

421421m

Depth (feet)1',,11 cas:l;ng

City of Ros"'-e11 365

".Str,,"",D.R. Br1tt

T.E. Bush<e.

".

do. 1835.G. Barnett 125

<e.J.P. White Co.

<e.

StanleyWhitehead

~'lley GriZ"le

nert Aston WO

".".<e.Bert Aston

(Mner or nnme

(Goodw1n) IraIlcndricks

J .c. Eberhard

<e.S.\\'. Skinner

Do. do.5.130 do.

5.34300.00.

11.313

2.42;12.431

30.44436.211

00.

".

23.122

00.14.32100.14 .443

".

36.333

00.2.43In

5.333 llenry RussellEstate

Do. do.

".23.1228

".15.42116.142

3.2304.342

00.

".28.113

Loe"- Hon

".11 25. 1.311

1.41h

11.24.1<1.1<13

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin, Chaves County, N. Mex.( continued)

I

'"..,I

Found Oo"·1ng Iroms<:lall leak 1n pU<lp.

Flnwed 5 "'in. hdore5""'pHng. I'luKged enAugust G, 1956.

Pucping 011 arr1val.

I'U-"p;ng On arr;val.

Test well no. 3. OrHI

Iste", sa"pl" t>"O'" d<'pthof 422 ft.

DrH1 st"", sa"'pl" fro'"dopth oI "142 ft.

101'111 SlC", s""'pie fro",I dcpth of 513 It.

Iflo",cd 15 OUn. before

I sar::pHng.Well htur plugged.

IP"-"'p1n& nn arr'"al.-I!'l'unped $ c;n. h.,(ore

6"",pling.- -

1,7703,030

1,7107,3

1,680

7,600 7.4 5pr;ng; 5;02' 2·1 PP".8,430 5pr;ng.

2,3107.1

16,500

7,150

10,800 flow,ng on arr;,"a1.10,6007.1 Flowing cst. 20 gp"'.9,470 7.0 $;02, 15 pl'e. flow;nr,

cst. 20 gp"'.3,350 6.6 Si02' 2.7 PP".4,5805,$303 310

5,3601,5505,780

14,300H,9IJO

10,7005,3802,9!lO

11,5005,900

PU",ping on arrHa 1.P""ped 5 "In. hefore

saopl1ng.8,1707.2 Si02 , 19 PI''''.

11,900 -1,530 - S"<lpied fro" faucet on

I laWn.1,7907.5

1,770 - Si02, 13 1'1'''.1,790 -3,000 -

2,800 ­8,780 ­3,410 7.32,800 ~ Si02 , 15 PI'''''2,610 -

11 600 ~

16,50015,700

1,5701,550

·1.1

L'

'.0

""""

602

'""

525

'"

'"

,,,

'"862~,

1,6701,620

'"1,190

1,9001,730

1,280

1,560

2,180

6021,090

'"

562

624

'"

654

'"'"

1,710

2,0901,930

1,8101,790

'"1,0501,080

'"1,380

n,1,270

'"'"no

1,450

l.36

1.54­2.95

1.39

l.32

1.35

2.583.75

1.52

5.10

7.04

8.6·17.78

1.521.54

1.94

6.613

2.387.24

275

",

5pe<:lt­;e eo,,-'

Hardness as Sod1u", du<;t- ICaCO adsor "1I<;e I

OiSsolved calcium, lio,,~ % tion (",;<;ro-

solids "'''gnes- c"rb<>n- sod- rnt10 chos allppc It/nc-ft 1m" ate 1uIO (SAR) 250 cl pH

1,00

5,180

6,3505,720

3,7S{l

.3 1,902,76

4,90

1,43

5.3 1,12

5.2

1,02

1,1201,9 1,130

1,138.1 2,17

1,755,32

4.6 2,025.7 1,75t

1.5 96

.,

.,

.,

.,

1.0 13

23'

3,231,41

"

5,305,00

""

3,3176 3,1970 2,85l:

38 8352 1,1456 1,40(

"

45 57

68. 2,~:'l:48 7245 5745 49

'"

39 16

2,01

43 39

69 2,~::3,77

36 17

47 17

39 24-99 39

38 19

40 2339 2440 24

"

"'"

1,45C 1,8~~ 2,150

1,4llC 97 I1,31 1,0~

"j

1,00 ~:;:;i1,70

236

236235

231

'"'"'"

228

'"'"''",,,

'"'"

'"

'"225

'"

'"217

lliear- Chlo- fluo­bo"ate Sulfate r1de ride(/lC03) (S04) (CI) (F)

!

'"

""

'"'"'"

'"

'"'",'"

1,260

2,860

'"1,500

'"'"'"

1,6701,,\40

""

"

""

""$33

'"'"

'"

"""""

'"

Magn" Sod- Potns­s1uIO 1= s1=(11K) (l;a) (K)

'"

'"

'"",

'"'"",'"

'"",""

""

""

""

,"

5~14~$7

9~1$~$7

7~24~'lO

7~24~$2

1~26~$3

8~26~$$

8-13~52

1-22-54

1-30-527_10_$2

8-12-$22~18~$3

- -,2-28-57

9- -50

2- 4-555-11-575-13-57

·1-20-53

5- 9-579_12_571-18-11

9- -50

8-26-55

1-28-52

7~1O_52

2-21-119~ 5-517·10~52

8-12-529~12_57

~~3- (;9-21-562- 6-483~ 8~48

7-10-529- -50

9~ 5-517-10-528~12-52

1~29~58

8_12_531>-27-56

10-26-56

Oatc Tc",p.collected (of)

00.M.

POOl.lr"

".

'0.00.

".".

""""ater

'do,

".11'1'.00.

".Irr.M.M.00.M.

TestWell

S,ock

".11'1'.

M.

".,,"oneM.

Testwell

11'1'.M.00.

'0.

San Andr"sM.

".".".

All"",,,,,,

'0.M.

San Andrcs

".

Prine;p"lw"ter~be"r:\ng

tornatiOn

Alluv;um

".

san An r"s00.

".".

'0.456

390

'"

""

.JI6

'"'"

'"'"'"'"'"

'0''"'"'"'"

'"'"'"

'"'"'"'"

371

'"'"'"

'"

'"'"'"'"'"

""'"'""

4$2

""'"'"

'"'"'"'"'"

Dcpth (teet)"cll eas;ng

M.M.potter Co.M.M.

P.C .Pi t::r.erald00.

Pecos Vii "yArteSianConservancyDistr1ct

".E.K. Patterson

".M.00.

'0.

E.K. Patterson

".Frod Payton

".

J.P. WhiteC".M.

J .11. Goodart

Estate

'0.".'0.

'0.M.

E.K. Patterson

peC05 V3lleyArtcs13nConservancyO;strict,

00.

".

".0,.0,.00.

OJiner or na""

Virgil Grantha",8.143

~.

7.21'1

".8.114

'0.

"".

~.

8.133

'0.

~.

7.233a

~.

7.11200.~.

00.00.

.""

~.

7.421

7.233~.

~.

'0.

~.

00.

".00.

~.

'0.7.243

11.2$. 5.400~.,.

13.123a

".".13.220~.

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin, Chaves County, N. Mex.(cantinued)

Location

Depth (feet)~'cll easing

principal" .. t"r-b"arlng

formation"""water

Date Te"p.collected (OF)

eal­eiu",(ca)

IMagne SOd-lpOt3S_

al"" IU!I .. lwa(Ug) (lIa) (K)

Spcc1!_Ie con-

Ilardness as Sod!"'" duct_

Btellr- Chlo- Fluo- Ni t- Dissolved C"lCl~~CO1100_ ~ ,,::~~p (:~~;o-bonate Sulfate l'idc rido rate '-;;~'~OT"~'~'""I""gncs-caroon_ 80d- raUo 000" at(HCO:!) (SOot) (ell (F) (K03) I PIl'" t/ac-ft lUt! ate lu,,- (SAR) 25" C) pll ReI.arks

11.25. 8.H38.311

~.

8.331

~.

8.422

Virgil Granth"",Fred Payton

'0.pecos ValleyArte,>!,anConservancyQUlrtC!

540 456440 396

140 396

'"'"418- 418

'"

San Andres

'0.

'0.Alluv!u",

".San Andre"

Irr.~o.

StockIrr.

".Irr.

".Obs.

9-12-572- 6-48

7-:JO-5712-12-53

""

'"m

,,,""

5,6301,570

3,6804,140

3,4301,980

PUIllptng on arrIval.

PUIilpCd 1 ..In. before""",piing.

PUlOplng on arrival.Test well n". G. "Flow

J;o. L" Flowed 15 hra.before sampling.

IQ)

COI

Deveioped sllring.

Flowed 3 ",in. beforesa"pling.

Flowed 48 hra, befores"",pl1ng.

Teat ...ell no. 6. "FlowNo.2." FIQWlng oncrrh'cl.

Flowed 25 hrs. bc!ores"",pHng.

Test hele no. 6. "1'10"'­No.3." FIO"'1ed 30 >:lin.before """,phng.

Flo""e<1 5 ",in. befores"",pltng.

Bailed s""'ple fr",..auger hole.

~.

"0.~.

~.

Spring pool,

:D1sso1ved solids: residueI ntter evaporauon.

Pu",plng cst. 2,000 &pOl

for 5 ",in, lwIore

I,"",,,,·

- P,,"ped 5 <nn, beforeslimp ling,

- illalled s""ple fr">:1I auger hole.

- IF;10Wing On arrival.- FlOWing 011 arrival. Well

;' Inter plugged back.iF lowing" est. 100 &1'''.'1 Dissolved 50ltds: res 1­, clue aner evaporaUon.

2,290

3,750

5,5802,560

1,660

2,060

2,5709,1403,610

7,980

1,7801,360

1,7902,3101, 760 1 -1,520 C03, 8 ppo. Di,mol ...ed

solids: r"sidue cftereva oratton.

1,540

3,1303,610

8,1407,3605,9006,5905,150

9,1901,900

1 ,2:lO1,0503,000

23,300

n

"""""

452

'"

922

'"'"

"""'"'"

""646

""""m

"'"

1,1001,0(;0

""

1.11

1,32

1.541.21

4.41

1.511.991.501.26

5.83

'.W

1,130

'"

1,060

1,100

1,1301,01601,100

982

3.5

3.0 3,240

"..,."

"""'",,,'"'

'"

""

'"

'"'"

'"287

'"'2,680

'"'

7,330

1,100

1,4501,320

no

""1,430

1,750

,,,

""'"'"""

''''",

223

236

"",,,171*

'"231

'"

,,,

,,"'""

'"''"'""'""

111 18

200 SO

""""mn'

no'w

"""'"

'""'"'

1-26-54

5-31-571-21-57

- ,

6- 4-57

8_12_529-12-579-27-56

6- 1-576- ·1-576- 01-576- 01-579-31-42

2-28-57

6- ·1-57

9-30-012

6-28-109- 6-103- 6-117_10_42

- -432- 2-0117-21-52

12-lZ-53

12-12-55

1-20-5110-26-56

11- 1-132_ 2_11

".

Obs.

'0.".

'0.

lrr.

".'0.~..

Stock

".

Allu'li"",

w.

W.Chdk Bluff

'0.w.

'0.

w.

Allu'll=

w.'0.

A11u...i=

477- 477

'"

750:!:

""'

59:>- 595

,,"

150:!:750~

'"'',,,,

150t1SO±

7SO±150~

595- 595

,,"

".w.D.n. Britt

w.W.

J.P. White Co.

'0.'0.

U.S. GeologicalSurvey

".W.W.'0.

Torre<>n Live­stock Co.

U.S. Geologi""lSurvey

'0.'0.

'0.

~.

~.

12.111

8.424

~.

~.

",.~.

~.

~.

9.432

~.

~.

~.

~.

~.

9.241

8.424a8.424b8.4308.43011,.

"0.~.

10.HO

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin, Chaves County, N. Mex.( continued)

Location ()uner or na..cDepth (feet)well caSing

PrlnCipalwater-bearing

f"roni"n

Use

0'water

Date Tcmp,collected (OF)

Cal­ciun(Ca)

Magnc Sod- Potas­siun ium siun(Mg) (1!a) (K)

Hardness asCaCO~

Bicnr- Chlo- Fluo- llH- Dissolved lic".T,.",c::"",:;r~'''o";:_;-I,bonate Sulfate ride ride rate 1-,~'~'TH~O~'=,lll.agnes- carbon- scd­(]lC03) (50,\) (Cl) (F) (1(03) pp'" t/ac-it ium ate 1"",

speC1C-

1

ie con­Sod!uJ:l d\lct­adsorp ance

tion (,,-icro­ratio I:Ihos at(S.'R) 25" C) pI! lIecarks

I01CDI

".

Flowing est. 0.5 gpo> •

8",a11 flow.

Dissolved sol1ds, reSidueafter evaporation.

~.

FlOWing e"t. 7,000 to10,000 b1:H>.

,Si02, 16 PP"'f Fe, 0.72

I ~~:~oi~~:i:~l~d~O r:~~:Idue aft~r evaporation.

IF~~~~:~ ~~i~~s~P~~s~~::

Iaiter ~.vaporation.

Dissolved solid,,: res,­due after evaporation.

IWeB flOWing Into!llngeIT.lan Canal. DiS­

solved solids, residueI lI!ter evapora Hon.IDissolved solids: rcsi~_! due aCt~r evaporation.-I'il test, Midwe"t f:~­

ploration Co. Anll1ysdreported by Mld"'e~t

ReUn'ng Co.

,,,""'"'",,,991

",

'"'"'0;

1,1501,090

3,080

1,130

1,130

1,2201 410

997

17

'115~~;: :~o~~:~ :~' a~~~~al .

1,010 1- -1,050 7.3 Si02, 16 PP"'; ,'e, 0.01

pp.. : B, 0.18 Pl'o>. 01"..

Isolved solids, reSidueafter evaporation.

Flowing on arrival.IOisso1ved solids: reSiduei after evaporaU"n.

1,6001,HIO2,3301,600

1,0101,0(}0

'"1,090 -1,0707.215102' Iii pp...; f'e, 0.01

i J PP"; Il, 0.13 ppo>. Dls-

I :~~;;de~~~~~:~i:~~id"e

5,730 7.21Lal<c sinkh01".3,620 00.3,090 Do.5,680 Spring floWIng into

Comanche Uk".3,640 Lak" "inkl1,,1e.3,010 Do.

12,000 6.a Sprlllg po"l.7,7007.0 Spring.71707.1

.,

.,

.,.,

.,

.,

.,

.,

.,.,

.,

.,.,.,

."

"'-'8.2

316 11

292 11

'" ,292 8316 7312 1326 7313 10

111 30

330 15

3·16 16

"" ,277 16328 1

'"339 11

'"",

2,280 31

1,G90 812,380 152 280 15

'"

,,,""

526

''''

ow529

531

551

'"

'"496

,'"

""m522

1,8202,5102 130

."

."

.00

.oo

L06

1.17

1.16

5.90

L'

7.727.17

11.1

'"

'"

1,919

4.2 764

1.8 716

1.1 1,310

: In;""1.3 5,6801.1 5 190

3.5 6"19

3.0 6522.5 618

'"3.5 6443.9 6333.9 6603.6 662

3.0 1,070

2.7 6566"21

3.·1 6571.9 6"53

""

1.6 66"6"

1.5 777

,.,

.,

.,

.,

""''"

"

"'"

""

'oon

'"w,

1,020251152

1,050

m

'"15,1001,610

, ""

291

351

""

00'

'"

297

'"276

'"",

'"

'"'"'"

""'"

",

3,8702,0702 100

1,850

'oo

252

213

'"

",

,"'

",

'"236237

"",,,

,n

'",,,",",

."

"43 21

12 18

11 17

42 28oil 16

" "13 1916 2.1:1

"' "'

15 1941 25

13 31

'"

"' "

13 31

13 20

'"

11 211·1 1012 11

108 1M

152 SOl

113 9,190176 9(;(}

169 932

W"

<0"

'"

133

""HO140

'"0

'0;""

1,250

'"'""

""

"""

"

"

""'

"

2_27_572-27-572-27_572-27-572-27_57

9-12-573- 3-26

7_27_577-27-577-27_577-27-57

8-12-52I-IS-538-11-531-10_10

1-22-179-22-17

4-10-107_10~12

2- 2-115- 6-16

11- 2-46

do, 7_:U_38do. 2_ 9-39

0o.

do. 3-11-52

do. 1-19_48do. 5- 2-19do. 10-10_19do. 11- 8-5'1do. 7-12-55

do. 7-30-57do. 1-10-10

do. 1:1-12-52do. 7-12-55

do. 8-30-48

'0.".

'0.

'0.'0.

Irr.'0.,..".,..

1rr.

'0.'0.

Chalk Bluff

"".'0.'0.

'0.'0.

".'0.

San Andres

".,..,..'0.

".".

'0.0o.

San Andres,..'0.

,..00.

'"

613

613

'"'"

'0;'0;

'"

'"'"8·13

'"

'"

'"845

'"

'"'"'"

'"'"'"'00

""

0o.

'0.'0.'0.'0.

'0.0o.

,..

W.T. Clardy

'0.,..".'0.

".,..0o.

Hager"'~n Canal 123Co., Inc.

n.R. Dritt,..'0."".

do. 123Whitney N". 780

do. 723

'0.0o.

Bartlett Estate 591do. 591

el1et King et a1

'0.'".R.Il, Pickering

16.133

'0.

13,12113.14213.21013.21213.212a

~.

~.

15.143

16.213

~.

15.313

15.331~.

~.

~.

~.

~.

~.

~.

16.300.

'0.'0.

~.

~.

~.

11.25.12.21212.23212.33312.430

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin, Chaves County, N. Mex.( continued)

1.0ea tion <mner 0" naneDepth (fcet)"'ell caSlng

Principal"'ater-bearlng

{omationDate Te"p.

collected (OF)

Cnl­

"'=(cn)

!.lagne Sod- Potas­siu" lUll> sl=(Mg) (No) (K)

I ilardneN~ aNCaCO

Bicar- Chlo- Fluo- Nit- Dissolved Caleiut; Ncn- 'i'.bonate SulCate ride ride rate :~lids O:l.gnes- earbon- 50d-(!lC03) (S04) (CI) (F) (li03) pp" t/ac-it lum nte lum

Specif­ic eon­

Sodiu", duct­adsor anee

Uon (<>1ero­raUo ..hos at(S,\R) 250 C) pH

I...,oI

51°2 > 14 PI'''': Fe, 0.18pp... f'lO-Jling 1,200gpEl. Dissoived solids:residue afterevaporation.

Flowing. Dissoh'edsol1ds: reSidue afterevaporation.

Dlasolvcd .oli<l5: rcsl­<lue aHer evaporation.

SiC2 , 2(1 ppo; Fe, 0.18PI'''' Fl""'ing 2,600 gpr.t.Ol""olved ""Uds,residue arter evapora­tion.

FIOo·ing. Dissolvedat',dds: resIdue after""'''porat10n.

Drilled by ).l;d.'est Ex­ploration Co. Analysesreported by Midw".tRef1ner, Co.

Drilled by llld"'entExploration Co. '\nal)'­sen reported by Mld"'cstRefiner Co.

7.1 5102, 48 ppn. Dalledsa",ple frc", auger hole.

1.55102, 13 ppm. Balledsa", Ie fre.", au~er hoie.

.

'"

2,6104,290-1,380

2,910

2,000 !1,3702,960

3,9701,1801,130

2,620 7.U Test hole no. 12. l'..,."'p­Ing esL 13 gp...

- StGz, 19 pp": Fe, 0 131'1'''; carries 1l2S.Flowing 860 gp".

7,760 7.8 Si02 , 13 pp",; Fe, 0 10i ppJ:l; 9:1' 0.7 pp".

1,930 I D~~:O~~~:ra~~~::~o~~:~~

'"

'001,1201,1201,2001,6501,0002,1703,390

1.0 Test hole no. 13. P"-,,p­1n& est. 10 gp"'-.

.4 1,940 7.2 'rest hole no. Ii. 5102'30 FP"" Pur.:plng est.5 gpo.

2,650 7.0 Test hole no. 15. Pur-p­ing cst. 5 to G gp".

.,

.,

.,

297

'"

'"

'"

""'"

'00

1,660

1,360

1,580

1,660

1,200

502

'"

00'

""'"

1,120

1,770

1,840

1,000

1,120

1,180

1,640

1,840

1,580

3.62

3.07

2.28

LIS

2.16

2.03

"

1,68

.5 5,1"

.8 1,59

.0 1,19

3.0 81

1.6 65

2.0 56

L'

"

"

'"

1,910

'"1,0101,030

952

288

'"

'"

""

272

'",,,

1,230

1,370

1,380

225

233

582

'"

,,,

,'"

'"

",

'"235

'00

L'

127'"

'"

91 26

,.,99 35

41 15

41 15

46 55

"145 1,110

'"

'"

132

291

''''

'"

'"

132

<H

"""

"

'"

'"

"

5- 1-518-13-521-15~53

1-29-588-13-521-15-539-11-576- 4-51

2_ 9-39

. ,.5-10_28

2-25-26

5- 4-51

5-10-28

1- 8-57

2- 9-39

5-10-28

1-22-57

9_11_579-11-571-10-57

2- 9-39

1-10-·10

2_ I_588-21-522- I_581-30-56

8-13-522_ I-589-11-51

"0.'0.

Obs.

h·r.

'0.

'0.

'0.

lrr.

"0."0.

lrr.

'0.'0.M.

'0.

Irr.

~".Irr.

"0."0."0."0."0.

Obs.

"0."0."0.

'"Test

'"Test

'0.

'0.

AUuvium

'0.'0.

AIluvlUla

'0.

"0.

'0.

'0."0.'0."0.

San Andres

Chalk BluH{?)

"0.San Andres

"0.

'0.San Andres

"0.

AlluvlutlSan Andres

'0.'0.'0.'0."0.

A11uViU..

'"'"H

543+

629

543+

545

",",'"'"458

'"'"'"'00'00<00

,,,'"

"'"

'"'00'

"'

'"'

n'

'"'",,,

'"'"522

'"

'00

'"Verne C.Wheele

W.T. Clardy

'0.

Wht tncy Droll.

'0.

'0.'0.

State EngIneerOff1ce

'0.

W.T. Chrdy

Virgil lIabcock

'0.Sidney Sr.11 thEstat"

"0.J.F. Wagoner

"0.Whitney andCue

Russell StlHhC.E. Boothe

"0.

A.L. TiderE.Q. Roberts

'0.'0.

W.C. Van Doren'0.M.

U.S. Ocolo&lcalSurvey

27.130

18.122~.

18.133

~.

23.111

~.

23.13325.133

~.

18.441~.

21.400

28.333

25.3i2

23.HO

21.413

31.22332.131

25.111

25.131

21.410

17 .:llOo

11.25.16.32216.431

'0.'0.17.123~.

~.

17.210

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin, Chaves County, N. Mex.( continued)

Location Owner or na ..eDepth (l~~t)

~'ell ellslng

Principalwater-bearing

!orli>at1on""0'

waterDate Te..p.

collected (OF)

Cal­

"~(Ca)

Magne Sod- Potas~

dUll iWll "1",,,(Hg) (Na) (K)

IBlear- Chlo- Fluo­bonate Sulfate ride ride(BC03) (504) (Cl) (F)

I llardness as

'"lIit- Dissolved Calciu", Non~ "

~~~:) 1"""~,~:0~'~:~~:",C_7,,,Im3~:S- e:~:on- ~:-

Sodi"'"

a~~~:pratio(SAR)

~~e:~~::duct- IIance

(.. icro­..hos at

250 C) pll Remarks

I..,I-'I

C03, 9 pp".Flowing 25 gp".

5 PI'''.

I -jCollected on "est "ide

Iof lake. C03, 7 PI'''·

Collected at oast endof lake.

: II'C"llecte~ at "e"t "Ideof luke.

_ Dc>.

I"" '" :'0ISpring at north end Of! Flgur,,-E1ght Uk".

- I

-lco,8pp",.

CC , 5.9 PP".

1"00 on: W '0 ",0.

("",plng : to 10 gp".

!p"..ped 5 ..In. beforesa"'pl1ng.

: I

1.0 Test hole no. 1. P=p­lng .."asured 10 gp>:I.

'"'ITest hole no. 2. S102 ,25 pp". Pu",p Ing",('asured 12 gp...

,.0ITest hole nO.3. P",aping2 to 3 gp'"

6.8 Test hale na.4. Si02 ,29 pp"" P""plng cst.12 gp".

8,930

3,4203,600

',=3,110

4,640

8.0 8,9806,6907,0803,800

10 9,920

5,160

10 9,85011 10,GOO

10 11,700

11 10,LOO

4.5 5,1405,2505,BBO

12 14,000

11 10,400

.,4.4 6,MO

13,10019,000

4.2 5,1105.1 6,8801.1 7900

7.4 9,890

9.9 12,20016,000

6.5 6,320

6.6 1,050

4, 60

4.9 6,6405.3 6,1604.9 6,roO

8,100HI, roo

22 19,20020 17,30021 11,30022 11,700

ro,400

15 24,000

3,180 412,560

4,650 42

3,050 49

2,940 49

2,BOO 312,520 342,490 332,9SO

2,430 40

8,100 43

3, lOO

2,310 312 &90 SO

2,900 483,040 50

2,930 48

2,620

4,160

5,180 45

2,050 312,110 322 750 40

2,440 39

4,000 44

4,160 633,GJJO 623,660 633,930 64

3,140

3,0203,140

3,030

3,020

3,2802,1ro

2,5802,500

2,2002,9002 900

2,8802,6102,5903,070

2,710

2,520

5,300

2,350

4,850

2,520

2,300

4,2503,7903,1604,040

5.566.41

7.04

5.·131.188.06

7.136.76,.'"

9.37

1.07

9.82

5.63

9.97

9.8110.6

26.2

10 .4

10 .6

16.0

19.016.511.016.5

5,240LO 4,910

4,180

1,210.2 1,110

7,630

.8 6,890

1,220

9,300

1.0 1,330

4,090

.,'"

L3 1,600

2.2 1,810

4,0002.0 2,100

2,5002.0 3,800

1.0 5,180

1.0 9,240

3,9901.0 5,2601.0 5 930

'.0

L'

125000

,280

,"'0,240,,,,"'0,'"'

"",

,""

'"

"'"'"'""",

,140,0'"

1,100"",

"",0401,440,310

1,701)

'","0,670

1,200

2,3202,120

3,310 1,990

2,580

4,3ro

2,310

5,010

2,1002,210

4,030

4,290

2,560 215

2,550

2,690 ,140

1,8402,4902 410

2,110

2,140

6,010 ,840

2,160 485

''0",2,130 115

'"n,

2,4102,2902,1002,4203,1304,1403,4803,8404,roO4 310

112~

'"m

'"

no121

106~

122

'"

132

".

'"

122

'"

'"

,,,

'"

",122

"".",m"0''"'"m"'"'"

,310

'"

'"

'"

'"

'"'"'"

"'"

'"

'"

426

'"628

"n

1,980

1,300

1,530

1,080

1,580

1,400

1,061)

3,210

3,3402,8502,9903,250

'"

'"'"

'"'"

'"'"'"

153

'"

m'"

'"m,,,

'"

,,.

'"

'"'",.,'"

1,660

""

n.

'"

'"'"'"

'"

'"'"

'"

'''''"'"

'"'"

'"

'",n

'"

1,000

'"'n'w

"

"

"

"

4_25_214- 9-38

4- 9-38

8- 2-529-12-574- 9-301-10-422~ 2-44

1-10-42

8-30-458~ 2-529-12-578_30_45

8-30-458- 2-521_24_541-23-564- 9-38

8~ 2-529~12_51

1-10-42

1O-25~39

7-10-422- 2-448- 2_524- 9-38

10-25-397~10-42

2- 2-448-30-458- 2-52

do. 10-21-39

do. 12_.:m_56

do. 7_10_42

do. 12-13-56

'0.'0.'0.'0.

do. 1-14~53

do. 6-11-531-31-521-14-531-26-54

'0.

do. 10-21-39do. 10_21_40

'0.'0.'0.'0.

'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.

'0.'0.'0.'0.'0,'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.

'0.'0.'0.'0.'0.

'0.

Stock 1-31-5::

ParI<

'0.

<0.

'0.

<0.

'0.00.

'0.H.'0.<0.H.

<0.<0.H.H.'0.

'0.

H.

'0.

'0.

'0.

'0.H.H.00.H.

'0.

H.'0.<0.

H.H.H.

'0.H.H.'0.00.

'0.00.

'0.00.00.00.

'0.

Chalk Bluff

A11uvlu..

"'0.

COl:IancheSprings

'0.00.

E.J .Atldnson00.

'0.

'0.

Cottoll"c>od Lake00.

'0.'0.H.'0.

Mirror LakeH.'0.H.H.'0.

H.'0.00.

'0.1.<>8 Lak"

H.

'0.'0.

Figure-EightLake ("'rthpool)

H.H.

Figure-EightLake (spring)

State of NewMe>:lco, Ink~

well L:lkeH.

'0.

State EnglnearOffice

00.

H.H.<0.

FIgure-EightLake (sa"thpoal)

'0.'0.

IP"sture Uke

'0.'0.

00.

27.321

00.

21.32la

00.00.00.00.27.13400.00.00.00.00.

36.l4:1.

00.00.15.23300.00.

00.00.00.00.34.3'1l

36.2<12

00.00.00.

00.00.00.27.323

36.231

00.00.27.342W.00.

21.13200.

11.25.36.141

11.26. 2.444

Chemical analyses of ground and surface waters from part of the Roswell basin, Chaves County, N. Mex.( continued)

SpeCI[-ic "on-

Hardness as Sodhm duct-CIlCO ,,:::~p nnee

Principal 0'0 Cal- Mag"" Sod- Potas~ IHcar- Chlo- Fluo- Nlt- DissOlved ~"lcl""" Non- , (,"-\cro-Depth (fcc'l) \''''te,.-bearlng 0' Date Temp. elu", SIU", ,= ,,= bonate SUIInt" ride ride rate solids liiagnes- "arbon- nod- nlho ",hos at

Loell tian O" ..e. or n""", well "aslng [or"at10n wHer collected (OF) (Cn) (Mg) (No) 'U (HeO:!) (5°4) (el) '" (liDS) "0 t/a,,_ft ,= m ,= (SAil) 25° cl '" Ile"ar~s

11.26,34.341 Lon Lake Chdk Dluff park 2- 2-44 '00 m 1,420 H' 2,530 2,330 2.5 7,43 10.01 2J~:<: 2,330 " U 10;300

jI,ou J, '0", 0''0. '0. Ow. Ow. 8-30-45 '" '00 1,600 m 2,830 2,630 '"' ',," 11.3 J,27~ 3,1~ " " 11,100Ow. Ow. Ow. '0. J- 4-47 ""

,W 1,620 '" 2,700 2,650 8, 1\') 11.1~;~~ ~:~~ " " 11,200 I

Ow. Ow. '0. '0. B- 2-52 1,760 '" 2,830 2,9903~43C " 11,700 ..,

31.311Q State ef New 325 325 '0. Wo. 4- 9-3S '" m 211 179* 2,000 '" 4.66 2,180 2,03 " '.' .1,020Me"lc" I Lea Lake. C03 , 6 ppm. '"12.26. 3.220 Di=ttt Lake '0. aecren- 11-12-40 '"

,,, 624 '" 2,:100 1,090 ., 5,32 7.24 2,90 2,780 " '.0 6,590 Taken fro'" surface of Ition

2,85CInke.

<>0. '0. '0. '0. 11-12-40 '" '" '" '" 2,510 1,080 '"' 5,32 7,2'1 2,74 " ,., 6,540 Taken 12 ft belowsurfnce.

Ow. Wo. '0. '0. 11-12-40 '" '" '" '" 2,440 1,09<1 ., 5,24 7.13 2,8"," 2,73{ 32 '.0 6,510 Taken 40 ft belowsurfa"e.

Ow. Wo. '0. Ow. 11-12-40 ,,,'" ", 'OW 2,340 1,090 ,., 5,14 6.99 2,730 2,59 " 5.3 6,_170 Collected fre" 53 to

2,7llC55 ft.

<>0. '0. '0. Ow. 11-12-40 W, '" '" m 2,3:MJ 1,090 ., 5,09 6.92 2,63 " '.0 6,.-140 Collected fro", (;0 ft.<>0. Ow. Ow. '0. 11-12-40 '" '" W, '" 2,330 1,090 '"' 5,11 6.95 2,78

;::~ " '.0 6,410 - Collected fro" 110i H.<>0. '0. '0. Wo. 7-10-12 '"

,,,'" '" 2,420 ,,, ,." 1,55 6.19 2,72 " ,., 5,580 -IOOHOO'"' "' .0""side of lake.

Ow. Ow. '0. '0. 2- 2-44 '" 2·17 '" '" 2,000 1,090 ,., 5,43 7,36 2,91 2,83 " 5.2 6,6ZO - 00.Ow. Ow. '0. '0. 8-30-45 '" 322 '" '" 3,190 1,530 '"0 6,91 9.40 3,~~ 3,56 " G,-l 8,480 : i :;;;Ow. Ow. '0. Ow. 8- 2-52 '" ." 2,3ZO ,,, ',W 2,56 5,470<>0. '0. '0. '0. 8-27-55 1,080 6,400 - Do.

1,100

1,000

Z

0 '".J 00'.J

" '0'

00''"W

"""-

'"

w

"'"

000

".J <0,

'" "-V"'""

""

I...,OJI

,,/,,

, , 7,,,, ,,, f1

1\,,,

/ 7,,,,\! /1\

0

\ l/Well: 10 .24.10 .223Depth: 150 feet

, Aqu1fer: Unknown

Well: 1O.2.f.9.333Iropth: 1111 feot

"" L .L ...L --l -l ..J l'~'~".:"~'':':.'-',~,,,'"~"~,~"~"__.J

'"

1,00

'"C.J

'""

wc

zo

"

z

Well: 10.24.8.433Depth: 213 feetAquifer: San Andres lim"stone

-----~

J 1/ V I rWell: 10.24.8.333 Well: 1O.24.8.333a

D<lpth; 181 feet Depth: 2<12 feet

Aquifer: San Andres 11",0"tone AquUer: San Andren Un.,nt"ne

""w

z

,.:z

1953 1951 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

GRAPHS SHOWING CHLORIDE CONTENT OF WATER FR OM SELECTED WELLS AND SPRINGS, ROSWELL BASIN, N.MEX.(CONTINUED)

I

'",i'>I

If

lI'ell: 10.21.15.131Dopth: 366 feH

Aquifer: San Andre. 111Zl"t-'-'"-'-"-r--t---t----j

'00 ::::;. ~:I';;;:'j~""'"'' ,,, """600 l1"catone

OO,~ _

1,500

1,400

Z

01,300

~ I,roo~

1,100~

1,000

"W 00'~

ro,

wo

00

~ '00

"" '00~

00'Z

>-"Z

W

~

Z

oU

,

, ,

III ~ I~ IA~ 11\., 11. K1'IM l.A M .hI~ IvN! ~l>- II I' rt '"1'1' V V'

,,

I'/ell: 10.21.15.312!>cpth: 506 teetAquifer: San Andre. li",estone

,

,

~ V'\- l!, ~ I-"\,,~. v ~

Well, IO.24.U.lllDepth: 322 tc"tAquifer, Snn And .... " l1",,,.to<>e,

,

, lP

/ Vvv,

, r~ rj w,

hxf ~,

, rli yl' '\l WeU: IG.Z4.H.lJ2

Il<ptb, 300 feetA.'luHcr: San An~r"s IU'eatone,

'00

z

~

Z

o

wo

00

l- l,ro

W 1,00

~

""

',ro

',ro

',ro

',00

>-"Z

W

"

za 2,400

GRAPHS SHOWING CHLORIDE CONTENT OF WAT ER FROM SELECTED WE LL S AND SPR r N GS, ROSWELL BAS I N, N. MEX.{CONTINUED}

1949 1951 1953 1954 1956 1957 19511 1959

'"z roo0

~roo

~ Lo. ---- ---<>0

'"""m

'"w roo

0.

11'<:>11:Depth:Aquifer:

10.21.16.313237 feotSan Andres Heaston"

z "

I-~ 30

Z

w

0

0

r ~ --~-~

V 1\/~" ~ .-----0

Wo11: 10.24.17.143Depth: 230 featAquifer: $pn Andrt>B l1neaton"

0

I....Cl'I

;:1 I I IB

~ ,~ooooo1I I 1Bf-----I---+----l---I--i----~---~----}--ti~_ __ Wall: 10.21,17.234---0------- ~~~~~r: ~l~~~~

w

o

I I A IpWell: 10.2-1.17.333

n n l--Depth: 420 .feetAquifer: San Andres limllstone

L.....:'"'o"=---,-_o"c'c'--,_c'c'c'o'....J1 LI-,':.:'o·'"'_' L_="C'C'_"-_C"C'C'--,_--,'C'C"':...J--,--,'O"C''-L_'='C'='--,_C'='='',----,-_="='C'--'L--"O'='"'--,__'='"'='--'_C"O'"'_-'--_'O'::"'_..L-"'::""O-..J

GRAPHS SHOWING CHLORiDE CONTENT OF WATER FROM SELECTED(CONTINUED)

WE LL S AND SPRINGS, ROSWELL BAS IN, N. MEX.

I...,'"I

1959

I

1958

1958

Well, 10.24.21.113DIlptb, UnknownAquHer, Unknown

1957

19:>6 I 19:>7

1966

1955

1955

"-­---

19:>3 I 1954

19:>31952

1951 I 1952

1951

0

1 j,p

0~ /'" I" I

V Wcll, 10.U.20.433nDepth, 183 :feetAquifer; San Andres U",ost'me

0

,/ ~,

\, ,, /

0 , ,

\ /, /0 ,

, / \f,,/ Well: 10.24.20,221 0

Il<>pth, 125 feetAquiter; Alluvlum

roowC

",0

~

0 ·100

~

I

U

~

~

~

q

~

00

2

"~

Z ~

W

~

2

0

U

1,00

.J 1,:000

~

:;: 1,10

1959

19:>9

19:>8

1958

1$0 feetSan Andres limestone

10.21.18.334160 fectSan Andrc" U"'c"tone

1957

Well;

1957

---

Depth;AqUifer;

Well;Depth;AqUifer,

Well: 10.24.18,233Depth, 348 feetAquifer, San Andres l1"",,,tone

1956

19561955

---

1955

---

----

1954

1953

19531952

OW G

19:>219:>1

2

0

-~

",0

~

- <00

~

~o

~

w

~

~

~

~

~q

~

<00

2~o

-

~

2

w~

2

0

U 000

<00W

C

- ~o

~

0

~

I

U

I 1951 1

APHS

0..... ,./'" P-

OWell: 10.24.21.133

0 Depth: 379 feetAquifer: Sail Andres lil:lcstollc

'"

""zo

""

a: 1,10

W

a. 1,00

0

V\.,... J'0

i'-~V0

/" V----- ---- ---0..... /"0 - --- Well: 10.24.22.131

Depth: 250 feetAqutfer: San Andrcn uncntone

0

I...,...,I

0

0/'--... I

1/ ~ -". "'- ~ "~ ~ "1i

Well: 10.24.22.243Depth: 245 feetAquifer: SUlI Andrcs l1",c"tollc

0

""

\-"

Z

w\­

zo

"

z

W 1,600

0

1,500~

0

-' 1,400

r

" 1,300

1,200

--+-:c:-::-_-:l_=__=~_""'+I~-c=- =--'-f-=-=-C-/'-1---1

/Sp:r1ng: 10.24.22.441Aquifer: Alluviu",

1942 II 1948 1949 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

GRAPHS SHOWING CHLORIDE CONTENT OF WATER FROM SELECTED WELLS AND SPRINGS, ROSWELL BAS I N, N. MEX.(CONTINUED)

I...,00I

~-:::,I~Well: l.O.21.25.43-1Depth: 115 rc"tAquifer: Alluvtu!>

j---+I-"-----j----+----I----f-='o-,c,-,-"o,-.,c,:.·c"c.c",,---­D",.tll: 399 feet"'quito".: Gan Andren lll"-C'sto""

,

11 .fl.fi,~ --'L~i\ .....'\./' IP "V~ \1'011: 10.21.26.313

D<:pth: 400 fcotAquifer: Sun Andrea 11"2St"""

,

, I 1b

, ,1 fi\ I j XJ \ 1\,

1 \ r0 w;;u-;-- 10.21.:16.1433

Depth, 328 f"etAquitor: S"" Andres llneaton",

""400

"'OOB2,000Z

01,000

~

" 2,200

~r"

2,000

~ ',~p

W

~',~ ,

W1,400

~

~ 1,::00

~

~

I,OGO

W 1,00

o

o~

~

U

o

~

Z1,40

u

',00

""Z

W 1,60

,

,

•I"

,," KI---

,,, 1, ,,

1,,

" ,, ,

1,,, ,,, ,

11011, 10.24.23.121Doilth, 361.l± [cot

, Aquifer; Snn Andres Heoston"

,

,

,

0

, ,)

f0

~ '\, \

Well: 10.21.23.331 -- - ----- --..0Depth: 300 teetAquUer: San Andres Ilt,estono

0

,, ~

\ -- -- i,P• X -, ... -_ ......

",)'\l\& 'l,J >1 -- Well' 10.21.23.142IMpth: 293 fcot

, Aquifer: Chalk Blurt [o""ation (7)

1,00

2,40

....l 1,4(1(1

~

o 2,00

~

~

U l,roo

zo 1,50

1,700

w 1,10

~

wo

:z 1,00

Z 3,00

W

~

Z 2,00

o

~ [I:.2'~"§'=I=,~,~,~,::r=='~'~"~C~"~'~':::J=='~'~,,~r::~"~'~'=C~"~'!':::J=='~'~'!'J

5 I N, N~ ME X.

>...,'"J

, ,/

/

/,/

//

/,/, /

//,

0

l\, I

L-J V,.I U,

Well: 10.24.28.114O".,th, eo teetAquifer, AlluvlU!:l

,WeU: 10.24.28.232Depth: 312 feet

, Aquifer' San Andre" 11"'e"tone

/ ~ A, --. .j/...- ---- [\- -----

'00>,--....,---..--....,---..--....,---..--....,---,

I -"=1===:I'=---=---j:.=---::'::'::":--I===-I=:---=-Jl=--l~~""I-- WeU: 10.24.26.U411Depth: 100 feet

",>L ..L -'- -'- ....l ~L__....::A,,"O'"'O'C"'....::AOn"'C'O'==___

1,10

Z1,00

000

J

J ro

" "

2

wC­

Z

oU

,:Z

,J,

/,

, /1/,

W...ll: 10.24..26.344 VDepth: 3SS f ...... t ,, Aquif... r: San Andr... " Huestone

,

, 2 1v'- l.o

J J! I,IJ\ r- tJ\r ~,I"

,

Well: 10.24.27.212Depth: 330 feetAquifer: Siln Andres U"''''lItone,

""

"'0 r,o,c,c,-,--,O,C.7,.7,,~,7,C.,O,",---,----;---....,----,---r---,Depth: 317 feet

wo+_Ac'c,c'c"c"c'1'c'c'cAA="c"c·''f'=''='='c''='='-t -1_---1----1----++1p----I

1,00

z

c-­zwC­

Z

oU

zo

1,00

1,10

J

J

----------

j ,I I,

';":"Well: 10.24.30.444

F<>Depth: 294 feet

, Aquifer: San Andres l1l:1estone

19591958195719561955195419531952

,1 ::F, ---./'

Well: 10.24.29.423

""-- Dcpth: 310 teet---- AqUifer: San Andre" l1",,,stone,'"o

J

rU

w

o

10.2'1.27.423eo! feetAlluvilll:l

19591958

Well:Depth,AqUifer,

195719561955

-----

<00

/ ~ ---W

0 »'

'" '"0

J

r ro,

u

"" ------,00

1952 1953 1954

GRAPHS SHOWING t;;HLORIOE CONTENT OF WAT ER FROM SELECTED(CONTINUED)

WE LL S AND SPRINGS, ROSWELL BAS IN, N. MEX.

1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1952 1953 I 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

r/

Well: 10.24.32.242Depth: 251 feetAquifer: Sun Andres l1"'cstone

I 1.

zo

""

m

...<r ;00

"~ '00 ----

000~

z

Well:Depth:Aquife,':

10.24.33.211284 feetSan Andres limestone

z0

1,300J

J

1,200

"1,100

<r dw 1,000

~

'00

m00'...

<r

"~

----- --~-

---~-

---_...

SprIng: 10.2-1.34.22bAquifer: AlluviWl

Ig;I

,r"

- --,~

-- Well: 10.24.34.313

"- Ocptll: 330 feetAqutfe!': Snn And!'es limestone,

'00

'00

u

ow

u

"'Z

W

... "'"Z

o

"-/ '\ ~j

,--J Ib

/ \(/

--0

Well: 10.24.34.221Depth: 291 feetAquifer: S"" Andres U.cestone,

00'

,00

'00

'00

<r

o-'

"U

wo

ou

"'Z

W

!- 1,000

Z

1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

19:1S lS40 19H 1912 1943 1941 1945 1946 19~7 1918 1951 1952

,

, K

/\ 1\,I

-I 1\I

A I

~M Vi,) /\

I ~I

I,I / \ I

II,

rJ \-

I

\1If !bJ V v 0

Well: 10.21.35.222Depth: 183 feetAq~ifer: S~n Andros 11""'st""e,

...J 5,00

~

',00

W 3,50

~

',00

9,00

zo ~,50

I- 2, roo

4,000,

ICO....I,

/ t .1\

----- ----r--- --_._- - --- \

!' """"I/' ,rr b,, -

1\ r" A r/1 .../~ N!-----

! \1\ f.d 11'"" --/\ ,--""-.. II.-- li,j

--/"-/- / V \ 1/ ~--

1'\ - ---- \J Well: 1O.2·1.3~.222a

Depth: 452 teet, Aquifer: San Andrus 11",,,"t",,,,

',00

~

o~

:x: 1,00

ou

z

ez 4,00

W

I- 3,500

Z

u

1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1915 1949 1950 19~1 1952 1953 1954 1955 19~6 1957 1959 1959

GRAPHS SHOWING CHLORIDE CONTENT OF WATER FROM SELECTED WE LL S AND SPRt NGS. ROSWELL BASIN, N. MEX,(CONTINUED)

).949 ).95). 19:;2 ).953 ).955 1956 ),956 ),959 1952 1953 1955 1956 1957 1951'1

0

0

R

'"X0

II 1 ~x"1'1,0

( 10J I~M

0

~IIW' "Ir pnr

0j,

I'J won: 10.24.35.121Depth: 133 teetAquiter: Snn Andre" li"e"teee

n. ).,00

w

•

"JI

0r'-- r--J\J\

0

f\. ~ ~ \0

} V\ J H"" 1,0A

'Y\, rJ If IV I'"

00

I'>WeU: 10.24.35.222bOq>th: 165 feet

0Aquifer: l.I"e Andrea H ...."tone

0::: 2,500

:::E 3,00

....I 3,SO

<,00

2

a

"0::: 1,00

W

0.. 2,000

I00

'"II.

I 1\ /\• / \1\ / t'--.,

0

/\ / 1/0

V,/00 Well: 10.21.36.313

[)cpth: 145 teetAquifer: San Andre. l1MstOn"

1,10

~

a

"2U

w

o 1,0

W

I- 1,JOO

2

o 1,~

U

0

1\

0

r--. K11'>

0

V "J rJ~

0"ell: 10.21.35.311Depth: soo t""t

0Aquifer: San Andres li",.,,,ton,,

u

w

a

~ <0

a

',002

'"'2

W

"2a "

1919 1951 ).952 1953 ),954 1955 1958 1957 1958 1959 1952 1953 1951 1955 1956 1957 1951'1 1959

GR A PHS SHOWING CHLORIDE CONTENT OF WA T ER FROM SELECTED(CONTINUED)

WELLS ANO S P R I N G S, ROSWELL BAS I N, N. MEX.

~~ [I:;,,",:;:.=]IG,:;:..~.L:=I:;,,"ro~:::!2""';:' =:r:;,:;:".,=::r::;,:;:";;,=L:I[,;;·:;:..;:::L:]L:;;":;:,,;::::::!L:;;,,:;:,,;::::::!L:;;,,,,,;:::::rc::;,:;:,,;;·=C::;,!.,,;;L:] 1953 1955 1956 1951 19~8

ICXlOJI

,<A y-

O1\/0' MI J

rr'W1"\.h Ni

lIell, IO.25.30.3l3ll<:ptb: JSS foot

0A<!ultor: $Iln And...,. U""",On<l

10

0

/I

\ .IIf-'oll: 10.25.31.314

ll<>pth: 1M feet

0~ulter: All"Yl""

1,700'r--,---,--,--,---,--c,'.,o,-,-C"C.C"C.C"C.,C,C,"Dopth: 100: tee<

1,1'>OO'I---+---I---+---j---t---C"f"='C"C'C'C"='f"'='=~'--j

----+--.-tZ 1,3QO'-__-"-__-' .L__--'- '-__-"-__-'__--'

0. 1,70(1

~1,300',-_,_-,,-,--,---,--,---,---,o '1...J L,alO'I---+---I---+---j---\l----t---t----1

o

Z I,GOO

Wl,l

o

3,10

"WQ.. 3,000

I~ J I IlIell, 1O.25.11.333 t~Depth, 100 leotAquiler, AUuy!"", and CIlalk Dlutt tOnlaUon

-,----~

~I--- I---0

i'00(---

t I ----- - -- - -- -- - ----<T'

~I---0

/\ 7\ K.I'

~(---

fJ f--..J j'",11000(--- I--

"'~U: 10.24.36.333[lCpth: 600t !cotAquifer, Son AndNa H""BtOna

Z',

0

"••-',•

"" "W

•

o

1953 1956 1957 1958

GRAPHS SHOWING CHLORIDE CONTENT OF WATER FROM SELECTED(CONT! NUEO)

WELLS AND SPRINGS, ROSWELL BASIN, N. MEX.

ICO

""I

195119561955195319521951

or---

f---

'1\

1\1 '\. \?'l\X

.~

, " !,I

I L I',I---

II

I,I,

0 \,

/1-0- Well: 11.21.1.111

Dept!:: 125 teet

0AquUer' Snn Andren l1=st·~·"e

Or---

Of---

I---

0 .A /lIell: 1l.21.1.1:ll

/"~D<:pth, 100 t"etA,,,uer: Alluyi=0

,§§ ------ ---~ Well, 11.24.2.111

Depth: 3% te"tAqUifer: Enn Andr<:l5 H"".tcr.e

~~I ,,~ I 1951 I 1952 I 1953 I 1951 I 1955 I 1956 I 1951 I 1958 I 19S9 I

oo

W <0

o

l-"" I,m

zll.I 1,000

~

Z

z

o 2,000

1,100

"W0.. 1,roo

1959

1959

1958

1958

lIell: 10.2S.32.131thop'h, 103 he,AquUer: Alluy!=

Well: 10.25.32.113Depth: 00 tee'AquUer: Allu..!"",

1951

1957

o

19561955

1954

-----~--

Well, 10.25.32.221!lep'h: 310 :tee'AquUer: l;h~11t Illuff fono~tl"!l

1953 I

II '0--

0 -• III n j LJ- 'oj ---- •

0 "'-¥ N\!¥ ~

Well, 10.25.31.413Depth; ll10 teetAquUe~, Allu"!",,

19S2

1,700

z',~o

"W 2,700

""~

0

~2,000

"~ 2,100

"',,,",

Z

1,200

,:1,100

Z

W

~ ',~

Z

0 ""'0

""'W

01,700

" ',,,",0

~

"',~

0

1,100

',,,",

GRAPHS SHOWING CHLORIDE CONTENT OF WATER FROM SELECTED WELLS AND S P R I N G S. ROSWELL BASIN, N. MEX.(CONTINUED)

1952 I 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1951'1 1959 1928 1~ rlr,:":,:-Tr,:"C,:-TC,:"O.:-'-:"=,:,,r-C:,,:,:,'-:,,=,:,-r-c:,,:,:,'-:,,:,,:---'

I00U'I

Well: 11.24.11.314Depth, 447 feetAquUer, San Andre. U"eutcne

-------~

0

0,/ 1\--"''''

,0

-- ,

\----- , LP0Well: 1l.:l4.1G.143

.,/~ Depth: 1&8 feet

AqUifer: Allu,,1=0

0

r\0 / N \/

/'1\ ~ b0

V \I"0 /

/'V

0

j Well: 11,24.11,243Depth: 454 feetAqUifer: San Andres U"estelle

0

za

00

z

000

'00

...~

Z

wI- mza

'000

::l< 1,00

0

0 / 1\ if/ \ /

0

/\J

LV Well: 11.24.:1.331D<lpth: 373 feetAquifer: San Andre" l1"e"tone

0

"'"~I AI

0Well, 1l.:l4.9.124Depth, 368 teet

0 AqUifer: san Andres l1tleat"ne

0

0[\

/ \0 yV ro

6------ ----~

0Well: 11.24.3.44

Depth: 350 teetAqUifer: San Andres U",estone

0

za

w

z

I­

zao

0

f00 / 1\

/ Ii. \ A fJlJ ~ i I'"

0

0 l' Well: 11.24.12.213Dllpth: 429 teet

0 AquUer: Sa" Andres U"",stone

o

3,00

a

wa

1,00

1959195819571956195519541953

0

------ --- "

/-,.,.- --, ,

\ /..........V

\I0

wen, 11.24.10.141Oepth, 217 feetA~u1!er: Cha11< llluft tormation (1)

'00

1952

wa

GRAPHS SHOWING CHLORIDE CONTENT OF 'fiAT ER FROM SELECTED(CONTI NUED)

WELLS AND SPRINGS, ROSWELL BAS IN, N. MEX.

IS[;3 1954 1955 19[;6 1957 19[;8 19[;9 19[;2 19[;3 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

I

'"is>I

,1\,

AI,17

, , IV Well: 11.24.13.144Depth: 164 fectAqUifer: Alluvillll.

,

, LP

, 1\ P- I7 V "iT

n '",

/V b' ',j

V,V

",.,-Well: 11.24.13.122Depth: 17 feetAqUifer: Al1uvl"",

I f---...-/,I

if

,"·rJ

,~ 17p-

O'

VA /' ll.2<l.12.431Well:Depth: 512 feetAquifer: San Andres l1nestone,

"

'00

ow

"

'"z

2,000

w

w~

Z

o

c,'

,.: "'"Z

Z 1,60

o

1\

.,J\-- - -----""N • ""- I?

--- ---'\I Well: ll.24.12.233a

Depth: llO feetAquifer: A11uvlU1ll

,,

j Vb,.Well: 11.24.12.2330Depth: 123 feetAquifer: Alluvill!l,

,

,

R

, \, \ '" I·

!Odwell: 11.24.12.414Depth: Unknown

, Aquifer: San Andres l1",estone

, R'\ /'

• F fuu I\,00

V ",/ 11

A"\V lIell: ll.24.12.233

Depth: 485 feetAquifer: San Andres licestone,

~

a: 1,000

0: 1,800

o

z

',00

0: 2,500

wa 2,000

1,00

',00

~

Z

o 2,40

"

w

<l

Q.

wa. 2,000

o:z 2,500

....Z

1953 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

GRAPHS SHOWING CHLORIDE CONTENT OF WATER fROMI ,

SELECTEDN. U E 0 I

WELLS AND SPRf NGS. ROSWELL SA SIN. N.

1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1952 1953 1951 1955 1956 1957 1958

00

I- 1,00

~

<!

I00..,I

,

,

, ------

,

, "-Well: 11.24.14.'143

~'"Fo'"Depth: 183 feetAqUifer: Alluv1",.

,pl I\, ~,

0

LJ \/,Well: 11.21,14.321 ~

Depth: 192 feetAquifer: Alluvi=,

,1 I A.P-«,

Well: 11.24.23.122 ~

10Depth: 200 feet

, AquIfer: AlluviWll

,

, A

/,

, .K )\1'1 /\i- lsi

~ /~,

, /II I'" /~ ..

'"/,

Well: 11.25.4.342Depth: 156 f,,,,tAquIfer: Alluvlll1:1,

,

w

zo

w~

00

w

"

z

ou

.....Z

wI- 1,00

Z

,

,

, I, VV

~

, IWell: ll.M.13.141~

o<>pth: 551 feet

~Aquifer: San AndreB Ih;,eBtOne,

,J'1 1R"300'\ -

,Well: 11.24.14.313Depth: 140 feetAquifer: Alluv1UI:1,

,

-- I~, --'~----,,

, ,/ ,b-/

,,,,,,

\I \

~

, ,Well: 1l.24.13.2HDepth: 516 feetAquifer: San Andres 11..estene,

00

'0'

'00

w~

w

"

u

u

>-"Z

W

...Z

o

zo

1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

GRAPHS SHOWING CHLORI DE CONTENT Of WAT ER FROM SELECTED WE LL S AND S P R I N G S, ROSWELL SA SIN, N. ME X.

19~2 1953 1954 1955 19~6 1957 19~5 1959 1952 1953 1951 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

ICOCOI

,

, ,

'\,,/\ b

.,,-'l,\ f~, J

, I IJ V,

J\ r "II

'if' V WeU: 11,25.7.233Depth: 452 feetAquIfer: Ban Andres l1",,,~t,,n,,,

,

, /~ l,,-1

/ ~ ../ ,,

Lvi '\l Well: 11,25.7.211Depth: 430 feet

, AqUifer: San Andres l1",estone

,

,

, AI \,

'\ t / r,II'OU: 11.25.7.233a

~ WDepth: 440 feetAquifer: San Andre" U",'stone

2,00

w

o

w~

Z

oU 4,00

3,00

','0

~

~ .t,OO

W

~

" '0

~ 3,00

~

~ ','0<t

~

2,00

Z ','0

,.: 1,00

Z

','0

Z3,00

0

~','0

~

,

,"\ 11

,

""'/,u

,Well: 11,25.5.333Depth: 115 feetAquIfer: ,UluvlWll

,

, -

/"/,

/

//,

//

f--..- ,/,/, •

\ /\ /,\ / \ j

---,~

Well: 11,25.6.123aDepth: 163 feetAquifer: Alluvl=,

~ ~

0 5,500 0

~ ~

~ ~

U5,000

Well: 11.25.6.220 UDepth: 374 feetAquifer: San Andres l1nostono

4,500

w

o

Z 1,00

ou

~

1,40

Z 1,30

z

(f) 1,60

~

a: 1,sa<t

W 1,10

1,10

Z1,00

0

~ "~

'"~

"

1952 1953 19~1 1955 1956 1957 1955 1959 1952 1953 19~4 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

GRAPHS SHOWING CHLORIDE CONTENT OF WAT ER FROM SELECTED{CONTINUED}

WELLS AN 0 S P R I N G S, ROSWELL BASIN, N. MEX.

1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1953 1951 1955 1956 1957 1958 t9(,9

Ice

"'I

,

, !\Rr\ / ~

• "-~.

IJ V,N,

Well: 11.25.8.133

II' D<:pth: 533 f""tAquifer: Snn Andre" li"""tone•

•

,I,

, ~ I1\ l\ J\

1'\,

I rJ W\ \Ib-,IV \,

,

~jo~W"ll: 11.25.8.143Depth, 540 feetAquifer: g,m Andres limestone,

z0 1,60

~

~1,40

" ',~

1,00

"'~

>-~

'"~

Z ',",

,:1,40

Z

W " '">-Z 1,00

0

U

"W "'0

"~

0

~ '""U

/\ i.

11.25.7.243500 feetSnn Andre" liJ:wstone

_--- VW011:Depth:Aquifer:

~~-o--r'------ ------ ~---

,~,

rP •

,--Well: lL2S.8.1HDepth: 496 feelA'l"ifer: SUll Andres lime"tolle,

0

, R? A,

/ \, ~ { /

, t MIV W,

, ;., .I I V\ l~J~ /\,1 IV

U

.RWell: 1l.25.7.H2

o<>pth: '150 feetAquifer: San Andre" l1",e"tone,

a:: 2,500

w3,00

o

tt: 4,00

W

..J 2,000

"U

1,00

2,000

1,500

Z

01,000

~

~ '"" ,

o

(f) 3,00

>­a:: 2,500

'"~

Z 1,50

z

w "">­Z

oU

1952 1953 1951 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1953 I 1954 1955 I 1956 1957 I 1958 1959

GRAPHS SHOWING CHlORI DE CONTENT OF WATER FROM SELECTED(CONTINUED)

WEllS AND SPRINGS, ROSWEll BASIN, N. MEX.

19411 1949 1952 1953 1956 1951 19511 19S9

I

'"oI

1r

Well: 1l.25.11.4~2

Depth: 477-117 feetAquHer, 5~n Andres ll",,,.stor.e

0~

r' .11 ~

J JV !Lv\ '{

V V,

0

0 -

01----Well, 11.2&.8.422Depth: 59:>-796 teetAquHer' San Andres ll"est<>ne

0',00

4,00

Z 1,000

0

~\

~

~

>

"'""

z

"I- 7,500

"<:[ 7,00

"

"o

,.:',~

Z

W

I- 5,00

Z

o 4,500

U

1\

Well: 11.25.8.331Depth: 132 teetAquifer: AlluVl""

N

0

0J\

.-0

...... / ...

.-0

..." ......

/'0

\IV-,

- A. .... ~ 'If'!''1J0

I"" Well: ll.25.8.3lll'klpth: -HO teetAquifer: S~n Andrt'" ll"e~tene

0

z

ezw~ "0Z

0~

U

'"W

0 '00

"0

~

~

X

U

zo

"

19tB 1949 1951 I 1952 1953 I 1954 1955 1956 1957 19511 1959 1953 1954 195& 1957 t9511 ,,,,

GRAPHS SHOWING CHLORIDE CONTENT OF WATER FROM SELECTED(CONTINUED)

WELLS AND SPRINGS, ROSWELL BASIN, N.MEX.

1910 1912 1943 19+1 ~_--'-c'e'e''-'_....l_=''O'C'_-"---"'"''-'''---...L--'-''='"'c...--'----''e'"'''---....l--"'"''-'''---..Jc...'c'c'e'_...l

1,00

za

,,

"/ '", ,

/ " t"~~ " ,,

Well, 11.25.9.211lXlpth, 82 teet

, """iten All,,,-1,,,,

,<!)I-"I

11.25.10. H OIAlluv1UJ:1

~Pring:Aquifer:11'----1-

,

, /~/

/

\//

--- L/

1\ /, /,

/ \/

/, /, ,, /

'\ / //, ,

//, ,

Well: 11.25.14.332Depth: 8.15 f""t,\q"it"r: 5"" Andr"" 11"""ton,,,

,A r ~

1\ V, 1'. r V\

II, j IV \,

1\ ),/' Well: 11.25.9.4:12

1'0---- ------""r- Depth, 750::; feet-- .............. - Aqulfer, 5"" Andre" 11"e"ton",

""

]

3,00

w

a

z

0:: 2,500

W

a.. 2,000

0:: 1,00

~

,:Z

wI­

zau

I-

1940 19-11 1942 19431944 I LI_,c'o'O'_--'_O"C'O'_cL-"O'""'-'_1.-0"O'C''-----'--''C'0'",_-'--''0'",,'---_'--0''C'0''-----'--''0'0'''----'

GRAPHS SHOWING CHLORI DE CONTENT OF WATER FROM SELECTED(CONTINUED)

WE LL S AND SPRINGS, ROSWELL 8 A 5 I N, N. ME X.

1929 I LI__'~'o'='...1._0'0,=",-"11 1949 ILI-"',,",",_---l-',,,:"'------'---''':'=,'------'-''C,:,,'---_,IO':.":''---_-'-'O'O'C'_---'-'':''=,'-_'-O''O'O'_-'

zo

J

J ~BEEEJWell: 11.25.15.343Depth: 84~ feetAquifer: Slln I'ndres li,.estone

JP-t~ r

BEaBW

Q. ---I ~IWell: 11.25.16.133Depth: 591 feetAqUifer: San And....11 limestone

I<.0

'",1,

, 1\/ \,

1/j,Well: 11.25.16.213 l I •Depth: 723 feet f.JAquifer: San Andres l1_stone,

100

z

w...Z

oU

BEaBw

o

'"o Woll: 11.25.16.431Depth: 661 feetAquifer: 8M Andres lil:!estone

----- -- I I

1928 I LI_="c'c'_L-C'c'="'-...J11 1949 ILI-"="=''--...1.'-'"'O'='_..L."'='='':'"_L-''''O'C'~---lc'"'~'''_--'---l''''','------''-'"'~,,'_...L--',,''~,'----.J

G~APHS SHOWING CHLORIDE CONTENT OF WAT ER FRO!!, SELECTED(CONTINUED)

WELLS ANO SPRI NGS. ROSWELL BASIN. N. MEX.

1952 1953 1955 1956 I 1957 1958 1959 1939 \ IL--'19,5=5'----'--"C':5:'_.L"':':"'--...J_019C5:'_...L--":'=,,'----'

zo

0

/ \ If0

j\l/'/0

"- Well, 11.25.17.123

p-- Depth: 479 feetAquifer: San Andre" l1rwstone

0

zo

~'n

"'D,

Well: 13.26.17.333D"pth: 975 feetAquifer: San Andre" 1tmestone

0 ____ -__1 __1

I

'"'"I

Well: 13.26.28.114Depth, 1,000 feetAquifer, San Andres l1mestone

0 ____ -----L~l

WUll, 13.26.31.311Depth, 165 feetAquifer: AlluvtUIJ

I T

~'n

'''Do

z

,..Z

oU

....Z

0

"'- 1/0

/ V0

V~

0

/0

/0 0 11.25.18.122Well:

Depth: 356 feet

0Aquifer: Chalk Bluff fon",Uon ",

1,10

z ",: "Z

W 00

~

Z <0

0

U

wo

<r

o

"",-------,----.-------,----.-------,----.-------,------,

"or--.;=t=::;;=:t;=:=-=t=:-===t==~_t'W;;;O'H;:,:-~l~~,~.,;;,;:.,,,,..~<~.,,,--IDepth: 522 feetAqUifer: San Andres l1l\1estone

wo :8

o

Well, 16.26.28.431

I\-Depth, 200 feetAquifer: Alluvtun0_+___+____ __ ...J '0

1952 1953 1954 1955 I 1956 1957 1958 19591939 I LI--'19=5"5'--'--=19"5"'--'...J--""'""'-_L""=5"''-....L--''e'"'~'.....J

GRAPHS SHOWING CHLORIDE CONTE NT OF WATER fROM SELECTED WELLS AND SPRINGS. ROSWELL BASIN, N. MEX.

001

•

001

001

,"f----f-f'-----j----f---1I-

@

o

R. 23 I::

@

001

© @

R 2S E ReG E

cdopleo he,",lloc~"',"', <'l:,O

•

+

"'­Sprillg

Chalk aluff to~t1on

•Sto<::K, d:>::::o"tic, Or "b"u'..,ation "ell

lrri&"tion, ""hUe lIIlP2r, Qr indna~r1al ,,0111

o

o

"<>-

+

o "Sur!aco>-.....hr ,,,,,,,plin;g ..taU""

EXPLAIlA'1'IOIJ

San A!l.dreQ'l1=lIt"ne

Li.melltoM, dolQlllit", ""d IIUt,' llsMtoul""lie IlY'Jl"U" nnrlh or 1l........11

Undiffe....ntiated 'J:'ri,o.J,Bic

Red ..halo, "iltnto"e, and l'l3,Ildotofte

Cha.lk Blu!! fo=tiQn

Red lIhllllt, g,fp<:lWl, nnllJdrit"l minor """,WItt!of liJ:teotone, "Ut, ""'ltd, IUld salt

Bose odopled from New Mexico$lOle EnQ;nee, Office mop

A [ IAILine of CrOss ."ction shown in figure 3,

o 2 3 4"'1115'--'-~'---'-----'-----','------'---,----',

PLATE 1Map showing locations of wells, springs, and surface-water stations sampled, and outcrops of geologic

formations in part of Chaves County, N. Mex.

~, 23 E

1/

R. 26 ER 25 E

104·22'30"

R.25 E R 26 E

/ ) I," I:/ '0 I

~

// '/ (j

) J '-~r":} ",:1

,04"3()"

R. 24 E

!

',-

, ~.o

"

ease adapted from New MIlXicoSlote Engineer Office mop

o 3 4 MilesLc.c,~.~,IcC,__-'--__-'-_---','---_---',

03 528EXPLANATION __- __ 3520 --

Well at which the depth to water was measuredand the altitude of the water surface.

Generalized water-table contours} dashed whereapproximate or doubtful. Contour interval 10feet. Datum is mean sea level.

PLATE 2Map showing altitude of the water table in the Quaternary alluvium in the vicinity of Roswell,

Chaves County, N. Mex., January 1956.

,"s

,as

It 26 E

I04"ZZ'30"

R. 25 E. R 26 E.

/~ / ):.,/ ,~

~

I ~ '.-/

~I ,

) '---.~

C> ~\0,.

It 25 E

\\

~

,. \605(551

Ci·""vc \

FI, 23 E

(

Bose adapted Itom New MelitoSlole En;ineer Office

, f-..''0s.

I '1'\\, \ , \\ "'''6, \~t===~===~==t:;=+:S:;~=+==:::ji¥·~:j;;=I===';f====j===i==-==I====I====I=I=7ifj====j====j====j====f-33"n'3o"33"31'30"- '\ I 0l~ II

442~50}' I ""~\ 1,500150\ ,:- I .-..- .__._-/-+-. H- ; .r \ 1\ ;' \ ( BITTER LAKE 1a/---+---t----t---,,<t---+f-\:---+--J+---j- -'---++--,--t---j"----+rrr-t--t---t---i"----:;;;is 1\. 1\" \ \ \ ' I '-1~j-- ""C Il I I ~V1 \ 1\, \ l-. :>.~ r- / <"~ ":<D I ~ \ VI-'c:-.\ -t---r----t--+--+-+---+-f,.4---~_*'.'\ "-,"'"Y''' \ \ I\l I '..'!!-- V "TlONAL \ _'., rlJ II ~-~

---.-/ f"--. \ /\ ',\U'-----r--- '-,~<:;.1 V A,mr~!---+--==t=~"..+~_-_~---;:7'+-~,---t-I---+"",;c--,-I+-'-r-. I ( II 1

I·""'" ' '" ,,\\ I W"t'FE' REFUGE 1~FJ7" ,

1---+---1----+--'.-,-,,,-',1-1

.-'-"-"-01-++---""-"+-'-,-,-+"''-''-,-,-',+-'-\-'\-'- -/~- '-~-r;-'6'7¥J\\:::~=+--~f-:--+---+----l

i

'- \ \1,,)( IA ~ ,..~, I '\ \ /A\ \ r}' """"" !) ,91---+--+---+----iII---H---t----t-~t-t':7'-T";--j~'--T-'\7f-_r--_r--__r--__t.__.- 9s IV \/. Y s

/ X.. \, /XI II L", k ,,----, /,' w v· .--<1',,"-:", ,../

o,

EXPlANATION

o 355

Well s~lpled in August 1952 and thechloride content of the water in partsper million.

• I 252)\+103

Well also sampled in May 1928;the chloride content in partspcr million of the water in 1928;and the Change in purls per millionfrom 1928 to 1952.

----2000___

Generalized isochlor line, dashedwhere inferred or doubtful. 1so­ch1ol' interval is 500 parts permillion.

PLATE 3Map showing chloride content of water from selected wells finished in the San Andres limestone in the

vicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex., August 1952,

(

Bose adopted from New Mex;coStote En9ineer Office mop

,/iliJ

1< 25 (

o Z 3 4 Milesw..c,~,'=,~'-'-'__-'-__-L'__--',__---',

It 26 E

T.

"S.

• 975

Well sampled in January 1953 and the chloridecontent of the water in parts per million.

EXPJ,ANATION ______ 2[>00 --~-

Generalizcd isochlor linc) du:-;hed whr;.'re inferredor doubtful. lsochlor intel'val is 500 pnrtt> permillion.

PLATE 4Map showing chloride content of water from selected wells finished in the San Andres limestone in the

vicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex., January 1953.

104 n 30R.25 E. R.26 E.

F ), )~/I '"-~

// " I /

~.. )

'-',-r":) ~~

A. 23 E.

I f\ ""~\ \ I "33"3T'30"+==:j===:I==J~+==+===++==I+==¢==i:==F==f===1F=::::j=1==c~===l===~===1===~33.3T~o"

"\ / ir- / f-'-'-'-I-I-::-~ /;\ i BITTER LAKE t--' T

I---t--t--'.\j;---+---H--+--f\---/- .L-+t--+---+--+++f-f---f----1-----/----:;;/ a

s. \ 1\ I '-1~ ""C' I ~ s

~.---t----j---tl-\-\+--4~.-----==+···,=:'.'''~'-·,:::::\Iin r- /' ~ '" , ! ~' ... \ \ /" ~-'--/-~-",~,--t/"'-NA---1"Of-NAL-r+-\..-•.. ~J-n--1\-II+~-"/-.'.._-I~-,~=.~.,j£/_+---I

---- ..._ I .~'-,o':l I AfY A,m,,,~ ~.,<r---r--~f="'-c:::±:~t--+t--+--f--l'_.+.. ·-,--j--~k~·I=="~:=":::.....j~,'1=--t_~#2:...-1-_+..--...i..'-:':;:."f-----~"~=_J

II WlLfFE REFUGE !~ v'1r--~r--t--+----If----++--+----/----+-.L' ~~~::J---I---t---l--~-- ~)-'-d~1 ~

((

R, 23 EBase odopled ffom New MHieoStole EnQineer Otfiee mop

!lli (,

,

i'I

!iI

I

Y

ii, ~I'"I'I'

R. 25 E

I 1/

o 2 3 4 Milesu..w,,~,,~.~.,.0''__---'-__-'-'__-LI__~,

EXPLANATION11 318

______ 2500 ________

Well sampled in January 1957 and chlox'idc COli tentof the water in parts per million.

Generalized 'isochlol' line, d.l;:;ht'd wlwrc inferred ordoubtful. 150ch101' lntervul is 500 parts per million.

PLATE 5Map showing chloride content of water from selected wells finished in the San Andres limestone in the

vicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N, Mex., January 1957.

·R.23E.

I

R. 23 E.Bose adopted from New MexicoState Engineer Office mop

R.25 E

/~I j~/

R 25 E,

I 0 2 3 4 Miles'"-,'~''~''~.~''.w''__-L__-'-'__--'--,__--',

EXPlANATION

R 26 E

R. 26 E

T.

"S

• I, SOD

l'Iell sampled in September 1957 and the chloridecontent of the water in parts per million.

----_2500 _____

Generalized isochlor line) dashed where inferredor doubtful. Isochlor interval is 500 parts permillion.

PLATE 6Map shOWing chloride content of water from selected wells finished in the San Andres limestone in the

vicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex., September 1957.

R 2 -3 E

I

A.26 E.

/"

R. 25 E.

R. 25 E,

>-JI

/ 1['-"",I. "-, I,

1"-, Ii

R. 23 E

60se odopted from New MexicoStote EngIneer Office mop

I 0 3 4 MilesLL"~"~,~"U-"_---'__L.-_--'-,__'

• 998EXPLANATION ----500---

Well sampled in January 1958 and the chloridecontent of the water in parts per million.

Generalized isochlor line) dashedor doubtful. Isochlor interval ismillion.

PLATE 7Map showing chloride content of water from selected w~1ls finished in the San Andres

vicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex., January 1958.

<040JO'

R,24'E'04~2i,o'

R 25 E fl,26 E

I~ 6 JJ:-./ r l~

/./J '/ (_/

) I!

\'1/ '-- '--::l .'

R 26 ER 25 E

lhJv/ i'l

fl. 23 EBose adopted from New MexicoSlate Engineer Offiee map

fT,[l'nW(

.

1,1!illl1''" %Dr (~ / ,vv():{/ bY" ~,f----+--.-jf-.----l--+_!-~J1IW'1iJi--H*~:___I--t_7'T~&l--it1-_'T::::_-r_-_t--£(JIlY<M-+---I

:f--+---+---+--+---tf--~~+I~/\~/+/"v_,/t.,bZL-:-t'·--\··'""\uP'FD--j-~--j-j--j----' iS flI.!lIT I m /l/ /! ' L, /----\ f;..-:::

,"S

I 0 :3 4 Miles'-wI,,~,,~,,~,""-'_-----'-__L--_-'-I_-----'-I

Lines of equal pump age of water from the San Andreslimestone in acre-feet per square mile. Contourinterval 500 acre-feet per square mile.

--500__

Irrigated with sewage effluent.

EXPLANATION

ITJIillIII!II]]Irrigated with water from the San Andres limestone.

I IIrrigated with water from the Quaternary alluvium.

~Irrigated with water from the Pecos River andtributaries.

PLATE 8Map shoWing pumpage of artesian water and the location of irrigated land in the vicinity of Roswell,

Chaves County, N. Mex.

R 2.3 E

I .

_ -30

!R. 2~ f

!!;

R. 25 €

I 0 3 4 Miles'w,'~I~"~",'-'-,_--"'-----_-'--_--".''---------''

--- -20---

Change of head, in feet, from January 1953 toJanuary 1958.

EXPLANATION____ -25~

Change of head, in feet, from January 1942 toJanuary 1958.

PLATE 9showing change of artesian head in wells finished in the San Andres limestone in the vicinity of

Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex.

R. 26 E,R.25 E

.I ~/ 1// /J~@) ("",(/1/ "-

1---+---+----+----li-"---1+---+---'l:c"'-----t---f--/7"-+IA-<>¥I----I\\-I---.:+---+----.:f..-f,"ny"n-+---I

, 1 '\ ,,/ ,/ if /\ "...~ ) ~ ,, f---+---+----l----+---t+--+----I---+-j--;;4/'--+---JfV--I----'l:--j~'::.-__t--_+--+--+---1,S (/' II' t: f-;: 5

/<.. /J' ~ k--<l"-,; ...

((

i(~V i

R. 23 EBose adapted from New Me~ico

State Engineer Office mop

R. 25 E. R26 E

,"S

I 0 1 2 3 4 Miles'"'~.U'l~''U.~''u' L'__-"' L'__-',

e +245EXPLANATION

___ +500 ----

Well sampled in August 1952 and in September 1957,and the change of chloride content in parts permillion from August 1952 to September 1957.

Generalized line of equal change of chloride content,dashed where inferrred or doubtful. Interval of changelines is 500 parts per million.

PLATE 10Map showing change in chloride content of water from selected wells finished in the San Andres limestone

in the vicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex., August 1952 to oeptember 1957.

I

A 23 E

I

A,23 EBast adapted I,am New MtxicoStote. Enginetr Office

A 25 E

1 0 3 4 Mjlesw.1I~'I~I1='l.wlI__-'-__---'-__---L'__--',

)A.26 E

R 26 E

o +485EXPLANATION

--_+500 ____

Well sampled in January 1953 and in January 1958,and the change of chloride content in parts permillion from January 1953 to January 1958.

Generalized line of equal change of chloride content,dashed where inferred or doubtful. Interval of changelines is 500 parts per million.

PLATE 11showing change in chloride content of water from selected wells finished in the San Andres limestone

in the vicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex., January 1953 to January 1958.

l,;o"qJO'

q ~'4 E

I -- @

(

R 23 EBose adopted Irom New MexicoStole En9;nee, Office mop

--~" l~--'----r~--'--'-

I\

,\ " " .

o\

EXPLANATION

R.25 E

R 2:, E

,,

R 26 E

R 26 E

'0

\ '

,"

•Well sampled.

Chloride content of water inparts per million for:

winter 1952-53 - 395winter 1956-57 - 430winter 1957-58 - 470

...----- 500--_-

Approximate isocblor lines, winter of 1956-57.Isochlor interval is SOD parts per million.

PLATE 12Map showing chloride content of water from selected wells and springs finished in the Quaternary alluvium

in the vicinity of Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex.